The Cultic Life of Trees in the Prehistoric Aegean, Levant, Egypt and Cyprus 9789042937161, 9789042937185, 9042937165

Citation preview

AEGAEUM 42 Annales liégeoises et PASPiennes d’archéologie égéenne

THE CULTIC LIFE OF TREES IN THE PREHISTORIC AEGEAN, LEVANT, EGYPT AND CYPRUS

Caroline Jane TULLY

PEETERS LEUVEN - LIÈGE 2018

AEGAEUM 42 Annales liégeoises et PASPiennes d’archéologie égéenne

THE CULTIC LIFE OF TREES IN THE PREHISTORIC AEGEAN, LEVANT, EGYPT AND CYPRUS

Caroline Jane TULLY

PEETERS LEUVEN - LIÈGE 2018

Illustration on cover pages: Haghia Triadha Sarcophagus, detail of side A. Heraklion Museum, Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports – Archaeological Receipts Fund (photo Robert Laffineur).




















A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. D/2018/0602/83 Impression et dépositaire : PEETERS nv Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven (Belgique) © A.s.b.l. Aegaeum, Aux Piédroux 120, B-4032 Liège (Belgique) et Program in Aegean Scrips and Prehistory (PASP), The University of Texas at Austin, 2018 ISBN 978-90-429-3716-1 eISBN 978-90-429-3718-5 Reproduction et traduction, même partielles, interdites sans l’autorisation de l’éditeur, pour tous pays.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents Table of Tables Table of Figures Acknowledgements Chronologies used in this study Introduction

iii vii ix xv xvii 1

Part 1. Background and Methodology Chapter 1. Review of the Literature Tree Cult as Evidence of Primitivism Ethnographic Analogy Use of Glyptic Imagery to Explain Actual Cult Sites Interpretations and Misinterpretations of Cult Structures “Fertility Goddess” and “Vegetation God”? Glyptic Images as Components of Ritual Narratives Explaining the Actual Tree Elite Ideology Scope for Further Research

5 6 8 9 10 12 13 16 19 19

Chapter 2. Theoretical Framework Four Categories of Minoan Tree Cult Triangulating the Approach Architectural Analysis Parergon and Miniatursation Iconographic Analysis Peircean Semiotics Towards Meaning Animism Ethnographic Analogy Ideology

21 21 22 22 23 24 24 25 26 26 27

Part 2. The Aegean Chapter 3. Trees in Rocky Ground Images Discussed Location in the “Real” Landscape Types of Location Rural Sanctuary Sacred Grove Garden The Parergon and Miniatursation Restrict Identification of Location Landscape Elements – The “Imaginary” Trees Rocks The “Symbolic” – What do These Signs Mean Human Figures in Landscape with Epiphany Epiphany Suggests Animism

31 32 32 36 36 37 38 39 39 40 41 42 42 43

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Elites Communicate with Landscape – Trees and Rocks How Do They Do This? – Possession What the Tree and Stone May Represent Cosmology Mountains What This Says About the Character of Minoan Religion Ideological Landscape Conclusion

44 44 46 47 48 48 50 51

Chapter 4. Trees, Walls and Gates Images Discussed (Mis)Identifying Different Built Structures Walls Gateways Sacred Enclosure Walls Location in the “Real” Landscape Potential Sites Types of Location The Parergon and Miniatursation Restrict Identification of Location The “Imaginary” – Not Scenes but Signs The “Symbolic” – What do these Signs Mean? Procession Dancing Authority Conclusion

53 54 54 54 55 57 59 59 64 65 66 66 67 69 70 72

Chapter 5. Trees and Cult Structures Images Discussed (Mis)Identifying Different Structures Columnar Structures Ashlar Altars Tripartite Shrines Constructed Openwork Platforms Incurved Altars Table Altars Altars with Horns Location in the “Real” Landscape Potential Sites The Parergon and Miniatursation Restrict Identification of Location The “Imaginary” – Signs of Relationship with Nature Urban Bāmāh The “Symbolic” – What do These Signs Mean? Conclusion

75 76 76 76 79 80 81 83 84 84 86 86 93 93 93 96 97

Part 3. Interconnections / koiné Chapter 6. Trees and Boats Images Discussed Previous Scholarship – Supernatural or Ritual Scene Location in the “Real” – Minoan Seafaring Background Southern Aegean Thalassocracy Long Distance

101 102 102 107 107 109 110 110

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Parergon and Miniatursation Restrict Identification of Location Tree Cult and Seafaring – The “Imaginary” The Conceptual / Numinous Wood and Water The “Symbolic” – What do These Signs Mean? Cultic Considerations Females, Trees and Boats Elite Ideology Conclusion

v

112 113 113 118 118 119 120 122

Chapter 7. Trees in the Levant and Egypt Previous Scholarship Biblical and Ugaritic Texts Iconography – The Imaginary and Symbolic Syro-Mesopotamian Glyptic, Sculpture and Wall Painting Levantine Metal Pendants, Figurines and Plaques Levantine Glyptic Levantine and Egyptian Terracotta and Stone Plaques Levantine Terracotta Figurine Painted Pottery Egyptian Wall Painting, Funerary Equipment and Texts Location in the Real Landscape Bāmôt Bronze Age Bāmôt The Palace of Zimrilim at Mari Qatna Megiddo Nahariyah Tel ‘Ashir Lachish Gezer Tell el Dabca Conclusion

123 123 124 126 126 128 129 130 130 131 132 134 134 135 136 137 137 138 138 139 139 140 141

Chapter 8. Trees in Cyprus Images Discussed Cypriot Cylinder Seals Three Iconographic Styles Common Style Bronze Cult Stands Cultic Elements Tree Human Figures Ingots Bucrania and Snakes Chairs/Thrones Location in the Real Landscape Bronze Age Sanctuaries Ayios Jakovos Dhima Athienou Kalopsidha Koufos Myrtou Pighades Kition Conclusion

143 144 144 146 147 148 149 149 151 152 153 154 155 155 155 157 159 159 160 162

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Final Summary

163

Abbreviations

165

Works Cited

167

Glossary

199

Appendix A. Images of Minoan Tree Cult

203

Appendix B. Aegean Comparative Images

235

Appendix C. Levantine, Egyptian and Cypriot Images

285

TABLE OF TABLES Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8.




















Minoan Chronology Cycladic Chronology Helladic Chronology Levantine Chronology Egyptian Chronology Cypriot Chronology Types of Trees Gender and Tree Cult

xvii xvii xvii xvii xviii xviii 16 19





TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Figure 9. Figure 10. Figure.11. Figure 12. Figure 13. Figure 14. Figure 15. Figure 16. Figure 17. Figure 18a. Figure 18b. Figure 19. Figure 20. Figure 21. Figure 22. Figure 23. Figure 24. Figure 25. Figure 26. Figure 27. Figure 28. Figure 29. Figure 30. Figure 31. Figure 32a. Figure 32b. Figure 33. Figure 34. Figure 35. Figure 36. Figure 37. Figure 38. Figure 39. Figure 40. Figure 41.

Drawing of gold ring, HM 1043 from Sellopoulo Drawing of clay ring impression, CMS II.6 No.5 from Haghia Triadha Drawing of clay ring impression, CMS II.6 No.6 from Haghia Triadha Drawing of bronze ring, CMS II.3 No.305 from Kavousi Drawing of gold ring, CMS I No.17 from Mycenae Drawing of gold ring, CMS I No.219 from Vapheio Drawing of gold ring, CMS VI.2 No.277, unknown provenance Drawing of gold ring, CMS IS No.114, unknown provenance Drawing of gold ring, CMS XI. No.29, unknown provenance Drawing of gold ring, CMS VI.2 No.281 from Knossos Drawing of gold ring, CMS XI No.28, unknown provenance Drawing of bronze ring, CMS II.3 No.15 from Knossos Drawing of gold ring, CMS II.3 No.252 from Mochlos Drawing of gold ring, CMS VS IB No.114 from Nemea Drawing of clay sealing, CMS II.6 No.1, from Haghia Triadha Drawing of a clay sealing, CMS II.6 No.2 from Haghia Triadha Drawing of fragment of a serpentine rhyton from Gypsadhes Detail of fresco painting, east wall, first level, Building Xeste 3 at Akrotiri, Thera Drawing of fresco painting, north and east walls, ground and first levels, Building Xeste 3 at Akrotiri, Thera Drawing of gold ring CMS II 3 No.114, from Kalyvia Drawing of clay ring impression, CMS VS IA No.178 from Chania Impression of gold ring HM 1700, unknown provenance Drawing of steatite seal, CMS XII No.264, unknown provenance Drawing of gold ring, CMS I No.126 from Mycenae Drawing of gold ring, CMS I No.119 from Mycenae Drawing of gold ring, CMS VI No.279 from Mycenae Drawing of a gold Griffin Warrior 2 Ring, from Pylos Drawing of gold ring from Thebes, CMS V No.198 Drawing of serpentine seal, CMS IX No.163 from Ligortino Drawing of gold ring, HM 1629, from Poros Drawing of clay seal impression, CMS II 7 No.1 from Zakros Drawing of gold ring, CMS I No.127, from Mycenae Detail of peak sanctuary rhyton relief, HM 2764 Peak sanctuary rhyton relief (HM 2764 Detail of Side A Haghia Triadha Sarcophagus Drawing of gold ring HM 989 from Archanes Drawing of clay sealing, CMS VS IA No.176, from Chania Drawing of Ivory Pyxis Lid from Mochlos Drawing of agate seal, CMS VS IA No.75, from Knossos Drawing of rock crystal seal, CMS II 3 No.7, from the Idaean cave Drawing of stone seal, CMS V2 No.608, from Naxos Drawing of bone ring, CMS I No.410, from Melos Detail of Side B Haghia Triadha Sarcophagus

203 204 204 205 205 206 207 208 208 209 210 210 211 211 212 213 213 214 215 216 217 217 218 219 220 220 221 222 222 223 224 224 225 225 226 227 227 228 229 230 230 231 231

x

Figure 42. Figure 43. Figure 44. Figure 45a. Figure 45b. Figure 45c. Figure 46. Figure 47. Figure 48. Figure 49. Figure 50. Figure 51. Figure 52. Figure 53. Figure 54. Figure 55. Figure 56. Figure 57. Figure 58. Figure 59a. Figure 59b. Figure 60. Figure 61. Figure 62. Figure 63. Figure 64. Figure 65a. Figure 65b. Figure 65c. Figure 66. Figure 67. Figure 68. Figure 69. Figure 70. Figure 71. Figure 72. Figure 73. Figure 74. Figure 75. Figure 76. Figure 77. Figure 78. Figure 79. Figure 80. Figure 81.

TABLE OF FIGURES

Drawing of bronze plaque from the Psychro Cave Drawing of serpentine seal, CMS VS IA No.55, from Makrygialos Drawing of gold ring, CMS VI2 No.280, from Amnissos The Sacred Grove and Dance Fresco from the Palace of Knossos Detail of dancers in the Sacred Grove and Dance Fresco Detail of trees in the Sacred Grove and Dance Fresco Grandstand Fresco from the palace of Knossos, with Tripartite Shrine Gold cut out Tripartite Shrine from Shaft Grave III at Mycenae Drawing of CMS I. No. 180 from Tiryns Drawing of stone seal StrEX 80/1129 from Knossos Drawings of clay ring impression, CMS II.6 No.4, from Haghia Triadha Reconstruction of Fresco on the north wall, Throne Room, Palace of Knossos Detail of Nilotic Fresco from the West House at Akrotiri, Thera Silver Siege Rhyton from Mycenae Three kouloures in the West Court, Knossos Palace Drawing of gold discoid from Poros (HM 1716) Reconstruction of Lily Fresco from Amnissos Room 7 Reconstruction of Monkeys and Bluebirds Fresco House of the Frescoes Reconstruction of Floral Fresco from the Unexplored Mansion at Knossos Detail of reconstruction of the Kneeling Priestess at Haghia Triadha Villa A Room 14, by Mark Cameron Detail of reconstruction of the Kneeling Priestess at Haghia Triadha Villa A Room 14 by Militello Saffron Gatherer monkey amidst rocks from Knossos Space 16, the “Hall of the Double Axes”, Palace of Knossos Space 17, the smaller hall or “Queen’s Megaron”, Palace of Knossos Plan of Phaistos Palace Plan of the palace at Malia Space 64, Palace of Phaistos Plan Space 64 and Rocky Outcrop, Palace of Phaistos Space 64, Palace of Phaistos Rock Cut Pits Fresco of Multi-Coloured Rocks and Olive Branches from the dump at Pylos Spring Fresco from House Delta 2 at Akrotiri, Thera Rocky landscape on the eastern wall of Room 3a building Xeste 3 at Akrotiri, Thera Drawing of clay ring impression, CMS II.8 No.268 Drawing of gold ring, CMS I. No.15 Drawing of gold ring, CMS I. No.16 Reconstruction of Cat and Agrimi fresco at Haghia Triadha Villa A Room 14 Drawing of gold ring, CMS II.3 No.51 Drawing of gold ring, CMS VI No. 278 Akkadian Cylinder Seal Impression (BM 89308) Rhyton fragment from Gypsadhes The “Master Impression” sealing from Chania Drawing of gold ring, CMS II.3 No.326, unknown provenance Drawing of gold ring, CMS I No.514, unknown provenance The Lion Gate at Mycenae Drawing of a clay sealing fragment, CMS II 8 No. 273, from Knossos

232 232 233 235 236 236 237 237 237 238 238 238 239 239 240 240 241 241 242 242 243 243 244 244 245 245 246 246 247 247 248 248 249 249 249 250 250 250 251 251 251 251 252 252 252


Figure 82. Figure 83a. Figure 83b. Figure 84. Figure 85. Figure 86a. Figure 86b. Figure 87. Figure 88a. Figure 88b. Figure 89. Figure 90. Figure 91. Figure 92. Figure 93. Figure 94. Figure 95. Figure 96. Figure 97. Figure 98. Figure 99. Figure 100a. Figure 100b. Figure 101. Figure 102. Figure 103a. Figure 103b. Figure 104. Figure 105. Figure 106. Figure 107. Figure 108. Figure 109. Figure 110. Figure 111. Figure 112. Figure 113. Figure 114. Figure 115. Figure 116. Figure 117. Figure 118. Figure 119. Figure 120. Figure 121. Figure 122. Figure 123.

TABLE OF FIGURES

Drawing of “Sacred Mansion” gold ring from Poros Plan of Jouktas Peak Sanctuary Plan of Jouktas Wall Plan of Anemospilia Shrine Plan of Palatial Complex at Archanes Plan of Vathypetro Tripartite Shrine Foundations at Vathypetro Plan of Mochlos Drawing of “Meeting on a Hill” fresco (left view) Drawing of “Meeting on a Hill” fresco (right view) Plan of Kato Syme Rural Sanctuary) Reconstruction of the Corridor of Procession Fresco, Palace of Knossos) Reconstruction of the Lily Prince Fresco from Knossos) The “Chieftain Cup” Drawing of clay ring impression, CMS II 8 No. 237, from Knossos Drawing of clay ring impression, CMS II.8 No.256, from Knossos Drawing of gold ring, CMS I No.86, from Mycenae Drawing of gold ring CMS I No.108 from Mycenae Drawing of clay ring impression CMS II 8 No.272 from Knossos Drawing of gold ring, CMS V2 No.728 from Mega Monastiraki Drawing of gold ring CMS V Supp. 1B No.113, from Nemea 1901 Restoration of the steatite “baetylic table of offering” from the Dictaean Cave 1921 restoration of the steatite “baetylic table of offering”, Dictaean Cave Plaster cast of a table from Akrotiri, Thera Roman rustic shrine as depicted in sacro-idyllic fresco scene from the Villa dei Papiri, Herculaneum Sacred Tree, Shimogamo Shrine, Kyoto, Japan Peepal Tree, Triambakeshwar, India Drawing of gold ring CMS I No.292, from Messenia Drawing of the Macrinus coin from Byblos Drawing clay impression from engraved stone mould CMS V2 No.422b, from Eleusis Drawing of gold ring CMS VS 1B No.115, from Nemea Drawing of gold ring CMS VS 1B No.194, unknown provenance Drawing of clay ring impression CMS II 7 No.8, from Kato Zakro Drawing of gold ring CMS V No.199, from Thebes Drawing of clay ring impression CMS VS IA No.175 Drawing of clay ring impression CMS VS IA No.177, from Chania Drawing of gold ring CMS VS 1B No.195, unknown provenance Drawing of gold ring CMS XI No.30, unknown provenance Drawing of gold ring CMS I No.179, from Tiryns Reconstruction of fresco from at Haghia Triadha Villa A Room 14 Ivory pyxis lid from Minet el-Baida Drawing of jasper seal stone CMS II 3 No.338, unknown provenance Drawing of seal stone CMS I No.80, from Mycenae Drawing of CMS XI No.52 from Mycenae Sealing from Malia Stepped Altar at Juktas Peak Sanctuary Reconstruction of the Stepped Altar at Anemospilia

xi

252 253 253 254 254 255 255 256 257 257 258 258 259 259 259 259 260 260 260 261 261 261 261 262 262 262 262 263 263 263 264 264 264 265 265 265 266 266 266 267 267 267 267 268 268 268 269

xii

Figure 124. Figure 125.

TABLE OF FIGURES

Reconstruction of Anemospilia Shrine Incurved altars in entranceway into antechamber north of Courtyard 1 (view north) Figure 126. Plan of Haghia Triadha Figure 127. Tomb 4, Tholoi A and B, and Mycenaean Shrine at Haghia Triadha Figure 128. Plan of Piazzale dei Sacelli at Haghia Triadha Figure 129a. Mount Jouktas from the Knossos Palace Central Court (view south) Figure 129b. Mount Psiloritis from Phaistos Palace Central Court (view north) Figure 130a. View of Jouktas Peak Sanctuary from Archanes (view west) Figure 130b. View from Stepped Altar on Mount Jouktas to Archanes (view east) Figure 131. Drawing of clay ring impression CMS II 6 No. 20, from Haghia Triadha Figure 132. “Scylla” sealing from the Temple Repositories Figure 133. Detail of the silver siege rhyton from Mycenae depicting swimmers and a sea monster Figure 134a-b. Flotilla Fresco from Room 5 of the West House at Akrotiri, Thera Figure 135. Drawing of CMS II 8 No.264, from Knossos Figure 136a. Mochlos Ship Cup Figure 136b. Mochlos Ship Cup (complete view) Figure 137a. Dolphins on Ship’s Hulls, Flotilla Fresco from Akrotiri, Thera Figure 137b. Drawing of dolphins on ship’s hulls, Miniature Fresco from Kea Figure 138. Naxos Boat Models Figure 139. Cycladic “Frying Pan” from Chalandriani, Syros Figure 140. Ship with Tree Branches Figure 141. Drawing of stone seal from Vapheio Figure 142. Sailing Ship Figure 143. MM III–LM I talismanic gem depicting ship Figure 144. Reconstructed Minoan style fresco at Tell el Dabca, Egypt Figure 145. Keftiu depicted on walls of the Theban tomb of Rekhmire Figure 146. Drawing of haematite stone seal CMS XIII No.39, unknown provenance Figure 147. Drawing of Ikria in the Flotilla Fresco, south wall, room 5, West House, Akrotiri, Thera Figure 148. Mochlos Site Plan Figure 149. Mochlos Building B2 Plan Figure 150. Restoration of Building B2, Mochlos Figure 151. Finds from Building B2 above the Pillar Room Figure 152. Drawing of Akkadian cylinder seal (2250–2150 BCE) from Mari Figure 153. White stone statue of a goddess with flowing vase, Mari Figure 154a. Drawing of the Investiture Scene painting from the palace at Mari Figure 154b. Fresco of the Investiture Scene from the palace at Mari Figure 155. Detail of Investiture Scene painting from the palace at Mari Figure 156. Plan of the Palace of Mari Figure 157. Drawing of pear-shaped sheet gold and electrum pendant Figure 158. Drawing of gold and bronze plaque Figure 159a. Peg- and dagger-shaped figurines Figure 159b. Drawings of peg- and dagger-shaped figurines Figure 160. Drawing of scarab seal from the southern Levant Figure 161. Drawing of seal depicting human figures performing cultic gestures towards trees Figure 162. Terracotta Qudšu Plaque Figure 163. Qedešet plaque, Stele of Qeh Figure 164. Drawing of terracotta figurine from Revadim

269 270 270 271 271 272 272 273 273 274 274 274 275 276 276 276 277 277 278 278 278 279 279 279 280 280 281 281 282 282 283 283 285 285 285 286 286 287 287 287 288 288 288 288 288 289 289


Figure 165. Figure 166. Figure 167. Figure 168. Figure 169. Figure 170. Figure 171. Figure 172. Figure 173a. Figure 173b. Figure 174. Figure 175.

TABLE OF FIGURES

xiii

Drawing of ivory plaque from the royal bed of Ugarit 289 Drawing of painted pottery from Tell el-Far’a 290 Drawing of Tell al-Yahudieyeh rhyton-juglet from Jericho 290 Drawing of seal from Kültepe 290 Drawing of ivory container from Mycenae 291 Drawing of Lachish Ewer and detail of decoration 291 Incised slab with abstract female figure and animals from Mari 291 Drawing of incised pottery stands from Ur 291 Drawing of Lachish Goblet 292 Detail of decoration on Lachish Goblet 292 Tomb Painting (KV 34) of Pharaoh Thutmosis III suckling at tree breast 292 Drawing of breast and arms holding a tray of food emerging from a palm tree 292 Figure 176. Drawing of arms and breast emerging from a sycamore tree pouring water 293 Figure 177. Shabti box decorated with anthropomorphic tree goddess in conjunction the trunk of the tree 293 Figure 178. Drawing of tree goddess standing separately in front of the tree 293 Figure 179. Painting of fully anthropomorphic tree goddess with a tree upon her head 294 Figure 180. Goddess with a cow’s head emerges from a tree. Stele of Takhae 294 Figure 181. Drawing of combined sycamore-palm tree 294 Figure 182a. Reconstruction of Court 106 with palm tree 295 Figure 182b. Reconstruction of the program of Court 106 and the Investiture Fresco 295 Figure 183. Reconstruction and plan of Qatna cult complex 296 Figure 184a. Plan of the Sacred Area at Megiddo with Round Altar 4017 296 Figure 184b. Round Altar 4017 at Megiddo 297 Figure 185. Plan of Nahariyah 297 Figure 186. Ancient mould and modern cast of a horned female deity 297 Figure 187a. Plan of Tel ‘Ashir Strata I–II remains 298 Figure 187b. Reconstruction rounded stones and massevoth. Tel ‘Ashir plan of Strata I–II remains 298 Figure 188. Plan of Lachish Loci 49 and 81 Cult Areas 299 Figure 189a. Massebah and possible asherah Locus 81, Lachish (view north) 299 Figure 189b. Massebah and possible asherah, Locus 81, Lachish (view south) 300 Figure 190. The bāmāh at Gezer 300 Figure 191. Drawing of cylinder seal impression depicting Baal Zaphon 301 301 Figure 192a. Temple Precinct Plan, Avaris/Tell el Dabca 302 Figure 192b. Detail of Precinct of Temple III, Avaris/Tell el Dabca Figure 193a. Impression of Cypriot Elaborate Style Cylinder Seal, unknown provenance 302 Figure 193b. Impression of Cypriot Derivative Style Cylinder Seal, unknown provenance 302 Figure 193c. Impression of Cypriot Common Style Cylinder Seal, unknown provenance 303 Figure 194a. Drawing of cylinder seal impression depicting tree, ingot, concentric circles, tanding male figure, and bucranium 303 Figure 194b. Drawing of cylinder seal impression depicting snake, tree, ingot, standing figure, animal, bucranium, seated figure, spear, from Enkomi 303 Figure 195a–f. Drawings of cylinder seal impressions. Recurrent elements 303-304 Figure 196. Drawing of cylinder seal impression from Nicosia Ayia Paraskevi 304

xiv

Figure 197. Figure 198. Figure 199a. Figure 199b. Figure 200a. Figure 200b. Figure 201a. Figure 201b. Figure 202. Figure 203. Figure 204. Figure 205. Figure 206. Figure 207. Figure 208. Figure 209. Figure 210. Figure 211. Figure 212. Figure 213. Figure 214. Figure 215.


TABLE OF FIGURES

Bronze Cult Stand from Kourion Four sides of the bronze cult stand from Kourion Bronze Cult Stand from Jerusalem Detail of Bronze Cult Stand from Jerusalem Mycenaean “Zeus” Krater Krater from British Tomb 45, Enkomi Ingot God Bomford Figurine Miniature Ingots Typology of Trees on Common Style Seals The Sacred Tree with Palmette and Volutes Drawing of seal impression Bronze Wheeled Cult Stand Bronze seated male figures Full sized copper oxhide ingot from Enkomi Terracotta shrine model from Marki Terracotta enclosure model from Vounous Plan of Ayios Jakovos Dhima Plan of Athienou Bamboulari tis Koukouninas Plan of Myrtou Pighades Plan of Temple 3 in the sacred area at Kition-Kathari Plan of remains of the sacred garden between Temples 3 and 2, Kition

304 305 305 305 306 306 307 307 307 308 308 309 309 309 310 310 310 311 312 313 313 314

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is with much pleasure that I acknowledge the generous assistance offered by many during the preparation of this research. First of all I must thank my PhD supervisor, Louise Hitchcock, who first introduced me to the wider world of ancient Mediterranean religion and the archaeology of cult. Louise actively encouraged my obvious enchantment with the religions of the ancient Aegean and eastern Mediterranean and helped me formulate the content and parameters of this study. I have benefitted from her expertise as she reviewed and critiqued drafts of my work. As well as supervising my doctoral candidature, Louise has shaped my professional development by encouraging me to present my research at international conferences, by hiring me to teach, taking me on several seasons of archaeological fieldwork at Tell es-Safi/Gath in Israel, and by providing guidance and support in the acquisition of funding. Antonio Sagona, my associate supervisor for several years, and Andrew Jamieson read the work at various stages of completion and provided useful feedback, advice and guidance. Jennifer Webb kindly read and critiqued the Cyprus chapter, and my subsequent associate supervisor, Heather Jackson, as well as Brent Davis also read and commented on the thesis. Thanks also to Stavros Paspalas of the Australian Archaeological Institute in Athens for helping me obtain study permits and the National Archaeological Museum of Athens for providing access to materials in their collection. Don Evely, then Knossos Curator for the British School at Athens, helped me locate and visit archaeological sites in Crete. The British Museum and the Ashmolean Museum provided access to important objects in their collection and went out of their way to be helpful. The Staatliche Museen zu Berlin–Altes Museum and the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien also provided access to material. I am also grateful to the librarians at the Baillieu Library at the University of Melbourne, especially the Inter Library Loan staff, the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute, the British School at Athens, and staff at the Jerusalem Institute of the Council of British Research in the Levant (the Kenyon Institute). Garden archaeology expert Kathryn Gleason of Cornell University must also be mentioned for accepting me on her study season at Caesarea Maritima in Israel. My friend and colleague, Sam Crooks, deserves special thanks for his support, encouragement, and pep-talks, and I extend my appreciation to my family for their patience at my having ignored them while I conducted my doctoral research and for their support while I did so. Every effort has been made to contact copyright holders of material reproduced in this book. For granting permission to reproduce images I would like to thank: Maria Anastasiadou, Philip Betancourt, Manfred Bietak, Anne Chapin, Izak Cornelius, Anna Crooks, Costis Davaras, Jack Davis and Sharon Stocker, Oliver Dickinson, Nota Dimopoulou and Giorgos Rethemiotakis, Christos Doumas, Jan Driessen, Don Evely, Orly Goldwasser, Ram Gophna, Giampaolo Graziadio, Robert Laffineur, Jean-Claude Margueron, Nanno Marinatos, John McEnroe, Pietro Militello, Tallay Ornan, Othmar Keel, Giorgos Papasavvas, Ingo Pini, Joseph and Maria Shaw, Jeffrey Soles, Christoph Uehlinger, Shelley Wachsmann, Peter Warren, Jennifer Webb and Urs Winter. I would also like to thank the librarians from Special Collections in the Baillieu Library at the University of Melbourne, the British Museum, the Cyprus Museum, the Heraklion Museum, the Israel Antiquities Authority and the National Archaeological Museum of Athens.

CHRONOLOGIES USED IN THIS STUDY Table 1. Minoan Chronology1 Minoan Period

From

To

Middle Minoan III Late Minoan IA Late Minoan IB Late Minoan II Late Minoan IIIA1 Late Minoan IIIA2 Late Minoan IIIB Late Minoan IIIC

1750 1700 1580 1490 1430 1370 1320 1200

1700 1580 1490 1430 1370 1320 1200 1100

Table 2. Cycladic Chronology 2 Cycladic Period

From

To

Late Cycladic I Late Cycladic II Late Cycladic III

1700/1675 1625/00 1420/1400

1625/00 1420/00 1070

Table 3. Helladic Chronology3 Helladic Period

From

To

Late Helladic I Late Helladic IIA Late Helladic IIB Late Helladic IIIA1 Late Helladic IIIA2 Late Helladic IIIB Late Helladic IIIC

1680 1600/1580 1520/1480 1425/1390 1390/1370 1340/1330 1190/1180

1600/1580 1520/1480 1425/1390 1390/1370 1340/1330 1190/1180 1065/1060

Table 4. Levantine Chronology4 Levantine Period

From

To

Middle Bronze Age IIB Late Bronze Age I Late Bronze Age IIA Late Bronze Age IIB Iron Age IA Iron Age IB

1750 1550 1400 1300 1200 1150

1550 1400 1300 1200 1150 1000






























































1 2 3 4

Revised Aegean high chronology based on Manning 1995; 2014; Rehak and Younger 1998. High Chronology from Manning 2010; Shelmerdine 2008. High Chronology from Shelmerdine 1997; Manning 2010. Levy 1998.

xviii

CHRONOLOGIES USED IN THIE STUDY

Table 5. Egyptian Chronology5 Egyptian Period

From

To

13th Dynasty 15th Dynasty (Hyksos) 17th Dynasty (Thebes) 18th Dynasty 19th Dynasty 20th Dynasty

1759 1637 1606 1539 1295 1186

1606 1529 1539 1296 1186 1069

Table 6. Cypriot Chronology6 Cypriot Period

From

To

Middle Cypriot III–Late Cypriot I Late Cypriot IIA–IIC early Late Cypriot IIC late–IIIA Late Cypriot IIIB

1700 1450 1300/1125 1125/100

1450 1300 1100 1050

































































5 6

Egyptian Low Chronology based on Kitchen 1987; Rehak and Younger 1998. Knapp 2013.

INTRODUCTION This book is a study of 44 images of Minoan tree cult known primarily from sphragistic jewellery and their impressions as well as a small number of portable objects and wall paintings. The study also compares such images with evidence for a sacred tree in the Levant, Egypt and Cyprus. The problem of analysing Minoan images of tree cult was first undertaken by Arthur Evans in 1901; however, in the 117 years since that time there have only been a handful of relatively small, article-length academic studies and one short, non-academic book specifically directed toward aspects of Minoan tree cult. These have primarily focussed upon Cretan material and the use of eastern Mediterranean comparanda, as initially proposed by Evans, has been minimal. Consequently, the understanding of Minoan images of tree cult has not progressed as much as it might have. That hardly any work is currently being done on Minoan tree cult is evident from the fact that at the last Aegaeum conference on the theme of religion, Metaphysis in 2014, there was only one paper on the topic.1 In particular, the implication of the prominence of trees in images of ritual activity in regard to understanding the larger topic of Minoan religion as a whole requires a renewed, more multi-faceted, examination. This study therefore aims to produce new interpretations of Minoan images of tree cult. The research that comprises this work will significantly advance knowledge within the discipline of Aegean archaeology by contributing to the understanding of both Minoan religion and Aegean art, particularly glyptic imagery. This will be achieved by utilising new methods of iconographic analysis as well as revising the earlier analytical trajectories of Arthur Evans in regard to the level of evolutionary sophistication of Minoan religion and its relationship with the eastern Mediterranean. The book covers the period from the Middle Bronze Age or Middle Minoan III (ca. 1750 BCE) to the early Iron Age I or Late Minoan IIIC (ca. 1100 BCE), but primarily focuses on the glyptic imagery dating to the Late Minoan IB–II (ca. 1580–1430 BCE). The study is constrained by the varying degrees of availability and quality of published archaeological sites, as well as the fact that trees are archaeologically fugitive in the regions under investigation and thus in the majority of cases have to be inferred rather than specifically detected. The book contains eight chapters, a final summary and three appendices. Chapter 1 is a review of the literature organised according to theme, each section proceeding chronologically from the beginning of the twentieth century up to the present time. Chapter 2 explains the theoretical framework and methods that underpin the approach to the study of Minoan tree cult. Chapter 3 focuses upon glyptic images of tree cult in which the trees are situated within rocky ground without any accompanying architectural structures. Discussion on whether the images depict real places determines that the nature of the glyptic medium constrains an identification of location, the images instead being imaginary constructions composed of landscape elements. Analysis of their meaning concludes that they portray encounters between elite figures and epiphanic numina representative of an animate landscape and consequently function to enhance elite power by linking it with the supernatural.






























































1

Crooks, Tully and Hitchcock 2016.

2

INTRODUCTION

Chapter 4 analyses glyptic, stone vase and fresco images of tree cult which depict the trees in conjunction with walls and gates. Potential archaeological correlates are discussed and an interpretation of a generic architecturally elaborated peak sanctuary is established. The association between female figures, epiphanic deities, and sanctuary walls and gates in the images suggest they represent the bestowal of authority upon elite figures by deities at peak sanctuaries. Chapter 5 examines trees and cult structures, including columnar and tripartite shrines, constructed openwork platforms, and ashlar, incurved, table and horned altars, as depicted in glyptic, stone vase, fresco painting, ivory carving and on a bronze plaque. Archaeological correlations are identified at urban and some rural locations. The images are interpreted as depicting elite figures in conjunction with architectonic representations of the numinous landscape, particularly trees and mountains, through which they ritually perform their relationship with the animate landscape. Chapter 6 focuses upon glyptic images of trees and boats, initially discussing whether they depict supernatural or ritual scenes. Minoan seafaring within the southern Aegean and eastern Mediterranean, and the question of a Minoan thalassocracy are then considered. The images are interpreted as depicting a cosmopolitan tree deity reflective of Late Bronze Age internationalism which both protected Minoan seafaring ventures and enhanced the status of elites that sponsored such activity. Chapter 7 focuses on sacred trees in the Levant and Egypt in regard to the kinds of symbolic characteristics that may have influenced Minoan tree cult. A pronounced theme, in which female deities are associated with trees and other vegetation in the Levant and Egypt, confirms a trend also evident in Minoan iconography. Chapter 8 examines evidence for tree cult in Cyprus in order to confirm the existence of a koiné or common religious language in which trees featured within ritual at cult sites within the eastern Mediterranean. Although Cypriot tree cult is associated with males rather than females, the symbolism of the tree conforms to the mixture of local and regional characteristics evident in Minoan, Levantine and Egyptian sacred trees. The Final Summary synthesises the findings and conclusions reached in Chapters 3 to 8. Appendix A contains the 44 images of Aegean tree cult that form the major focus of this research project and consists of drawings of the images and objects, and photographs of the frescoes. Appendix B contains the comparative Aegean evidence mentioned in the discussion of Aegean images of tree cult. It includes fresco paintings, drawings of glyptic images, seal imprints, metal objects, stone and terracotta vessels, stone sculpture, carved ivory, a plaster cast, architectural plans and site photographs. Appendix C contains the comparative Levantine, Egyptian and Cypriot evidence that forms the minor study of this research. It consists of fresco painting, painted wood, drawings of glyptic images, seal imprints, metal objects, stone sculpture, terracotta models, figurines and vessels, carved ivory and bone, architectural plans and site photographs.


PART 1 BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY
































CHAPTER 1 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The canonical study of tree worship in Minoan Crete is Arthur Evans’ 1901 monograph, “Mycenaean Tree and Pillar Cult and Its Mediterranean Relations” published in the Journal of Hellenic Studies.1 This study proposed that Aegean Bronze Age religion belonged to a primitive stage of development characterised by aniconism which was believed to be the result of an inability to conceive of deities in anthropomorphic form. The sacred trees in Evans’ study were part of a wider complex that also involved sacred stones, pillars and columns; the trees and stones being the “natural” versions of the architectural pillars and columns. In this model, trees and stones were animate, and able to be possessed by supernatural beings. Their sentient nature was retained by the columns and pillars made from the sacred trees and stones and used in architecture. Evans cited ethnological parallels ranging in space and time from Buddhist worship to the Druids, and with particular focus on Egypt, the Levant, Cyprus and Classical Greece, in order to prove this characterisation of Aegean religion. In his approach to this subject Evans was influenced by several of the biggest thinkers in the newly coalescing academic disciplines of comparative religion and anthropology. Edward Tylor’s Primitive Culture (1871), William Robertson Smith’s The Religion of the Semites (1889) and James Frazer’s Golden Bough (1890) were all influential in Evans’ theorising about Minoan tree cult. 2 Consequently, “Mycenaean Tree and Pillar Cult” was suffused with late nineteenth century evolutionism; the belief that human history was characterised as a series of progressive steps from simple primitive beginnings to sophisticated modernity, and onward to a glorious future. As McEnroe explains, evolutionist archaeology was characterised by several features: a belief in the psychic unity of all humanity; the assumption of unilinear progress in universal stages of human technology, intelligence, emotional life and morality; the identification of “survivals”, primitive culture traits surviving into the present; the idea that ethnological study of “primitive societies” could shed light on the past of “sophisticated societies”; and the use of numerous, global comparisons as a means of explanation and proof,3 all of which appear in Evans’ study. As Evans’ approach to tree cult reflected current thinking, subsequent interpretations have also mirrored contemporary scholarly trends in varying degrees. This review of the literature is organised according to thematic elements evident in the study of tree cult over the last century and up to the present. Within these thematic categories the contributions of previous scholars are organised chronologically. Beginning with the idea that Minoan tree cult was evidence of a primitive stage of religion characterised by aniconism, animism, possession and Dionysian abandon, the review then focuses on the uses of ethnographic analogy, the nineteenth century concept of “survivals”, and the possibility of a common religious and symbolic language from the Aegean to the east Mediterranean. The use of glyptic imagery to explain actual cult sites is then shown to be a trend within the study of Minoan religion, as is the attempt to interpret but in fact more often misinterpret cult structures in association with trees within the glyptic images. The pervasiveness of nineteenth century interpretations of ancient religion as involving a Great Goddess of fertility and her consort/son, representative of the seasonal vegetation cycle, is then shown to be a recurring feature in the study of Minoan tree cult. This is followed by examples of the common assumption that glyptic images are




























































1

2 3

Evans 1901, 99–204, 126–7. It was here that ideas previously developed in Evans 1895/1896 found their final form. Frazer in turn was particularly inspired in regard to sacred trees by folklorist Wilhelm Mannhardt. McEnroe 1995, 3–18.

6

CHAPTER 1

portions of larger scenes, or actual events, of seasonal ritual focussed on the vegetation cycle that if correctly reassembled would provide information about the calendrical progression of such festivals and the procedure of rituals. Explanations proposed for the sacred nature of the trees in Minoan tree cult are then examined, and the review ends with the recent suggestion that rather than being examples of primitive religion, images of tree cult express the religious interests of elite members of a state-level society. Tree Cult as Evidence of Primitivism In addition to proposing that Minoan religion was aniconic, Evans also felt that he could detect evidence of its actual evolution, characterised by the embrace of anthropomorphism. He interpreted glyptic images such as the Mycenae Acropolis Ring (Fig. 5), in which a prominent human figure sits underneath a tree, as simultaneously depicting the aniconic sacred tree and a more sophisticated anthropomorphic deity.4 This assumption – that the presence of human figures amidst trees and stones in Minoan glyptic provided a window onto the progression from primitive cult to more advanced religion – was also proposed by Martin Nilsson in his study, The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and its Survival in Greek Religion. Nilsson saw such images as expressing a more evolved phase of religion in which anthropomorphic deities inhabited sacred groves. 5 Bogdan Rutkowski, on the other hand, proposed in The Cult Places of the Aegean that Minoan anthropomorphic deities were contemporary with aniconic cult objects, rather than evolving from them.6 An assumption of an evolutionary progression from primitivism to sophistication continues to be evident into the first decade of the twenty-first century. Lucy Goodison proposes in Holy Trees and Other Ecological Surprises that early Minoan religion focussed initially upon “the natural world” but that this later gave way to the concept of personified divinities. Goodison interprets the tiny hovering figures in glyptic as a further stage in the evolution of religious thought in which “abstract deities” were able to be conceived as independent beings, rather than as numina of sacred trees. These deities were then superseded by human cult functionaries who acted as their representatives. The Mycenae Acropolis Ring is again employed to illustrate this idea; Goodison proposing that while it depicts the tree being reverently touched, cultic focus is directed to the human figure under the tree.7 In these interpretations, glyptic images depict the evolutionary moment between primitive aniconism and “more advanced” anthropomorphism; however, these authors do not propose explanations as to why iconography from the Late Bronze Age should reflect this new cognitive event. Nor do they explain or interrogate “aniconism”, instead simply assuming an evolutionist trajectory as a result of the presumption that aniconism precedes anthropomorphism.8 Although Minoan sacred trees were “aniconic”, according to Evans, they were not regular mundane trees but were also animate. The term “animism” in regard to the study of religion was theorised by Tylor to mean the form of religion that had appeared at a very early stage of human development and was characteristic of the lowest known human societies.9 In this view animism signified an erroneous attempt to understand the nature of the world, in which souls or spirits were attributed to inanimate matter; life was projected where it did not exist; and intentionality attributed to non-human creatures. In Tylor’s view, animism was not only the earliest type of religion, but actually defined all religion. Later scholars, however, primarily associated animism with primitive religions located amongst “savages” and consequently animism became a stage in an evolutionary model of religion, rather than a definition of all religions.




























































4 5 6 7 8

9

Evans 1901, 126–7. Nilsson 1950, 283–4. Rutkowski 1986, 108–9, 205. Goodison 2010, 29–30. A focus on evolution cannot be confined to Aegean archaeology, however, as cultural studies in general had an evolutionary perspective. Tylor 1871; Wheeler-Barclay 2010, 91.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

7

Evans subscribed to Tylor’s animist theory in his proposal that natural objects like trees could house supernatural beings such as ancestors, spirits or deities. In his view, rather than being a permanent state, the animate nature of sacred trees was caused by intermittent possession when a divine being descended upon the tree in the form of a bird or small hovering figure and temporarily dwelled within it. These supernatural beings could also transfer from the tree to human beings that interacted with the tree in ritual and subsequently possess them.10 Evans does not venture a definition of “possession”, assuming that it is self-evident to the reader, and illustrates the process with a ring from Knossos (Fig. 10).11 Humans could also undergo possession through “orgiastic dance”, as Evans saw in the Sacred Grove and Dance Fresco (Figs 45a, b).12 Another means was by the consumption of psychoactive substances harvested from the sacred tree which Evans proposed for the Vapheio Ring (Fig. 6). Evans likened this divine drink to the Vedic Soma, and explained that it both caused religious frenzy and was a form of “communion with the divinity inherent in the tree”.13 Using a model from the Christian Eucharist, Evans envisioned a communal sharing of the “divine essence” derived from the tree.14 However, Evans’ interpretation of the fruit of the sacred tree as capable of producing ecstatic possession was not based on any evidence. His attempt to identify the tree in the Mycenae Acropolis Ring as a grape vine is incorrect and his other suggestions: fig, pine, cypress and plane trees do not have entheogenic properties.15 Evans may have been influenced by the Nietzschean idea of Dionysian irrationalism as the primitive underside of classical Greek Apollonian rationality. According to Cathy Gere, “Because in the legends about Knossos it was Dionysus who... [married] the Cretan princess Ariadne, Cretan religion provided an origin point for the Nietzschean story of the cult of the drunken god.”16 Jane Ellen Harrison was certainly interested in the intoxication and ecstatic behaviour that distinguished classical Greek Dionysian religion, which she assumed was a remnant of earlier Greek religion. In Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion Harrison identified Crete as the source of the ecstatic cult practices of Dionysian religion which she characterised as concerned with vegetation deities, the death and rebirth of nature, and consumption of psychoactive substances.17 Like Evans, Harrison believed that in the ancient mind trees and pillars were possessed by invisible numina. She proposed that Dionysus was both a tree god because of his link to plants, and a pillar god which she deduced from vase paintings of Dionysiac xoana in which he appears as a “rude pillar or plant draped with a splendid ritual garment.”18 The idea of psychoactive substances as an explanation for the Minoan interest in trees and the apparent ecstatic dancing depicted in glyptic and fresco imagery continues to be influential. Nanno Marinatos explains the presence of pithoi in glyptic images of tree cult sites in “The Tree, the Stone and the Pithos: Glimpses into a Minoan Ritual” as perhaps containing the alcohol that was the source of the ecstatic frenzy of the cult participants.19 Goodison also proposes that Minoan ritual may have been enhanced by possession, alcohol and drugs.20 While there is evidence for the presence of alcohol and opium in Minoan Crete, there is as yet no concrete proof for the use of other drugs.21






























































10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Evans 1901, 111. Evans MTPC, 105–6, 124. Evans 1930, 68. Ackerman 2002, 26–8. Evans 1936, 392. Evans 1901, 101. Gere 2009, 46. Harrison 1903, 564–7. Harrison 1921, 165–9; 1903, 426–7. Marinatos 1990, 88–9. Goodison 2010, 17. Collard 2011; Tully and Crooks 2015, 137, 152 n.12.

8

CHAPTER 1

Ethnographic Analogy In order to establish that Aegean cult belonged to a well-recognised stage of religion Evans cited ethnological parallels ranging from both chronologically and geographically close and distant societies.22 He also utilised Tylor’s theory of “survivals”: obsolete objects, traits or attitudes deriving from an earlier form of religion that manifested in a later “higher stage” of evolution.23 Classical Greek and biblical examples of sacred trees were cited as later manifestations of religious phenomena similar to Minoan tree cult; figures categorised as anthropomorphic deities in Minoan art were identified as gods known from Greek mythology;24 and presumed Minoan aniconism was likened to the biblical variety. Evans’ use of biblical examples of sacred trees derived from his belief that they were survivals of ancient Israelite religion. He claimed that Cretan and Semitic religions were at a similar primitive evolutionary stage characterised by aniconism, but that while the Minoans eventually embraced the anthropomorphic representation of deities, the Levant maintained its adherence to primitive aniconism.25 It is evident from the use of the term “Survival” in the title of Nilsson’s study of Minoan religion that he saw aspects of classical Greek religion as deriving from Crete, likening the Minoan use of tree branches as cult objects to classical Greek cult. Comparison of Minoan religion with that of other ancient societies is also evident in Axel Persson’s study, The Religion of Greece in Prehistoric Times, in which he situates “the pre-Greek religion” of Minoan Crete against a background of Late Bronze Age cultural contact between Greece, Egypt and the northern Levant.26 He sees Egypt as the source for boat imagery on Minoan rings 27 and also identifies aspects of classical Greek religion, such as the association of the laurel tree with Apollo, as an example of the survival of Minoan tree cult into the classical period, as does Bogdan Rutkowski in The Cult Places of the Aegean.28 Both Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood in her article “On the ‘Lost’ Boat Ring from Mochlos” and Marinatos in her chapter “The Tree as a Focus of Ritual Action in Minoan Glyptic Art” look toward Egypt to explain the architectural structures in Minoan glyptic images of tree cult.29 In “The Role of the Queen in Minoan Prophecy Rituals” Marinatos also combines textual references to trees and stones from Near Eastern and Greek mythological texts such as the Ugaritic Epic of Ba’al, the biblical Book of Genesis, and Hesiod’s Theogony in support of her interpretation of Minoan tree and stone cult as prophecy ritual.30 She suggests that the appearance on both sides of the Mediterranean of tree and stone cult indicates a koiné or common language of religious ritual that spanned the central and eastern Mediterranean during the Bronze and Iron Ages.31 The classical cult of Delphic Apollo and his associations with a laurel tree she proposes was a potential survival of this early type of ritual. Like Evans, Marinatos generally prefers a Near Eastern association for Cretan religion, however, likening the open-air location of Minoan tree cult to the Israelite bāmāh, the rural cult site identified in the biblical text by the presence of sacred trees and stones.32 She also sees models for Minoan sacred trees




























































22 23 24

25 26 27

28 29 30 31 32

Evans 1901, 130. Ackerman 2002, 38. Evans 1901, 99, 126; Momigliano 2006. It would be half a century before the Linear B texts were translated showing that some proto-Greek deities were worshipped on Crete during the Mycenaean period. Ventris and Chadwick 1956. Evans 1901, 113–17, 130–5. Persson 1942, 1. Boat imagery, in conjunction with tree branches, already appears in Crete in the EM III. Broodbank 2000, 342, fig. 115. Persson 1942, 1, 84–6; Rutkowski 1986, 247 n. 3, n.4. Sourvinou-Inwood 1973, 153; Marinatos 1989, 140. Marinatos 2009. Marinatos 2010. For example: 1 Kings 14.23; 2 Kings 18.4; 2 Chron 14.2; Ezek 6.3–4; Lev 26.30 and Isaiah 6.13. Usually considered to be located on an elevated area such as a mound or knoll. Fried 2002, 438.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

9

in the biblical Tree of Life, the Mesopotamian goddess Ishtar’s association with the Huluppu Tree, and the Egyptian goddess Nut’s connection to the sycamore fig.33 An interest in tree cult as an early form of prophecy is also evident in Goodison’s chapter “‘Why All This about Oak or Stone?’: Trees and Boulders in Minoan Religion”.34 Goodison draws a comparison between Minoan cult and the trees and stones connected to poetic inspiration and prophecy in Greek literature, citing Plato’s Phaedrus (Phdr. 271 b–c) in addition to Hesiod’s Theogony. She collects further Greek textual references to sacred groves, underworld groves, and the sacred palm tree of Apollo on Delos, and also suggests that Greek Panhellenic sanctuaries were survivals of Minoan rural sanctuaries.35 In Holy Trees and Other Ecological Surprises Goodison proposes that the numina of Minoan sacred trees may be akin to Greek Nymphs, semi-immortal beings whose lives are intertwined with the trees they inhabit, and that hovering epiphanic figures may be similar to European fairies.36 She compares Minoan tree worship with holy trees associated with female Christian saints in contemporary Crete and also proposes an Egyptian origin for the images of trees in conjunction with boats, suggesting that they are vehicles for the journey for the dead. Female figures in association with the boats are proposed to be symbolic of the setting sun, or departure of a season, and perhaps prototypes of the Greek mythological figures, Ariadne and Helen.37 Use of Glyptic Imagery to Explain Actual Cult Sites Cult scenes in Minoan art appear most frequently in the medium of glyptic. Consequently, glyptic images have been utilised to flesh-out the architectural characteristics of Minoan cult sites, in order to identify their location within the landscape; to match specific archaeologically determined cult sites; and to propose the existence of particular types of cult sites: the “rural sanctuary” and the “ephemeral sanctuary”. Based on the image on a ring from Knossos (Fig. 10), Evans identified a small building at Goulas as “one of these Mycenaean shrines, originally containing a sacred tree”. The site featured a rock-cut cistern which he proposed to have been used for the ritual watering of a tree, as suggested in an image on a sealstone from Vapheio depicting two Minoan genii holding jugs over a tree or branches set between horns (Fig. 141). 38 Evans also suggested that the ring from Knossos helped explain the physical characteristics of the peak sanctuary of Jouktas, and that a ring from Mycenae (Fig. 31) may correlate with a spring site at Mavro Spelio.39 The use of glyptic to explain the characteristics of cult sites has been a prominent theme in the work of subsequent scholars as well. Persson interprets the Mycenae Acropolis ring (Fig. 5) as portraying a Minoan cult site, suggesting that the image depicts “a tree goddess receiving homage within the walls of a hypaethral shrine at midsummer”, even presuming the presence of surrounding walls when none are depicted.40 Rutkowski uses glyptic imagery to predict the presence in the Cretan landscape of what he termed “sacred enclosures”; sites distinguished from the well-known peak and cave sanctuaries, and instead situated in various types of topographical location ranging from flat areas, to rocky hollows, groves, springs, on the slopes of low hills, and on the coast. Sacred enclosures could be architecturally elaborated or very simple, rectangular or oval and Rutkowski pointed to the EC clay sanctuary model from Vounous (Fig. 210, discussed in Chapter 8) as an example of what such sites may have looked like.41




























































33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Marinatos 1993, 181. Goodison 2009. Goodison 2010, 28, 34. Briggs 1977. Goodison 2010, 35–6, 23–25. Evans 1901, 100–1, 170. Evans 1930, 137–8. Persson 1942, 74, 98. Rutkowski 1986, 100, 205, 247 n.3, n.4; 1988, 24–6.

10

CHAPTER 1

Specifically responding to Rutkowski’s identification of glyptic cult scenes as sacred enclosures in her unpublished doctoral thesis, Ritual Activity and Regional Dynamics: Towards a Reinterpretation of Minoan ExtraUrban Ritual Space, Elissa Faro proposes that glyptic examples of cult sites represent real cult places within the landscape. Glyptic images that do not include architecture she explains as “ephemeral sites that may not have left a material record”. Importantly, Faro notes that glyptic iconography “has not only been the primary source of evidence for sacred enclosures, but also almost the primary reason for the existence of such a category”. Paradoxically, however, while acknowledging that the main evidence for such sites is almost exclusively iconographic, she still wonders why, with what she sees as an abundance of such examples, so few actual rural sanctuaries have been discovered in the landscape. Assuming that numerous iconographic examples of cult sites should equate with many actual sites, Faro explains the dearth on their ephemerality, rather than questioning whether the glyptic images actually do depict such sites in the first place.42 Although she is unable to identify any of her proposed “ephemeral sites”, Faro suggests a match between the imagery on the Archanes Ring (Fig. 34) and the architecturally elaborated sanctuary at Anemospilia (Figs 84, 124), based on the triplicity of the architecture. Rather than rural sanctuaries, glyptic images have been suggested to depict urban locations. In Archanes, Sakellarakis claimed that the tripartite shrine and paved floor in the Archanes Ring signified that the cult activity was located within palatial architecture.43 Marinatos dismissed the idea that glyptic depictions of tree cult represent events in rustic nature sanctuaries, pointing to the paved floors in many of the images as evidence of a more elaborate setting which she proposed as evidence for the official and high-status nature of the cult.44 In her opinion it is the images of trees without any accompanying architecture that represent rural open-air sanctuaries. 45 In his monograph, Minoan Glyptic: Typology, Deposits and Iconography. From the Early Minoan period to the Late Minoan IB Destruction in Crete, Galanakis uses Rutkowski’s terminology of “sacred enclosures” for glyptic cult scenes; however, because of the absence of such sites within the actual landscape, suggests that they probably never existed. He instead proposes that the images represent idealised or imaginary sites that may have referred to real cult structures and open air sanctuaries situated in urban locations.” 46 Contrary to the rather general approach evident in the aforementioned scholarship, Younger identifies specific architectural features in glyptic cult scenes, including pavement, a shrine, baetylic stones, and walls as features that should be identifiable at actual cult sites. In “Tree Tugging and Omphalos Hugging on Minoan Gold Rings”, he maps glyptic images onto the small courtyard that connects the East and West Shrines at the Mycenaean sanctuary at Phylakopi.47 While the ephemeral components of the glyptic images such as the human figures, trees, flowers, birds and insects are absent, the site does otherwise contain all the elements of the rings. In a similar vein, Goodison compares rocky ground in glyptic images of tree cult to the actual terrain of Crete, noting similarities, while like Rutkowski, Day utilises glyptic images to hypothesise tree shrines spread throughout the Cretan landscape.48 Interpretation and Misinterpretation of Cult Structures As well as using glyptic images to speculate on the characteristics and location of Minoan cult sites, they are also used to understand the types of architectural structures and cult furniture presumed to be present at such sites. There is, however, a pronounced tendency within the scholarship to misinterpret the built structures in these images. Early on, Evans attempted to differentiate between the types of




























































42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Faro 2008, 195, 207, 216–8, 234. Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakalleraki 1991, 280. Marinatos 1990, 84–5. Marinatos 1989, 130–8. Galanakis 2005, 89–91. Younger 2009. Goodison 2010, 14–15; Day 2012, 11–21.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

11

structures in glyptic images but tended to conflate walls, gateways, shrines, altars and thrones, even inventing the category of “portal shrine” to explain columnar structures. 49 He certainly did not misinterpret everything, determining for example from looking at the relative sizes of the human figures next to the tripartite shrine on the Grandstand Fresco from Knossos (Fig. 46), and the birds on the gold cut-out tripartite shrine from Shaft Grave III at Mycenae (Fig. 47), that shrines must have been of small dimensions. The apparent small size, along with the potentially “rustic” methods of construction of the shrines and the ephemeral nature of the tree being the reason, he proposed, as to why so few traces of such structures had been found in the archaeological record.50 Like Evans before him and many other scholars after him, Nilsson also mistook glyptic images of columnar shrines for gateways and found it difficult to understand the physical relationship of the tree to such a structure, expressing an eccentric interpretation of perspective in which rather than containing sacred trees, cult structures stand next to them, only appearing to surround them because in the small glyptic field which had to be crammed with content human figures were too important to obscure behind architecture.51 Persson, on the other hand, accurately interprets columnar structures as shrines rather than gateways or “portal shrines”, but confuses floors with walls. 52 Marinatos describes columnar structures as “constructed tree-shrines that contain portals” and suggests that they may be similar to Egyptian false doors.53 Stepped structures also incur contrasting interpretations; Sourvinou-Inwood identifies the structure in the boat on the Mochlos Ring (Fig. 13) as “a free-standing stepped construction out of which grows a tree”, while Marinatos suggests that it is a planter in which the tree is transported.54 The precise association of the actual tree itself with the cult structure continues to be a perennial problem within the scholarship. Marinatos proposes that the tree grows within columnar structures, but was placed on top of ashlar constructions on seasonally determined ritual occasions, such structures being otherwise empty.55 She points to the Makrygialos Seal (Fig. 43) as a depiction of a tree being transported and suggests that they may have been grown in pithoi prior to this transportation for which she cites the Vapheio Ring (Fig. 6),56 although close examination shows that the tree in this image is situated amid rocks rather than in the pithos. The tendency to generalise about the structures in images of tree cult is evident in Rutkowski’s interpretation of all the structures as “a variety of walls”.57 While some of the images such as the Knossos Ring do depict walls, others depict shrines, altars and paved floors. Subsequent scholarship often repeats Rutkowski’s ideas rather than closely examining the architectural features. Dimopoulou and Rethemiotakis interpret ashlar shrines as walls surrounding an open air cult site; Galanakis favours the description of “constructed tree shrines with portals”; and mistakes floors and shrines for walls.58






























































49

50 51 52 53 54 55

56 57 58

Evans 1928, 250; 1901, 185; Evans 1930, 137–8. Columnar Shrines (Figs 19–27) are discussed in Chapter 5. Evans 1901, 122–3, 192–5. Nilsson 1950, 265–272. Persson 1942, 38–9, 52. Marinatos 1989, 140. Sourvinou-Inwood 1973; Marinatos 1993, 163. Her examples however, are not convincing as being “without” trees. The Xeste 3 shrine now does have a tree, the Chania sealing is not clear enough to determine and the Mochlos ring does not show enough shrine to include a tree, although one would presume that if there was one it would be shown. Marinatos 1993, 183. Rutkowski 1986, 100–1, 206–9. Dimopoulou and Rethemiotakis 2000, 44; Nilsson 1950, 351–2; Marinatos 1993, 190–2; Galanakis 2005, 90–4.

12

CHAPTER 1

“Fertility Goddess” and “Vegetation God”? As mentioned above, Evans believed that the aniconic and animistic nature of Minoan religion was a prequel to the embrace of anthropomorphic deities. An interpretation in which Minoan religion focussed upon a single “Goddess” can be traced back to both Evans and Harrison who were themselves influenced by the pervasive ideas of Bachofenian matriarchy59 and Frazer’s model of a Great Goddess of fertility and her cyclically dying and rising Consort/Son.60 The mythological trope of the “Dying God” was believed to have been a metaphor in antiquity for the cycle of vegetation, assumed in nineteenth century scholarship to have been the central concern of ancient religions.61 In the early 20th century some Hellenists, including Harrison, took a favourable position toward the idea of a prehistoric matriarchy and a universal Great Goddess. For Harrison, the presence of female divinities in ancient religion was interpreted as proof of the historical existence of matriarchal social order.62 Harrison travelled to Crete in 1901 where she spent three days with Evans at Knossos. Suffused with enthusiasm about ancient Goddess religion, she was particularly struck by the “Mother of the Mountain” sealing (Fig. 94) which she described as “...a standing monument of matriarchalism...” and “sufficient evidence of a matrilinear state of society in Greece...”63 After Harrison’s visit, Evans himself began to apply the idea of a Great Goddess and her Youthful Consort/Son to Minoan archaeology.64 The Frazerian model of a single Great Goddess and her Boy Consort permeated Evans’ final record of the Knossos excavations, the four volume Palace of Minos.65 For decades many scholars accepted Evans’ ideas about a Minoan Great Goddess, although today partisans of the single Great Goddess model for Crete are in the minority.66 In “Mycenaean Tree and Pillar Cult” Evans identified the Minoan Great Mother Goddess and her Divine Son as Rhea and Zeus and incorporated them into a presumed seasonal cycle thought to be depicted in Minoan images of tree cult. Zeus is associated with Crete in Greek mythology in which his mother Rhea was said to have hidden him in a cave on Crete as an infant, after she had given his father Kronos a stone to swallow instead of the baby himself (Hesiod Theog, 475). The peak sanctuary of Juktas in north-central Crete was said to be the “tomb of Zeus” which fitted in well with the Frazerian dying god theme.67 Evans identified the rings from Mycenae (Fig. 23) and Vapheio as depicting “the Goddess or her attendant bowed down in a mourning attitude...the mourning scene refers to the Minoan equivalent of Attis or Kinyras, Adonis or Thammuz [sic], but imagined here as a youthful warrior god, in other words, the Cretan Zeus...the mater dolorosa mourns her ever young but mortal consort” – this despite the fact that the figures in the images lack gestures such as chest-beating and hair-tearing, typically associated with mourning in the ancient world.68 Evans interpreted the apparent ecstatic dance of the central female figures as a further response to this “mortal but resurgent God”.69




























































59

60 61 62 63 64 65 66

67 68 69

Johan Jakob Bachofen’s (1815–1887) theory that humanity was once matriarchal and worshipped a Mother Goddess, as espoused in his 1861 book, Das Mutterrecht: eine Untersuchung über die Gynaikokratie der alten Welt nach ihrer religiösen und rechtlichen Natur (Mother Right: A Study of the Religious and Juridical Aspects of Gynecocracy in the Ancient World). Frazer 1922; Ackerman 2002; Calder 1991; Segal 1998; Smith 1973. Eller 2012, 75–98. Peacock 1991, 171–7. Harrison 1903. Eller 2012, 92. Evans, 1921, 1928, 1930, 1936. Eller 2011; 2012, 75–98. For criticism of the Mother Goddess model see Goodison and Morris 1998; Morris 2009; Gaignerot-Driessen 2016; Tully In Press a. Zeus is mentioned in the Linear B texts from Knossos, Chania and Pylos. Gulizio and Nakassis 2014, 120. Evans 1921, 161–2; 1930, 143; Marinatos 2009. Evans 1930, 143.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

13

For Harrison, the Frazerian male seasonal deity was the “Year-Daimon” whom she proposed was an aspect of goddess-focussed earth-worship that itself derived from tree-worship, and whom she specifically identified as a thunder god, namely Zeus.70 Nilsson claimed that the female figure sitting under a tree in the Mycenae Acropolis ring (Fig. 5) was “undoubtedly a goddess...not only... a goddess appearing in her holy grove but the goddess of the tree cult herself”, the tree being an “embodiment of the goddess” while the hovering epiphanic figure was a male deity associated with a shield or spear.71 Sakellarakis identified the central female figure in the Archanes Ring (Fig. 34) as a “mother goddess” and the male figures as mortal, and Sourvinou-Inwood sees the female figure on the Mochlos Ring (Fig. 13) as a goddess.72 According to Rutkowski a “Goddess of Fertility” was the focus of worship at the sacred enclosures and Marinatos notes that the “Minoan goddess” always manifests in the vicinity of a tree, in a landscape, or sitting upon a wooden platform situated within a natural setting, citing the Mycenae Acropolis ring as a perfect example of the epiphany of the goddess in conjunction with a tree.73 Glyptic Images as Components of Ritual Narratives Glyptic images of cult activity are commonly thought to be components of larger narratives; “core events” that express the essence of lost fresco paintings depicting the simultaneous representation of successive events, and/or actual ritual events.74 As such, individual glyptic images are proposed to be part of more extensive ritual sequences of seasonal festivals based on an agricultural cycle.75 It is presumed that this festival calendar and ritual order of proceedings could be understood if separate glyptic images were arranged back into their correct sequence, whence they would make a “frieze” of an entire seasonal ritual cycle made up of separate vignettes. Frazer and Harrison argued that all rituals have as their primordial purpose the manipulation of natural phenomena. Minoan glyptic images of ritual tend to be interpreted through this lens according to which they depict elements of the seasonal allegory theory, symbolised by interaction between the Great Mother Goddess of fertility and her dying and rising Consort/Son. While the Minoans, being an agricultural society, probably were concerned with the seasonal revivification of plant life, they are assumed to have participated in such a seasonal festival cycle and the individual images are slotted into it. Glyptic images are presumed to have derived from fresco precedents which, if extant, would help us understand what the image was. The well-known problem in Minoan religion of whether human figures are to be understood as people or deities affects the interpretation of ritual with large females mainly being construed as “the Goddess”. Evans oscillated between interpreting glyptic cult scenes as either supernatural scenes or real-world ritual events. Sometimes both elements are considered present within an image with some human figures interpreted as people and others as deities but without much explanation as to why. The Goddess’s participation in the seasonal vegetation cycle is illustrated by Evans in his combination of separate glyptic images from Mochlos, Amnissos and Tiryns (Figs 13, 44, 48) with the Ring of Minos (Fig. 21) to illustrate his theory that they formed a linked narrative about the departure over the sea and return of “the Goddess”.76 Tree shaking scenes are frequently seized upon to illustrate the presumed seasonal ritual cycle. Harrison compared glyptic images from Mycenae and Vapheio (Figs 6 and 23) depicting human figures pulling or shaking trees which she interpreted as scenes of “fruit-gathering accompanied by ritual dances and gestures” with the panels on the Haghia Triadha sarcophagus (Figs 33 and 41) that




























































70 71 72 73 74 75 76

Harrison 1921, 158–211, 220–1. Nilsson 1950, 264, 282–4. Sakellarakis 1967, 276–281, 280. Rutkowski 1986, 209; Marinatos 1993, 160. Persson 1942, 29. Shanks and Tilley 1987, 128; See Younger 2007. Evans 1936, 951–4.

14

CHAPTER 1

she proposed were “a tree and fruit ceremony”. She also interpreted Side B of the Haghia Triadha sarcophagus through a Durkheimean lens as depicting the transference of “mana” between the bull sacrifice and the tree,77 claiming that the scene referred to the seasonal cycle of the year and depicted “the passing of winter and the coming of spring”. In typical Frazerian mode, Harrison interpreted the Mycenae Acropolis ring (Fig. 5) as combining fruit-harvesting with a “Sacred Marriage” between a sky god and an earth goddess.78 Nilsson interpreted tree cult involving shaking of the tree and dancing, in conjunction with apparent quiet contemplation and touching of the tree and leaning over baetyls, which he felt was expressive of mourning, as evidence that tree cult was “ecstatic or orgiastic”. He saw figures bent over altars or baetyls as “mourning”, concluding that “we have a tree cult with on the one hand joy and dancing, on the other mourning”79 fitting with the Frazerian trope of ritually expressed joy and sorrow in regards to the dying and rising vegetation god. Persson also proposes that the glyptic images depict aspects of “an ancient vegetational religion”80 which he tried to reconstruct by arranging twenty-eight signet rings into a seasonal procession of vignettes. Starting his seasonal “Ring Cycle” in winter, Persson interpreted glyptic images that include pithoi, which he reads as pithos burials, as conveying sorrow at this reminder of mortality. Images of tree-shaking and ecstatic dancing come next, interpreted as attracting the attention of the divinity who will, presumably, change the season. Eventually “sun magic” succeeds in the advent of spring during which the “goddess of nature” manifests herself. This results in more ecstatic dancing, tree-shaking, processions, shrine-decorating and bull-leaping by grateful mortals. Midsummer brings further encounters with deities and animal sacrifice. Autumn manifests in wine offerings to the goddess which symbolise the death of her consort, following which “the universal Goddess of Fertility disappear[s] over the sea, only to return when vegetation is reborn.” 81 Rutkowski also claimed that rituals enacted in the sacred enclosures were designed to positively influence the production of vegetal crops. In his opinion Minoan cult revolved around the growth, maturity and death of plant life, the deities in charge of this being invoked by priestesses and votaries through ecstatic dance. The assumption that the glyptic images represent the very essence of a larger seasonal cycle suggest to him that in reality more people would have been involved in the event.82 Marinatos proposes that the purpose of tree-cult was to welcome a fertility deity.83 In Minoan Religion: Ritual, Image and Symbol she argued that the trees on top of cult structures were brought by boat to the location of the shrine at certain festival times. The placement of the tree on top of an otherwise empty shrine announced the arrival of the deity; and pithoi containing stored agricultural produce or wine may have been ceremonially opened, as was done in the Hittite cult of the mountain god Halwana as well as later Greek religion at the time of the Anthesteria.84 Marinatos interprets images in which a baetyl appears in conjunction with a tree as depicting a dual-phase ritual characterised by extroverted tree-shaking and introverted baetyl-hugging which were part of “initiation rites involving the psychological manipulation of the participants who experienced contrasting moods by handling the tree... [resulting in] the vision of a deity”.85 Tree-shaking and baetyl-hugging evoked a resolution




























































77

78 79 80 81

82 83 84

85

In his 1912 book, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, sociologist Émile Durkheim (1858–1917) used the Austronesian word “mana” (supernatural power, effectiveness, prestige) to describe an anonymous, impersonal force, immanent in the world and diffused amongst its various objects, as characteristic of the religious beliefs of primitive peoples. Harrison 1921, 165–9, 178. Nilsson 1950, 277. Persson 1942, 23, 25. Evans (1936, 954) and Persson (1942, 100) suggested such a goddess. Marinatos (1989, 141–2; 1993, 163– 4) also accepts a “departing and arriving over the sea” deity. Rutkowski 1986, 111–114, 208–9. Marinatos 1989, 142. Marinatos 1990, 183, 88–9. Depictions of pithoi in glyptic are sometimes confused with baetyls in the literature. Kyriakidis 2001, 117–8. Marinatos 1993, 187.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

15

between the contrast of life and death, and hovering animals and objects indicated a “cycle of transformation”, which communicated a positive message about destruction and regeneration.86 She proposes that shaking of the tree was undertaken in order to bend it out of shape, break it and ultimately destroy it, as the tree symbolised a seasonal fertility festival which had now come to an end. Images of tree-shaking thus signified the end of one ritual period and the beginning of another. Images that depict ritual performed around an intact tree-shrine therefore represent the period and corresponding activities before the end of the season and the tree’s destruction. 87 More recently Marinatos has changed her interpretation of tree cult in the light of Near Eastern texts that describe frenzied prophets, reading the elite females in such images as queens enacting ritual designed to lead to an ecstatic prophetic state.88 As well as depicting stages in the progression of seasonal festivals, glyptic images of ritual are also thought to represent temporal sequences within individual glyptic compositions. Tree-shaking is frequently proposed as causing the epiphanic manifestation of a deity, despite the fact that in many glyptic examples hovering figures, creatures and objects appear without tree-shaking. Dimopoulou and Rethemiotakis propose that the male figure shaking the tree in a ring from Poros (Fig. 29) causes the appearance of a large female figure, interpreted as a goddess.89 Thus the image depicts a physical human ritual activity that has led to a supernatural result. Galanakis reverses the order, making the goddess’s epiphany come before the tree-shaking, asserting that the association between the treeshaking and epiphany “could not have been more evident.”90 Younger proposes, in regard to images containing both trees and baetyls, that “in the ceremony, a woman would stand on the pavement while a man or woman would pull at the tree that grew, perhaps, in a pithos set within the kerb...A man or woman would embrace the omphalos hoping for a sign of favour from the divinity (possibly a passing bird, dragonfly or butterfly).”91 Glyptic images in which trees are juxtaposed with boats or a seascape have been particularly troublesome in regard to whether they depict human beings or deities. Evans interpreted figures in the Ring of Minos (Fig. 21) as both human beings and goddesses, while Platon interprets the female figure in the boat as a “Sea-Goddess”. Warren sees the Ring of Minos as depicting a ritual event, with the tree-pulling resulting in the appearance of the tiny epiphanic female figure. Dimopoulou and Rethemiotakis interpret the image as depicting both goddesses and mortals, and Goodison reads the large figures as human and the tiny epiphanic figure as a deity.92 Scholars are also in disagreement as to whether a goddess in a boat brings or removes the tree from the ritual structure at a certain season or whether the figure is a human woman. The Pharaoh Hatshepsut’s importation of incense trees from Punt is cited as an example of the ability to transport real trees in boats.93 Sourvinou-Inwood mixes a supernatural and a human ritual event into the one interpretation of the Mochlos Ring, seeing a goddess from the sea “arriving at or departing from a sanctuary where she is going to assist, or has just assisted, at the performance of the ritual.”94 Marinatos also interprets the figure as a goddess from the sea arriving in a boat, and Soles sees the figure as an “archetypal image of the goddess in her boat”.95 This is in contrast to the Makrygialos Seal (Fig. 43) which is predominantly interpreted as depicting a human.96 Tree cult images involving boats are inevitably incorporated into




























































86 87 88 89 90 91 92

93 94 95 96

Marinatos 1990, 84, 91. Marinatos 1990, 85; 1993, 187–8. The staff the Muses gave Hesiod was of Laurel. O’Bryhim 1996, 4. Dimopoulou and Rethemiotakis 2000, 44–8; Nilsson 1950, 351–2; Marinatos 1993, 190–2. Galanakis 2005, 89. Younger 2009, 49; Ortner 1972. Day 2012, 11–21; Evans 1936, 950–6; Platon 1984, 68; Warren 1987, 492; Dimopoulou and Rethemiotakis 2004, 16. Day 2012, 17; M. Shaw 2000. Sourvinou-Inwood 1973, 149–158; 1989, 97-100. Marinatos 1989, 132; Soles 2012. Sourvinou-Inwood 1989, 97–100; Davaras 1997, 117–134.

16

CHAPTER 1

the presumed seasonal cycle in which the “goddess” represents fertility. Goodison, although recognising that such a model derives from Frazer’s seasonal allegory, claims that “for the Minoans the symbolic boat journey of the female figure may have been based on the departure of a season, the disappearance of vegetation, the passing on of the dead, the setting of the sun, or some blend of those elements”.97 Explaining the Actual Tree The actual tree in images of tree cult has been the recipient of varying interpretations ranging from the claim that trees are just signs, to the proposal that the tree is the abode of a deity, and even a sentient being in itself. Attempts to interpret the tree usually start off with speculation on the species of tree depicted, in conjunction with the assumption that it is representative of the vegetation cycle. The various types of foliage evident in the depictions of trees in the glyptic, fresco, stone vase and ivory images investigated here show that different types of trees are portrayed, but whether they can be definitively identified is another matter. Evans proposes that the tree on the Mycenae Acropolis ring (Fig. 5) is a grape vine with bunches of grapes, but this is definitely incorrect as grapes do not grow on trees.98 His suggestion that trees with broad leaves signify fig trees and that those with small leaves are olive trees has subsequently been prevalent in glyptic studies. Foliage apparently consisting of globules and leaves surrounded by dots are suggested to be fruit, although this feature is also claimed to indicate bees.99 In none of the glyptic cases is it really possible to identify tree species, however, except for palm trees which are very distinctive (Table. 7).100 Nevertheless, there are obviously different types of trees depicted in images of tree cult and these may signify particular variations of cult.101 Table 7. Types of Trees


Broad Leaf/“Fig” CMS I 126 CMS II3 252 CMS II6 2 CMS V 198 CMS VI2 280 Gypsadhes Rhyton

Total 6

Thin Leaf/“Olive” CMS I 219 CMS IB 114 CMS II3 305 CMS XI 28 CMS XI 29 CMS XII 264 HM 989 HM 1043 HM 1700 Mochlos Pyxis Xeste 3 Fresco

Palm Tree

Branch

CMS I 410 CMS IS 114 CMS VS IA 55 CMS VS IA 75 CMS V2 608 CMS IX 163 Griffin Warrior Ring 2 H. Triadha Sarc. B

CMS I 127 CMS II3 7 CMS VS1A 178 Peak Sanct. Rhyton Psychro Plaque

Total 8

Total 5

Total 11

Just Fruit CMS I 17 CMS VI2 277 HM 1629

Total 3

Unidentifiable CMS I 119 CMS II3 15 CMS II3 114 CMS II6 1 CMS II6 5 CMS II6 6 CMS II7 1 CMS VS1A 176 CMS VS 279 CMS VI2 281 Griffin Warrior Ring 2 H. Triadha Sarc. A Total 12






























































97 98

99

100

101

Goodison 2010, 23–5. Evans 1901, 101; Evans 1936, 394–5, 68. Younger [pers. comm. 1/11/16] and Moody 2017 comment that grape vines can be trained onto trees. While the tree in CMS I No.17 bears fruit, it does not have grape leaves and could feasibly be any one of a number of fruiting trees. Crowley 2014a. Such dots have also been interpreted as silk moths (Van Damme 2012) and fig wasps (Dabney 2014). Moody 2017 rightly notes that the genus and species of plants in Minoan iconography are notoriously difficult to identify, and that most Minoan iconographic representations of trees can be divided – at best – into “palms and not-palms”. Marinatos 1989, 136.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

17

Even in the larger format of fresco painting, trees are not always easier to identify. Harrison sees “an unmistakable olive-tree” growing between the horns of consecration on Side B of the Haghia Triadha sarcophagus, as do Marinatos and Moody, but this really appears to be a palm tree.102 Rutkowski claims to distinguish fig, olive and palm trees in glyptic imagery and considers matching specific tree species with their known habitats within the Cretan landscape, abandoning the idea, however, because the trees occur over too broad a geographical range to be able to pinpoint actual sites. He concludes that glyptic depictions of trees are really too simplified to be able to identify the species.103 Marinatos is also of this opinion but does note that the trees are depicted in full leaf “in the season of their prime.”104 As well as the question of the types of trees in cult scenes, scholars have also suggested various reasons as to why particular trees were apparently sacred. As Day notes, trees have many practical uses and qualities that could contribute to their sacredness, including as sources of food and medicine, craft and building products.105 The assumption that the trees in images of tree cult are producers of food or other useful products often goes hand-in-hand with the suggestion that tree-shaking is a magical attempt to encourage the tree to be fruitful. Rutkowski attributes the importance of trees within cult to their fruit-bearing function and proposes that tree cult was concerned with sources of food and the life cycle of plants upon which humans were dependant in an agrarian society.106 Galanakis sees the trees as signifiers of seasonal variation and fruit-collecting and Goodison notes that tree-shaking scenes resemble olive harvesting. 107 A recent interpretation proposes that trees were sacred because they were old or rare.108 Both Goodison and Day suggest that Crete was wetter in the Bronze Age than today and that increasing aridity in the Mediterranean, possibly due to climate change, meant the subsequent disappearance of certain trees. Species such as Oriental plane and linden may thus have once been more prevalent. Sacred trees may therefore have been chosen from disappearing species due to environmental crisis as signifiers of rarity. Tree cult, according to this theory then, was concerned with the changing environment.109 Cultic attention paid to trees was probably due to both their practical and symbolic associations. We have seen how Evans believed that trees could become “possessed” by a supernatural being. Nilsson suggested that trees were worshipped as “abodes of the deities” as well as “by virtue of their own merits”; a tree may also be sacred because it belonged to a sacred grove inhabited by a god or contained his temple.110 Marinatos initially interpreted trees as signs that marked a sacred area as a site for cultic activity, particularly animal sacrifice. Later she suggested that the purpose of tree-cult was to welcome a deity and its associated fertility. Rather than being objects of worship; however, trees were fertility and prosperity signs, symbolic of a seasonal cycle and focused upon within ritual in order to produce epiphany.111 Galanakis considers the sacred tree to be “part of the cultic apparatus...an inseparable part of the environment where these divinities seem to appear or reside.” 112 As Goodison reminds us, however, there is little concrete evidence for anthropomorphic deities in Minoan religion. She proposes instead that the tree itself could be the focus of veneration although rather than “worshipping” the tree, Minoan cult practitioners may have been in communication with




























































102

103 104 105 106 107 108

109 110 111 112

Harrison 1903, 160–1; Marinatos 1986, 27; Moody 2017 notes that palms are associated with shrines but do not grow on top of them, however as well as Side B of the Haghia Triadha Sarcophagus palms appear on top of altars CMS I No.140 and XI No.163. Even at peak sanctuaries. Rutkowski 1986, 99. Marinatos 1990, 85. Day 2012, 11–21. Rutkowski, 1986, 107. Galanakis 2005, 93–4; Goodison 2010, 14–15. Moody (2017) classifies trees that are not necessarily old but that have character, are scarred and twisted, and host a diversity of life forms as “Veteran trees”. Goodison 2010, 16; Day 2012, 11–21. Nilsson 1950, 262–264, 283–4. Marinatos 1989, 138, 142; Marinatos 1984,116; 1990, 85. Galanakis 2005, 93.

18

CHAPTER 1

it. Looking to Homeric texts about oracular trees, magical branches, wands, staffs and sceptres that provide divine wisdom, knowledge and power, Goodison proposed that Minoan sacred trees functioned as mediators between the human and supernatural realms.113 In recent years animism has been re-introduced as an explanation of the sacred tree. Rather than the Tylorian animism utilised by Evans, this “new animism” is associated with the work of Irving Hallowell who posits a reflexive relatedness between humans and the natural environment which is perceived as being sentient.114 In regard to Minoan tree cult, rather than Evans’ view in which spirits or supernatural beings arrive from elsewhere and possess objects such as trees, implying a separation between nature and “supernature”, the new animism perceives aspects of the material world as sentient in itself. According to this view, a tree might be treated as if it were a person rather than a thing. Instead of perceiving Minoan tree cult as involving “divine” beings that are “worshipped”, tree cult rituals may be re-interpreted as events in which humans interacted with specific elements of the animate landscape.115 Minoan sacred trees also have gendered associations. In images of tree cult in all media there is a predominance of examples that feature only females (22). Females and males together in the same scene form the next largest category (15), while images which only feature males are few (5) (Table 8). This does not necessarily indicate that tree cult was a sign of matriarchal society although it does appear to suggest that women were important participants. Marinatos proposed that the prominence of female figures meant that the gold rings were owned by priestesses; however, as evident when rings are found in both male and female burials, ownership by women is not always the case. In “Role and Sex Division in Ritual Scenes of Aegean Art” she notes that generally in the majority of glyptic as well as fresco the sexes are depicted as participating in cult separately, except for in images involving trees, and that only female figures are depicted sitting under trees while males never are. 116 Younger concludes that the tree is “more feminine, being natural” in contrast to baetylic stones which he sees as “more masculine, being shaped and placed”.117 In this analysis he specifically cited Sherry Ortner’s paper “Is female to male as nature is to culture?” suggesting therefore that the tree belongs to an assumed feminine realm of nature, while the stone is from the masculine realm of culture.118






























































113

114 115 116

117

118

Goodison 2009, 56–7; 2010, 20–21, 29–30, 36. While probable Minoan deities are mentioned in the Linear B texts from Knossos, we cannot match them to iconographic representations of anthropomorphic figures (Gulizio and Nakassis 2014, 117–120). Anthropomorphic figures that might be deities, or at least have a supernatural aura or associations, are those that hover in the air (epiphanies) or those accompanied by unusual or fictional animals. Britomartis and Diktynna date to the Roman period (Gulizio and Nakassis 2014, 116–17, March 2002, 170), however, Diktynna at least may derive from a Minoan theonym, pi-pi-tu-na (Gulizio and Nakassis 2014, 121). But still, we do not know whether this goddess was actually anthropomorphic, or which anthropomorphic images of females might be this goddess. Hallowell 1960; Crooks, Tully and Hitchcock 2016; Tully and Crooks 2015. Day 2012, 11–21. Marinatos 1990, 90–1; 1987, 25–8, 33. Paul Rehak (2000, 271–2) notices this too; Marinatos 1989, 130, 136; 1993, 181. Younger 2009, 49. This is in contrast to the aniconic representation of Aphrodite as a baetylic stone at Kouklia-Palaepaphos in Cyprus. Crooks 2012, 38. Ortner 1972; Gero and Conkey 1991, 19, 116, 152, 403.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

19

Table 8. Gender and Tree Cult


Females CMS I 17 CMS I 127

Amount 5, poss. 6 2

Males CMS I 119 CMS V2 608

Amount 1 m 1 goat 1

CMS I 410 CMS IS 114

1 1 f, 1 monkey

HM 1043 Gypsadhes Rhyton Psychro Plaque

1 2

CMS II3 114 CMS II7 1

1f 1m 1m 1 f epiph

1

CMS VI2 277 CMS XI 29 CMS VI2 280 CMS VI2 281 CMS XI 28 HM 989 HM 1629 HM 1700 Mochlos Pyxis H. Triadha A H. Triadha B

11f 3m 3f 1m 3f 8m 1f 1m epiph 1f 1m 2m 1f 2m 1f 3f 1m 4f 2m 2 f 5m 4f 1m

Total 6

Total 15

Total 39f 31m

CMS II3 7 CMS II3 15 CMS II3 252 CMS II6 1 CMS II6 2 CMS II6 5 CMS II6 6 CMS II3 305 CMS VSIA 55 CMS VSIA 75 CMS VSIA 75 CMS VSIA 178 CMS VSIB 114 CMS VI 279 CMS IX 163 CMS XII 264 Griffin Warrior Ring 2 Xeste 3 Total 22

1 1 1 3 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 5 3 Total 42

Total 5

Mixed CMS I 126 CMS I 219

Amount 2f 1m 1f 1m

Other CMS V 198 Peak Sanct. Rhyton119

Total 2

Amount 1 Bull No people

Total 2

Elite Ideology As Evans found out as he excavated the site of the palace of Knossos, rather than being able to designate the Minoans as “primitive”, as he had initially thought, it seemed that instead they were really rather advanced.120 Marinatos argues that Minoan Crete was a theocratic monarchy and thus ought to be compared with similar kingdoms of the ancient Near East. She interprets prominent female figures in glyptic images of tree cult as queens who were also automatically high priestesses, rather than goddesses, and when in conjunction with subordinate male figures indicate a queen mother and her son the king.121 Like the sealing system in the Near East, Minoan glyptic images were part of the palatial administration system and the precious metal rings and stones seals upon which such images appeared would have belonged to palatial emissaries. That tree cult featured in glyptic iconography suggests therefore that rather than being a sign of primitivism, it was of high status and embraced by palatial functionaries who were the representatives of rulers. Inextricably linked with a state-level society, such imagery therefore must reflect elite ideology.122 Scope for Further Research Despite the work of scholars over the last hundred-plus years, Minoan tree cult is still not satisfactorily understood. The question of whether the presence of sacred trees can be considered evidence that Minoan religion was aniconic has not been sufficiently investigated. Conversely, an interpretation of




























































119

120 121 122

Although not present, women are implied on the Peak Sanctuary Rhyton because it depicts two harvested and one unharvested crocus plants implying that women had been there because in Aegean art only women and monkeys pick crocuses. McEnroe 1995, 5. Marinatos 2009; 2007. For elaboration on categories of elites in the Pylian Linear B tablets and therefore how Minoan elites might also be characterised see Nakassis 2013, 15–17, 26, 165–66.

20

CHAPTER 1

anthropomorphism that uses the outdated duotheistic model of a goddess of fertility and her son whose lifecycle represents the vegetation cycle is unlikely for Late Bronze Age Crete.123 That Minoan glyptic images represent separate vignettes from this larger seasonal cycle or from lost large artworks representing it really involves pinning such images onto thin air. While it is probable that the Minoans were interested in, celebrated and sought to influence the vegetation cycle, the implication that a sacred tree was only representative of vegetation needs to be interrogated. In addition, the suggestion that glyptic imagery can tell us exactly where the ritual events depicted occurred assumes topographic verity, while the cult structures within the ritual scenes need far more precise identification and categorisation. That Minoan religion involved divine possession is a reasonable proposal and deserves more interrogation in light of up-to-date anthropological scholarship. The interpretation of Minoan tree cult through the lens of “new” animism is a valuable direction for scholarship that promises to provide a credible explanation of Minoan religion, but which needs much more work. The suggestion that images and enactment of tree cult were the concern of Minoan elites is likely but requires an explanation that can reconcile the interpretation of animism, usually associated with hunter-gatherer societies, with what must necessarily be its incorporation into the ideology of a state-level society. That Late Bronze Age Crete was part of an interconnected Mediterranean region means that it is feasible to suggest that tree cult exemplified a common religious language and therefore to use comparative ethnographic examples to elucidate the nature of Minoan religion, particularly because of the absence of translated texts from Minoan Crete that might provide explanation. As it stands then, the problem I am tackling is not yet solved and still raises some interesting questions which this study will address: What is the nature of Minoan religion? What is the meaning of the sacred tree? And can Minoan tree cult be explained by examining the phenomenon of sacred trees in the eastern Mediterranean?































































123

Although such deity types could have been part of a wider polytheistic pantheon, as were deities such as Tammuz or Adonis.

CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Previous scholarship on Minoan images of tree cult suggests that understanding of the subject is more likely to be achieved through approaching it from a number of perspectives. Therefore in my study I use a broadly tenfold approach, sections of which are further sub-divided into their own investigatory facets. Each of the chapters of the book looks at both archaeological and iconographic evidence for tree cult. The four Aegean chapters, being the main focus of the research, require deep analysis and are therefore structured in a tripartite form, while the comparative eastern Mediterranean chapters are divided only into the two categories of iconographic and archaeological evidence. To begin with, the Aegean evidence is categorised according to the types of structure or lack thereof that the tree is associated with, resulting in the establishment of four groups. The approach to each of these four categories is then triangulated in order to complement the complexity of the subject and move it beyond the binarism characteristic of previous studies concerned with the equivalence between image and cult site. Each of the Aegean chapters thus begins by re-visiting the concern with identifying physical correspondences for the imagery of Minoan tree cult evident in previous scholarship. It is then shown, through the application of the Derridan concept of the parergon (frame)1 and problematisation of the miniaturisation characteristic of glyptic art, that rather than focussing outward to archaeological sites for answers regarding Minoan tree cult, it is necessarily to focus upon the iconography itself. The imagery is then analysed according to Peircean semiotics 2 and iconographic representation of cultic symbolism is discussed. The images are then analysed in accordance with the religio-anthropological category of [new] animism; compared to eastern Mediterranean tree cult via ethnographic analogy; and ultimately interpreted through the NeoMarxist lens of ideology. This multifaceted approach advances beyond earlier scholarship because it employs the promising directions identified by previous researchers but delves far more deeply into them, and also introduces new methods which with to interrogate the evidence in order to squeeze meaning out of iconography. Four Categories of Minoan Tree Cult In order to understand the meaning of Minoan images of tree cult, it is essential to be precise about exactly what it is that we are looking at. First then, the images are divided into four different categories according to the absence, presence and types of architectural structures associated with the tree. These categories are: trees in rocky ground; trees with walls; trees with cult structures; and trees in boats. Each category receives its own chapter; however, the order in which the categories appear, rather than suggesting a linear progression of connected ritual activity, is based on different types of human responses to the tree as expressed by the absence, and then presence, of built structures.






























































1

2

Jacques Derrida (1930–2004) uses the term to deconstruct the distinction between the inside of the frame (the ergon or work) and outside of the frame (parergon) in order to go beyond these binary oppositions and to highlight what is excluded from the work, but still present. A triadic system of semiotics composed of the interpretant, representamen, and object, invented by American philosopher, Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914).

22

CHAPTER 2

Triangulating the Approach Within the individual chapters the images are analysed according to French psychoanalyst and psychiatrist, Jacques Lacan’s (1901–1981), categories of “the Real, the Symbolic and the Imaginary”; a psychoanalytic model conceived as a system of interacting realms, orders, or registers in which the psyche functions. The “Real” is the wider reality behind, or the source of, that which we attempt to make finite through recognition and labelling. The “Imaginary” refers to the realm of sensorial perception, and the “Symbolic” is the realm of the psyche that holds language, the Other, societal rules, and the unconscious.3 Lacan likened the interconnection of these three realms to a knot made up of three threads which were impossible to disentangle from each other. 4 The use of these categories in this study, however, is not in accordance with the psychoanalytic application in which they mirror phases of human psychological growth, but rather the terms “Real, Symbolic and Imaginary” are to be understood literally. Instead of “realms” or “orders” of the psyche therefore, in this reading the Lacanian terms refer to their common meanings: the “Real” thus refers to the concrete and actual phenomena of the material world; the “Imaginary” is to be understood as the unreal and fictitious; and the “Symbolic” as representative of or standing for something else. Lacan’s order is also rearranged so that it proceeds beginning with the Real, followed by the Imaginary, then the Symbolic. In regard to the study of Minoan tree cult, the category of the “Real” responds to the assumption evident in previous scholarship that glyptic images depict the actual locations of the events portrayed. The “Imaginary” focuses upon the images themselves, including their separate components or motifs and the ways in which these have been brought together in order to construct an image, and the “Symbolic” proposes meanings for such images. In this approach, the Imaginary is shown to function as the signifier of both the Real and the Symbolic; it represents the idea while the signified represents both its foundation and its trajectory. The Imaginary is a realm of illusion necessary for conceptualisation of an intended message/idea about the Real. It is through the analysis of the Symbolic that an intellectual apprehension of the meaning of the Imaginary can be achieved. This triadic approach roughly corresponds to Henri Lefebvre’s triangulation of space which he terms “perceived, conceived, and lived space”. Perceived space is the domain of activities and performances that inscribe practice upon a location; conceived space is planned, administered and consciously constructed terrain; and lived space is representational space, mediated through images and symbols addressed to the imagination.5 Lefebvre’s three categories in turn can be seen to inform what W.J.T. Mitchell calls “space, place and landscape”. In this model, place is a specific location, space is a site activated by movements, actions, narratives, and signs, and a landscape is that image encountered as image or “sight”. While Lacan’s, Lefebvre’s and Mitchell’s models do not correspond exactly, their use is in providing conceptual dimensionality or a “dialectical triad, a conceptual structure that may be activated from several different angles” to the study of images of tree cult. 6 Rather than approaching the topic as a simple binary between places and images, seeking to know “where” and “what”, a triangulated approach adds “why” – why focus upon the tree, why depict this? Architectural Analysis Beginning with the category of “the Real”, the question of whether images of tree cult can inform us about the precise location – or the types of location – that the images depict is examined through the investigation of cult sites situated within the vicinity of the findspots of the imagery, to see if they can be matched to the images. Iconographic images of tree cult include structures over which trees seem to appear, or be placed upon, and which have been interpreted as temenos walls, shrines, and




























































3 4 5 6

Bailly 2009, 222, 220. Bailly 2009, 88–108; Shepherdson 2003; Eyers 2012. Lefebvre 1991, 38–46; Smith 2003, 72–73. Mitchell 2002; Soja 1996; Lefebvre 1991; Smith 2003.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

23

containers. The aim of this part of the investigation is to determine whether components of the iconographic depictions of architecture can be discerned within the physical spaces of three dimensional cult sites. This involves identifying architectural structures within the images and then investigating whether such structures appear at actual cult sites, which if they do would suggest a relationship of truthful representation between the imagery and the real site. To this end, sites ranging from those at extra-urban locations such as peak, rural and cave sanctuaries, to monumental buildings located within urban settlements are examined.7 Sacred enclosures or rural sanctuaries are the main type of site that images of tree cult in Minoan glyptic are thought to depict; however, this is too narrow a category. While we know that architecturally elaborated (as opposed to ephemeral) rural cult sites existed and that their location within the landscape may have meant that the presence of sacred trees was to be expected, other more urban cult sites also may have included such a feature. Parergon and Miniatursation It is determined, however, that the parergon – the frame that surrounds and distinguishes the ergon or work of art and functions as its invisible edge, border, boundary and limit, as theorised by Jacques Derrida8 – and the miniatursation of the images, restrict the identification of location. While some association between the depiction of architecture in Minoan images of tree cult and actual examples at rural and urban sites is evident, other factors preclude an absolute matching between the iconography and the sites it is thought to represent. The fact that the iconographic examples are only partial depictions of real places, as a result of being contained within a small space as well as their very small size, suggests that they simply cannot depict actual cult sites which are many times larger and include far more features than can be fitted into a tiny two dimensional space. Images of tree cult are therefore conceptually ruptured from an association with “the Real” through the enclosing parergon. Real cult sites are present only through traces therefore, as while the parergon can function as a brisure or hinge between the artwork and its subject, its presence means that the image cannot be wholly identified with the physical reality of its subject. That which is left out of the frame may in fact be tangibly “other than” what is represented inside it. In reality, the elite body is the frame of the glyptic artwork, the wearing and use of the images meaning that they are in fact located on a human “ground”. That the parergon is naturalised by the modern viewer of decontextualised images of tree cult is the cause of the assumption of equality between image and site. The fact that the images are miniaturised also means that they cannot be thought of as realistic depictions of ritual events at specific locations. Not only does the visual editing involved in creating a tiny glyptic image reduce such scenes from being a depiction of realistic space – a canonical form9 – to an abbreviation, such miniaturisation concentrates the communicative properties of the image,




























































7

8

9

The examination of cult sites within the vicinity of the image-bearing object’s findspot, rather than suggesting that the objects originated in those locations (although they may have, and were owned and presumably commissioned by people living and working in those locations) is simply a convenient way of grouping sites to examine by geographical area. While portable objects such as rings and sealings may not have originated in the locations in which they were later discovered, the purpose is not to identify the origin of their imagery but to identify the types of structures and objects depicted. See also Constantinidis and Karali 2012. Derrida 1987; 3–41; Marin 1996; Gillies 1996, 25. The term parergon is used in this thesis as a response to previous scholars’ problematic penchant for “matching” tiny glyptic images with actual cult sites, based on the assumption that glyptic images are partial scenes of a larger physical cult site. The use of the term parergon here indicates that the glyptic frame forms the conceptual border between the image and the canonical sanctuary site because glyptic images and physical cult site are connected only conceptually, mnemonically, through minimalist signs, rather than veristically. The glyptic image is an aesthetic bridge between an (absent) cult site and human perception. Also, use of parergon acknowledges that this study of Aegean art is undertaken from within a history of art and aesthetics informed by French philosophy of the 1980s and 1990s, as all art history since that time cannot help but be. Knappett 2012.

24

CHAPTER 2

turning it from a scene into a sign. It is likely that the iconographic components that appear in the images of tree cult were not simply randomly selected or chosen for their aesthetic properties, but were deliberately decided upon in order to express the worldview of the Minoan elites. Because they consist of excised motifs from the repertoire of real-world events and locations, glyptic images of tree cult are not just naturally small scenes – icons or mimetic models – but miniatures. Models or dioramas seek accuracy in representation whereas miniatures are not precise or exact: models are shrunk while miniatures are edited.10 To miniaturise is to manipulate the form and content of an original in order to create an image of something that does not actually exist but which retains some reference to the real world. That which has not already had material being cannot be miniaturised. Although miniatures derive from a canonical form, they are not natural, but are culturally constructed creations resulting from experimentation with the physical world.11 Iconographic Analysis For this reason then it is necessary to seek to understand images of tree cult by reading the components that are actually present within the images. Minoan images of tree cult consist of human figures in conjunction with trees set within a backdrop of landscape, architecturally elaborated contexts, and with boats. Instead of looking away from the imagery in an attempt to apply it to actual sites, the iconography of Minoan tree cult must be engaged with. The Minoan artistic idiom tends to be characterised by reasonably anatomically correctly-rendered human figures and realistic rather than stylised vegetation, and rather more ambiguously rendered but still recognisable rocks and built structures. 12 These are combined with unrealistic variations in scale and proportion, such as mountains or buildings depicted at reduced scale in order to fit within the artwork and fantastic elements that would not be physically seen such as hovering human figures, creatures and objects, and placed on a field characterised by shallow perspective. Thus despite the apparently realistic appearance of images of tree cult, rather than being actual portraits of people or records of live events, such pictures are constructed of separate motifs derived from both canonical forms based in reality and symbolic forms, that are brought together to create specific narratives. The images therefore fall into the category of the Imaginary and thus, rather than being “scenes”, are “signs”. Peircean Semiotics If artworks are signs or composed of a combination of signs, they cannot be understood simply as visual representations, but also concern the articulation of meaning.13 The semiotic function of glyptic images of tree cult will be analysed through Charles Sanders Peirce’s triadic scheme of Icon, Index and Symbol to show that they do not literally stand for a ritual event at a cult site, but rather for the association of elite figures and sacred trees at such a site.14 Minoan images of tree cult consist of Peirce’s three sign types: the icon, index and symbol15 and overall can be considered examples of combined performative and abductive indices. Performative indices are sign expressions that create their referent when enunciated. In the case of glyptic images of tree cult, the link between the referent and the sign is not causal; there is no spatiotemporal connection between them. The enunciation of the sign expression – the glyptic image – generates the referent of the sign – the cult event.16 In other words, instead of describing a state of affairs (“this is a realistic rendition of a ritual event at a cult site”) the sign creates them (“this is a particular version of




























































10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Bailey 2005, 29. Stewart 1997, 29, 79, 81; Bailey 2005, 29–30; Price and Trell 1977; Winter 2010; Tully 2012. Groenewegen-Frankfort 1951; Morgan 1985. Potts 2003, 21; Gell 1998; Olsen 1990. Peirce 1932, 2. Preucel 2006, 56. Knappett 2005, 93; Sonesson 1989, 53.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

25

a ritual event at a cult site”). The edited image is not portraying an actual scene, but constructing one – a sign. The whole package that is the artwork displaying an image of tree cult is a performative index, but its content and the arrangement thereof is an abductive index. Abductive indices are signs that require prior knowledge in order to be understood. They build upon factoralities – the relationship between a part and a whole.17 The edited nature of glyptic images of tree cult, particularly the architectural components which are only shown partially, allude to a larger reality existing outside the frame.18 Meaning is not directly present in the images but is perceived and understood through cognitive association. That which is missing within the image presumes prior knowledge of its entirety in order to make sense of it, to know what – and where – it depicts.19 Glyptic images of tree cult are abductive indices as they rely on prior knowledge of what a site of tree cult looks like, what people are likely to be doing in such a place, and what their interaction with the tree indicates. Knowledge of the traces of the canonical scene by the ancient Minoan viewer enabled recognition, legibility and the consequent decipherment of the miniature images. Therefore, Minoan glyptic images of tree cult are performative indices that are also heavily abductive.20 They are performative in their creation of the referent and abductive in requiring prior knowledge in order for the viewer to know what that referent is. The separate iconic components of the image; the figures, architectural elements, landscape components and sacred tree are also indexical, requiring degrees of familiarity in order to be read. The flounced skirt of female figures may have been self-evident in suggesting elite participants, while the partial renditions of architecture assume familiarity with the whole structure, and the symbolic nature of the tree is a result of cultural convention. The tree itself can be understood variably as an icon, index or symbol: visually it is iconic; the tree functions as a performative index when an epiphanic deity emerges from it; and is ultimately symbolic in its signification of the association between rulership and fertility, abundance, and order. Towards Meaning As signs rather than scenes, images of tree cult thus belong in the category of the Symbolic. In his discussion of cultic symbolism within iconography, Renfrew explains that “The relation between symbol and meaning may become conventionalised: that is to say, the meaning is repeatedly and regularly represented by the same form, and that form is repeatedly and regularly used to convey that meaning.” It is proposed in this study that while the motif of the tree indicates a literal tree, it is evident from the repeated examples depicting its cultic context and treatment that it also has a specific symbolic meaning that is common across the artistic genres of the Aegean Neopalatial period. According to Renfrew, “Symbols are often habitually used together within the same context. When such a context may be established, an association of symbolism with meaning in one case may be assumed in another when it is less apparent.” Trees are often depicted in conjunction with rocky landscape formations and vertical or stepped architectural structures, and female figures often accompany or even replace the trees in these contexts. The Cretan landscape, as represented by the trope of tree and mountain, is therefore proposed to be a symbolic theme in images of tree cult, even in cases where this is not depicted literally but architectonically. In addition, Renfrew suggests that “The form of symbols is frequently not arbitrary but relates graphically to the concept represented. In some cases the association is intrinsic to nature...in others it functions by metonymy.”21 Through general form, silhouette and proximal association, female figures in elite costume, trees, mountains and cult structures are all symbolically interconnected, suggesting an allegorical relationship based upon the perceived natures of these motifs that are also expressed in visual form. The question,




























































17 18 19 20 21

Knappett 2005, 93; 2012, 5. Stewart 2007, xii. Knappett 2012, 1–2. Knappett 2005, 93. Renfrew 1985, 18–20.

26

CHAPTER 2

however, is why? Why are these individual signs brought together in artwork to make more complex signs and what do they mean? In order to propose answers to these questions the separate categories of trees in rocky ground, trees with walls, trees with cult structures, and trees in boats, will be analysed through the lenses of new animism, ethnographic analogy, and ideology, leading to an interpretation of the images of Minoan tree cult as a whole. Animism Animism, as re-theorised by Hallowell, is an ontology that derives from the interdependent relationship of humans with the material world which is assumed to be sentient.22 As such it can be communicated with in a direct way and incorporated into social relationships. This worldview, characterised by the ability of people, places and things to communicate with each other, is described by Nurit Bird-David as a “relational epistemology”. 23 Although originally thought by Tylor to exemplify the worldview of “primitive” hunter-gatherer societies, animism is a widespread ontology that is held within a wide range of social structures, economies, beliefs, and world-views. The main way animism is used in regard to the interpretation of Minoan tree cult is in proposing an explanation for images of human figures interacting with trees. While interaction with a cultic focal point is generally assumed to involve veneration, rather than actually worshipping sacred trees, it is suggested that Minoan figures in images of tree cult are in relationship with them. In this reading, the tree, along with other animate beings with which the Minoans share their world, is seen as an “other-than-human person”. In Hallowell’s terminology, the term “person” refers not only to the possession of human characteristics, but to all beings that communicate intentionally and act towards others relationally. Rather than being a nominal category, “person” is a performative term that designates the state beings are in when they are relating with each other. As Vesa PekkaHerva explains, animism is: a shorthand term for sociality, two-way relatedness, between humans and the non-human environment...the animistic aspect refers not to a belief system but to a way of perceiving and living with the environment... as a result of prolonged involvement in the social world, certain landscape elements developed into persons, or person-like beings, and people maintained relationships with them that are broadly comparable to the relationships between human subjects.24 Other-than-human-persons such as trees then are not personified and then socialised with, but are personified because they are socialised with.25 Such a worldview in which humans are not separate from other beings or from the environment dissolves the post-Enlightenment nature-culture dualism. Instead of conceiving “nature” as an inert background to dynamic human culture, an animist ontology recognises a multi-species cultural community. Thus, images of Minoan tree cult may be interpreted as depicting events in which humans interacted with specific sentient elements of the landscape that possessed varying degrees of power.26 Ethnographic Analogy As a result of the lack of translated texts from Bronze Age Crete and the mainly administrative nature of the Mycenaean Linear B script, study of Minoan tree cult relies primarily upon iconographic and archaeological evidence. This can be supplemented, however, by the inclusion of ethnographic and ethnohistoric data which can provide stimulation for the lateral thinking necessary for analysis and problem solving in the study of prehistoric religion. Analogical frameworks for thinking about archaeological material are usually sought in anthropology and ethnography and




























































22 23 24 25 26

Hallowell 1960. Bird-David 1999; Harvey 2005. Herva 2006. Bird-David 1999, 78. Crooks, Tully and Hitchcock 2016; Tully and Crooks 2015.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

27

projected back in time onto archaeological material. In this study, however, ethnoarchaeological evidence from modern cultures that recognise animate trees is used minimally.27 Instead, examples of sacred trees from cultures that are geographically and chronologically proximate to, and which were also in contact with, Neopalatial Crete and Mycenaean Greece are used analogously in order to suggest possibilities regarding the meaning of images of Minoan tree cult. Prompted by Evans’ work at the beginning of the twentieth century, the Levant and Egypt are investigated for evidence of sacred or animate trees, the symbolic characteristics of which may shed light on Minoan examples. Mention of sacred trees in Iron Age texts such as the Hebrew Bible, utilised by Evans, and of goddesses associated with trees in the Ugaritic texts from the Late Bronze Age, are surveyed as a prelude to investigating iconographic and archaeological Levantine and Egyptian evidence from the Middle and Late Bronze Ages that both pre-dates and is contemporary with the Minoan images of tree cult and which thus could have feasibly influenced the latter. Late Bronze Age Cypriot iconography and archaeological sites are also investigated for evidence of tree cult analogous to Aegean and Levantine examples which might suggest an eastern Mediterranean koiné in regards to religious symbolism. As well as providing comparative material, chronologically contemporary and geographically proximate analogies may signify actual transmission of concepts between cultures in contact. Greek mythological texts and cult sites provide additional suggestive explanatory models for aspects of Minoan tree cult, although rather than any suggestion of “survivals” Iron Age Greek material is incorporated for conceptual convenience because of its familiarity as a result of its ubiquity within the western scholarly canon. The investigation into the ways in which trees are assigned symbolic meaning in comparative cultures provides dimensionality and dynamism to the study of Minoan tree cult and aids in the formulation of potential interpretations.28 Ideology Minoan images of tree cult are finally interpreted through a Neo-Marxist lens as ideology. Ideology functions in three ways: it represents sectional interests as universal; denies or transmutes contradictions; and naturalises or reifies the status quo. 29 Ideology thus legitimates the sectional interests of hegemonic groups.30 Miller and Tilley define ideology as: the representation of the world held by the dominant group in the society, and... the rationale which guides their everyday actions. It is a representation that accords with the interests of that group and which emanates from the perspective of that group. It is mystifying in that it makes appear as natural and correct that which is partial, and... makes appear as coherent that which fails to acknowledge the contradictions it encompasses. It is characterised by both deriving from and being a representation of the material world, and is the dialectical relation between these two; representation and action, in actual material practice.”31 Symbols can be actively used ideologically and are transferred from the ideational realm to the real world through social action.32 One of the types of social action that functions as an ideological mode of control is religion which makes what is ideological seem divinely ordained and thus without any conceivable alternative.33 In the case of Minoan images of tree cult, depictions on high status objects of religious expression, consisting of elite figures situated in association with cultic symbols and performing ritual activities, functions to legitimise the status of elites because in such images they are




























































27 28 29 30 31 32 33

O’Reilly 2009, 3; Gosden 2005, 95; Rival 2001. Wylie 1985. Hodder and Hudson 2003, 75–89. Shanks and Tilley 1982; Hamilakis 2002. Miller and Tilley 1984, 13. Hodder and Hudson 2003, 75–89; Shanks and Tilley 1982. Shanks and Tilley 1982; Johnson 1999, 94–7.

28

CHAPTER 2

positioned as the intermediaries between the natural and (super)natural worlds.34 Minoan images of tree cult are ideological because they make elite power appear literally resident within nature through physical proximity. In such images elite figures are contiguous with nature through being seated within aspects of the landscape or upon its architectonic representation; they interact with nature by gesturing toward or touching trees and rocks; and even wear nature in the form of the elite female figures’ mountain-evoking flounced skirt. These explicit visual associations of religious authority in regard to the landscape communicate the “natural” order of “nature”, and while purporting to depict reality, simultaneously produce it.35 In Minoan images of tree cult, landscape – in its abbreviated forms of tree and mountain and their architectonic representations – signifies and symbolises power relations and thus functions as an instrument of elite cultural power. Because it is itself “the natural”, landscape seems independent of human intentions and can therefore naturalise cultural and social constructions associated with it, hence the artificial worlds of Minoan images of tree cult appear simply given and inevitable.36 In these cases, ideology is presented in the persuasive form of a narrative or story through the physical enactment of ritual within the landscape and its constructed representation in visual art.37 It therefore does not represent the actual conditions of existence, but an imaginary relationship of individuals to their conditions of existence.38 Minoan images of tree cult thus do not present the real objective world, but only representations of it. 39 In this way, the symbolic meaning of such images misrepresents the world to the advantage of elites by making their sectional interests appear universal. While based in physical reality and thus not illusory, rather than simple idyllic scenes then, Minoan images of tree cult are iconographic tools used within strategies of power.40

































































34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Friedman and Rowlands 1978; Hodder and Hudson 2003, 75–89. Hodder and Hudson 2003, 75–89. Mitchell 2002, 1–2. Shanks and Tilley 1982; Rose 2006. Shanks and Tilley 1982. Hitchcock 2008b. Hodder and Hudson 2003, 75–89.

PART 2 THE AEGEAN




























CHAPTER 3 TREES IN ROCKY GROUND Minoan glyptic images of epiphanic ritual set within apparently natural locations devoid of architecture are a subcategory of the larger corpus of images of Minoan tree cult, the majority of which include architectural structures and man-made objects. Characterised by a lack of architecture the images of epiphany amidst trees and rocks examined in this chapter have been thought to depict ephemeral, possibly poor sanctuaries that are consequently difficult to identify archaeologically within the actual landscape. Previous scholarship has sought to understand the characteristics as well as discern the location of actual cult sites within the landscape from the study of apparent depictions of cult sites within glyptic imagery.1 That this endeavour is overly optimistic is evident from the fact that the relationship between the glyptic images and any canonical sanctuary sites is obscured by the process of editing and miniatursation in the manufacture of the glyptic image. This chapter argues that glyptic images of epiphanic ritual occurring within the vicinity of trees and rocks are signs that convey the idea of a special relationship between elite Minoan administrators and a sentient landscape in which trees and rocks evoked associations of rulership. In order to support this contention the chapter starts by introducing the nine images that depict cult scenes enacted in the vicinity of a tree within rocky ground. This is followed by an examination of the potential locations within the Cretan and mainland Greek landscape that such images may depict. After determining that we cannot precisely link glyptic images with specific cult places within the landscape, the chapter then turns to look at whether we can identify the images as broader types of sites, such as sanctuaries, groves or gardens. It is subsequently determined that as a consequence of the parergon and the miniatursation involved in glyptic art, literal location of such images is not likely and that in fact rather than being scenes, such images are signs. The chapter then moves on to explain how glyptic images of apparent landscape are constructed of landscape “elements” that indicate but do not portray location. Trees and rocks as the main landscape elements in these images are then examined in the light of Minoan art and archaeology. It is subsequently determined that instead of focussing upon exactly where such images may have occurred, the more interesting angle of enquiry is in relation to what the images mean. Identification of the main components of the images as consisting of human figures, epiphany, trees and rocks leads into an explanation of epiphany within the study of Minoan religion. It is established that all scenes of cult activity occurring within a natural landscape, including the nine examined here, include epiphany and that this suggests that the landscape was animate. An explanation of the term animism ensues, in which the “new” animism of post-1960s cultural anthropology is contrasted to the “old” animism of Victorian anthropology. This is succeeded by an interpretation of the epiphanic images occurring amidst trees and rocks as signifying the relationship between elite figures and the animate landscape. The method of ecstatic possession whereby epiphanic communication may have been achieved is then explained. It is determined that the rendering of hovering figures in glyptic images, including so-called envisioned epiphany, signifies to the viewer of such artwork a state of communication between an elite figure and the animate landscape. The chapter then focuses upon the significance of the tree and rocks, expanding upon the possibility that they represent groves and mountains, and using comparative ethnographic examples from the Levant and Egypt to propose a symbolic association between these aspects of the natural world and ruler ideology. The question of whether this aspect of Minoan religion was aniconic is then investigated, and it is determined that tree cult was essentially physiomorphic, but with an




























































1

Rutkowski 1986; Faro 2008.

32

CHAPTER 3

anthropomorphic component evident during human ritual enactment. The chapter then explains the ideological nature of landscape and how this has been appropriated by Minoan elites through artistic expression in the pursuit of prestige and power. This leads to the conclusion that while such images may have a basis in reality, the constraints of the glyptic medium mean that they function as concentrated messages in which the relationship between Minoan elites and the authoritative landscape is emphasised. The chapter thus progresses from an examination of the desire to concretise the material within the Lacanian “Real” of identifiable cult sites, to the understanding that through the restrictive effect of both the Derridan parergon and the process of miniatursation, the images are more properly signs rather than scenes and thus situated within the “Imaginary”. That the images signify ideas such as ruler ideology consequently positions them within the “Symbolic”, and re-focuses the enquiry towards the question of what such imagery was intended to convey. By reading the imagery through a cynical, essentially Neo-Marxist, lens it is determined that the animistic ontology expressed in these rings is coopted by a state-level society in the service of elite ideology. Images Discussed The nine images discussed in this chapter derive from seven rings and two sealings impressed by rings, originating from both Crete and mainland Greece (Figs 1–9). Six of the objects have identifiable find spots; one ring has a shaky provenance; while two more are completely unprovenienced. All depict scenes involving human figures performing cultic activity in the vicinity of trees. In five of the images female figures are prominent, one features a male, and the remaining three depict mixed sex configurations. In the images the tree is situated in rocky ground rather than in conjunction with any sort of architectural structures such as altars or walls. This suggests that architectural or man-made structures were not a part of the ritual location that the scenes depict. What we are presented with instead are trees growing from various types of rocky ground which suggest that the images may be intended to depict a rural or natural location. While we cannot see the wider landscape, its character is implied by the rocks, which may suggest mountainous terrain. The role of the tree in the scenes is sometimes prominent, where it appears to facilitate epiphany or is physically shaken, and at other times appears to take a secondary position while baetylic rocks are given priority. Location in the “Real” Landscape Images without architecture have been proposed to depict poor or one-off cult sites which are consequently archaeologically ephemeral.2 Although the images examined here do not include any architectural structures or cult objects that could be distinguished within the archaeological record, except pithoi – as trees are mainly archaeologically fugitive and rocks in their natural state may be difficult to identify as belonging to a cult site3 – are the locations of such images able to be identified within the actual landscape? As mentioned above, six of the rings and sealings out of the nine examined here have known find spots, three of which are in Crete (Figs 1, 2, 3, 4) and two on mainland Greece (Figs 5, 6); while the other three are unprovenienced. Although the rings were portable objects and may not have originated in the same locations in which they were found and although there are barely any features within the images that could be matched to a cult location, it is still worthwhile to investigate whether there are any cults sites in the vicinities of the find spots of the rings and sealings, in order to see whether they could be said to be the locations of, or provide any useful information in regards to, the decipherment of the objects and activities depicted in the rings.




























































2 3

Rutkowski 1986; Faro 2008. Crooks 2013, 79; Davaras 1982, 388; 1983, 376.

TREES IN ROCKY GROUND

33

HM 1043 (Fig. 1) comes from a chamber tomb at Sellopoulo, on the east bank of the Kairetos river bed, less than 2km north of Knossos. This area consists of flat fields immediately bordering the stream area which merge with rising step-like terraces.4 Being so close to Knossos, Sellopoulo fell within the area of Knossian religious control as manifest in various locations within the landscape of north central Crete. These include sacred caves in the region such as that of Eileithyia at Amnissos, Skoteino, Arkalochori, Ida, and possibly Avdou-Faneromeni and Psychro; as well as the peak sanctuary of Jouktas; and the rural sanctuary of Anemospilia.5 The ring features a baetylic stone and within the archaeological record, baetyls are only attested within urban settings, possibly because of the difficulty of identifying such stones in the natural landscape.6 The presence of rocks, flowers and a tree in this scene, however, suggest a rural location, and the lack of obvious architecture implies that the location was architecturally minimal or without any built components at all. This eliminates Jouktas and Anemospilia with their prominent architecture – although of course the event depicted could have occurred within areas of natural landscape in the vicinity of the sanctuaries.7 Pithoi, which may be what the ambiguous object on the left of the image depicts, are attested at both of these sites. Baetyls may have also been situated within caves, as can be seen from comparative iconographical examples such as a seal from Knossos and a sealing from Haghia Triadha (Figs 49, 50),8 both of which have either rocks or zigzag marks in the upper portions of the image, possibly indicating the rocky surrounds and roof of a cave.9 The presence of a tree and an object in the sky in HM 1043, however, argues for a hypaethral location, although this could just as easily be outside a sacred cave. About 100m north-west of the cave at Amnissos is a small terrace measuring 14 x 15m with a view of the sea and on which were found seven rocks, each measuring about 2 x 2.5m. Smaller rocks with hollows were beside the larger ones, and these were interpreted as altars by S. Marinatos.10 At the entrance to the Skoteino cave further to the east, situated at an altitude of 230m, is a depression sunk about 6m below the surrounding area and which forms a natural courtyard measuring 25m in diameter, a size that could easily accommodate ritual activity. The Idaean cave, known from ancient sources to have been a heavily treed location, is situated at an altitude of 126m above the plain of Nida in central Crete.11 The entrance to the cave lies within a shallow depression, the area is scattered with rocks and boulders, and to the left of the entrance a hewn rock interpreted as an altar was positioned upon a natural rocky platform. Much votive material surrounded this feature and decorated stones were found within 100m to the right of the cave, suggesting the remains of a formal cult area.12 Any of these caves could be potential sites of baetylic ritual. Figures 2 and 3 come from Haghia Triadha, situated in south central Crete at the western edge of the Mesara plain, about three kilometres west of the palace at Phaistos.13 The “Villa Reale” at Haghia Triadha dates to the later MM III period and was probably a construction under Knossian control that took advantage of the MM IIB earthquake destruction of the palace at Phaistos in order to establish control of the region which it maintained until the end of LM IB.14 An important cache of




























































4 5 6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14

Popham et al. 1974, 195. Warren 2004, 166–7. Crooks 2013, 11. A baetyl may have been part of the ritual components of the peak sanctuary of Atispadhes, however this site, situated far to the east, is outside the Knossian ritual landscape. Peatfield 1994, 92–3. Crooks 2013, 54. A wavy or jagged line in the upper part of the glyptic field is also interpreted as an indicator of the sky, however, we cannot be sure what many of the motifs in glyptic depict. Some “skies” do not have such a line, while others do. Some lines, especially when more jagged than wavy, may depict caves. Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 21. Rutkowski and Nowicki (1996, 26) claim the name “Ida” contains a root meaning “a tree”. Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 36. Watrous 1984, 123–134. Warren 2004, 163. Or was the home of the rulers of Phaistos whilst the palace (or in Hitchcock’s opinion the cult center) was being re-modelled. Hitchcock pers. comm.

34

CHAPTER 3

administrative material, Linear A tablets, and clay sealings were found there, and the two sealings come from this collection. La Rosa proposed a possible sacred grove south of the Piazzle dei Sacelli at Haghia Triadha and the region is not lacking in architecturally minimal sacred sites.15 Like the larger palatial courts, the upper court of the villa at Haghia Triadha was oriented so as to face a hilltop shrine; and the sanctuary of Ephendi Christou is located to the east.16 A rural sanctuary, Koumasa dating to the MM II and LM IIIB periods, is situated 18 kilometres from Phaistos and 10km south-west from Gortyn in the Asterousia Mountains at an altitude of 420 meters. The sanctuary site is 100m south of a group of tombs, and it is distributed over three hills and the two saddles in between and occupies an area of around 10,000–15,000 square meters. Positioned below rocks jutting up to 2m high, the site is stony and has minimal vegetation.17 Traces of architecture including walls, a column base and paved floor are evident. The material from the site dates to the Neopalatial period and later, and consists of pottery, lamps, a stone bowl, a stone libation table, a clay stand, snake tubes, and a possible baetyl.18 It is interesting that in Figure 2 the seated female figure on the right side of the scene holds her arms in the characteristic position of the “Goddess with Upraised Arms”, and that snake tubes, which are frequently associated with this type of figurine were found at this site. Snake tubes can date between the MM to the Orientalising period; however, the majority date to LM III, the ones at Koumasa probably dating to LM IIIB.19 Ten kilometres to the east of Koumasa is the major peak sanctuary of the Western Mesara region, Kophinas, situated in the Asterousia Mountains at 970m. The Kophinas sanctuary contains material ranging in date between the MM IIB to LM I but includes architecture.20 Closer to Haghia Triadha is the Kamares Cave; however, it seems to be out of the question as a location as it does not have a terrace at its entrance, only a narrow shelf, above a very steep slope. As mentioned above, the Idaean Cave has space at its entrance and was known for its many trees, although it is much further away.21 The bronze ring (Fig. 4) is from Kavousi and two rural sanctuaries have been identified in the surrounding area. Pachlitsani Agriada is a LM sanctuary site that remained in use until the Archaic Period. Located on a hill approximately 1 km east of Kavousi at an altitude of 200m, the site is situated near a stream and has evidence of architecture dating to the sub-Minoan period. Another sanctuary site is located at Plai tou Kastrou about 2km from the modern village of Kavousi and at an altitude of about 410m. This site has evidence of architecture consisting of three walls measuring 0.8–2.2m long inside of which was a rocky bench, and figurines of bulls were found there dating to the sub-Minoan period.22 Although the material culture from both these sites is of a late date, it may have rested upon an ephemeral site of an earlier period. Of all the images discussed here the one on the Mycenae Acropolis Ring (Fig. 5) looks most like it is situated at a rural sanctuary.23 The components suggestive of this are the six, possibly sacrificial, animal heads on the left of the scene and the presence of the double axe in the center.24 Mycenaean cultic activity – which occurs at sites ranging from the hearth in the citadel megaron, to cult centers within the citadel, to extra-palatial sites – is characterised primarily by the presence of animal and human figures and smaller figurines. Also found are animal rhyta, bronze figurines and weapons, glass,




























































15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23

24

La Rosa 1988, 330; D’Agata 1991. Watrous 1995, 394; Watrous et al. 1993, 225. Rutkowski 1989, 47–51. Georgoulaki 1990, 8. This may actually be a hammer stone rather than a baetyl according to Eliopoulos 1991. Gesell 1976, 247; Georgoulaki 1990, 19. Zeimbekis 1998, 73–4. Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 31. Rutkowski 1988, 13–14; 1986, 115. Although Hägg (1985) and Niemeier (1988, 166, n.22) suggest that the Mycenaeans adopted schematic Minoan signs for the concept of “sanctuary” and that images such as CMS I. No.17 did not really actually have any correspondences in reality. Compare to CMS I 18. Krzyszkowska (2005, 254) identifies the heads on CMS I No. 17 as lion heads; Younger 2009 suggests they are Taweret heads.

TREES IN ROCKY GROUND

35

faience, shell and precious metal objects; architecture ranging from buildings to altars and hearths; and furnishings such as benches, larnakes, at least one baetyl, and a small amount of fresco decoration.25 None of these objects or furnishings is depicted in the glyptic image, except for the axe which could fall into the category of a weapon or precious metal object. Interestingly, in regards to the scene in Figure 5, the rural sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas, situated on the Kynortion hill above the classical sanctuary of Asclepius at Epidauros has, along with the usual components of Mycenaean ritual such as pottery, animal and phi and psi figurines, and weapons, evidence of both animal sacrifice – mainly bull and goat, although evidence for sheep pig and deer have also been found – and the presence of Minoan style bronze double axes and a fragment of a bull rhyton.26 The axes were found in large quantities in the Mycenaean layer of the ash altar and are of a style very similar to those found at the Arkalochori Cave and at Jouktas which suggests a strong Minoan influence or Minoanising tendency; although Hägg suggests that the sanctuary is “basically Mycenaean”.27 The site also has extensive evidence of built structures, depictions of which do not appear in the glyptic image which only shows a rocky landscape. Nor is the sanctuary particularly close to Mycenae where the ring was found. The excavator, Lambrinudakis, does not think that the sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas served Mycenae but that it was probably confined to the Epidauros area. Material evidence for sanctuaries and sanctuary structures away from the Mycenaean palaces is minimal.28 There are sites such as Ayia Triada to the south and Delphi-Marmaria at the site of the later sanctuary of Athena Pronaia further north, both of which are positioned at high elevations in the landscape. 29 Nearer sites to Mycenae include the mountain sanctuary of Prophitis Ilias and the settlement of Tsoungiza at Nemea both of which exhibited typical material culture signature for Mycenaean ritual, as described above, but which also include architecture.30 Obviously the ring could depict a scene at a Mycenaean extra-urban sanctuary in the hinterland of the Mycenaean citadel or at a more distant location, in an area away from any architectural structures. The presence of the double axe in the center of the glyptic image is certainly evocative, however, of those at the site of Apollo Maleatas. Although found on the Greek mainland, the Vapheio Ring (Fig. 6) may have been made in Crete.31 The contents of the cist in which it was found have parallels with the objects in Sellopoulo Tomb 4, especially Burial III, and the gold ring from Sellopoulo (Fig. 1) appears to have been executed in the same artistic style as Figure 6.32 If the Vapheio Ring was manufactured on Crete it may depict a Cretan – rather than a mainland – cult site. The occupant of the cist/tomb of Vapheio was probably familiar with Minoan cult practices because at this period there was a very close relationship between Minoan and Mycenaean elites, although whether he actually shared the beliefs is another matter.33 If made by the artist of the Sellopoulo Ring, the image on the Vapheio Ring may depict a cult site within the area of the sacred landscape around or at Knossos. Although the scene does not include architecture, it does depict a pithos, evidence of which has been found at cult sites such as the peak sanctuary of Jouktas and the nearby rural sanctuaries of Anemospilia and Building B. However, we cannot really determine from one pithos where within the Cretan landscape this image ought to be interpreted as occurring. This goes for all the images discussed here: while the scenes on the rings could certainly represent locations devoid of architecture in the vicinities of extra urban sanctuaries, then again they could depict sites anywhere within the landscape.




























































25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Wright 1994, 57, 61–3, 66–7. Theodorou-Mavrommaridi 2010; Lambrinudakis 1981, 59. Hägg 1985, 121. Palaima 2008, 355, 346. Hägg 1981, 37–9. Psychoyos and Karatzikos, 2016; Wright 1994, 69–70. Niemeier 1990, 167, 169. Banou and Hitchcock 2009. Hägg 1985, 214.

36

CHAPTER 3

Types of Location While we might not be able to draw specific correspondences between the cult scenes discussed here and actual cult sites within the landscape, we can broaden the parameters of investigation and focus instead upon the type of site that such images may depict. There are several possibilities as to what kinds of places these images may represent. The lack of architecture in the glyptic scenes suggests that they should be read as locations devoid of architecture, although one could assume that any architecture was behind the viewer and therefore not included in the “view”. The obvious presence of rocks rather than a paved floor suggest, however, that it is more likely that such scenes ought to be interpreted as locations of extra-urban ritual activity at sites that were not architecturally elaborated. Such places may have been specific sanctuaries that incorporated a sacred tree or grove. The images may even depict informal, occasional or spontaneous encounters with numinous landscape – and depending on the frequency of such encounters, such a site could become a sanctuary. In this case the images may depict the initial discovery of a numinous place in the landscape. The rocky ground and lack of architecture suggest a rural setting, but they could feasibly depict an urban location such as a garden because not all cultural or inhabited landscapes need necessarily contain built structures. “Wild” gardens have been suggested for Minoan palaces, and rocky landscape fresco scenes (without architecture) have been interpreted as gardens.34 The fact that organic matter, such as trees, does not survive well in archaeological contexts in the Aegean – in contrast to hardier materials such as stone architecture – means that the identification of these cult scenes in the three dimensional landscape is difficult if not impossible. Nevertheless, the possibility that such scenes depict the general category of “rural sanctuary” will be considered. This will be followed by analysis of the potential for the images to portray single trees in the landscape or sacred groves, and gardens. Rural Sanctuary As well as trying to identify actual sites, glyptic images have been used to reconstruct the structural components of such sites. Rutkowski suggested that rural sanctuaries could be found in various types of topographical location, including on the slopes and summits of low hills, in forest clearings, and in the vicinity of rocky clumps.35 They could therefore range from a flat area such as at Gazi, to the slopes of a low hill near fertile land as at Piskokephalo, to higher hill slopes such as at Vaveloi. Such sites could also be situated in the vicinity of hollows in the rock on a flat area, as at Stous Athropolithous, on the top of a hill, on a high coastal terrace, or low terrace close to the sea as at Kremasma. Other sites could be situated high in the mountains, but without being a peak sanctuary, as in the example of Kato Syme located on a nearly flat surface close to a large spring.36 Rutkowski proposed that such sites, while incorporating landscape features such as parts of the meadow, terrace, or grove in which it was situated, would be deliberately set apart from the surrounding landscape by varying degrees of architectural definition, thus justifying his descriptive term “sacred enclosure”. This need not imply the presence of ashlar masonry, however. Elaboration of the site could range from the extremely humble in which a large stone or heap or pebbles was placed on the boundary line, to the inclusion of built structures that were made of perishable materials, to much more elaborate architectural construction as in the case of Kato Syme with its stone walls and buildings. It is the more modest of these categories, such as those that may be depicted in the glyptic images discussed here, that are consequently difficult or impossible to discern within the archaeological landscape.37 It is these types of sites that Faro terms “ephemeral rural sanctuaries” and “open air shrines”.38 The use by both Faro and Rutkowski of the terms “sanctuary” or “shrine” for such images, however, may




























































34 35 36 37 38

Shaw 1993, 661–85; Morgan 1988, 39. Rutkowski 1986, 204, 247, n. 3, n.4. Rutkowski 1988, 26. Rutkowski 1988, 24; 1986, 99, 103, 248, n. 16. Faro 2008, 207, 212.

TREES IN ROCKY GROUND

37

be a little imprecise, possibly jumping to conclusions and implying a more formal cult site than was perhaps intended in the glyptic examples. To describe the potentially corresponding – but theoretical – cult sites as “ephemeral”, however, is probably accurate seeing as trees and rocks, along with the human activity of epiphanic ritual, tree shaking, baetyl hugging, and dancing would not leave a material culture signature in the archaeological record.39 Faro proposes that these types of cult scenes were recorded on gold rings specifically because of their ephemeral nature and that the rings functioned as a type of memorial of the event. This may be partly correct, but seems to conflict with the fact that there are many other rings depicting ritual activity in the vicinity of architecturally elaborated locations incorporating cult furniture that were obviously not ephemeral. Ultimately we cannot say whether these images depict sanctuaries or shrines, just that they appear to depict ritual activity performed in a natural location which may or may not have been thought of as a specific cult place at the time. Sacred Groves If not “sanctuaries”, then perhaps these images depict sacred groves. Day suggests that because images of tree cult represent single trees rather than groups – which would suggest a grove or forest – and because the rings were produced over a two hundred year period, that they may depict very old trees that were renowned sites of pilgrimage.40 This is a possibility, however, given that the iconography is so late, it seems unlikely and the trees, except for that in the Ring of Nestor (Fig. 7), are always depicted as being rather small. Minoan art does make use of unrealistic proportions, so the possibility that the trees are really intended to be thought of as large is an option. It is also a possibility that as a single human figure may be shorthand in glyptic art for a group, so one tree may stand for a grove.41 As the presence of rocks suggests a wider rural, possibly mountainous landscape, so the presence of numerous trees may be implied by the single tree depicted. When cult scenes are represented in larger artworks such as the Sacred Grove and Dance Fresco (Fig. 45a) we can see that Minoan ritual was divided into participants, who were probably elites and who took active priestly roles and most likely directed the proceedings, and spectators who mainly watched. 42 We can propose then that the presence of single human figures and other components within the miniature art form of glyptic may represent edited versions of events that involved both more people and trees. In fresco paintings there are several examples of groups of trees that could be considered groves: the Sacred Grove and Dance Fresco from Knossos has been reconstructed as depicting three olive trees; the Knossos throne (Fig. 51) is flanked by two palm trees; while the Nilotic fresco from the east wall of Room 5 of the West House at Thera (Fig. 52) features nineteen palm trees. Multiple Cypress trees appear in the miniature painting from Prasa, a group of ten umbrella pines crown the hill above the Departure Town in the Flotilla Fresco from Thera (Figs 134a, b), and an olive grove is depicted on the silver Siege Rhyton from Mycenae (Fig. 53).43 An actual sacred grove has been proposed for the palace at Knossos corresponding to the three kouloures situated near the triangular causeway in the West Court (Fig. 54), which are suggested to have held trees and which may be depicted in the Sacred Grove and Dance Fresco.44 Kouloures at Knossos may provide archaeological evidence for a formal sacred grove, with charcoal samples from the vicinity identified as evergreen oak, cypress or juniper, and olive trees.45 Groves within the physical landscape of Crete would have been both cultivated and wild. In the Neopalatial period Crete’s natural tree coverage was of a density ranging from steppe to woodland, and mountains were also wooded, so there would have been many options for sites identified as sacred




























































39 40 41 42 43 44

45

Faro 2008, 207. Day 2012, 16–17. Kyriakidis 2005, 178. Chapin 2004, 61. Chapin 2004, 28; 2005, 125; Morgan 1988, 17. Hitchcock 2000, 63; Preziosi 1983. Kouloures also at Phaistos but similar structures at Malia contained pillar bases suggesting that they were roofed. The evidence does not tell us about the kouloures themselves, however.

38

CHAPTER 3

groves.46 We cannot know, however, which places the Minoans divided into dendra, simply noteworthy strands of trees within the physical landscape, or alse, sacred groves that grew in sanctuaries of deities and that were associated with cult practice:47 indeed, they may not have made such a distinction. Gardens Another type of place that the glyptic images could represent is a garden. The main evidence for what may be depictions of Aegean Bronze Age gardens is fresco representations, although the gold discoid from Poros featuring a dog, a spray of vegetation (Fig. 55), and a wall has also been interpreted as a garden. 48 The types of potential garden depicted in fresco range from the orderly, such as the Amnissos Fresco (Fig. 56) in which clumps of lilies are situated behind a rampart-shaped wall, lilies and mint grow from incurved planters, and undulating rockwork forms a continuous backdrop; to the riotous and seemingly wild, as in the Monkeys and Bluebirds Fresco from Knossos (Fig. 57). The majority of images interpreted as gardens depict collections of plants that are, at minimum, arranged in an apparently informal manner and which may have approximated the wild landscape, such as the Floral Fresco from the Unexplored Mansion at Knossos (Fig. 58). Maria Shaw suggests that Aegean “gardening” may have involved minimal shaping of the natural landscape,49 and it is true that many scenes of landscape such as the reconstructed example of the Kneeling Priestess at Haghia Triadha (Figs 59a, b) are rather ambiguous when it comes to determining whether the figure is situated within an area of cultivated plants or in the “wild”.50 Other scenes are “close-ups” such as the Saffron Gatherer monkey amidst rocks from Knossos (Fig. 60), so it is difficult to tell what kind of wider landscape one should interpret this scene as occurring within. Morgan suggests that the Nilotic fresco from Thera, although including a hunt scene and a supernatural animal, depicts a “landscape garden” because of the inclusion of cultivable species of palm tree.51 Actual gardens, although they have not been discovered in the Aegean landscape, have been suggested for monumental urban architectural structures based on deductions from fresco imagery, analogy with Egyptian evidence, speculation about where such features may have occurred in regard to architecture, and the presence of features of the landscape such as open areas or tiny pits in rock.52 J. Walter Graham situated gardens outside the Minoan Halls that he believed were the residential quarters of the palaces’ “royal families”, restoring such gardens outside Spaces 16, the “Hall of the Double Axes” (Fig. 61), and 17, the smaller hall or “Queen’s Megaron” at Knossos (Fig. 62); the north and east wings of the palace at Phaistos (Fig. 63); and outside the portico of the north end of the west wing of the palace at Malia (Fig. 64). All these locations are characterised by the presence of Minoan polythyron halls which Graham asserted as the likely place where the “refined sensibilities of the royal inhabitants” would require the “pleasure of the open porticoes and terraced gardens.” 53 He subsequently linked all polythyron halls in monumental architecture to such theorised gardens. The sites proposed by Graham as gardens, however, are either purely theoretical and/or reconstructed in unlikely areas such as those that included paving, or where other architectural features such as walls occupied the suggested garden area.54




























































46 47 48 49 50 51

52 53 54

Rackham and Moody 1996, 125–7; Moody 2017. Birge 1994, 232–3. Dimopoulou 2012. Shaw 1993, 664. St-Denis 2007. Morgan 1988, 39–40. More recent evidence suggests that this frieze may have also depicted architecture. Televantou 1990. Morgan 1988, 39; Schäfer 1992; 1991; Graham 1959; 1987; Shaw 1993; Tsipoulou 2012, 55. Graham 1987, 93. As seen in Evans 1930, 324, 329; Pernier (1935); Pernier and Banti (1951); Van Effenterre (1980, 19 Fig. 26, 20 fig. 27, 47 fig. 62, 51 fig. 72, 52 fig. 73, 57 fig. 79, 137.fig. 192, 212 fig. 300, 213 fig. 301, 214 fig. 302, 215 fig. 303, 224 fig. 310, 225 fig. 352) shows the wall remains in the proposed “garden” area in the north-west of the building. In Volume II the walls are shown on 325 fig. 433 and 384 fig. 515, however on 335 a garden is shown in that area.

TREES IN ROCKY GROUND

39

Maria Shaw proposed a garden for the rocky area outside the polythyron hall in the eastern Residential Quarter of the palace at Phaistos, situated between Court 64 to the north and Space 63d, a lustral basin, corridor and auxiliary spaces to the west. The rock was intentionally incorporated into the landscaping of the palace as is evident from its having been shaped and part of it being levelled off to form the floor of the little court, Space 64 (Figs 65a and b).55 The main argument for a garden, however, is the presence of pits in the rock which Shaw suggested held corm plants such as lilies or crocuses. While the small size of the holes could have accommodated wild crocus corms, flowers or herbs, another explanation is that they were the mortar holes of a food processing area from a prepalatial settlement (Fig. 65c).56 Evidence of planting pots from both Knossos and Zakros suggest that cultivation of plants occurred at those sites, which is not surprising,57 but there is no actual evidence for gardens in the Aegean Bronze Age, and removal of the soil from around the Cretan palaces in the early 20th century excavations means that modern micro methods of garden detection such as analysis of soil stratigraphy, paleoethnobotany, phytolith or pollen analysis are unable to be applied, although evidence of gardens at more recently excavated sites, or preserved via the volcanic activity at Thera, may be forthcoming.58 The Parergon and Miniatursation Restrict Identification of Location Ultimately, the attempt to locate specific correlates in the archaeological record for the glyptic images discussed here, or even to proffer more general categorical types of cultural landscape which they may depict, is not an endeavour that will meet with much success. Trees are archaeologically fugitive in the Aegean and rocks in their natural state are difficult to recognise as belonging to a cult site. The presence of heaps of pottery or figurines in a location otherwise devoid of architecture may indicate an ephemeral cult site, but we must consider the likelihood that glyptic imagery is not actually a realistic depiction of a ritual event at all, and so can never be matched exactly to a site but only approximated. That the glyptic scenes have some basis in reality is likely, however, as otherwise they would be unrecognisable to their original audience, but rather than interpreting them as literal “scenes” per se, glyptic images are more likely to be signs. The attempt to match glyptic cult scenes with actual sites within the landscape presupposes that glyptic images are cropped scenes deriving from larger, real, ritual occasions. In this scenario the only reason the whole event is not depicted is because there was no room. Rather than thinking of glyptic images as sections of larger scenes, however, such images ought to be considered to have undergone two processes that remove them from relation to the “Real”, and situates them in the “Imaginary”. Firstly, the images are contained, constrained and constricted within a small manageable frame, and secondly they are abbreviated in the process of miniaturisation.59 The visual editing involved in creating a tiny glyptic image consequently reduces such scenes from being a depiction of realistic space to an abbreviation. Miniaturisation concentrates the communicative properties of the image, turning it from a scene – or image of an actual event – into a sign. The images are thus emblematic and depict an essence rather than some sort of larger but unseen ritual. Landscape Elements – The “Imaginary” If these images are signs rather than scenes and thus do not accurately depict actual events or specific locations, what can we determine about them? Rather than seeking to identify specific sites or types of location, we need to be more general and propose only that the images represent ritual events




























































55 56

57 58 59

Shaw 1993, 680. Shaw 1993, 683; Hitchcock 2000, 173. Also, part of that area is a quarry, as depicted in Hitchcock et al. 2016, 79. Schäfer 1991, 84–8; Platon 1971. Gleason 1994; Day 2006, 191. Derrida 1987; Bailey 2005, 32.

40

CHAPTER 3

occurring within “landscape”. As Krzyszkowska explains, however, glyptic images are far too tiny for the depiction of panoramic landscapes and lack the colour of frescoes. Thus, specifically selected landscape elements are utilised to convey the message regarding the type of landscape intended; in the cases examined here, trees and rocky ground. Such elements are shown in an abbreviated fashion and hence will not necessarily be botanically or topographically correct.60 The small field of glyptic means that there is not enough room to depict a wider view of the landscape and, as is usual in glyptic images, the scene is a shallow stage61 rendered as a telescoped close-up. Landscape elements such as trees and rocks are utilised to convey the message of a wider landscape, but because of constraints of space, these elements are minimal. In the images discussed here the natural landscape is the main communicative message concerning the location of the human activity. Trees As when trying to identify specific locations, editing and miniaturisation mean that trees in glyptic images are often rendered imprecisely and are mainly unidentifiable,62 although palm trees are obvious and fig and olive trees may be tentatively identified.63 By the First Palace period endemic vegetation of Crete such as pistachio, carob, juniper, oak, and the wild olive had probably been replaced with cultivated crops and trees such as the fig and the olive.64 The archaeological record of Bronze Age Crete provides evidence of several other types of trees, however, including cypress, cedar, fir, oak, and spruce. On Thera, pine, mastic, olive and probably oak, existed on the island before the eruption.65 Archaeobotanical, anthracological, palynological and archaeochemical studies have found evidence for numerous other types of trees ranging from cultivated species to low, middle and high altitude forest trees.66 Despite the presence of trees within the Bronze Age Aegean landscape, according to Morgan they are not a particularly prevalent feature of Bronze Age Aegean art – apart from glyptic.67 Trees are notably sparse within other media such as fresco although they are evident in the Sacred Grove and Dance and the Bull in the Olive Grove frescoes from the palace at Knossos; the Crocuses and Goats fresco from the House of the Frescoes at Knossos; the fresco of Multi-Coloured Rocks and Olive Branches from the dump at Pylos (Fig. 66); and in the Boar Hunt fresco from Tiryns.68 We have already mentioned the palm trees in the Knossos Throne Room and the Nilotic fresco from Thera, to which we can add a fragment depicting a male head and palm inflorescence, also from Thera. Cypress trees have been identified in the miniature painting from Prasa, a fig tree occurs on a hill near a well in the miniature fresco from Thera, and umbrella pines are identified on the hill above the Departure Town (Fig. 134a).




























































60

61 62 63

64 65 66 67 68

Krzyszkowska 2012, 176, 70; Chapin 2004, 60; Younger 1988. Glyptic images of tree cult that include architecture and are often situated in an outdoor setting can also be considered as landscape scenes, however the presence of architecture suggests an inhabited or cultural landscape, and it is this feature that ought to be appreciated when reading the image. A landscape without architecture can also be inhabited and “cultural” of course, but the presence of architecture in glyptic scenes seems to emphasise the human effect on the landscape through building. Younger (2014, 212–3) terms such glyptic images “artificial landscapes”. Betancourt 1977, 19. Marinatos 1990, 85. Marinatos 1990, 32. Apart from cult scenes, palm trees seem to be the most prevalent species in glyptic, appearing in CMS VI.1 No.157, CMS XII. No.180, in conjunction with animals in CMS I. No.375, CMS II.7 No.71, CMS II.8 No.298, CMS V. Supp. IB No.136, and with a chariot scene in CMS V. Supp. IB No.137, as well in several other examples in a more stylised form flanked by antithetic animals or sphinxes. Chapin 1995, 31. Shaw, J. 1973, 135–6. Morgan 1988, 17, 18. Papatsaroucha 2014, 199, 205–207; Moody 2017. Morgan 1988, 17. Chapin 2005, 124.

TREES IN ROCKY GROUND

41

In other media, probable olive trees appear in conjunction with a cat on vase and cup fragments from Malia; on the silver Siege Rhyton from Shaft Grave IV at Mycenae (Fig. 53); and the “quiet” gold cup from Vapheio. Evans identified a fig tree on the Gypsadhes Rhyton (Fig. 17), and palm trees feature on pottery such as a MM IIB Kamares pot from Phaistos and an amphora from the Loom Weight Basement at Knossos. A palm tree is also depicted on the “violent” gold Vapheio Cup, and pine trees are featured on an ivory pyxis from Katsambas.69 Although this may sound like a lot of images of trees, compared to depictions of flowers, trees are a much less-frequently depicted form of vegetation in Bronze Age Aegean art.70 Rocks Rocky landscapes are ubiquitous in Minoan art,71 which reflects the characteristics of the Cretan landscape which is rugged and mountainous, as is the Greek landscape in general. Rocky ground is rendered in various ways in different media, from the overlapping, jagged sherds in the Zakro Rhyton (Fig. 32b), to the combination of smooth and serrated forms in the Gypsadhes Rhyton (Fig. 76), and the overlapping curved lines and conical mounds on the ivory pyxis from Katsambas. The outline of the rocky landscape in the Spring Fresco from House Delta 2 at Thera (Fig. 67) surges upward, creating troughs in between each vertical rocky projection, and is faced with individual rocks along its lower section. The rocky landscape in the fresco on the eastern wall of Room 3a of the building Xeste 3 at Thera (Fig. 68) on the other hand has a smoother outline consisting of a band of blue-grey colour containing small rocks that outline a mass of red rock below it, a treatment also seen in the Theran “Departure” and “Arrival” towns of the Flotilla Frescoes from Room 5 of the West House (Figs 134a, b).72 Rocky borders often entirely surround central scenes in both glyptic and fresco images, forming a frame. When running across the top of an image the rocks appear to overhang the scene, a feature that Chapin terms “rocky referential perspective” and which she suggests signifies a hillside scene in which an upper landmass is situated further up a hill than a lower landmass. This can be seen in glyptic images such as the cult offering scene (Fig. 69); the stag hunt (Fig. 70); the “Battle of the Glen” (Fig. 71); and the reclining bull CMS V. No.198 (Fig. 27). It is also frequently found in fresco such as the Saffron Gatherer, and the Monkeys and Bluebirds frescoes from Knossos, the Xeste 3 fresco, the fresco of Multi-Coloured Rocks and Olive Branches from Pylos, the Lyre-Player fresco from Pylos, and in the Vapheio Cups. A similar type of treatment is the “solution cavity”, thought to depict a shallow cave, in which the rocky portions of a scene completely surround differently coloured interior spaces, as seen in the Kneeling Priestess and the Cat and Agrimi frescoes from Haghia Triadha (Figs 59a, 72).73 The style of rocks relevant to the glyptic images discussed here are the individual globes of varying degrees of roundness and proportion which are situated either singly or in a group across the lower part of landscape scenes. Such “Easter eggs” are the type often utilised to depict baetyls, colour versions of which can be seen in the Nilotic fresco from Thera and the Lyre-Player fresco from Pylos.74 Morgan suggests that these sorts of artistically rendered rocks were close to reality and that although such multi-hued, banded rocks may appear unrealistic to modern eyes, rather than an artistic idiom these may reflect actual geological characteristics.75 If globular rocks, including baetylic examples, do correspond to the coloured fresco examples, still, they are not ubiquitous in the archaeological record, possibly because they are mis-identified.76 When coloured rocks are used as baetyls they typically stand




























































69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76

Morgan 1988, 17; Chapin 2005, 124; Immerwahr 1990, 167. Morgan 1988, 17. Crowley 2014b. Strasser and Chapin 2014. Chapin 1995, 111, 166, 82, 85, 91, 93, 102. Chapin 1995, 145, 256; Preziosi and Hitchcock 1999, 161, fig. 100. Morgan 1988, 33. Crooks 2013, 11.

42

CHAPTER 3

out, as is the case at Kition and Kouklia in Cyprus;77 however, this does not seem to be the case in Crete. The “Symbolic” – What Do These Signs Mean? In regard to the nine glyptic images discussed in this chapter then, although we cannot identify the exact cult site or the more general type of location these images may be intended to depict, we can conclude that they represent cult scenes occurring within a landscape characterised by trees and rocks. While the entirety of the landscape is not depicted because of the constraints of the glyptic medium, selected features such as trees and rocks imply a wider landscape, traces of which can be assumed to exist outside the glyptic frame. Landscape elements such as a single tree may stand for a sacred grove or forest, and rocks may be artistic shorthand for a mountainous landscape, suggestive of a peak sanctuary. Seeing as these images are signs rather than scenes, instead of interrogating such manufactured landscapes for the “accuracy” and authenticity of their geographical descriptions – as they are not “photographs”, and the parergon and miniatursation mean it is impossible to match the sites to real places – a more interesting approach is to question what such images mean. Human Figures in Landscape with Epiphany The main components of the images under consideration here are: people, epiphany, trees, and rocks. The images do not just represent “ephemeral cult sites”, but depict human ritual activity within such locations. What might it mean then, that these glyptic images depict elite figures performing epiphanic ritual amidst trees and rocks? The term “epiphany” means the manifestation of a supernatural or divine reality; a manifestation or appearance of a divine or superhuman being; and a moment of great or sudden revelation. It comes via Church Latin from the Greek epiphaneia, “an appearing”, from EPI+ phainein, “to show”. Although epiphaneia implies vision, it does not only refer to clear images of the divine, but also to apparitions in dreams and dream-like situations, and both miraculous and natural phenomena. “Epiphany” is a religious category well known within the study of Minoan religion. First identified by Martin Nilsson in the late 1920s, and elaborated upon thirty years later by Friedrich Matz, Minoan epiphany was further defined in the early 1980s by Robin Hägg as occurring in two different forms: ecstatic and enacted epiphany.78 Hägg explains ecstatic epiphany as a vision seen by an individual or group of worshippers either spontaneously or through cult practices. Such an event appears in Minoan artistic media, particularly glyptic, as a small hovering human figure, animal, or object (Figs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 19, 21, 23, 29, 34, 36, 44). Performed or enacted epiphany, on the other hand, is when a deity appearing to worshippers is played by a human being who acts within the ritual as the personification of the deity (Figs 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 18, 21, 26, 29, 34, 36). In Minoan scenes of performed epiphany the epiphanic figure is depicted as full size but is often seated – a position suggesting authority.79 This role was probably enacted by a religious official or member of the elite. In the apparent absence of cult images, envisioned and enacted epiphany are thought to be the ways in which Minoans, during the Neopalatial period, interacted with the divine in ritual.80 Scenes of envisioned epiphany fall into three categories according to the type of hovering figure or object presumed to be the “vision”. These are human figures; naturally floating creatures such as birds




























































77 78 79

80

Crooks 2012, 34, 38 Nilsson 1927; Matz 1958; Hägg 1983. Rehak (1995, 95-117) has explained how figures of authority – rulers or deities – when seated with their back to an altar ought to be interpreted as part of the altar scene, in contrast to a worshipper who would be facing such a structure. In addition, Aruz (1998, 306) explains that the seated position of important female figures in Aegean art which standing figures approach may derive from the Near Eastern “presentation scene”. Tully 2016.

TREES IN ROCKY GROUND

43

or butterflies; and objects. We know that the figures and objects are hovering because they always appear in the upper part of the field. Hovering human figures can be female or male; they wear the same types of clothes as larger human figures in the scenes, and they are always facing or in the vicinity of full size human figures – they do not appear by themselves in a scene.81 It has been suggested that they are small because they are far away rather than hovering; however, many examples have pointed feet suggesting that they are not standing on the ground and when they have long hair it is depicted as curving upwards suggesting that they are descending through the air. Birds and insects are naturally hovering creatures; however, at least in the case of insects they are often oversize, suggesting that they are not actual species. In the category of floating objects, many are unidentifiable; consequently scholars are not in agreement as to what, exactly, these may represent: they include what may be a sprig of wheat or a shooting star, eyes and ears, possible cult stands, a double axe with tassels, a snake, chrysalises, rhyta, bucrania, and animal limbs. Hovering epiphanic images have been proposed to be symbols signifying the character of the ritual, the deity, the meaning of the vision, parts of words, or naturally floating phenomena such as constellations.82 If they are constellations this could indicate the time of year the events took place or a numinous being in the form of a star or comet – ideas which are not mutually exclusive.83 Enacted epiphany, in which a human figure represents a deity, is primarily performed by female figures and to a lesser extent by males. Most examples in Minoan art are of seated female figures, but standing females and males are also evident. The seated figures look calm and still, while the standing ones are a bit more kinetic, some may be dancing. Traditionally in Minoan archaeology, scholars have not been in agreement as to where to draw the line between humans acting as deities and actual deities, and the distinction seems to be deliberately blurred. The fact that human figures in cult scenes – whether divine or mortal – wear the same types of clothes and are often proportionally the same size (except in the case of hovering epiphanies), does not help in determining which figures may be divine and which are not. Being seated whilst other figures are standing, as well as having a prominent position within the composition, may suggest that these figures are, if not actual deities, then at least important and if human, are performing as a deity. Actual deities, on the other hand may be tentatively identified if a scene incorporates unnatural objects, activities, creatures, or scale, suggesting a supernatural event. Epiphany Suggests Animism All examples of glyptic imagery featuring cult scenes occurring within landscape settings characterised by trees, rocks and flowers – and free from architecture – include epiphany.84 In the nine images specifically focussed upon in this chapter the epiphanic figure is closely associated with a tree situated within rocky ground. Hovering human figures appear to emerge from the tree or materialise close by it, while enacted epiphanic figures sit underneath it. Epiphanic activity set amidst a natural landscape suggests that these are not ordinary trees or rocky landscapes, however, but specifically numinous locations or places of power. That epiphany occurs in all images set within seemingly natural landscape, without architecture, suggests an animistic conception of the natural world. Epiphany in the vicinity of trees implies that the trees were numinous,




























































81

82 83 84

The gold ring depicting a “goddess” and a griffin from Tholos Tomb B at Archanes and another featuring a female figure holding a horned staff and flanked by two birds perched on rocks from the Griffin Warrior Grave at Pylos (Griffin Warrior Ring 3) may be exceptions. Both figures may be hovering rather than standing, as indicated by their pointed toes, and in the one from Pylos the figure’s hair flies outward as though she is descending from the air. Crowley 2016; Kyriakidis 2005a. Younger 2007, 288. Besides the examples featuring trees and rocks focussed upon in this section, other images of epiphany within landscape are CMS II.3 No.51; II.6 No.4; II.6 No.8; II.7 No.6; V. Supp.1A No.180, and X No.261.

44

CHAPTER 3

animate. The glyptic images of epiphanic ritual set within landscape will be interpreted here as expressive of the relational ontology characteristic of “new” animism, as scenes of a communicative relationship between a human figure and the animate landscape.85 Elites Communicate with Landscape – Trees and Rocks What we have here then are images on gold rings of elite, mainly female, figures interacting with the landscape, specifically through a tree set amidst rocks, or a large boulder in the vicinity of a tree. We know they are elites because of their elaborate costume as well as the fact that the images are depicted on gold rings which would have belonged to palace and villa administrators. Evidence from the clay sealings stamped by gold rings show that they mainly authenticated documents: writing is another signifier of elites.86 Although non-elites may have participated in similar ritual events, during the Neopalatial Period palatial elites were concerned to link themselves to cult sites such as peak sanctuaries. This is evident from the fact that at this time the number of peak sanctuaries reduced dramatically from an original 40 during the MM, to as few as 8, located in proximity to urban centers. These sanctuaries were architecturally elaborated and received high quality offerings suggesting that these peak sanctuaries and the cultic activities enacted within them came under direct control of the palatial elites during this period. 87 Whether the images discussed here actually indicate peak sanctuaries or allude through the depiction of rocky terrain to other types of extra-urban cult location, the main message is that elite figures – and not other people – are directly interacting with the animate landscape. Thus the images suggest exclusivity in regard to relationship with the numinous landscape. Non-elites are implicitly excluded from the event, as they are not the ones depicted in such images. Epiphany involves seeing and interacting with deities, or in the case of the Minoans the animate landscape, directly and is thus a highly prestigious activity. In Homeric literature only the greatest heroes ever experience epiphanies, particularly those that are the offspring of the gods, whereas for the average human deities “always remain distant and mysterious, objects of reverence and awe”. 88 Recording epiphanic events on gold rings that repeat the image through imprinting sealings makes permanent as well as promotes the reality of such an event. The wielder of such a ring is proclaiming, through contiguity, that they communicate with the gods. The utilisation of the glyptic medium, the very nature of which involves multiplication and dispersal, means that such images functioned in a propagandistic manner to promote the idea that elites were in special relationship with the numinous landscape, thus resulting in the enhancement of their prestige and authority. How do they do this? – Possession Through what methods might these elite figures be relating to the animate landscape? The small size and hovering nature of these epiphanic figures, creatures, and objects are what have led scholars to interpret them as visions rather than concrete things. If they are visions, however, what kind of visions are they? At the beginning of the twentieth century Evans interpreted scenes of envisioned epiphany as part of the process whereby objects such as cult stones, and subsequently people, became “possessed” by an indwelling deity. This was, he suggested, achieved in several ways: a deity in the form of a bird descended to a cult site marked by a tree or stone, and “passed into” a human votary, thereby possessing them. In this explanation, the vision is that of the arriving deity. Evans explained that such images were “the artist’s attempt to express the spiritual being, duly brought down by ritual incantation, so as to temporarily possess its stony resting place”. Alternately, dancing – which Evans interpreted as frenzied – caused the possession; or the imbibing of psychotropic substances, the harvesting of which was supposed to be depicted by tree shaking. Minoan envisioned epiphany then,




























































85 86 87 88

Crooks, Tully and Hitchcock 2016. Krzyszkowska 2005, 155–6, 192; Weingarten 1983; Hallager 1996. Peatfield 1987; 1994; Davis 2014; Crooks (In press). Turkeltaub 2007, 52.

TREES IN ROCKY GROUND

45

according to Evans, was a result of being out of control, out of one’s mind. Terms such as “possession”, “ecstatic trance”, and “orgiastic frenzy” subsequently became prevalent in the discussion of Minoan religion. Later scholars such as Christine Morris and Alan Peatfield have further refined this explanation, using the more modern term, “altered state of consciousness”, meaning a non-ordinary bodily state in which sensations, perceptions, cognition and emotions are modified but which is not necessarily characterised by the loss of control suggested by the term “possession”. In this interpretation Minoan religion is characterised as having “shamanic” traits in which spirits or deities are experienced whilst within a trance state. The apparently “aniconic heads” of figures within glyptic images such as Figures 6 and 73 are thought to signify the shamanic “shift of self” involved in the trance state.89 In this view, Evans’ interpretation of possession is upheld: floating objects are not signs, symbols or constellations, but depictions of the visionary result of physical techniques performed in order to achieve a trance state. If this is the case then, in scenes in which an epiphanic being is depicted outside the human participant’s body, we are viewing a scene of enstasy – the arrival of spirits to control a human being.90 The deity has not yet entered into the body of the ritual participant, so they are not actually “possessed” at this stage, but are seeing, hearing, or sensing the deity outside and separate from them. Conversely, it may depict a scene in which the deity was going to be communicated with as a separate being, rather than conjoining with and “possessing” a human. In this case it would be a scene of evocation, where the supernatural being is summoned to visible appearance, rather than a stage in the process of invocation, where the deity enters the person of the human ritual participant.91 It is not clear, however, who is controlling the epiphany – whether it was the epiphanic being that chose to appear, as they do in Greek literary tradition where deities choose to appear in times of crisis to help their protégés and/or to request the establishment of their cult, or whether they were invoked by the human figure. If scenes of envisioned epiphanic figures depict a human figure seeing a deity outside of themselves, whether at a particular stage in a ritual or as its end result, should we imagine that the event is visible – in the case of scenes with more than one person – to everyone, or only to one person? In Homeric epiphany deities appear, one-on-one, to heroes (and perhaps one could suggest that they are therefore seen only in the mind’s eye). They also appear in forms in which everyone can see them, however, such as when Athena arrived in the form of a shooting star (Il. 473), or Zeus in the form of lightning and rain. The figures and objects in Minoan images of envisioned epiphany may not, in fact, have been seen at all. Although the event is rendered here in a visual medium, it need not signify a “real” subjective visual event but instead indicate sound, hearing a voice, the act of communication, smelling a fragrance, receiving an impression, or an overall multi-sensory knowing. The eye and ear on the Isopata and Ashmolean Rings (Figs 73, 74) may suggest that an epiphanic event can be both seen and heard. If envisioned epiphany is a case of landscape numina represented by a figure, animal or object, depicted as being outside of the human ritual participant, then enacted epiphany is when the numen is within the ritual performer, the two have merged, the human figure is “possessed” and now is the divinity. While the envisioned epiphanic deity may have only been seen or sensed by one person, the enacted epiphanic figure is meant to be seen. If the actor is a cult official or member of the elite they may have already been familiar to the other participants or spectators of the ritual and already have had a special aura because of their social position. Through acting as a deity their status and authority will be enhanced even more. Not only are they now seen in a role that makes them even larger than life, but they enact the will of the deity whom they represent – or are. In this capacity, their actions and speech would take on a more authoritative meaning.




























































89 90

91

Morris and Peatfield 2002, 114. As opposed to a scene of ecstasy – the travelling “out” of the human to meet spirits, if these scenes are dreams or set in some otherworld location. Huskinson and Schmidt 2010, 7; Tully and Crooks 2015. Schmidt and Huskinson 2010; Blanes and Espírito Santo 2014.

46

CHAPTER 3

Either way, whether “envisioned” or “enacted” epiphany, these images depict an epiphanic event within landscape or “nature”. It is suggested then that the landscape is sentient and that these images depict “landscape epiphanies” in which a relationship between the animate landscape and a human figure is represented. In addition to depicting the subjective state of the human ritual participant, the hovering figures, birds, butterflies and objects of envisioned epiphany may be an artistic technique that conveys the message to the viewer of the glyptic image that the human figure is in relationship with various aspects of the animate landscape.92 In this reading then, the image is a sign of divine attention in the guise of a scene. Instead of the manifestation of a supernatural being that arrives from a place outside the “natural” realm, epiphany is consequently interpreted here as signifying a numinous, communicative landscape.93 Both envisioned and enacted epiphany are artistic signs, directed to the viewer of the glyptic images, which convey the message that the human figures in the scenes are “relating to” aspects of the numinous landscape, whether in the form of a tree, stone, or even the sky. What the Tree and Stone May Represent The nine images examined here are close-ups of a tree within rocky ground with which human figures – primarily women – interact in a cultic situation. What is the tree’s significance? Why interact with it? As mentioned above, epiphany implies that the tree is animate. The question then becomes a matter of discerning whether the tree is just a regular unassuming tree that is considered animate – an “otherthan-human person” – along with the rest of the natural world; whether it is animated by an abstract but “non-tree” numen such as what was termed in later Greek literature a “nymph”; by an ancestor; or whether it conceals, represents, or is, simultaneously, an anthropomorphic deity? In the early days of Minoan archaeology, Evans proposed the existence within Minoan religion of a wooden cult object, cognate with the biblical asherah, but which he thought did not represent an actual deity.94 We now know from the Ugaritic texts that Asherah (Ug. Athirat) is a female deity, mother of the Ugaritic pantheon and partner of the chief Ugaritic deity, El. It is evident from the biblical text that Asherah was represented in Israelite religion by a wooden post or actual tree. The Septuagint interprets her name as alsos, grove.95 Just as female figures in conjunction with trees predominate in the LBA Minoan images discussed here, so female symbolism has been associated with trees and vegetation in the Levant from the Neolithic into the IA II.96 In Egypt depictions of a tree goddess became prevalent in the LBA, and inscriptions name her Isis, Nut, Hathor and sometimes Neith.97 Asherah was also worshipped in Egypt during the New Kingdom in the guise of Qudshu.98 Biblical prohibitions of tree cult taking place “on every high hill and under every green tree”99 suggest that it was part of popular religion enacted at rural locations, which may have also been the case in LBA Crete. We also know that elites, such as members of the Judean royal family, participated in Asherah cult in urban places. The biblical text tells us that cultic personnel of Asherah were patronised by the queen of the northern (Israelite) kingdom, Jezebel (1 Kings 18:19), and mentions disapprovingly that the southern (Judean) queen mother, Maaccah, made “a horrible image for Asherah” (1 Kings 15:13). Although the biblical writers tend to depict queen mothers’ devotions to Asherah in a




























































92

93 94 95 96

97 98 99

Floating epiphanic images may even be words or parts of words recognisable by a Minoan but not to us today, the eye and bucranium are also used as signs in the Cretan Hieroglyphic system and the so-called “rayed object” sometimes interpreted as a cult stand, is a Linear A sign. (Brent Davis, pers. comm.) Tully 2012. Evans 1901, 104, 133. Hadley 2000; Dever 2005; Wyatt 1999; Coogan and Smith 2012; Dever 2005; 285–291. Ziffer 2010, 411. In the Near East water is a metaphor for semen, (Hitchcock 2009, 100) and images of watering sacred trees may thus evoke the male fertilising principle in conjunction with female trees. Keel 1998, 36–8. Cornelius 2004; Day 1992, 184. Usually accompanied by the ithyphallic deity Min. Ackerman 1992.

TREES IN ROCKY GROUND

47

derogatory fashion, it was probably an accepted part of monarchical religion and linked to their political role in determining kingly succession.100 From Ugaritic texts such as the Baal-Anat Cycle we know that Asherah was the queen mother of the pantheon and that the mortal queen mother was associated with her.101 If Israel’s monarchy retained influences from their Canaanite ancestors then, as at Ugarit, the human figure of the queen mother may have been considered an earthly counterpart of the goddess Asherah. 102 The Egyptian tree goddesses were also associated with royal ideology: Isis was the personification of the Pharaonic throne, Hathor personified the palace and was mother/consort to Horus, and Neith suckled pharaohs.103 It is evident then that there was an association between female tree deities and rulership in the Levant and Egypt, and this will be explored more thoroughly in Chapters 6 and 7. For now let us consider the suggestion that royal ideology can explain the scenes of Minoan elites interacting cultically with a tree on gold rings. Kings, queens or specific rulers are not identifiable in Minoan art, but elite figures certainly are.104 We know that gold rings and seal stones depicting images of tree cult were tools of, and perhaps indicators of positions within, Minoan administration. While we do not know if there actually was a single ruler or a royal dynasty in LBA Crete, elite administrators may have sought to evoke associations of a wider Near Eastern koiné in which a tree (that was also a goddess) had associations with royalty. That Minoan art depicts people as generic human figures wearing a limited range of costumes, rather than as recognisable individuals, may have meant that the rings represented administrative positions rather than the holders of such positions. Rather than scenes of specific individuals interacting ritually with trees at actual cult sites within the landscape, these images may function to enhance the power and prestige of generic administrative positions which were transferrable, by portraying a communicative relationship with the royal tree deity. Although tree cult may have been practised by the wider population as well, as in Israel, and thus while the viewer of the Minoan images could therefore imaginatively project themselves into the picture, the fact that the images appeared upon rings wielded by palatial representatives in charge of administrative matters implies that only these actors were coterminus with their sign. Cosmology If the tree in Minoan glyptic images represents concepts such as rulership, possibly queenship and its female associations of motherhood, fertility, and intercession with the king or elite male, perhaps the tree in the Ring of Nestor (Fig. 7) – because of its large size, unusual quadripartite composition, and placement of the human figures, griffin, lion and Minoan dragon – depicts some sort of Minoan mythical, otherworld or cosmological idea that is an extension of this. When first contemplating this ring, Evans discerned what he considered to be a “Minoan Underworld”. Motivated by the four components of the tree which reminded him of the biblical “Four Rivers of Paradise” or Near Eastern four quarters, Evans interpreted this image as representing a Minoan conception of the afterlife.105 While the vertical trunk and horizontal wavy limbs of the “tree” in this image do look like rivers, and in the ring are sunken below the surface through being carved in intaglio as one might expect a river to be, when imprinted on a sealing the “river” stands proud of the background, as a tree would. Evans later decided that the scene did indeed depict a large tree, although he continued to link it with the biblical rivers of paradise, for no good reason at all except that it looked like a river and it fitted his model of an Elysian Field. He also interpreted the two butterflies in the upper left of the scene as “souls”. 106 Whether this image does depict a Minoan conception of the afterlife or not, Evans’




























































100 101 102 103 104 105 106

Ackerman 1998, 142. Wiggins 1993, 63–66. Ackerman 1998, 154. Troy 1986. Rehak 1995; Maran and Stavrianopoulou 2007. Rulers are discussed more thoroughly in Chapter 4. Evans 1930, 147. Evans 1925, 50; 1930, 151.

48

CHAPTER 3

distinction between other glyptic depictions of tree cult and the tree on the Ring of Nestor is thoughtprovoking. He suggests that the tree cult images represent real places, while the large tree on the Ring of Nestor depicts a scene of fantasy.107 If this ring is indeed authentic it may suggest that the Minoans had a concept that involved a large tree in a seemingly unreal landscape. If the image does represent a conceptual realm that involved a large tree, it may be linked to the real-world tree cult images in some way. Trees feature in many world religions as cosmic axes, the Norse Yggdrasil being a prominent example. Closer to Minoan Crete in space and time are the above-mentioned Egyptian tree goddesses which, as well as having royal associations, also appear in funerary contexts where they provide water for the deceased. The Minoan dragon in the Ring of Nestor does have aquatic associations and is sometimes depicted being ridden by a female figure, probably a goddess,108 so perhaps the tree on this ring has a similar revivifying function. Mountains While the tree may have associations with female rulership, fertility, the afterlife and cosmology, they are not the only components in the images examined here. As mentioned above, the trees are situated within rocky ground which may be evocative of a mountainous landscape. That trees in rocks allude to mountains is evident in Akkadian seals (Fig. 75) and may be the case in Minoan glyptic as well.109 If the tree represents a female deity or numen that has associations of fertility and of queenship/royalty and may be similar to known goddesses from Syro-Palestine and Egypt, the rocky ground may in turn possess associations with the male partner of such a deity. In Ugaritic and Israelite religion mountains were associated with male deities such as El, Baal and Yahweh. El’s mountain was a source of water and fertility, a meeting place of heaven and earth; it had connotations of royalty and governance, and was the place where the divine council met. In Hittite, Canaanite, and Israelite myth storm deities such as Teshub, Baal and Yahweh, dwell upon mountains and manifest in displays of thunder and lightning. 110 Mountains are depicted anthropomorphically in Hittite art and are considered animate in Hittite, Canaanite and Greek myth where they were thought to be able to move, sing, feel joy, grief, and envy, to procreate, and sleep.111 Mountains received sacrifice along with other deities according to Ugaritic texts, and were invoked to safeguard treaties made with the kings of the Hatti and Hittites.112 In both Levantine and Greek religion, mountains were sites of theophany. Like trees, mountains can also function as axes between an upper, middle and lower world. This may have been the case in Crete where mountain, rural, and cave sanctuaries suggest a tripartite division of the cosmos.113 Later Cretan tradition associates Mount Dikte and Mount Jouktas with the “Tomb of Zeus”, a Cretan “dying and rising” deity that underwent an “interpretatio Graeca” but was probably based on a Near Eastern prototype such as Baal.114 What this says about the character of Minoan religion If trees and rocks, or mountains, represent numina or deities does this mean that as Evans suggested, Minoan religion was aniconic? Evans’ ideas on aniconism were probably influenced by both the study of classical art and early anthropology. Nineteenth century German classical scholarship maintained that the ancient Greeks did not represent their deities in anthropomorphic form. Art historians such as Johan Winckelmann claimed that Greek art gradually evolved from rough stones into completely anthropomorphic images of gods, culminating in classical sculpture. Johannes Overbeck argued, based




























































107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114

Evans 1925, 50–1. Gill 1963; Palaiologou 1995. Kantor 1966. Clifford 1972, 3, 31, 62, 122 Clarke 1997, 67–74. Van Buren 1943, 76–84; Yasur-Landau and Goshen 2014. Marinatos 2010, 110–11. Evans 1901, 121; Postlethwaite 1999.

TREES IN ROCKY GROUND

49

on accounts of ancient religions in early Christian theological writings, that the ancient Greeks worshipped non-anthropomorphic objects such as trees, poles, stones and pillars as symbols of the divine.115 In this scenario trees were animate, and early Greek cult objects made of wood were indigenous forms of religious art, whereas stone worship was an import from the Semitic world. Aniconic monuments were thus situated within a timeline according to an evolutionary model that began with trees and ended in figural representation, and which was thought to correspond to the acquisition of the ability to envisage the divine in anthropomorphic form. The art historical model was essentially the same as that proposed in early anthropology, as espoused by Tylor, according to whom aniconism in religion was a form of fetishism in which spirits were believed to inhabit apparently inanimate objects.116 Contrary to both the art historical and anthropological schemes, however, there is no evidence that the earliest Greek art was aniconic or that aniconism in art corresponded to a primitive stage of religion.117 The term “aniconism” means different things in different disciplines, however. According to Tryggve Mettinger, whose focus is upon ancient Israelite religion in its wider Near Eastern context, aniconism refers to cults where there is no iconic representation of the deity serving as the dominant or central cultic symbol. This includes anthropomorphic, theriomorphic or physiomorphic (in which the deity is represented as a tree or mountain) representations. Mettinger recognises two forms of aniconism: an aniconic symbol such as a stone stele which he terms “material aniconism”; and sacred emptiness as seen for example in an empty throne which he terms “empty space aniconism”.118 As Milette Gaifman notes, however, while Mettinger’s category of material aniconism does not suggest an anthropomorphic deity, an empty throne does. In Buddhist art aniconism simply means refraining from a figural image of the Buddha but the use of symbolism to represent him such as a wheel or footprint is permitted. Islamic art on the other hand is more strictly aniconic, eschewing the depiction of any images of the living world. It is evident then that there is a spectrum of aniconictiy across the different visual and religious traditions, as well as academic disciplines.119 According to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, “aniconic” means “not shaped in human and animal form”, but aspects of the natural world excluded from this definition such as trees and mountains are definitely iconic. In what seems to be a looser interpretation of aniconism then, trees are classified as “aniconic” but in Mettinger’s interpretation of aniconism trees would be termed “physiomorphic”. Minoan images of tree cult set in natural landscapes can be described as having physiomorphic, theriomorphic and anthropomorphic characteristics. While trees and rocks would fit in the first category, and hovering creatures such as birds and insects in the second, the floating figures of envisioned epiphany and the human actors in enacted epiphany would be classified in the third category. Although to the modern eye some of the hovering objects in glyptic images are unrecognisable, they are not strictly aniconic. As will become evident in Chapter 5, it is the built structures in Aegean glyptic cult scenes – which are architectonic versions of trees and mountains – that can be strictly termed aniconic. Is the tree in such images only physiomorphic, however? While hovering human figures in the vicinity of the tree suggest anthropomorphic numina, if seated human figures in conjunction with the tree represent, speak, or act for the tree, then tree cult is anthropomorphic in ritual performance. This would seem to imply an anthropomorphic divinity “concealed” within the tree, but anthropomorphism may instead be the method by which the relationship between a numinous tree and human beings is mediated, either by ritual enactment performed by a human being or by the artistic rendering of a tiny hovering human figure. In artistic depictions then, rather than suggesting that the numen of the tree necessarily has a human form, both enacted epiphany and the hovering human figures of envisioned epiphany are signs of communication. Perhaps the tree-and-rock combination in Minoan cult scenes




























































115 116 117 118 119

Gaifman 2012, 19. Tylor 1871; Gaifman 2012. Donohue 1988, 226, 227, 231. Mettinger 1995, 19 Gaifman 2012, 2, 19–26, 34, 40.

50

CHAPTER 3

represents deities like Asherah and El (or Baal or Zeus), but in Crete they remain in their natural state as non-anthropomorphic trees and mountains while elites, possibly rulers, represent them. In this way elite humans translate, speak for, and mediate, the animate landscape because they could understand “a word of tree and a whisper of stone.”120 The tree then alludes to a type of deity, in this case associated with rulership, but its numen remains essentially physiomorphic except during epiphanic ritual activity. Although technically “embodied” by the ritualist, and hence “possessing” human bodies, Minoan numina of tree, stone, mountain or sky did not have their own anthropomorphic form. Enacted epiphany in the vicinity of a tree was not a case of mimesis then, in which the figural image of a deity is impersonated by a ritual performer121 but a type of “channelling”, through the technique of ecstatic possession, of a non-anthropomorphic being. That women were the ones who tended to perform this activity suggests that they were considered to have an affinity for the role. As Blakolmer says, many features of Minoan religion do not correspond to other polytheistic religious systems in the ancient world. Consequently we need not expect to find anthropomorphic “deities” like those known from other ancient polytheistic societies. The archaeological evidence for monumental anthropomorphic statues in Minoan Crete is scanty and an interpretation of them as cult images is speculative. While the Linear B texts from Mycenaean Knossos, which may reflect some remnants of Minoan religion, suggest a polytheistic cosmology, iconography does not provide clear images of individual deities, or necessarily of “deities” at all.122 The fact that any potential deities, identified by the presence of supernatural or powerful animals or unlikely events, wear the same garments as elite human beings blurs the distinction between the “supernatural” and the human realms. Minoan elites performed the sacred during ritual events, in this way becoming “virtual deities”.123 Evans’ suggestion then, that “[Minoan] idols remained aniconic, but the Gods themselves were naturally pictured to the minds of their worshippers under a more or less human aspect” is basically accurate.124 In Minoan religion the lack of anthropomorphic deities is obviously not a case of primitivism in regard to artistic dexterity or a religious inability to conceive of a deity in anthropomorphic form, but rather an indication that Minoan religion was characterised by an animate, rather than anthropomorphic, natural world. Even if we take the glyptic images of hovering epiphanic figures as literal depictions of what the individual ritual participant saw, rather than as artistic signs aimed at the viewer of glyptic, in each case such forms emanate from aspects of the natural world such as trees, rocks, and sky. This suggests that Minoan religion can be described as “nature” religion that was experienced through the mediation of elite human performance. Ideological Landscape By using the term “nature religion” to describe LBA Minoan religion, an evocation of romantic visions of peaceful flower-lovers is not intended. Research from anthropology has shown that “nature” is not separate from “culture”.125 “Landscape” is simultaneously a natural and a cultural space, and is a category of nature that is appropriated in art and which has ideological connotations.126 As Denis Cosgrove explains, within the history of art landscape represents a method by which certain classes of people have signified themselves and their world through their imagined relationship with nature, and through which they have underlined and communicated their own social role and that of others with




























































120 121 122

123

124 125 126

KTU 1.3. Wyatt 2007. Connelly 2007. Knossos tablets: 3,369, signs 26,088 (Gulizio and Nakassis 2014, 120); Blakolmer 2010. Especially if Minoans were the scribes, as suggested by Palaima 2011, 115, 124. Blakolmer 2010, 49–58. They were thus – technically – priests and priestesses who interpreted and mediated the supernatural. Evans 1901, 123. Seeland 1997. Cosgrove 2004, 61, 68; Mitchell 2002.

TREES IN ROCKY GROUND

51

respect to external nature.127 An animistic conception of the natural world does not preclude its appropriation in the pursuit of power and prestige. While usually associated with societies with a seemingly simpler social and economic structure such as hunter-gatherers, in the case of the Minoans an animistic worldview was combined with a state-level society. The performance of epiphanic ritual amidst animate “nature” or “landscape” by ritual actors who are probably simultaneously administrative and cult functionaries of this society provides them with prestige and power. In Minoan Crete both glyptic and fresco landscape art were utilised by elites of the Neopalatial period in the display of prestige and wealth – glyptic scenes of landscape on rings of precious metal worn by elite administrators, along with frescoes appearing in palatial architecture, usually in small rooms with restricted access. In this way landscape was “captured” in elite visual art, as it also was in floral and marine style ceramic decoration, and in symbolic references to mountains and caves in palatial architecture.128 In the case of the images discussed here, the numinous landscape is utilised to show that Minoan elites are intimately connected with landscape, and are able to communicate with it which implies the power to influence it as well. In this way, landscape is co-opted in the service of ideology, in which religious expression legitimates the sanctity of elites by positioning them as intermediaries between the human and “supernatural” worlds.129 The ubiquity of landscape means that it is able to function in art to naturalise such a cultural and social construction, representing an artificial utopian world as if it were simply given and inevitable. 130 The Minoan landscape consequently was not merely an inert backdrop to ritual performance but was duplicitous,131 and functioned “as a politicised, active agent in the enactment of power.”132 Conclusion This chapter has shown that aspects considered within late 19th and early 20th century scholarship to be indicators of primitivism such as animism, aniconism, nature religion, prominence of women, ecstasy, and possession, are being utilised by a state-level society in the pursuit of power. It is evident that epiphanic ritual within Minoan glyptic scenes set amidst trees and rocks is an indicator of an animistic landscape. The depiction of envisioned and enacted epiphany signifies a relationship between Minoan elites, primarily women, and the numinous landscape. Trees and rocks may be shorthand for groves and mountains and these may in turn have had associations with deities who were the leaders of their pantheons. Such deities were the patrons of human rulers and hence Minoan elites depicted in relationship with their symbols appropriated such associations of rulership. That the primary characteristics of Minoan tree cult were physiomorphic and only anthropomorphic when incorporated into ritual activity enacted by human beings enhances the ritualist’s status as one who can communicate with and represent the “numinous Other” dwelling within the landscape. While such images may have had a basis in reality, the constraints of the glyptic medium mean that they function as concentrated messages in which the relationship between Minoan elites and the authoritative landscape is emphasised. The utilisation of both the general landscape and specific associations with physiomorphic numina representative of rulership within the glyptic examples studied here intensifies the ideological properties of the natural world making it doubly useful in the enhancement of Minoan elite power.






























































127 128 129 130 131 132

Cosgrove 1984, 15. Hitchcock 2007. Friedman and Rowlands 1978. Mitchell 2002, 1–2. Daniels 1989. Crooks, Tully and Hitchcock 2016, 163.

CHAPTER 4 TREES, WALLS AND GATES The majority of images of Minoan tree cult feature architectural structures and other man-made objects. These include ashlar enclosure walls, gateways, paved floors, vertical-sided and stepped ashlar altars, stepped openwork platforms, potentially wooden columnar structures, and pithoi. This chapter identifies and focuses upon images that depict walls and gateways with trees behind them and interprets the scenes in which they feature as depictions of cult events located outside sacred enclosures situated in mountainous locations. Previous scholarship has tended to conflate the built structures in Minoan art, particularly glyptic, classifying different kinds of structure together as though they all represent a single type – either “walls”, “shrines” or “portal shrines” – rather than separating them clearly into their individual categories. As a consequence of such a generalising approach, the human activity located in conjunction with such structures has not been able to be interpreted as precisely as it could be. This chapter argues that images of elite figures in the vicinity of sanctuary walls in glyptic, stone vase, and fresco paintings are signs that convey the idea of the endorsement of such figures by tree and mountain numina associated with rulership. In order to support this contention the chapter begins by introducing the nine images that will be discussed. These consist of seven glyptic images that derive from both extant rings and clay sealings; a fragment of a stone rhyton; and the fresco painting on the eastern wall of the first level of the building Xeste 3 from Thera (Figs 10–18). The glyptic images are categorised into an order that proceeds according to whether they feature walls with gateways, just walls, or lone gateways, and followed by the Gypsadhes Rhyton fragment and Thera fresco. Next, the way in which architectural structures depicted in glyptic images have been interpreted by previous scholars is covered. It is seen that much previous scholarship was characterised by the conflation of various types of structures that ought to have been separated. In the examples studied here, ashlar walls have been misinterpreted for shrines and altars, and the opposite is also true. This leads into an examination of the history of scholarly misinterpretation of gateways, the conflation of such structures with columnar shrines, and the invention of a category expressive of this visual confusion, the so-called “portal shrine”. The chapter then moves on to define the characteristics of the artistic rendering of ashlar walls, gateways and doorways within Aegean art. This is followed by the explanation as to why, rather than portraying roofed buildings, shrines, altars, or sections of palatial architecture, the images examined here depict the external walls of sacred enclosures behind which are situated trees. Subsequent to this the chapter turns to examine whether the scenes in the rings, rhyton and fresco artworks depict real places within the Aegean landscape, in accordance with the penchant for this endeavour evident in previous scholarship, and whether the archaeological correlates of the architectural structures within the images can be identified at actual sanctuary sites located within the region in which the images were found. Cult sites dating to the Neopalatial period that exhibit features such as enclosure walls, gateways, paving and objects such as pithoi are investigated but it is determined that it is not possible to directly match the artwork to particular cult locations. Following on from this, the possibility that the images instead depict generic types of sanctuary is considered and this is deemed to be likely. It is subsequently determined that the glyptic images depict imaginary scenes with some basis in reality, but that because they are both constricted within the glyptic frame as well as being miniature artworks, the nature of which involves editing, they simply cannot reproduce all the characteristics of actual cult places. This is also true for the carved rhyton and painted wall at Thera, but on a larger scale. It is established then that while the artworks discussed here all depict the exterior walls of sanctuary sites, they are signs rather than scenes.

54

CHAPTER 4

The ensuing section of the chapter then turns away from the attempt to locate the images within the landscape or to determine the characteristics of such sites from tiny glyptic artworks, and focuses instead upon the examination of what such images mean. Analysis of the position and activity of the human figures in conjunction with the architectural structures suggest that the images depict the arrival of elite, mainly female figures at the exterior of sacred enclosure walls, probably of a peak sanctuary. The images that include three figures suggest that this involved a procession and the characteristics of procession scenes in Aegean art and their function in a cult context are then examined. The idea that the human figures in the images are dancing is subsequently considered, and its implications noted. The gestures of the male epiphanic figures in two of the images are compared with similar gestures in other artworks that have been determined to signify authority. In combination with the probable mountainous location of the image, these figures are consequently interpreted as mountain numina that empower and provide legitimation for the female figures approaching their sanctuaries, possibly through the enactment of a sacred marriage. This interpretation is also applied to the images that do not depict male epiphanic figures, the similar location of the events and position of the human figures in relation to the sanctuary walls suggesting that a general equivalence of mountainous cult site and its associations of authority, specifically rulership, can be applied to these images as well. The chapter ultimately concludes that through the representation of elite figures in the vicinity of peak sanctuaries, the images discussed here convey the message that such figures have a special relationship with, and are specifically endorsed by, mountain numina who are themselves associated with the idea of rulership and are empowered to bestow it upon worthy others. Images Discussed The nine images discussed in this chapter derive from five rings, two ring impressions on clay, a fragment of a stone rhyton and a wall painting, and originate from Crete (Figs 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17), mainland Greece (Fig. 14), Thera (Fig. 18) and an unknown location (Fig. 11). Eight of the objects have identifiable findspots, while one is unprovenienced. All the images depict human figures performing cultic activity in outdoor locations in the vicinity of walls associated with trees. Seven of the images depict female figures and two feature males. One of the images (Fig. 10) juxtaposes a full sized female figure with a small hovering epiphanic male figure. Trees are situated behind ashlar walls, some of which have gateways, behind apparently lone gateways, and one is in a boat. In eight of the examples the branches and foliage of the trees project over the architecture, but their trunks are obscured and therefore it is not possible to see whether they grow from pots or the ground. In the image in which the tree is in the boat, it is in conjunction with a stepped ashlar altar (discussed in Chapter 5) rather than behind the nearby wall. Four examples include additional vegetation, and three include rocks, two examples of which are double baetyls with squills. (Mis)Identifying Different Built Structures Walls It is evident in previous scholarship that different built structures in Minoan glyptic cult scenes have been conflated. What are actually separate depictions of walls, shrines, gateways, and paving have been misidentified and classified in a generalising way as all depicting single types of structures such as “walls”, “shrines” or so-called “portal shrines”. While walls and shrines are indeed evident in Minoan glyptic, in many cases they have been mistaken for each other, and the category of “portal shrine” has been applied to both columnar structures (discussed more thoroughly in Chapter 5) and gateways. Evans sought to liken the ashlar walled structure in Figure 10 to the walls in Figure 17, suggesting that both depicted the enclosure walls of a sanctuary.1 While this is correct, although the wall types are




























































1

Evans 1928, 615.

TREES, WALLS AND GATES

55

different, one being ashlar and the other polygonal masonry, in other cases such as in regard to the Sacred Grove and Dance Fresco, he misread paving for walls when it is more likely that this image depicts the paved walkways of the West Court at Knossos.2 Misinterpreting paving for walls is a common reading of glyptic cult scenes, as shown by Persson’s interpretation the cobbled floor in the ring from Mycenae (Fig. 23) as the “surrounding wall of a temenos”3, and Galanakis’ description of the paved floor in HM 989 (Fig. 34) as a “peribolos wall”.4 Structures that ought to be interpreted as altars and shrines are also misread as walls. Evans interprets the tree shrine on the seal from Ligortino (Fig. 28) as a walled enclosure with a gateway,5 and both Rutkowski and Galanakis interpret the tripartite shrine in HM 989 (Fig. 34) as a wall.6 Rutkowski tends to interpret structures surmounted by trees as “walls”, as in the case of the stepped altar in the Mochlos Ring (Fig. 13) and the tree altar on Side B of the Haghia Triadha sarcophagus (Fig. 41). He sees the tree shrine on the right of the Kalyvia Ring (Fig. 19), and the pithos on the left as walls, and the two altars on Figure 23 as the two edges of a wall that runs around the back of the image behind the human figures. In this interpretation, rather than leaning over the altar, the female figure on the left is “writhing in the dance”.7 Dimopoulou and Rethemiotakis interpret the ashlar tree shrine in the ring from Poros (Fig. 29) as “walls”, likening it to the stepped ashlar structure with a tree in the Ring of Minos (Fig. 21) which they term a “built enclosure”, citing Persson’s suggestion that such a structure referred to an enclosed garden.8 It is true that the structure on the Poros ring is seemingly straight sided, like all other images of ashlar walls in glyptic, as will be discussed below; however, their suggestion of an enclosure wall is not feasible because of the presence of the male figure shaking the tree, as trees are never shaken over walls, but from shrines or rocky ground.9 Rather than interpreting the architectural constructions in the images as walls, other scholars consider them all to be “shrines”. Marinatos separates the structures into ashlar and wooden types; however, does not define or separate walls from these two categories, describing them all as small “shrines” that “clearly imitate Minoan shrines of a larger size”.10 Walls have also been interpreted as buildings. Krattenmaker reads the structures as single-storied, windowless buildings that she terms “individual free standing structures”.11 She identifies the walls in the Knossos Ring (Fig. 10), the Berlin Ring (Fig. 11), the bronze ring (Fig. 12), and the Mochlos Ring (Fig. 13) as buildings and interprets the trees in the first three images as growing from the “roofs” of the structures.12 These images actually depict walls without roofs, however, and in each case the tree is situated behind the walls, within the structure, and projects over the top of the walls.13 Gateways In addition to conflating different sorts of structures together as depictions of “walls”, previous scholarship has also misinterpreted glyptic images of lone gateways as a type of shrine, the so-called “portal shrine”. Evans coined the term “portal shrine”, by which he meant a “sacral gateway”.14 He mainly used the term to portray what Krattenmaker more accurately designates as “columnar




























































2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14

Evans 1936, 68. As did Faro 2008. As paved walkways see Graham 1962, 74; Davis 1987; Marinatos 1987a, 137. Persson 1942, 38–9. Rutkowski 1986, 101; Galanakis 2005, 90. Evans 1901, 185. Galanakis 2005, 100. Rutkowski 1986, 100–1, 205. Dimopoulou and Rethemiotakis 2004, 9, 20, 19; 2000, 2000, 39–56. 49. Sourvinou-Inwood 1989, 254–6. Marinatos 1993, 182. Krattenmaker 1991, 241. Krattenmaker 1991, 243–246. Not simply sitting on top of the walls, as suggested by Schoep (1994, 189–210). The wall in the Mochlos Ring does not have a tree, but its similarity to the other examples suggest that it is a wall. Evans 1901, 181–5.

56

CHAPTER 4

shrines”; structures characterised by a simple post and lintel format consisting of columns, posts, or piers supporting a horizontal element such as a cornice or entablature.15 Columnar structures are depicted on the gold ring from Thebes (Fig. 27) depicting a columnar shrine, a bull, and a tree, and on Figure 24 from Mycenae depicting an agrimi with a tree behind it and a man approaching the shrine and will be discussed more thoroughly in Chapter 5. Images of lone gateways such as the two analysed in this chapter (Figs 15, 16) have tended to be incorporated into this designation as well. That these images do in fact represent distinct gateways rather than “portal shrines” or columnar shrines, however, is suggested by the wider space between their uprights and cornice than appears in similar structures that actually ought to be interpreted as shrines or altars.16 In Minoan artistic depictions of architecture gateways and doorways are represented far less frequently than windows. Krattenmaker distinguishes gateways from doorways by their position in enclosure walls (gateways) or in houses (doorways). Doorways appear in media such the Town Mosaic plaques, in terracotta models, and possibly on the Gypsadhes stone vessel fragment (Fig. 76).17 Gateways within architectural structures such as those in Figures 10 and 11 are relatively rare in glyptic depictions of masonry structures and in fact these, plus the Chania Master Impression (Fig. 77), are the only examples.18 Nilsson interprets the gateways in Figures 10 and 11 as examples of “portal shrines”, and structures that are actually altars or shrines such as Figure 7819 as doorways. He classifies the structures in the Mycenae ring (Fig. 23), the Candia ring (Fig. 78), and a ring from Athens (Fig. 79), as depicting lone doorways.20 That he was not particularly concerned to deal with the minutiae of glyptic images of architecture is evident by his description of the tree shrine on the Kalyvia Ring (Fig. 19) as depicting “the usual construction”. N. Marinatos interprets the structures in Figures 10 and 11 as depicting a combined doorway and shrine, suggesting that they are actually “constructed tree-shrines that contain portals”. She further proposes an interpretation of false doors, similar to the Egyptian type.21 The gateway in the Xeste 3 fresco (Fig. 18) has also been interpreted as an altar,22 but seems proportionally too large when compared with the wall to which it is attached and the human figures nearby on the northern wall. It is also termed a “tree shrine”23 but the tree is really situated behind the walls, as is evident in the most recent reconstructions of the frescoes show.24 Actual “tree shrines” will be discussed in Chapter 5. It is evident then that glyptic and fresco images of gateways and doorways have been misinterpreted in various ways, mainly because they appear to resemble other structures, and also as a result of different approaches to the interpretation of perspective, scale and spatial orientation. A case in point is Evans’ interpretation of the image on the seal from Ligortino (Fig. 28). What is actually an ashlar or wickerwork altar surmounted by a tree was seen by Evans as a walled enclosure with a gateway. If one were to accept this interpretation, however, it would mean that the female figure was huge, or that we should assume the “wall” is small because it has been rendered according to distance perspective although being situated upon the same horizontal plane as the female figure, which is unlikely.25 In regard to reading size, Rutkowski interprets the doors of the tomb on Side A of the Haghia Triadha




























































15 16

17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25

Krattenmaker 1991, 249, 293. They can be compared with similar structures with wide openings as seen in CMS I No.108, CMS II.8 No.272, CMS V No.728, CMS V Supp. IB No.113. Krattenmaker 1991, 89. Krattenmaker 1991, 249. A forgery, according to Sourvinou-Inwood (1990, 192–198). I agree. Included in relation to Nilsson’s discussion. Nilsson 1950, 268. I think Fig. 94, CMS I No.514, is also a forgery. Marinatos 1989, 140. Marinatos 1984, 74; Vlachopoulos 2007, 109. Günkel-Maschek 2012. Vlachopoulos 2014. Evans 1901, 185.

TREES, WALLS AND GATES

57

Sarcophagus (Fig. 33) as a monumental entrance,26 when in fact the size of such a structure appears on the artwork to have been small. His claim that gateways leading into sacred enclosures would have been monumental imposing structures like the Lion Gate at Mycenae (Fig. 80) and the entrances to Minoan Tholos tombs is contradicted by clear evidence from glyptic depictions, the Zakro Rhyton (Fig. 32b), and the archaeological record.27 Sacred Enclosure Walls In the images under investigation in this chapter the main architectural characteristic is rectangular ashlar masonry consisting of straight sided walls, sometimes with gateways. This is in contrast to stepped structures such as altars or tripartite shrines which will be discussed in Chapter 5. As we have seen, previous authors have mainly conflated images of built structures within Minoan glyptic. Sourvinou-Inwood, however, separates walls as a category apart from stepped ashlar and columnar shrines and other cult paraphernalia. She suggests that scenes of walls over which trees project depict the exterior of a sacred enclosure, while altars and cult paraphernalia depict the interior. In this interpretation the exterior of a sacred enclosure is characterised by a tree situated behind and projecting over the walls. These are represented by courses of isodomic masonry and a gateway consisting of a cornice above an opening, framed by two uprights with a horizontal lintel, and paved ground.28 In Schoep’s typology of architectural structures depicted in Minoan glyptic these are termed the “Entrance-and-Wall” type.29 We can assume that the tree is within the walled structure and that we are viewing it from the outside because it is obscured by the wall. It is determined then that the images investigated here depict ashlar masonry walls, both with and without gateways, and lone gateways that may be made of either stone or wood. According to Krattenmaker, masonry appears in three different forms in Minoan art and can be characterised as rectangular, checkerboard, and rough stone masonry.30 The examples focussed upon here consist of rectangular masonry, except for the Gypsadhes Rhyton which depicts polygonal masonry. Rectangular masonry is characterised in iconography by rectangular blocks arranged in rows in a staggered format, the joints of one row appearing as positioned over the middle of the stone blocks of other rows, while polygonal masonry appears as diamond-shaped with the joints meandering according to the stone block’s shapes. Rectangular masonry is the most common type depicted and appears in almost all media including glyptic, fresco and architectural models.31 In glyptic images rectangular masonry is found in representations of walls, vertical and stepped altars and possibly some gateways. We can be sure that such images depict stone blocks rather than mudbrick because the latter is always plastered and thus does not show the individual bricks.32 Some structures in glyptic scenes, such as Figure 14, appear to be made of a grid-like “latticework” where the lines indicating mortar between the blocks are continuously vertical and horizontal rather than alternating; however, this may be an abbreviated way of depicting ashlar masonry. Ashlar structures in Minoan representations of architecture are usually surmounted by projecting cornices depicted as single, double or triple horizontal bands.33 Examples with double bands are evident in the images studied in this chapter. Rectangular masonry topped by cornices is also depicted on the Zakro Rhyton (Fig. 32b), fragments of rhyta from Gypsadhes (Figs 17, 76), and the gate with




























































26 27 28 29 30 31 32

33

Rutkowski 1986, 105–6. Rutkowski 1986, 206. Sourvinou-Inwood 1989, 253. Schoep 1994, 207. Krattenmaker 1991, 45. Krattenmaker 1991, 45. Palyvou 2005, 189–190. Although at the palace of Malia a rubble wall was covered in plaster and horizontal and vertical lines were incised to imitate ashlar. Krattenmaker 1991, 135.

58

CHAPTER 4

horns from Xeste 3 (Fig. 18), all of which feature in cult scenes.34 The Zakro Rhyton depicts a peak sanctuary with walls constructed of very regular isodomic ashlar masonry topped by triple stepped cornices35 and the Xeste 3 fresco, which may also be a peak sanctuary, depicts a wall constructed of ashlar masonry in the middle of which is a gate topped with monumental horns, over which leans a tree. Such images may help clarify what it is that the more cursorily executed glyptic examples are intended to represent. Glyptic images of ashlar walls only appear in cultic scenes.36 If the ashlar structures in glyptic cult scenes represent the same type of structure as on the stone rhyta and Theran fresco, then they may depict a peak sanctuary, particularly the outside thereof.37 Sourvinou-Inwood suggests that images in which the walls do not include a doorway, such as Figure 12, represent a different section of the sacred enclosure wall, and this might be correct;38 however, they may alternatively have been the result of an artistic choice of the engraver who simply did not choose to include the gateway. While Sourvinou-Inwood goes into great detail regarding which angle of the sacred enclosure walls the scenes depict, and therefore which way the viewer of the images ought to be orienting themselves,39 it is more likely that such precision was not a major factor in these images, and that what was being communicated in such scenes was merely the suggestion of a sacred enclosure, which the Minoan viewer – had they been familiar with such structures – would be able to work out for themselves. Sourvinou-Inwood also proposes that, alternately, these images depict an orientation just inside the sacred enclosure in which the viewer’s back is to the gateway,40 but this seems unlikely because the positioning of the walls and gateway at the edge of the scene imply separate objects rather than a background. Regardless of the exact section of the wall depicted, the type of sacred enclosure wall represented in these images must refer to one that is situated at one of the peak or rural sanctuaries that were architecturally-elaborated in the Neopalatial period, because only those sanctuaries had masonry walls.41 That the glyptic images depict hypaethral sanctuary walls rather than parts of palatial architecture is evident if we agree with Krattenmaker’s method of identification of palatial architecture, according to which the identifying characteristics are columns and beam ends. An example can be seen in Fig. 81 which depicts columns supporting an entablature with a frieze of circles or “beam-ends” and a triple cornice crowned by horns. The beam-end motif appears in frescoes identified as depicting parts of the palace at Knossos, such as the Tripartite Shrine Fresco (Fig. 46) which may have belonged to the Grandstand Fresco believed to represent the west side of the Central Court at Knossos, and a fresco fragment showing a woman standing on a balcony.42 Evans found the carbonised ends of small round beams to the east side of the well of the Grand Staircase in the Knossos palace, and at Phaistos the round sockets of ceiling beams are visible in the west wall of Room IL in the Protopalatial palace.43 Beam ends and columns are not typical of iconographic depictions of peak sanctuary structures such as those in the stone rhyta, and while column bases are found in Minoan palaces they are not evident at peak sanctuary sites;44 therefore in regards to the glyptic images of walls discussed here, if palatial




























































34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

44

Vlachopoulos 2007; Warren 1969, 84–90. Krattenmaker 1991, 46. Krattenmaker 1991, 47. Krattenmaker 1995, 291; Sourvinou-Inwood 1989, 255–6. Sourvinou-Inwood 1989, 225. Sourvinou-Inwood 1989, 225. Sourvinou-Inwood 1989, 256. Peatfield 1990, 127. Krattenmaker 1991, 127. And on the horned altar on Side B of the Haghia Triadha Sarcophagus. Krattenmaker 1995, 127 n. 30. Palyvou (2005, 190) however, thinks that “beam ends” as depicted in iconography, rather than reflecting actual visible characteristics of Minoan buildings, were an artistic convention in which the beams ends were visible as if through X-ray, showing what lay under the exterior surface of the building or possibly to evoke memories of an earlier wooden structure where the beam ends did show. Krattenmaker 1995b, 49, 54.

TREES, WALLS AND GATES

59

architecture is usually depicted with pillars and beam ends, then the glyptic images of walls can be excluded from this category. Since Krattenmaker was writing, however, a new ring depicting a scene incorporating monumental architecture and interpreted as part of the interior of the court at Knossos has been published (Fig. 82).45 The ring, from Poros, dates to the MM III or LM I period and depicts a large building, behind or upon a hilly landscape or vegetation. On the right side of the image a female figure stands above a stepped ashlar construction, facing the building. As opposed to the way architectural components are usually depicted in rings: situated off to the side and secondary to any human figures, in this image the built structure is the primary component of the scene with the human figure at a smaller scale and positioned to the side. The building is composed of a three-storey block on the right and a two-storey block on the left, with vertical and horizontal engraved strips representing the side walls, floors and roof. Columns or pillars have been interpreted on this ring but there are no beam ends; nevertheless, this ring has been interpreted as depicting palatial architecture. Although the building appears to be an isolated structure, and despite its setting in an apparently mountainous landscape, Rethemiotakis and Dimopoulou suggest that because of its double story and colonnaded facade it ought to be identified as part of a palatial facade such as those framing the central courts of the major palaces, in this case, the Knossos palace in particular. If this is correct then, it shows that palatial structures can be depicted in glyptic without including beam ends, so perhaps we cannot be entirely sure about Krattenmaker’s definition of the signifiers of palatial architecture within the glyptic medium.46 Whether “palatial” or not, however, we can be sure that the images examined here depict unroofed walled structures. Location in the “Real” Landscape As explained in the preceding chapter, beginning with Evans earlier scholars have tended to use glyptic depictions of cult scenes to identify such places within the actual landscape.47 In the images investigated here the wider context in which these walls and gateways are situated, whether that is open landscape, mountainous terrain or an urban location, is not immediately evident as the images consist of “close-ups” in which only human figures, portions of architecture and a small amount of vegetation feature. The wall of the enclosure is always only partially shown, as the images prioritise the activity of the human figures while the walls situate that activity somewhere specific.48 Krattenmaker suggests that the inclusion of architecture in visual representations makes them site-specific and indicates a desire to be precise about the locale of a particular activity49 – a location that was probably evident to the Minoan viewer. As we have seen, Younger suggested that characteristics of glyptic depictions of architecture such as walls, shrines and paving should be locatable within the landscape and attempted to match glyptic cult scenes to the Mycenaean sanctuary at Phylakopi.50 Can the images of walls and gateways examined in this chapter, interpreted as depicting the external walls of sacred enclosures, be matched to actual sanctuary sites? Potential Sites Six out of the seven ring images discussed here have reasonable provenances: Knossos and environs, Mochlos, Haghia Triadha, and Nemea on the Greek mainland. The rhyton fragment is from the




























































45 46

47

48 49 50

Rethemiotakis and Dimopoulou 2003, 9, 12. That beam ends need not depict palatial architecture is further emphasised by Figure 26, the Griffin Warrior Ring 2, which depicts a columnar shrine, the top of which features a row of circles traditionally interpreted as evoking beam ends, as also seen on the tree shrine on Side B of the Haghia Triadha Sarcophagus. Schoep 1992. Artistic depictions of architecture have also been used as the basis for graphic restorations of partially preserved buildings as well as actual physical reconstructions. Palyvou 2005, 185. Sourvinou-Inwood 1989, 255–6. Krattenmaker 1995b, 132. Younger 2009.

60

CHAPTER 4

Gypsadhes Hill at Knossos and the fresco image comes from the building Xeste 3 at Thera. While the find-spots of the rings does not necessarily equate to them having been manufactured at those locations, it is still useful to investigate whether there are any sites, such as peak sanctuaries, in their vicinities because if the rings and sealings were owned by people dwelling in the areas where they were found, then they may depict scenes from sanctuaries within those regions. That the images do not depict cave sanctuaries is suggested by the characteristic indicators of caves within Minoan glyptic discussed in the previous chapter. After determining which sites are potential candidates for the glyptic images examined here, those sites will be investigated for architectural components that could be considered to correlate with the iconography. Note will be taken in particular of structures and objects that specifically appear in the ring imagery, including enclosure walls, gateways, and paving, as well as objects such as pithoi. There are around 40 Minoan sites currently considered to be peak sanctuaries or hill shrines. These are Ayia Kyriaki Gremnakas, Ayios Georgios (Kythera), Ayios Mamas Kopida, Ambelos, Anatoli Pandotinou Korifi, Atsipades Korakias, Demati, Ephendi Christou (Phaistos), Etiani Kephala, Gonies Filioremos, Iouktas, Kalamaki, Karphi, Kastellos Koupa (Peatfield’s ‘Roussos Dhetis’), Keria, Kophinas, Korakomouri, Korfi tou Mare, Liliano, Mavrou Korifi, Maza, Modi, Petsofas, Plakias Paligremnos, Preveli Korifi, Profitis Elias (Malia), South Hill (Gournia), Spili Vorizi, Tapes Pano Kastello, Thylakas, Traostalos, Trochilas Faneromeni, Tylissos Pyrgos, Vrysinas, Xerokambos Vigla, Xykephalo, Zakros Vigla, Ziros Plagia, and Zou Prinias.51 During the Protopalatial period peak sanctuaries were distributed throughout eastern and east-central Crete while in the Neopalatial period the number of sites was reduced as few as eight: Jouktas, Kophinas, Petsophas, Filioremos, Prinias, Pyrgos, Traostalos and Vrysinas. These eight are widely dispersed and connected to urban centers with two, Jouktas and Traostalos, situated near palaces.52 Monumental architectural features are only found at those peak sanctuary sites whose use continued into the Neopalatial period.53 The best substantiated shrine buildings are found at Filioremos, Jouktas, Kophinas, Petsophas, Pyrgos, Traostalos and Vrysinas, and these are the sites that also exhibit luxury Neopalatial material.54 The built structures at these sites are characterised by single or multiple roomed enclosures built roughly of local stone. Inside the enclosures evidence of ritual activity such as altars, niches, benches, rock tables and small hearths was found, along with the ubiquitous human and animal figurines, votive limbs, ash, and evidence of feasting. The peak sanctuary of Jouktas is the oldest and most monumentalised peak sanctuary and includes a built altar and six rooms constructed upon four terraces.55 Beginning then, with the Knossos region, the obvious peak sanctuary to look at is Jouktas. There are also two structures on the same mountain, but lower down, that will be investigated: Building B and the shrine of Anemospilia. The peak sanctuary at Jouktas (Fig. 83a) was preliminarily excavated by Evans in 1909, and new excavations began in 1974 directed by Alexandra Karetsou.56 The peak sanctuary is located approximately 13 kms south-west of Knossos at a height of 811m. The Central Court of the palace at Knossos was aligned with the mountain of Jouktas,57 and a road joined Knossos to the summit, ascending the mountain by way of Anemospilia, following the western ridge of the mountain and ending on the north side of the sanctuary wall. The palatial structure of Archanes was also aligned with the Jouktas peak sanctuary, but on an east-west axis while Knossos was north-south. The sanctuary, which began to be monumentalised in the MM III period, consists of two open air terraces approached by a ramp situated between masonry walls, a row of rooms that were probably originally roofed, and a third and fourth terrace to the east of the rooms. At the northwest corner of Terrace I, where the ramp ends, is a stepped altar that measures 0.5m by 4.7m and is situated on the




























































51 52 53 54 55 56 57

Peatfield 1994; Nowicki 2007; Moody 2009 ; Davis 2014. Kyriakidis 2005, 20; Davis 2014, 406, n.1624. Peatfield 1994, 23. Peatfield 1987, 92. Peatfield 1990, 122. Karetsou 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981a, 1981b, 1984, 1985. Preziosi 1983, 501–9.

TREES, WALLS AND GATES

61

lip of a natural chasm which was used for the deposition of votive offerings. Above the third terrace, east of the rooms, is a long narrow bench which probably functioned as a surface for displaying votive objects. The site is surrounded by a Cyclopean wall built of huge blocks of the grey limestone bedrock of the mountain: its perimeter measuring 735m, its width exceeding 3m, and its height being approximately 3.50m (Fig. 83b). The wall most probably dates to the MM III–LM I.58 Building B is a large edifice with a sizable paved court which dates to the MM–LM. Located on the Jouktas massif at an altitude of 730 m, close to the peak sanctuary, it consists of multiple rooms, which may have been storage chambers, located around a central paved area. It may have been an auxiliary building attached to the peak sanctuary, although the associated paved courtyard may signify ritual activity at the site itself. 59 Kyriakidis suggests that both Anemospilia and Building B could be considered as being either adjacent to or part of the same complex at Jouktas, in which case the greater ritual complex would have been comparable to the large one at Kato Syme during the Neopalatial period.60 The site of Anemospilia is located at an altitude of 400m approximately half way up the Jouktas massif, it is situated on a projection of land that juts out precisely where the rocky mountain bed and cultivable land start to converge.61 It was first excavated by Evans, and then re-excavated by Efi and John Sakellarakis in 1979. The site is characterised by an ashlar building dating to the transitional period between MM IIIB–IIIA (Figs 84, 124). It is tripartite in plan and consists of three long rooms facing north with a long east-west corridor on the northern side of the building. The structure has thick sturdy walls which were originally covered with white and red plaster decorated with bands. It had lavish thresholds and antae constructed of ashlar masonry, and also had an enclosure wall.62 Below and east of Jouktas is situated the settlement of Archanes which contained a monumental building (Fig. 85). Originally termed a “summer palace for the Kings at Knossos” by Evans, who had noticed various walls in the village and who discovered the palace reservoir, the site was later excavated by Sakellarakis in 1964. Although Krattenmaker suggests that palatial structures are depicted in glyptic by columns and beam-ends, and therefore the rings investigated in this section must apparently be excluded from such a category, there still may have been some sort of wall or other construction at Archanes that could feasibly be likened to the ring images: Courtyard 1/11 is such a location. This area is characterised by a large platform, termed by the excavator an “exedra”, situated directly in front of a tower-like construction in Area 8. The exedra is a rectangular stone structure and a door pivot in the threshold of the north-west corner suggests that it may have been closed off from the two parts of the courtyard by a low enclosure wall. Most interesting is that at the south-east corner of the platform is a paved area, next to which is an area that was originally covered with soil which may have been used for the cultivation of a plant or tree associated with cult activities.63 As well as the palatial site of Archanes, the region below Jouktas also contained other important settlements, one of which was Vathypetro to the south (Fig. 86a). 64 This site was excavated by Spyridon Marinatos in the 1940s and 50s and consists of a villa, several other buildings, workshop spaces and courtyards. Vathypetro originally formed part of a larger settlement extending over three hills. It likely that the remaining complex was the most important part of this settlement as it is the only site where ashlar masonry is found in the area. The complex has palatial characteristics including directional orientation, porticoes and a west facade, as well as possible halls with light wells, a lustral basin, and pillar crypts. In addition it incorporates specific features that appear in the rings such as ashlar masonry walls and paving.65 This site also had what has been interpreted as a tripartite shrine




























































58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Karetsou 1981. Faro 2008, 283. Kyriakidis 2005, 102–3. Sakellarakis 1991, 137–156. Sakellarakis 1991, 137–156. Sakellarakis 1991, 40. Sakellarakis 1991, 122–65. Driessen and Sakellarakis 1997, 69.

62

CHAPTER 4

(Fig. 86b, discussed in Chapter 5).66 The tripartite shrine was later provided with a temenos in the LM IB which appears to have functioned to restrict access to the shrine, requiring entry to the space from within the associated building rather than from outside it as in an earlier phase.67 That the enclosure wall of Jouktas was constructed of cyclopean masonry would suggest that the only image of those focussed upon here that it may match would be the Gypsadhes Rhyton. The other structures, Anemospilia and Building B, were roofed although the paved floor depicted in Figure 10 may correlate with that at Building B. In regard to Archanes and Vathypetro, while it is possible that there may have been hypaethral walled structures made of rectangular masonry behind which a tree was situated at these locations, we cannot be sure from the available archaeological evidence. Along with architectural components, Figure 12 depicts a pithos. Such coarseware storage vessels were common at peak and rural sanctuaries. Many storage vessels have been attested at Jouktas including pithos fragments dating to the MM IIIA–LM II which were discovered in the ash altar, a pithos with a decorative band near its base and several small handles as well as pithos sherds, and plentiful evidence for smaller closed vessels dating to the Neopalatial period. 68 At Anemospilia at least 150 vessels (including twenty large pithoi) were found inside the rooms and it seems that the site may have functioned as a place for excess storage for the peak sanctuary.69 Building B also had a large number of storage vessels, and in the complex at Vathypetro 16 pithoi were found in Magazine 10 and in the finely paved Areas 40 and 41.70 The combination of enclosure walls and pithoi suggests that Figure 12 does have correlations to a peak or rural sanctuary. One site that does seem promising in regard to the identification of a hypaethral sacred enclosure is Mochlos (Fig. 87). The town of Mochlos was first excavated by Richard Seager in 1908,71 and then excavations were resumed by Jeffrey Soles and Costis Davaras in 1989. The structure of interest here is a building situated on a hill at the northern extremity of the site at the culmination of the main road that runs through the town. At the end of the road four steps led to an area of open pavement and flat bedrock. At the far end of this area was a door which opened onto a paved terrace that was open to the sky, and this led to another open space flanked by walls on the west and south and rooms on the north and east. The walls of this structure were constructed of mudbrick above rubble foundations, and in the reconstructed drawing the walls appear plastered, although with what seem to be ashlar block cornices along the tops. Some of the paving stones featured kernoi, and broken pithoi were evident all over the terrace. Carbonised olive leaves were found on the terrace floor and in the soil from the pithoi, and olive trees are thus deduced to have been growing within the pithoi.72 The structure thus may have resembled the hypaethral walled enclosures depicted on the rings discussed here. In regard to the ring from Nemea on the Greek mainland (Fig. 14), the rocks and trees in this image imply a rural or mountainous setting; however, no cult locales on the Mycenaean mainland exhibit all the distinctive features of Minoan peak sanctuaries.73 In regards to looking for architectural evidence, we are reminded of the Mycenaean sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas at Epidauros which has evidence of walls and pavement along with terracing, a floor, and buildings including domestic houses situated south of the actual cultic area. The foundations of the main structure on the terrace consist of a Greek letter Π-shape measuring 105 m long. The excavator suggested that this site was a typical “peak cult”;74 however, it is missing many important features of Minoan peak sanctuaries such as figurines,




























































66 67

68 69 70 71 72 73 74

Driessen and Sakellarakis 1997, 72. Shaw, J. 1978, 429–448, 442. Driessen and Sakellarakis (1991, 72, 74) say that the Vathypetro tripartite shrine is the “only true architectural example” thereof. Kyriakidis 2001, 124. Faro 2008, 282; Kyriakidis 2001, 124. Faro 2008, 283; Driessen and Sakellarakis 1997, 75. Seager 1909. Soles 2013, 14–16; 2016, 247–252; pers. comm. 10 January 2015. Palaima 2008, 355, 346. There is a Bronze Age cult site at Kalapodi. Livieratou 2013. Lambrinudakis 1981, 59, 62.

TREES, WALLS AND GATES

63

model limbs, and offering tables.75 Nevertheless, despite the fact that Maleatas is not a perfect match for a Minoan peak sanctuary,76 it does contain the architectural components required for comparison with glyptic images of trees behind walls. The sanctuary of Prophitis Ilias on Mount Arachnaion also had walls and is much closer to Nemea than Epidauros. Located at an elevation of 1199m, the site covers an area of 140 x 60m, with bedrock forming a natural terrace ca. 80m long x 35m wide, and with another higher level ca. 17m long x 10m wide, partly crowned by boulders. The site is characterised by the presence of hearths, animal bones, pottery and figurines. The extant walls are constructed of boulders and although mechanical levelling almost completely destroyed any other structures, an area termed “Foundation B”, described as an oblong structure delimited by remnants of walls 0.20–0.35m high, had slightly irregular ashlar blocks reinforcing the corners.77 The ashlar wall and gate crowned by horns depicted in the fresco painting on the eastern wall of Room 3a at Xeste 3 (Fig. 18) may depict either a rural or a peak sanctuary.78 As part of a fresco program that spans over two floors of the building, its location on the lower floor above the Lustral Basin, which may symbolise a cave,79 may argue for the walls and the horned gate representing a “rural” sanctuary situated lower down on a mountain, as the rocks on this level on the north wall are flatter. The fresco on the next floor on the east wall directly above the image of the wall and gateway probably depicts a specifically mountainous location as the rocks have a vertical appearance, possibly alluding to mountain peaks. In addition, the important female figure on the north wall to which offerings of saffron are being made sits upon a constructed openwork platform, a type of cult furniture that may have represented a mountain in architectonic form80 (discussed in Chapter 5). That the fresco adorning the Grand Staircase in Xeste 3 features a mountainous landscape and leads up to the abovementioned mountainous scene on the first floor81 may suggest that the lower floor where the wall and gate fresco are located does indeed represent the lower area of a mountainous landscape.82 We may interpret the walls and gate then, as depicting a sanctuary situated lower down on a mountain, as is Kato Syme (in Crete), rather than on its peak. In regard to the specific location of such a sanctuary, the Miniature Fresco from the north wall of Room 5 of the West House at Thera includes a scene that the excavator S. Marinatos termed “The Meeting on the Hill” (Figs 88a, b). In this image a procession of men climb a rocky hill, the top of which is occupied by eight standing male figures, five of whom wear long formal gowns while two youths wear Minoan loincloths. The figures form two groups facing each other and the scene has been interpreted as a ritual occurring upon a peak sanctuary. The shape of the hill resembles the small mountain of Profitis Elias near the east coast of Thera.83 Although no architecture is evident and the image depicts males rather than females, as in the images on the north and east walls of Xeste 3, both sexes may have used mountains as sanctuary sites on Thera. Male figures on the west wall of Room 3 carry objects and walk in a northerly direction, and as N. Marinatos notes, had they been able to walk around the wall they would end up at the Lustral Basin and sacred enclosure.84 The two images that depict lone gateways without accompanying walls come from Haghia Triadha. Rather than actually depicting real lone gateways, however, Figures 15 and 16 probably ought to be




























































75 76 77 78 79 80

81 82

83 84

Hägg 1985, 219 n.29. Hägg 1984, 121. Psychoyos and Karatzikos 2016. Doumas 1992, 16–143, Figs 100–108, 158–165, Figs 122–128. Hitchcock 2007, 94. Tully and Crooks, In Press. The whole image expressing “mountains”, whether in natural or architectonic form. Vlachopoulos 2008, 452–3. Papageorgiou (In Press) has compared the ascent up a mountain to the ascent to the upper floor of Xeste 3. Iakovidis 1981. Marinatos 1984, 76; Günkel-Maschek 2012, 363, n. 18.

64

CHAPTER 4

read as indicating a walled enclosure which was not depicted but is implied.85 Walls in conjunction with gateways then are what should be sought in the archaeological record of Haghia Triadha. The site has monumental architectural structures forming an L-shape around a paved courtyard, dating to the Neopalatial period. 86 There are several structures at this site which could fit the glyptic images including ashlar walls, doorways, paving, and the presence of pithoi. The rural sanctuary, Koumasa in the Asterousia Mountains, has traces of architecture87 as does Kophinas, situated on a gentle slope immediately beneath the highest summit of 1231m. Initially investigated by Platon and Davaras in the 1960s, the site was partially excavated by Karetsou and Rethemiotakis in 1990. The sanctuary has an enclosure wall dating to MM III, the excavated portion consisting of three walls situated at right angles. The northern wall is 9m long and the eastern wall has a rectangular projection giving it a tripartite appearance, which might be indicative of a tripartite shrine. There is no wall to the south where the area is partly bounded by the natural outcrop of fissured rock, but there was probably an entrance located in the west wall to the north of the outcrop of rock.88 We can see then that the extra-urban sanctuaries situated in the vicinities of the ring’s find spots, such as Jouktas, Building B and Anemospilia, Kophinas, Apollo Maleatas, Prophitis Ilias and the urban temenos at Mochlos do exhibit architectural characteristics that also appear on the glyptic images such as walls, gateways and paving, as well as objects such as pithoi. Although difficult to identify, the trees in these images are most probably both olive and fig trees, both of which could grow naturally at the types of heights common for peak sanctuaries. The altitude limit for olives in Crete is ordinarily 750m, although occasional wild olives can be found up to 1,000m.89 The fig can grow in rocky areas at altitudes up to 1700 meters, so they could also be found at peak sanctuaries. The problem is that the rings specifically depict rectangular ashlar masonry walls, while the peak sanctuary sites have polygonal masonry or rough stone walls and that at Mochlos was rubble covered in mud plaster. Palatial and Villa sites situated within the regions of the rings’ provenances such as Archanes and Vathypetro also display architectural features that may correlate to those in the rings. Ultimately, however, it is not possible to definitively identify exact correspondences between these glyptic images and actual cult sites within the landscape. Types of Location If it is not possible to be specific about exactly what locations the glyptic images are intended to depict, can we then apply a more general description to them such as “architecturally elaborated hypaethral cult site with a tree, situated in a rocky landscape”? The types of architecturally elaborated extra-urban cult sites in the Neopalatial period included both peak and rural sanctuaries. In regards to the latter category, Kato Syme near Viannou in south central Crete is architecturally monumentalised (Fig. 89) and features tree symbolism, although the latter is late. Founded in the Protopalatial period, Kato Syme became an important Neopalatial sanctuary. It has been classified as a “rural” rather than a “peak” sanctuary because although it is situated upon a mountain it is not on an actual peak.90 Nor is it close to the find spots of the ring images investigated here, or to any urban center. While not connected to a specific settlement, Kato Syme may have been a site “belonging” to several regions, thus its architectural components could feasibly be depicted on these ring images.




























































85

86 87 88 89 90

They could, alternately, depict such lone gateways as the Japanese Torii Gate which is a wooden structure that marks the entrance to Shinto sanctuaries but is not actually attached to the sanctuary walls. Ono 1962, 28–30. Watrous 1984. Faro 2008, 286. Karetsou and Rethemiotakis 1991–3; Zeimbekis 1998, 73–4. Rackham and Moody 1996, 81–4. Lebessi and Muhly 1990, 334–5.

TREES, WALLS AND GATES

65

Excavated by Angeliki Lebessi between 1972 and 1983, Kato Syme is situated in a mountainous region in central Crete on the southern slope of Mount Dikte at a height of 1130m and was probably founded because of the presence of an abundant spring.91 In historical periods it was dedicated to Hermes Kedrites (Cedar) and Aphrodite as deities of vegetation and patrons of young men and women. 92 The sanctuary exhibits several types of built features including terraces, buildings, an enclosure wall, and a road. The wall is not uniform, measuring between 0.80m and 2.0m with a height of 1.50m. It is constructed in quasi-polygonal style and the interior of the sanctuary area measures approximately 530m2. The road is 2m wide, paved with limestone flagstones, and surrounds the complex in a series of dog-leg turns up to the entrance which is in the east and probably functioned as a processional way.93 On the floor of Room 2 sherds belonging to three large pithoi and many small ones were recovered; pithoi and cups were found in Room 17; and the fill in Room A4 included a large quantity of pithos fragments dating to between MM III–LM I.94 Kato Syme features three of the motifs depicted in the glyptic images: walls, pithoi and trees; however, the walls are quasi-polygonal rather than rectangular ashlar masonry. If the glyptic images do depict a site with ashlar enclosure walls then it must be a location other than the ones proposed here in the vicinity of the rings’ finds-spots or the pan-Cretan site of Kato Syme. In addition, during the Neopalatial period Kato Syme may have been a site for male-only rituals. The glyptic images featured here include two examples of males (Figs 10, 11), one of which is a hovering envisioned epiphanic deity while the other may be a human performing an enacted epiphany. The Gypsadhes Rhyton (Fig. 17) also features males and has polygonal masonry. In the glyptic images it is female figures that approach the walls, however. It seems therefore that while the rectangular ashlar walls may correspond to reality, it is not possible to be sure exactly what cult sites they are intended to depict – if any at all. They may simply be generic indicators of “prestigious cult sites”.95 The dimensionally convincing ashlar walls surrounding the peak sanctuary depicted on the Zakro Rhyton, which look so realistic have, as yet, never found correlation in the archaeological record.96 Both the glyptic images of walls and gates and the Zakro Rhyton may thus depict generic types of sanctuaries rather than actual ones.97 The Parergon and Miniaturisation Restrict Identification of Location As a result of the dearth of actual architectural structures that correspond to those depicted in the glyptic images, Galanakis expresses scepticism as to whether images of trees in conjunction with architectural or built components actually depict real places within the landscape at all. Rather than existing within three dimensions he suggests that such structures are merely “an iconographical device in glyptic” that may have simply “stood for” real cult structures and open air sanctuaries within towns and settlements. In his opinion the glyptic images represent “idealised versions of cult structures and sanctuaries or even imaginary architectural parts”. 98 This is indeed a possibility; however, if the structures were completely invented it would mean that the walls in these images were entirely symbolic.




























































91

92 93 94 95 96

97

98

Lebessi 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1981, 1983, 1985, 1988, 1992, 1993, 2003; Lebessi and Muhly 1976, 1987, 1990. Lebessi 1985, 146 ff, Pl. 15 A21; Kourou 2001, 54, Fig. 11. Lebessi and Muhly 1990, 319, 321, 328–9. Kyriakidis 2001, 124–5. Palyvou 2005, 191. Although Lebessi and Muhly (1990) and Preziosi and Hitchcock (1999, 140) have identified similarities between the sanctuary on the Zakro Rhyton and Kato Syme, the Sacred Grove fresco cannot be completely mapped onto the Knossos West Court, nor does the tripartite shrine as depicted in the Grandstand Fresco match the possible archaeological remains of a tripartite shrine in the Central Court. Shaw, J. 1978; Hitchcock 2000, 104. The intention may have been to emphasise the sacral nature of the vessel rather than to depict a specific cult site. Logue 2004, 156. Galanakis 2005, 89, 91.

66

CHAPTER 4

As we know, the glyptic genre is characterised by highly edited, compressed, miniaturised scenes. Much of the physical material that would be at an actual three dimensional sanctuary site is simply unable to be fitted into the tiny glyptic image. However, what is depicted must have been intentional and can therefore be considered diagnostic to an extent. We can expect therefore that Minoan religious iconography does reflect ritual reality in regards to at least some aspects of the ritual space, at least in its basic lines, except that because of the constraints of the glyptic medium such images are only going to be partial.99 The restriction of the image within a small frame and the subsequent curtailed depiction of the architectural structures imply traces that have been excluded and thus left outside the frame. 100 While an ancient Minoan viewer was probably familiar with the type of architecture depicted, the placement of the architectural components at the side, only partially seen,101 instead of in the centre of an image probably indicates that the main message of the image is the human activity, while the architecture situates the action at a particular type of place. The “Imaginary” – Not Scenes but Signs As a result of their small size, glyptic images cannot hope to approximate reality as there is simply no room. Such tiny art especially has to involve editing, particularly if portraying something large like landscape. Rather than depictions situated in “the Real” therefore, the architectural components in the glyptic images investigated here – like everything else in a glyptic scene – ought to be considered signs and read in conjunction with the other elements of the images such as, in this case, the human figures, trees, and rocks. These combine to express the idea that the images represent events occurring at an architecturally-elaborated extra-urban sanctuary. Even the position of the tree in regards to the sanctuary walls should be considered a sign rather than an accurate depiction. If it was a literal scene we would have to suppose that the tree in all these examples was located at the far left edge of each of the sanctuaries or in the case of the Xeste 3 fresco, right behind the gate. While this may have been the case, what is more likely is that the creators of the images placed the tree in such a position in order to fit it into the image and make sure it was seen by the viewer. That the tree was a specific component of the images is evident, however, because trees appear behind all ashlar walls in Minoan glyptic.102 Thus, whilst based in “reality” these glyptic images are essentially imaginary scenes. Seeing as the pursuit of the sites within the real landscape is not achievable therefore, this chapter will turn to look at what the images mean. The “Symbolic” – What do these Signs Mean? The images discussed here are composed of various motifs: human figures, mostly female and some male, a hovering human epiphanic figure, an epiphanic object, walls, gates, trees, vegetation, rocks, double baetyls, paving, pithoi, a boat, sea and sky. The glyptic images and fresco painting depict female figures approaching or in the vicinity of walls and gateways, while the rhyton portrays male figures in front of a sanctuary wall. All the female figures wear elaborate Minoan skirts and all male figures wear Minoan loincloths. 103 In Figures 10 and 11 male epiphanic figures appear to greet the single approaching female. Figures 12 and 16 depict single female figures approaching a sanctuary without any evidence of epiphany, while in Figures 14, 15 and 18b a group of three women approach the sanctuary, implying a procession. The images appear to locate the human activity outside a sacred enclosure at the point in time when the figures are initially arriving at the sanctuary. In the case of the Xeste 3 fresco, one figure may be leaving. The envisioned and enacted epiphanic figures that greet the




























































99 100 101 102 103

Sourvinou-Inwood 1989, 251. Derrida 1987. Schoep 1994, 206. Except the Mochlos Ring, CMS II.3 No. 252 (Fig. 13). As opposed to, for example, robes as seen on the Haghia Triadha sarcophagus and which may be a type of sacerdotal garment. Rehak 2000, 44–5.

TREES, WALLS AND GATES

67

female figures in the glyptic images may signify the resident numen of the cult site and function to convey to the viewer of the image the sacred nature of the site being approached and/or to indicate that the numen of the site was male. The placement of the components of the images within the glyptic composition provides further information. According to Sourvinou-Inwood, the central position within a picture is the privileged position which denotes superiority and prominence. In the case of the images discussed here, the central position is taken up by human figures, while the architecture is placed off to one side. While this indicates that the scenes are to be read as being primarily about human activity, as mentioned above there is actually no room in a glyptic image for a very large sanctuary wall, so it has to appear only partially, in these cases, at the edge.104 In Figures 10, 11, 12, and 14 the wall appears on the right side of the scene, while in Figure 13 it is situated on the left. Sourvinou-Inwood proposes that the Minoans assigned value to the right and left sides of a pictorial composition. In all the Minoan and Mycenaean glyptic representations that can be recognised as cult scenes, in the original (on the signet ring bezel or stone seal) the supernatural being or sacred structure is always situated on the left side of the picture (so on the right in the impression), indicating that this was “the deity’s favoured side”. The positioning of the sacred enclosure walls in these images conform to this directional subdivision, except for Figure 13, which may indicate that the part of that image the viewer was supposed to understand as the “divine” section was the tree-shrine within the boat.105 Whether the trees in glyptic cult scenes are meant to be understood as being on top of, enclosed within, or situated behind the architectural structures has been one of the questions that previous scholars have also tackled. The conflation of built structures as all depicting buildings, walls, shrines or portal shrines meant that it was difficult to make sense of the combination of tree and built structure, as the attempt to apply a blanket interpretation did not fit all the examples. Rather than being situated on top of the ashlar walls, the trees in the images studied in this chapter all appear behind sanctuary walls or gateways, except for Figure 13 where it is situated on a stepped structure within a boat, and Figure 14 where two trees are situated on either side of a wall. There are no other glyptic scenes which depict sanctuary walls without a tree projecting over the top of them. In fact, all glyptic depictions of cult scenes in the vicinity of ashlar walls include a tree which obviously means that this was a significant pairing. As explained in the previous chapter, trees in cult scenes appear within rocky ground, and as the next chapter will show they are also situated in conjunction with built structures such as ashlar altars, stepped openwork platforms and columnar structures. In the majority of the images discussed here in which the trees are situated behind walls we cannot see whether the tree is simply planted in the ground, or within or upon an elaborated structure (except for Figure 14 where the trees and walls are both situated upon rocky ground). This is because the images locate the human activity outside sanctuary walls, rather than within them where the actual location of the tree would be evident. Procession So, what kind of event is occurring in these images? In the majority, a female figure stands, facing toward the sanctuary walls, her position indicating that she is approaching the enclosure from the outside with a view to entering it.106 It seems reasonable then to suggest that the scenes focussed on here depict the end point in an act of procession toward a sacred enclosure – they certainly depict




























































104

105 106

Sourvinou-Inwood 1989, 264. Although the ashlar wall in the gold discoid from Poros appears across the entire bottom of the scene, it has been interpreted as a garden wall. Dimopoulou 2012. This wall is in the tripartite “rampart” style, like those in the Amnissos Fresco. Sourvinou-Inwood 1989, 249. Another suggestion is that these scenes depict an orientation just inside the sacred enclosure in which the viewer’s back is to the gateway. Sourvinou-Inwood 1989, 256. But this seems unlikely because the positioning of the walls and gateway at the edge of the scene imply separate objects rather than a background.

68

CHAPTER 4

presence at such an enclosure, implying arrival from elsewhere.107 We do not see the entirety of the actual procession, however, because of the constraints of the glyptic medium which only ever show between one and three processing figures, in close-up, while the wider context is outside the glyptic frame. 108 Frescoes tend to show more figures, but still, not so as the wider context can be understood.109 Certainly some of the human figures in the images discussed in the previous chapter could also be considered to be arriving at a cult location: Figures 2, 3 4, and 8, which all feature single figures, may depict such activity and Figure 5, consisting of two adults and one child approaching a seated female, specifically illustrates a procession. A procession can be defined as the ritual movement of a number of participants through a given space, from a starting point to a goal.110 In Aegean art processions tend to be depicted as single file movement of more than one figure111 rendered in profile. The focus of these figures can be a seated or standing human figure, a built structure, or a destination which is not shown. 112 In glyptic images the participants often proceed towards a construction in what Wedde terms a “classic end-stopped composition”, defined as an image that is closed off to one or both sides by a construction or large vegetal element so as to preclude continuity beyond the surface of support.113 Procession scenes are ubiquitous in Aegean art and appear in frescoes, on stone vases as well as in glyptic imagery; however, not all examples portray religions processions. 114 Blakolmer suggests that many procession scenes depict two narrative sequences: the procession of gift bearers, and the actual presentation of gifts, and he further divides procession scenes into those that depict cult officials transporting equipment for festivities such as sacrificial animals and other foodstuff, and those that show elite figures carrying prestigious and symbolic objects such as luxury vessels and flowers. It is primarily the second type of procession images that appear in glyptic media.115 Niemeier classifies 29 glyptic images as scenes of procession; however, these appear not to have been divided into scenes set outside a sanctuary site and those set inside one. Some of Niemeier’s examples also ought to be considered images of people at altars within a sanctuary rather than procession scenes located either inside, or outside and heading toward a sanctuary.116 Wedde categorises glyptic scenes into 66 scenes of procession, interpreting those that depict three figures one behind another as the “canonical” procession scene while suggesting that single figures are “quotations” from larger scenes of procession.117 Only two of the glyptic images covered in this chapter (Figs 14, 15), depict a group of three people approaching the sanctuary, while the others depict only one. While a procession is generally considered to consist of multiple participants rather than just one, examples depicting single figures could be shorthand for a larger group,118 or may depict a particularly important person. Both women and men feature in Aegean procession scenes, but only a few procession scenes contain a mix of both male and female participants, as in the case of the Corridor of Procession Fresco at Knossos




























































107

108 109

110 111 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118

According to Wilson (2009, 265) many fresco images of women in processions show them heading towards a structure and/or a seated or standing figure. Alexandri 1994. Wedde (2004, 158) interprets images of single figures in procession as quotations from scenes of processions consisting of multiple participants. His “canonical expression” of glyptic processions consists of three figures moving towards a construction. But images of single figures may be expressing a different message entirely, rather than just “quoting” from a canonical version. Hägg 2001, 143. Wedde 2004, 172. Wedde 2004, 157; Blakolmer 2008. Blakolmer 2008, 259; Wilson 2009, 265. Wedde 2004, 157 n.36. Boulotis 1987; Peterson 1981; Hägg 2001; Wedde 2004; Warren 2006; Blakolmer 2007; Wilson 2009. Blakolmer 2008, 259. Niemeier 1989, 168. Wedde 2004, 158. Kyriakidis 2005, 78.

TREES, WALLS AND GATES

69

(Fig. 90).119 In the large scale procession scenes on wall paintings, women appear twice as many times as men, and this is even more evident in glyptic imagery. Distinct individuals tend not to be depicted, except perhaps in the fresco from Xeste 3, and generally Aegean procession scenes are characterised by being stereotypical, set in abstract locations, and abbreviated according to the limits of the size of the object or structure upon which they are depicted.120 Hägg explains that the procession in Aegean religion is usually the ritual activity that comes first in the temporal sequence of events of a religious festival where it functioned to bring gifts, cult personnel and cult paraphernalia to a sanctuary before the central rituals of the event commenced.121 A procession is also a performance, however.122 Graf classifies Greek processions as either centripetal or centrifugal. Centripetal processions proceed from within the political unit to a central shrine, are group oriented, and thus do not focus on a personal encounter with the deity. A typical example of a centripetal procession from the classical period is the Athenian Panathenaic procession. A centrifugal procession on the other hand, departs from the political center and traverses wild space on its way to an external shrine. The procession from Argos to the Argive Heraion served to both move the celebrants from the polis to the shrine, as well as to reinforce the Argive claim to ownership of the intervening landscape bordered by the extra-urban sanctuary. Centrifugal processions lead to personal encounters with the deity, as in the Dionysiac revelry (although this does not culminate at a specific sanctuary) and the Eleusinian Mysteries.123 Bronze Age examples of centripetal and centrifugal processions would be those that moved within and around the palaces and other monumental architecture (centripetal), and those that conveyed the community out from the center to the peak or rural sanctuaries (centrifugal). Hägg recognises another type of procession that is cyclical, returning to its starting point,124 although ultimately all religious processions are cyclical if the participants return to the place they began at the end of the ritual event.125 If the images in this chapter do depict extra-urban sanctuaries then we can classify them as scenes of centrifugal procession in which elite figures (and possibly others who do not appear in the images) travelled from an urban center to an extra-urban sanctuary. As explained above, the act of processing through the landscape may have also reinforced the participants’ claims to, or relationship with, the intervening territory.126 The specific depiction of the event upon a high status artwork such as a gold ring, stone vase or fresco painting enhances the idea that such figures had a special relationship with the sanctuary and its resident numen. Dancing Procession may have involved dancing. According to Evans the purpose of dance in Minoan religion was to cause the epiphany of a deity.127 Dancing in glyptic media has been identified by using the poses and gestures of the female figures in the Sacred Grove and Dance Fresco as models. In this image the figures hold their right arms up, bent at an angle of approximately 120°, and their left arms down and behind. In glyptic images interpreted as depicting dancing figures, one arm is also upraised but can be bent at up to a 45 degree angle.128 While the figures in Figures 10, 11, 12, 13 and 18 appear to be




























































119 120 121 122 123 124 125

126 127 128

Wilson 2009, 262. Blakolmer 2008, 267. Hägg 2001, 144. Wedde 2004, 151. Graf 1996, 56. Hägg 2001, 143–7. In her study of contemporary Okinawan priestesses of sacred groves, Sered (1999, 55) notes that “a great deal of attention is given to the exact path or route that the priestesses or other villagers walk at particular rituals... like [indigenous] Australians they walk the stories or spiritual energies.” Geertz 1977. Evans 1936, 68ff. German 1999b.

70

CHAPTER 4

standing or sitting rather than dancing, those in Figures 14, 15, 16 and 17 could very well be dancing as part of their approach to, or arrival at, the sacred enclosure – even though their arm positions do not match exactly those defined as indicating dancing, as mentioned above.129 Figures 10, 14, and 15 also depict paving, an architectural feature associated with dancing.130 These figures may be thought to be dancing as part of their procession to and/or arrival at the cult site. Senta German explains that the difference between procession and dance is that while dance tends to be located within the one area, “a procession is movement in succession on any continuous course... with an intended goal or location.”131 Scenes of elite figures performing dance in Minoan Crete may have had a political component, as it is a frequently depicted performative activity equivalent in prevalence to images of bull leaping, which itself has been interpreted as a visual expression of political ideology.132 Dancing at particular sites such as peak sanctuaries may have been a kinetic statement of physical presence, prominence, and of proprietorship. In regards to the images discussed here, whether the figures are actually processing or dancing is not really the issue, however. What is more important is that the figures have arrived at the exterior of a sacred enclosure which implies that they are about to enter it. Authority In Figures 10 and 11 the elite female figures both approach sanctuary gateways where they are confronted by male figures with their arms outstretched at shoulder height and extended toward them in what it is reasonable to read as a communicative posture. In Figure 10 the male figure is a small hovering epiphanic being descending from the sky or possibly from the column within the center of the scene. He holds a vertical rod that may be a sceptre,133 but it is unclear as to whether he is displaying it as part of his character, or presenting it to the female figure. The male figure in Figure 11 is regular sized, although may be an example of enacted epiphany. He does not hold anything, but his arm is in the same position as the figure in Figure 10. The female figure in Figure 10 raises her right arm to her forehead in a saluting gesture, while the female figure in Figure 11 has been rendered in quite a sketchy manner and her arms are consequently difficult to distinguish. The pose of the male figures in which the arm is outstretched is usually seen in conjunction with figures that hold a sceptre, staff or spear. Comparative examples include the Lily Prince Fresco from Knossos as reconstructed by Niemeier (Fig. 91), the male figure on the right of the Chieftain Cup (Fig. 92), the male figure in the sealing from the Temple Repositories (Fig. 93), the male figure in the center of the scene in Figure 29, the male figure in Figure 39, and the male figure in the “Master Impression” from Chania (Fig. 77). In Figure 44 the human male and epiphanic female figure perform this gesture toward each other, another epiphanic female figure in Figure 73 appears to have her arm in this position, as does the “Mother of the Mountain” sealing from the palace of Knossos (Fig. 94). The pose signifies authority, and Niemeier terms it a “gesture of command”.134 In each of these examples the figures express power and/or religious authority, and in four examples the imagery specifically depicts communication between the divine and mortal realms. As Palaima explains, in Homeric literature the sceptre (skêptron) has profound religious significance and transmits divine authority to the human sphere.135 If the sceptre in Figure 10 is made of wood the implication may be that it derived from the sacred tree behind the walls. The numinous qualities of a sacred tree at a




























































129

130 131 132 133 134

135

Marinatos (2005, 150) interprets the male figures on the Gypsadhes Rhyton as fighting, in line with the emphasis on male agonistic contests on other stone rhyta. Lonsdale 1995. German 1999a, 100. German 1999b, 280; Soar 2009. Krattenmaker 1995a, 56. Kaiser 1976, 147; Hallager 1985, 23; Niemeier 1987, 82–89, 238–41; Morgan 1988, 117–18; Krattenmaker 1995a, 56. Palaima 1995, 135.

TREES, WALLS AND GATES

71

mountain sanctuary site may have been transmitted in single branches taken from the tree, such as those placed upon the small stepped altar on the Zakro Rhyton (Fig. 32a), or in objects made from its wood, such as a sceptre.136 Hesiod relates that he received a laurel sceptre from the Muses on Mount Helicon along with the gift of prophecy (Theog. 30) and the Homeric skêptron was made from wood studded with gold nails by Hephaistos (Il. 2.76).137 If Figures 10 and 11 depict events occurring at a peak sanctuary, this might indicate that the male figures with their “gestures of command” are mountain numina which, as we have seen in the previous chapter, are associated with rulership. Both the sealings in Figures 77 and 94 depict figures performing this gesture while holding sceptres and standing on actual mountains in conjunction with palatial architecture. In the former sealing the architecture may signify a town, while in the latter, the palace of Knossos. The column in Figure 10 may also signify palatial architecture, although it is not downward tapering which is the usual case for Minoan columns. In all three cases the idea of authority, as exemplified in both the stance of the figures and the presence of palatial architecture, is combined with that of a mountain. The presence of an actual mountain in Figures 77 and 94 rather than the walls of a peak sanctuary which imply a mountain as in Figures 10 and 11 may emphasise even more strongly that the figures in Figures 77 and 94 are anthropomorphic depictions of mountain numina.138 The images from Knossos, Figures 10 and 94, may reference the peak sanctuary at Jouktas, while Figure 77 from Chania may refer to another peak sanctuary in the west of Crete such as Aghia Kyriaki Gremnakas, Atispadhes, Plakias Paligremnos, Preveli Korifi, Spili Vorizi or Vrysinas.139 The column in Figure 10 need not be thought of as being physically present at the peak sanctuary – as columns are found at palaces rather than at peak sanctuaries – but rather as being an artistic sign referring to palatial architecture and indicating that the epiphanic figure in proximity to it is associated with rulership. If we accept that the images on Figures 10 and 11 represent peak sanctuaries then we can say that these images express the idea of legitimisation140 of the elite female figure, who is perhaps a queen, by a mountain deity or the mountain itself in anthropomorphic form, which epitomises authority and rulership. In Figure 10 this is expressed visually by the presentation or transference of the sceptre,141 while in Figure 11 it is indicated by the gesture of the enacted epiphanic figure which echoes the many examples in which a similar gesture is combined with a sceptre, staff or spear, the figure’s open hand perhaps alternately suggesting blessing. Krattenmaker does not interpret the saluting male figure in Figure 94 as a ruler receiving the iconography of power from a mountain deity, but rather suggests that the ruler is represented in the image by the palatial architecture.142 In this interpretation then the male figure performing a saluting gesture is presumably just a generic human. As Marinatos explains, however, it is the rulers who see the gods face to face.143 In Figure 94 the female figure upon the mountain may be the ruler depicted in conjunction with the iconography of power and possibly apotheosised as a consequence of this, while the male figure saluting her, rather than just an inconsequential figure, may be her human consort hence also a ruler or another member of the elite. It is likely then that the female figures that face the




























































136

137

138

139 140 141 142 143

Or in biblical religion, the asherah. In contemporary Japan wood, rather than being considered a dead tree, is perceived as having a second life when used in the construction of buildings or furniture and retains the animate nature of the original tree. Knight 2001. In verse 35 Hesiod asks “But what do I care about these things concerning a tree and stone?” which has been thought to refer to Near Eastern prophecy in conjunction with sacred trees and stones, as referred to in the Ugaritic text from the Baal Cycle (KTU 1.7.1) that talks about “A word of tree and a whisper of stone.” O’Bryhim 1996; Wyatt 2007, 181; Marinatos 2009; López-Ruiz 2010; Easterling 1989. Clarke 1997; The hovering object that may depict the foreleg of an ox in the Master Impression might be an indication of rulership. The foreleg in Egyptian hieroglyphs is used to denote “strong arm” and is a symbol of royal and divine strength. Wilkinson 1992, 75. Nowicki 2007, 2, 4. Krattenmaker 1995, 49, 56. Krattenmaker 1995a, 57. Krattenmaker 1995a, 58. Marinatos 2010, 78–85.

72

CHAPTER 4

epiphanic male figures in Figures 11 and 12 ought to be thought of as important elites or rulers, perhaps in these cases, depicted at the stage in a sequence of events before the receipt of the symbolic staff of rulership as depicted in Figure 94. In the other images examined in this chapter in which human figures approach or are in the vicinity of sanctuary walls without the presence of epiphanic figures, if such sites represent peak sanctuaries then the presence of the numina of such a location, if not shown, is implied. The visual absence of such figures in the images may indicate that their presence was taken for granted, it may depict an earlier stage in the ritual event before the numen had appeared, or portray elites of slightly lower status who could not “see” the sanctuary’s numen. In Homeric epiphany there is a definite hierarchy in which heroes who are hemitheoi see and communicate directly with gods in anthropomorphic form, while those of lesser status may only hear the deity, and non-elite, regular people merely experience the epiphanies of the gods through their manifestation as natural phenomena such as comets, thunder, or birds.144 Figures 10 and 11 may even be depictions indicating a “sacred marriage”. The male figure may represent the Cretan “Zeus” or Megistos Kouros whom the elite female figure ascends a mountain in order to marry. As Koehl proposes, the central seated figure in the Xeste 3 fresco may be in a postcoital state and the youth holding the long cloth on the west wall may have been her sexual partner. 145 While mountainous sites are associated with rulership, in the images without epiphanic male figures the message may be simply that elite figures are present at such a site, rather than specifically interacting with the “king of the mountain”.146 Nevertheless, the depiction of such images upon high status objects such as precious metal rings, within fresco paintings and upon stone rhyta suggest that it was an event that was considered prestigious. Like the images of elite female figures in the vicinity of trees within rocky ground, the images examined in this chapter also convey the idea that elite, mainly female, figures have access to and a special relationship with important – as signified by the monumental ashlar masonry – cult sites situated on mountains where there is a sacred tree, and in two cases, Figures 13 and 16 also baetyls, themselves possibly signifying mountains.147 Whether manifest in anthropomorphic form or implied, the images examined in this chapter depict an encounter with the physiomorphic numina of rulership symbolised by trees and mountains and thus express the endorsement of a member of the elite by the actual landscape itself. Conclusion This chapter has shown that images that depict architectural structures and objects within glyptic cult scenes can, and should, be separated into precise categories in order to better interpret the human activity occurring within the vicinity of such structures. In the cases examined here, the identification of walls and gateways with trees behind them led to an interpretation of these built components as the exterior walls of sacred enclosures, probably located at peak sanctuaries. The images were then determined to be depictions of elite figures approaching sanctuary sites where, whether in epiphanic form or not, the numina of those sites bestowed their blessing upon the human figures. The most explicit example of which being the direct rendering of such a numen conferring the “Iconography of Legitimacy”148 in the form of a sceptre upon an elite female figure who may be interpreted as a ruler. That such an event was advertised within the actual landscape through the enactment of a physical procession to the cult site is suggested by images featuring three figures, and that it was further promoted through elite artwork suggests that both the ritual event and the artistic recording thereof




























































144 145 146

147 148

Turkeltaub 1983, 53–79. Koehl 2001. Greek, Levantine and Near Eastern comparanda suggest male and female mountain deities; however, in this case I am talking about male mountain deities. The term “king of the mountain” alludes to the children’s game in which someone attempts to occupy the highest point on a raised platform or hill. Crooks, Tully and Hitchcock 2016. Krattenmaker 1995a.

TREES, WALLS AND GATES

73

functioned to promote the idea that elite figures, particularly females, were on intimate terms and possibly even in a conjugal relationship, with the numinous deity of the mountain who represented authority and rulership.

CHAPTER 5 TREES AND CULT STRUCTURES Glyptic images of human figures and cult structures that incorporate trees have been proposed to depict the interiors of sacred enclosures, in contrast to walls which have been suggested to represent the exteriors of such sites. While some structures represented in these images were ephemeral and left no remains in the archaeological record, more durable examples have been identified at architecturally monumentalised urban locations, and to a lesser extent at rural cult sites. Both archaeological and iconographic evidence suggest that cult structures such as tripartite shrines, ashlar altars and constructed openwork platforms were utilised within palatial, villa and rural cult complexes. Probable wooden structures such as columnar shrines and table altars on the other hand are only known from the iconographic record so their location can only be speculative. This chapter argues that stepped and tripartite cult structures and vertical columnar shrines are architectonic evocations of mountains and groves which were utilised by elite actors within ritual performances in order to signify their relationship with nature deities associated with rulership. In order to support this contention the chapter begins by explaining the components of the images which consist of glyptic, fresco and carved stone vase representations of cult structures in conjunction with trees. This is followed by a discussion highlighting the ways in which previous scholarship has tended to conflate all built structures depicted in glyptic cult scenes by incorrectly lumping them together into the generalising categories of either “walls” or “shrines”. Each distinct category of iconographic cult structure is then discussed. Starting with columnar structures and followed by vertical-sided ashlar and stepped ashlar altars, we then move on to tripartite shrines, constructed openwork platforms, incurved altars, table altars and finally horned altars. Columnar structures are differentiated from gates and palatial architecture, their characteristics and potential construction materials proposed and their visual ambiguity considered. Ashlar altars are then examined, distinguished from both walls and non-ashlar structures and their dimensions discussed. Next, tripartite shrines are investigated and their size, design and rendition in various media are compared. Constructed openwork platforms are subsequently analysed and differentiated from palatial architecture, their representation in various media evaluated and their assemblage and use discussed. This is followed by the investigation of incurved altars, subsequently table altars and their association with animal sacrifice are discussed, and finally horned altars in various media are looked at. The chapter then moves on to consider whether these structures can be located at specific places within the landscape by surveying sites in the vicinities of the images’ findspots. After examination of potential sites it is established that the suggestion that the images depict the interiors of sacred enclosures set in rural locations finds less support than does a location at an urban site. While several potential locations are identified it is determined that the palatial complex at Archanes features several examples of the cult structures represented in iconography. This site is consequently focussed upon in regard to the potential positioning of a constructed openwork platform in an urban setting. Although some examples of cult structures depicted in iconography do have physical counterparts in the material record, again the visual constraints characteristic of glyptic media such as the parergon and the editing involved with miniaturisation preclude exact identification of specific locations. Consequently, rather than scenes depicting an actual cult event at a specific location in the physical world, like the previous examples such images should be interpreted as signs – in this case, of heterotopic spaces1 that function




























































1

A term used by philosopher Michel Foucault (1926–1984) to describe places and spaces that are simultaneously physical and mental and thus function as spaces of otherness.

76

CHAPTER 5

as utopian facades and conceal ruler ideology. As is the case with trees in rocky ground, trees in conjunction with stepped ashlar structures, constructed openwork platforms and columnar structures are also signs of an elite figure’s relationship with the animate landscape. The chapter concludes that the utilisation of such cult structures, which were essentially architectonic evocations of the natural landscape, was a method whereby Minoan elites of the Neopalatial period enacted their relationship to and endorsement by landscape numina through ritual performance. The recording of such images upon gold rings and stone seals functioned to both perpetuate and distribute such an event to a wider audience. Images Discussed The twenty-four images discussed in this chapter derive from eleven gold rings, three clay ring impressions, a bone ring, five stone seals, a fragment of a carved stone rhyton, a painted sarcophagus, an ivory pyxis lid, and a bronze plaque (Figs. 19–42). Fourteen of the objects originate from Crete (Figs. 19, 20, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42), six from mainland Greece (Figs. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31), one each from Naxos (Fig. 39) and Melos (Fig. 40), one has a shaky provenience (Fig. 21) and one is entirely unprovenienced (Fig. 22). The images depict cult scenes in which human figures are in the vicinity of trees which are attached to stone altars, tripartite shrines, columnar shrines, stepped openwork platforms, incurved altars, table altars, and horned altars. Female figures predominate in eleven examples, males in six and both males and females feature together in seven images. Four examples also contain female epiphanic figures, four include hovering birds, insects and objects, and two feature goats. Seven of the scenes include additional vegetation, five feature rocky ground and large baetylic stones, three depict paved ground and three include water. That the majority of scenes are situated outdoors is evident by the presence of skylines, the sun or other hovering objects in the sky, vegetation, rocks and water, while for the remainder there is no indication of location. (Mis)Identifying Different Structures As we saw in the previous chapter, earlier scholars have tended to misidentify or conflate different types of built structures within glyptic cult scenes for reasons ranging from a lack of comparative archaeological examples, to misdiagnosis as a result of a misreading of perspective, to a simple tendency to generalise. This resulted in blanket descriptions in which the structures were identified as all being “walls”, “shrines” or “portal shrines”, when in fact these structures ought to be placed into the separate categories of columnar, ashlar, and tripartite shrines; constructed openwork platforms; and altars with horns, in addition to the walls, gateways and paving of the previous chapter. Incurved altars and table altars, which are also examined in this chapter, do not tend to be mistaken for other structures as readily. Rather than being the separate components of a single structure such as the exterior wall and gateway of a sacred enclosure, as discussed in the previous chapter, the structures depicted in the glyptic scenes examined here are all autonomous constructions. Sourvinou-Inwood suggests that they should be identified as depicting the interiors of sacred enclosures,2 an idea that will be discussed more fully below. Sometimes these individual structures are situated in combination with each other, such as the incurved altars with the constructed openwork platform, or in the vicinity of each other, but they are not separate parts of a larger structure, as is a part of a wall or an apparently lone gateway. Columnar Structures The most ambiguous type of structure that appears in conjunction with a tree in Minoan glyptic cult scenes is the above-mentioned “wooden” type. Krattenmaker terms this a “columnar structure” and




























































2

Sourvinou-Inwood 1989, 253.

TREES AND CULT STRUCTURES

77

classifies it as a distinct Minoan iconographic architectural type.3 Columnar structures are ambiguous, both terminologically as well as structurally. They are characterised by what appears to be a simple post and lintel format consisting of columns, posts, or piers supporting a horizontal element such as a cornice or entablature. The columnar construction results in openings between the columns which are usually empty but which may contain additional vertical elements, sometimes interpreted as tree trunks or baetyls. Some columnar structures are more elaborate with two columns rather than single ones forming the major vertical supports of the structure. Krattenmaker distinguishes two types of columnar structure: those that are free-standing interpreted as shrines, and which have not been found in the archaeological record, and those that have two levels or storeys, understood by her to indicate palatial buildings.4 The type looked at here – the shrine – will be subdivided into those constructed from ambiguous, possibly wooden, material and those apparently made from stone blocks. In addition, the similarity of such structures to gateways will be addressed. Columnar structures are depicted in Figures 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26 and 27. All of these structures are surmounted by trees, or at least cursory vegetation, except Figure 27 which has a simple flat top. Most of these structures have smooth vertical columns with single or double cornices or entablatures, executed by the engraver in single strokes which give the impression of a singular piece of material such as wood. That it is not stone is suggested by the complete lack of any remnants found archaeologically. The columns stand on either side of a small central space that sometimes appears to be filled with either another column, such as in Figures 27 and 95, or perhaps the trunk of a tree as in Figure 24. Other examples, although having a similar overall shape, seem to be made of stacked blocks evident by short horizontal marks within the vertical supports, as seen in Figures 22, 23 and 26. These might be better termed “piers”.5 Both these types of columnar structure have been termed “portal shrines” and thought to represent gateways or doorways.6 While some structures such as the sealings from Haghia Triadha (Figs. 15, 16), probably do represent gateways, others such as Figures 96, 97, 98, and 99 are much more ambiguous, appearing gate-like because of the size of the space between the columns or piers, but shrine-like because of the structures’ size in comparison to the human figures next to them. It may have been the case that either columnar shrines did look like small gateways, or that the engraver deliberately depicted them in an ambiguous manner. While the size of these structures and the width of the space between their upright columns ought to indicate whether such structures are shrines or gateways, there may have been some deliberate ambiguity in their actual glyptic representation. Figures 15 and 16 have already been identified as gateways with trees leaning over them from within an unseen but presumed sacred enclosure. Other scenes with similar structures should also be classified as gateways or “portals” rather than columnar shrines. Images such as Figure 96 in which three female figures process toward a gateway crowned with horns; Figure 99 depicting two female figures holding flowers and approaching a gateway topped by two sets of horns; Figure 98 also depicting two females approaching a gateway with two sets of horns; and Figure 97 which has a male figure approaching a gateway with two sets of horns should all be considered to depict gateways. All examples of the columnar structure in these scenes are the type rendered by single vertical strokes, implying a single element that was perhaps wooden, except for Figure 98, the uprights of which have small horizontal marks indicating masonry piers. The space between the uprights is wide, indicating an entrance, unlike the spaces in the actual columnar shrines. The structures become more confusing, however, because of their size in comparison to the human figures. The gateways are all about shoulder height as are most of the structures proposed here as columnar shrines; hence the gateways could be taken to indicate shrines as well. While it is possible that actual Minoan columnar shrines and




























































3 4 5 6

Krattenmaker 1991, 249, 293. Schoep (1994, 204) terms this type of structure the “Gateway Type.” Krattenmaker 1991, 249, 293. Schoep’s (1994, 204) “Stepped Type”. A mass of masonry, as distinct from a column. Fletcher 1963, 1269. Evans 1901, 170; Nilsson 1950, 268; Rutkowski 1986, 105–6; Marinatos 1989, 140.

78

CHAPTER 5

gateways did look similar, it is also possible that the engraver depicted them with a degree of ambiguity in order that one evoked the other for some unknown reason. In differentiating between columnar shrines and gateways, we should probably disregard the height of the structures, as ashlar walls in cult scenes and palatial columnar structures are also usually depicted as being at the shoulder height of any accompanying human figures – not a practical size for a gateway. This is most likely because there is simply not enough room to depict architectural structures in a proportionally correct manner in the glyptic medium, as well as the prioritising of the human figure over other elements. Columnar shrines should consequently be distinguished from gateways by the size of the space between the upright elements: when it is noticeably wider and appears as an empty space, then it is probably a gateway. The construction and materials of columnar structures depicted in glyptic cult scenes have proven to be difficult to determine since the early days of Minoan archaeology. Nilsson agreed with Evans’ identification of “portal shrines” in regard to the columnar structures in Figures 24 and 27,7 assuming them to be gateways when in fact these are clearly shrines in which the central area is both occupied by another columnar element as well as being too small to be a gateway. He then conflates such structures with others that are actually walls such as Figures 10 and 11.8 Persson’s analysis of Figure 24 as an enclosure constructed of four corner supports held together by a horizontal framework is more accurate except that he identified a baetyl in the central section of the structure, which is questionable.9 Such an analysis evokes Evans’ identification of a steatite “baetylic table of offering” from the Dictaean Cave (Figs 100a and b). This object is constructed of a horizontal slab containing three cupules which is held up underneath by four columns or “legs” in each corner while a wider central column, interpreted as a baetyl, is situated in the center as a kind of fifth “leg”. This object is heavily restored, however, and the “legs” are speculative, based on the existence on the underside of the offering table of circular marks that suggest that it once sat upon legs. Evans interpreted the theoretical central “baetyl” in this table as an aniconic form of Zeus, and Persson similarly interprets the scene in Figure 24 as portraying the worship of “aniconic deities here represented in the tree and the baetyl”.10 In regards to interpreting ambiguous glyptic images, Morgan explains that “subjective” ambiguity has to do with doubt and hesitation on the part of the interpreter, while “objective” ambiguity applies to a double or dubious meaning inherent in the image. 11 When it comes to analysing the columnar structures discussed here in regard to whether they are shrines or gateways, the modern interpreter is at a disadvantage because there are no examples of such structures in the archaeological record. Although possible, it is not definite that the images themselves are ambiguous – construed deliberately ambiguously by the seal engraver or patron – as a contemporary Minoan viewer may have had no trouble deciphering the scene and known exactly what physical structures were intended. Further examples that indicate the ambiguity of these structures and the consequent difficulty in decipherment can be seen in Krattenmaker’s assessment of the structure in Figure 19 as including a column in the central section of the structure whereas another interpreter would read the area as depicting empty space. In addition Krattenmaker also describes what are probably vertical rocks at the base of the structure, as a “V-shaped base” or “floral motif” – a fair description given that the rocks do appear in that way, but an incorrect one. She is right, however, in suggesting that the structure is depicted as being situated above ground level. That Figure 22 looks so similar to the structure in Figure 19, which appears to be made from wooden columns, suggests that either the type of structure in Figure 19 and other scenes which have been interpreted as depicting columns are really cursory depictions of masonry structure, or that both columnar and pier types of shrines with trees growing out of them could be depicted as sitting upon a rocky base.




























































7 8 9 10 11

As does Marinatos (1989, 138–9) and Krattenmaker (1991, 274 n. 20); Nilsson 1950, 265. Nilsson 1950, 266. Persson 1942, 52. Evans 1901, 113–7; Persson 1942, 53. Morgan 1989, 145.

TREES AND CULT STRUCTURES

79

The columnar structure in Figure 21 consists of two vertical columns on either side of a central section which, rather than being empty, is decorated with a criss-cross pattern, perhaps evoking the type of spiral decoration seen on the central sections of the tripartite shrine on the Zakro Rhyton (Fig. 32b) and the shrine or tomb and the horned altar on Sides A and B of the Haghia Triadha sarcophagus (Figs. 33, 41). Similar marks appear on the tripartite shrine on the Archanes Ring (Fig. 34). Another interpretation is that these are cursorily rendered versions of the criss-cross pattern, possibly made by a draped fishing net, which may be the case in Griffin Warrior Ring 2 (Fig. 26). The flat double cornice on top of the columns in Figure 21 shows that this example is not a tripartite shrine – as that type of structure is characterised by having two shorter “wings” flanking a taller central section. On top of this columnar structure is a tree, but it appears to sit within a mound, a characteristic not seen on other examples of this type of structure. This mound may simply be a mark that forms part of the two tree trunks on top of the structure which join at that point. If the trees did not grow within the structure but were only placed upon it at certain times of the year, as Marinatos suggests, it may indicate a clump of dirt surrounding the tree roots. So, what are columnar shrines then and why aren’t there any archaeological remains of them? Glyptic images of columnar shrines that are rendered by single vertical and horizontal strokes probably indicate a structure that was made of wood.12 There were doubtless many wooden items in the Bronze Age Aegean that may have been quite elaborate but that we simply do not know about because they have not been preserved.13 We can get an inkling of what may have existed from surviving Egyptian wooden furniture and objects. Looking at the elaborate table from Akrotiri, the form of which was preserved in volcanic debris and which we know only from a plaster cast, we can see that such wooden-made objects could be skilfully wrought, elaborate and sophisticated (Fig. 101). If wooden structures intended for indoor use such as the Akrotiri table have barely survived, however, what hope could a wooden structure in a hypaethral shrine subject to the weather have had? While the wooden columnar structures disintegrated, the masonry examples may have simply collapsed or been dismantled. Birge explains how Pausanias (fl. ca.150 CE) recorded many sacred trees and associated cultic structures in his description of the Greek landscape but which we would never have known about, because of their ephemerality, were it not for his written description.14 As well as being similar to Roman rustic shrines as depicted in sacro-idyllic fresco scenes in which a tree is either adjacent to a stone structure or enclosed within wooden one (Fig. 102),15 Minoan columnar shrines may have been comparable to the built structures around modern sacred trees in Asia (Figs. 103a, b). These trees are sometimes surrounded by a wooden construction, or more often these days, cement, that serve a combination of functions including distinguishing the tree as special, as a shelf for sacred images or offerings, and as protection for the base of the tree. Asian sacred trees appear to be much larger than the Minoan glyptic examples, but the latter may not be rendered in accurate proportions. Ashlar Altars Ashlar structures in conjunction with trees as depicted in glyptic, fresco and stone vase imagery appear in two forms: a vertical ashlar structure with a rectangular profile and a stepped ashlar structure that has a triangular profile. Vertical examples include Figures 28, 29, 32b, and possibly Figure 104 from Messenia (which does not have a tree), while stepped structures can be seen in Figures 13, 21, 30, 31, 32a and 33. Like the columnar structures, ashlar altars often seem ambiguous. Some renditions of the actual stone blocks of which they are constructed are more graphic than others resulting in some of the examples, such as Figures 13, 28, 30, 31 and 104, appearing as though they could be constructed of




























































12 13 14 15

Marinatos 1989, 138. Such as the wooden prototype of the Knossos throne. Birge 1994, 231–245. Motta 2006, 91, 168–9, 201, 204–5, 340; Ling 1991, 143–6. Roman rustic shrines are larger than Minoan examples.

80

CHAPTER 5

materials other than masonry. The general grid-like marks which the engraver has used to construct the images, however, suggest a stylised technique of representing masonry. As mentioned in the previous chapter, Evans interpreted the vertical-sided ashlar structure in Figure 28 as a gateway and thought that it may have been made out of latticework. He compared it to the structure surrounding the sacred baetyl depicted on coins from Byblos (Fig. 105).16 Figure 28 depicts a closed structure, however, rather than an open one such as a gateway, and functions as a base for a sacred tree. That Evans could only speculate was a consequence of the dearth of small cult structures in the archaeological record at the time of his study of Bronze Age Crete,17 a situation which generally confronts researchers today as well. Evans interpreted the stepped ashlar structure within the boat in Figure 13 as a throne18 and this is a reasonable suggestion considering that in Minoan glyptic and fresco female figures do tend to sit on stepped structures, sometimes alternating with trees. In Figure 21 one of the stepped ashlar altars features a female figure sitting upon it, while the other is surmounted by a tree; women and trees also feature on constructed openwork platforms, discussed below. If the structure within the Mochlos Boat Ring (Fig. 13) is an ashlar altar, however, then the image cannot be interpreted as a realistic scene (as a stone structure in a boat would probably cause it to sink), a theory discussed in more detail in the next chapter. Sourvinou-Inwood wisely cautioned against conflating altar types; however, scholars frequently continue to identify them as “walls”.19 Dimopoulou and Rethemiotakis describe the stepped ashlar altars in Figure 21 and the vertical sided altar in Figure 29 as walls20 when, as explained in the previous chapter, they are both altars. Sourvinou-Inwood also claims that all other altars in conjunction with trees are not stepped, but this is inaccurate. While columnar structures with trees are not stepped, ashlar structures with trees tend to be stepped more often than not, as is evident from the examples mentioned here and which can be seen most clearly on the Zakro Rhyton (Fig. 32a), in which a stepped ashlar altar has branches laid on top of it, and on Side A of the Haghia Triadha sarcophagus (Fig. 33) in which a tree is situated at the back of the stepped ashlar altar. An insight into the potential scale of stepped altars is given by Long who suggests that the stepped altar on Side A of the Haghia Triadha sarcophagus was made of mudbrick and that if Minoan bricks were around 0.46–0.61m long by 0.35–0.40m wide by 0.10–0.13m high, then each step would be 30 to 39cms high by 20 to 26cms deep.21 This would mean that overall the altar would be 0.90 to 1.17m high. The three steps may correspond to the three gifts being presented to the deceased figure in the scene and perhaps would be placed upon the altar steps. The tree in the scene may have grown adjacent to this sort of altar or, as Long suggests, have been a large bouquet similar to those seen in Egyptian funerary art.22 Tripartite Shrines There are several iconographic examples of the tripartite shrine. First discovered in 1876 by Heinrich Schliemann in Shaft Graves III and IV at Mycenae, these consist of five small golden repoussé plaques (Fig. 47). A tripartite shrine is also seen in the Grandstand Fresco from Knossos (Fig. 46), a stone rhyton fragment from Gypsadhes (Fig. 76), the Zakro Rhyton (Fig. 32b), the gold ring from Archanes (Fig. 34), and possibly also Figs 106, 107 and 108. Early on, Evans realised from looking at the




























































16 17 18 19 20 21

22

Evans 1901, 184–5. Even though Minoan art is not realistically proportional. Evans 1901, 122–3, 192–5. Evans 1928, 250. Sourvinou-Inwood 1989, 97–100. Dimopoulou and Rethemiotakis 2000, 49. Measurements based on Graham 1987, 148. Shaw estimates that the size of Minoan bricks ranged from 0.42m to 0.64m long, 0.26m to 0.42m wide, and 0.9m to 0.12m high. Brick sizes vary according to site and different sizes were preferred at different locations (2009, 132–4). Long 1974, 49.

TREES AND CULT STRUCTURES

81

Mycenaean gold plaques that there must have been an Aegean shrine designed in tripartite form, and that it was of a small size because of the comparative size of the doves perching upon it.23 The Grandstand Fresco also suggests that tripartite shrines were small because of the relative size of the figures sitting to either side of the structure.24 Indeed, tripartite shrines do seem to have been small, as can be seen from that on the Zakro Rhyton in which birds and agrimi provide a scale for comparison. The tripartite shrine depicted in the Archanes Ring is the only example that incorporates a tree. The shrine is set on top of a square or block-like structure consisting of five or six courses of masonry. It is similar in form to both the shrine on the Zakro Rhyton, although this is set upon steps, and the gold plaques from Mycenae. Conversely the tripartite shrine in the Grandstand Fresco appears to be situated directly upon the ground. In the Archanes Ring, the three vertical sections of the shrine consist of two shorter wings at each side and a taller central section. The wings appear to be constructed from stone blocks, while the central section is more difficult to understand, consisting of two vertical lines between which is a central area distinguished by squiggly marks. This might be explained by comparison with the tripartite shrine on the Zakro Rhyton, the central section of which is decorated with a pattern of interlocking spirals, or the columnar shrine with a “net” pattern on the Griffin Warrior 2 Ring. The central section of the structure in the Archanes Ring is narrower than that on the Zakro Rhyton and Griffin Warrior 2 Ring, but this could be a result of the lack of room for more detailed rendering in this glyptic composition. Unlike the Archanes Ring and the Zakro Rhyton, the central and side niches of the tripartite shrine in the Grandstand Fresco contains horns and columns, an arrangement that is similar to the examples on the gold plaques from Mycenae. While the tripartite shrine in the Archanes Ring has a tree on top of it, the Zakro Rhyton has what is thought to be a baetyl or stylised mountain on top of, or behind it. This is interesting in regards to the baetyl being hugged in the Archanes Ring and may emphasise, in the latter, a symbolic emphasis on mountains as well as trees. The baetyl on the Zakro Rhyton is flanked by goats; in Near Eastern art goats often flank trees and in the Levant and Egypt such trees are symbolic of female deities.25 The baetyls in Aegean art, while potentially mountainous, may also evoke a tree, as other glyptic cult scenes situate trees and baetyls in proximity to each other.26 In the fragments of the Grandstand Fresco it is not possible to see whether anything was on top of the shrine, although it has been reconstructed as being surmounted by horns, following the style of the gold plaques from Mycenae. The tripartite shrines on the Grandstand Fresco and Zakro Rhyton probably functioned as facades rather than freestanding structures, as they were components of larger architectural features, whereas the tripartite shrines in the Gypsadhes Rhyton fragment, the Mycenae plaques, the Archanes Ring and Figures 106, 107 and 108 appear to be free-standing. Constructed Openwork Platforms Constructed openwork platforms are stepped structures that consist of vertical and horizontal elements with openings in between, and which usually have at least two or more levels which step inwards as they ascend. There is no solid masonry in these structures and they have an almost unfinished appearance like a framework. 27 Detailed examples of such structures show that the horizontal components often rest upon incurved altars. Palyvou suggests that these platforms functioned as prefabricated stages that could be assembled, disassembled, and moved around for use in the performance of religious spectacles.28 They bear a superficial resemblance to the type of structures that Krattenmaker interprets as representing palatial architecture, such as the example in Figure 94, the




























































23 24 25 26 27 28

Shaw, J. 1978, 429. Evans 1901, 122–3, 192–5. May 1939. Crooks 2013, 55. Krattenmaker 1991, 284, 285. Palyvou 2006.

82

CHAPTER 5

“Mother of the Mountain” sealing, but ought not to be confused with them as they differ in both form and function.29 Constructed openwork platforms appear in various media including glyptic, ivory and fresco painting. They can be seen in Figures 35, 69, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113 and possibly 114. Such structures are also depicted in the Mochlos ivory pyxis (Fig. 36), an ivory pyxis from Haghia Triadha, a stone triton from Malia, and the fresco from the north wall of Room 3a at Xeste 3 Akrotiri (Fig. 18b).30 Figure 115 from Tiryns could also be added to this group, although the platform here is not stepped and consists of only one layer with half-rosettes taking the place of the supporting incurved altars.31 The fresco from Haghia Triadha Villa A Room 14, although obscured by damage, probably also depicts a stepped openwork platform (Fig. 116). That it is not a wall is evident from the fact that the orange-brown background colouring can be seen in the openings between the horizontal and vertical elements of the structure.32 An un-stepped platform appears in Figure 7, the Ring of Nestor, and a small version is depicted in Figure 29 from Poros. The construction of the platform is probably most clearly rendered in the Mochlos Pyxis (Fig. 36) (described fully in Chapter 6), and the fresco from Xeste 3 (Fig. 18b). In the latter image the central and highest part of the structure is built from stacked blocks, perhaps made of stone, with a horizontal slab or cornice on the top. This central area incorporates two lower horizontal slabs that, on their outer edges are supported by single blocks and which rest upon longer horizontal slabs. These are supported by three incurved altars on the left and one on the right. The structure thus evokes the high central area and lower outer wings of a tripartite shrine and the ascending triangular form of a stepped ashlar altar. The whole structure has three tiers with the lowest level supported by incurved altars. Like the Mochlos Pyxis and the Tiryns Ring, the lowest level in the Xeste 3 fresco is used as a platform upon which multiple figures stand as they approach the central seated female figure. In the Xeste 3 example a young female figure carrying a basket of saffron approaches, while a monkey walking upright and with one foot on the second tier, hands saffron to the seated female figure, on the other side of whom is a griffin. Only two examples of stepped openwork platforms feature trees upon them; the sealing from Chania (Fig. 35) and the Mochlos Pyxis, while all other examples are depicted with female figures sitting on top of them, except for the Malia stone triton with its either male or ambiguously gendered Minoan Genii,33 the ring from Poros (Fig. 29) which features a standing male, and the platform in the Ring of Nestor (Fig. 7) upon which a lion reclines. The former is a two-tiered platform while the latter depict two single level platforms, however. In Figures 35 and 36 a female figure appears along with the tree, in the former example she stands next to the structure while in the latter she is seated upon it. All the images except Figure 35 involve people, animals or mythical creatures approaching or attending to the seated female. In Figures 69 and 109, standing female figures bring offerings to the seated female figure; in Figure 112 a small female figure may be handing the seated figure a sceptre;34 the approaching figure in Figure 114 holds a flower while the seated figure holds what appears to be a mirror; in Figure 110 a male figure approaches the seated female figure; Figure 111 depicts the seated female figure feeding a goat; while the seated figure in Figure 113 is flanked by lionesses or dogs. The structure on the Malia Triton depicts two Minoan Genii with a libation jug standing on the top level of what looks like a two tiered structure, and the ivory pyxis from Haghia Triadha depicts two squat female figures on top of a single tiered structure, set on two short masonry piers consisting of three blocks each, situated between shrines or doorways and topped by multiple pairs of horns.




























































29 30 31 32 33

34

Krattenmaker 1995a. Krattenmaker 1991, 164. Soles 2011. Krattenmaker 1991, 287. Hitchcock 2009. The image CMS V No.199 may depict vegetation between horns of consecration on the top tier of the platform; however it is very cursorily rendered. Although another interpretation is that this depicts child sacrifice and that the “sceptre” is a sword.

TREES AND CULT STRUCTURES

83

The surrounding vegetation in both the frescoes from Haghia Triadha and Xeste 3 suggest that the events depicted were located outdoors, and the overhanging rocks in Figure 69 evoke a cave. The platform in the fresco from Xeste 3 is situated amongst crocus flowers, suggesting a mountainous landscape.35 The fresco from Haghia Triadha is flanked by other frescoes on the connecting walls that depict a rocky landscape dotted with clumps of lilies, crocus, ivy and violets, a kneeling female figure, and stalking cats, birds and agrimia and which Rehak interprets as a mountainous hillside (Figs. 59, 72). Both Xeste 3 and the Haghia Triadha fresco scenes may have been intended to evoke a ritual performance occurring at a peak sanctuary. Although set within a natural landscape, Rehak notes that architectural representations have primarily been found in the Knossian palace, villas and the cemeteries associated with these sites, thus such images could also depict events at architecturally elaborated sites.36 Figures 110 and 111 appear to have paved floors, although this does not necessarily preclude a hypaethral location. Incurved Altars The examples of incurved altars that we are interested in here are those that appear in conjunction with trees such as Figures 7, 36, 37 and 38. In the latter two examples the altar is a free-standing structure upon which sit horns. In Figure 38 the horns also have upright branches upon them. Many glyptic examples of the incurved altar feature antithetic animals with their forepaws on the altar, as can also be seen on the Lion Gate from Mycenae (Fig. 80),37 while sometimes the incurved altar has nothing on top of it, as in the example on the Zakro Rhyton (Fig. 32b). An incurved altar appears on a fragment from a relief pithos from the Dictaean Cave where it holds fruit; while the ivory pyxis lid from Minet el-Baida depicts a female figure sitting upon the incurved altar which is in turn situated upon a mountain (Fig. 117). As can be seen in Figures 7 and 36, as well as the fresco from Xeste 3, this type of altar is also used as a supporting base for constructed openwork platforms. Evans termed such structures “altar-bases of the incurved type”, and Nilsson noted that they are frequently flanked by animals such as griffins, lions and dogs.38 Marinatos terms the structure an “incurved podium” and suggests that it is an ideogram that represents “the sacred pillar of the universe, an axis between the two halves of the eastern and western horizon”. Likening it to the Egyptian hieroglyph for a headrest, an object that has solar connotations, Marinatos suggests that rather than being an altar because it rarely features offerings placed upon it, such structures ought to be interpreted as ideograms in three dimensional form.39 Krattenmaker suggests that the form of the incurved altar is related to the “triglyph-rosette” pattern, the space between the two outward-curved edges of the split circle or rosette making the silhouette of an incurved altar.40 This motif is seen in seals such as the Master Impression (Fig. 77) and the Tiryns Ring (Fig. 115), the fresco in the Throne Room at Knossos (Fig. 51), in the tripartite shrine from the Grandstand Fresco (Fig. 46), on the hems of garments depicted in frescoes from Knossos and Pylos, in the Minoan frescos of the palace at Tell el Dabca in Egypt (Fig. 144), and on the gold tripartite shrines from Mycenae (Fig. 47). Marinatos proposes that it derives from the Luwian/Hittite hieroglyph for “god” and designates sacredness.41 That the split rosette motif does have something to do with the incurved altar is suggested by the fact that it often appears in a structurally supporting capacity, as is particularly evident in its location underneath the platform in the Tiryns Ring.






























































35 36 37 38 39 40 41

As seen on the Zakro Rhyton. Rehak 1997, 167, 174. M. Shaw 1986. Evans 1936, 613; Nilsson, 1950, 253. Marinatos 2010, 136–9. Krattenmaker 1991, 126. Marinatos 2010, 135–6; Niemeier 1987b, 167.

84

CHAPTER 5

Table Altars Trees are associated with table altars in two seals investigated here, Figures 7 and 39. The seal from Naxos (Fig. 39), dating to the 13th or 12th century BCE, depicts an altar associated with the paraphernalia of animal sacrifice, whilst the table in the Ring of Nestor (Fig. 7) serves as a seat for a griffin. Table altars are associated with animal sacrifice in Minoan glyptic, as can be seen in Figure 118 showing a bull lying on a long table; Figure 119 where a pig lies on a table; Figure 120 depicting a goat with a dagger or knife in its neck; and Figure 121 with a bull on a table. On Side B of the Haghia Triadha sarcophagus (Fig. 41) a bull, trussed for sacrifice, lies on a table, its blood being caught in a bucket on the floor. These tables were probably wooden, portable, and when used for sacrifices were situated outdoors. They have not been found in the archaeological record.42 Helène Whittaker proposes that the knife on the table in the Naxos Seal refers to the act of killing an animal, while the conical rhyton, jug and two-handled jar are associated with the collection and offering of blood, as on the Haghia Triadha sarcophagus.43 In the sealing from Malia (Fig. 121) such equipment is depicted in conjunction with a bull on an altar table and a male figure with his two hands held over the prostrate bull, a sword or knife, krater, rhyton and horns. Marinatos has suggested that the palm tree is the species most associated with animal sacrifice and in the scene on the Naxos Seal the sacrificial equipment is situated in the vicinity of the palm tree.44 Marinatos initially interpreted the male figure in the Naxos Seal as a deity receiving offerings, later deciding that he was a king while Whittaker sees the figure as a person of authority who presides over the sacrifice.45 This scene echoes that in Figure 37 in which a female figure faces a palm tree situated behind an altar and performs a gesture of adoration. The male figure on the Naxos Seal, however, although appearing in a similar configuration, performs a gesture associated with authority as discussed in the previous chapter. Altars with Horns Altars and shrines in scenes of tree cult are sometimes horned and can be classified into two types: those in which the tree and the horns are inextricably related, meaning that they are combined on the altar; and those in which the tree and horns are in the vicinity of one another. Examples of the first type are Figures 32a, 38, 40, 41 and 42. Figures 28 and 35 may also depict examples of this category but are difficult to decipher because of a combination of sketchy rendering of the image and damage. Scenes in which a horned altar is in the vicinity of a tree include Figures 17, 20, 21, 25, 30 and 37. In the cases where the trees are near horned altars but not directly conjoined with them, the scenes often suggest that both tree and horned altar are components of the same spatial complex, as either the focus of the ritual activity as in Figure 37, or simply in close proximity to one another as depicted in Figure 17. Like the Idaean Seal (Fig. 38), the votive rectangular bronze plaque from Psychro (Fig. 42) dating to LM I also features horns in conjunction with upright branches or small trees, as well as a tree in a container.46 This scene depicts three examples of horns with branches, a bird perches upon the left one, to the right of the bird are a fish and an unidentifiable blob, and above the bird is a sun disk. In the center of the scene is a tree in a pot, above which is another set of horns in combination with a tree. Two cross-like marks are situated at each side of the tree. On the right a (probably) male human figure dances, their right arm outstretched toward the center of the scene corresponding to the top of the tree in the pot and the bottom of the central horns. Above and behind this human figure is a third set of horns with a tree or branch, above which is a lunar crescent. The whole scene is surrounded by




























































42 43 44 45 46

A stone table was found at Archanes. Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakalleraki 1997, 80. Discussed below. Whittaker 2004, 103–4. Marinatos 1984; 1986, 15–16. Marinatos 1986, 1, 15, 23; 2010, 63; Whittaker 2004, 103–4. Evans 1921, 632, fig. 470; Watrous 1996, 17, 20, 51.

TREES AND CULT STRUCTURES

85

what may be intended as an ashlar wall and perhaps depicts the interior of a sanctuary with its surrounding wall – or it could alternatively depict paving. This image, although less skilfully rendered, may help elucidate the scene in the Idaean Seal. Goodison reads the image on the plaque as a symbolic scene rather than a literal one, however. While at first glance the image may appear to depict a scene of cult, Goodison points out that because there is a fish in what appears to be the air next to the bird that the image therefore ought to be read as symbolic rather than literal. She suggests that because the image contains representatives from the realms of sky, air, earth and sea, it perhaps depicts a cosmology: “Not just a picture of a tree ritual, but of the world view surrounding it.”47 This is an interesting suggestion, but it is also possible that this is a scene depicted from the point of view of Cavalier perspective and that the viewer is seeing over a wall and into a sanctuary.48 The scene may incorporate both realistic and symbolic components – in fact the only unlikely elements from a literal point of view are the simultaneous presence of the sun and moon, but only if we understand them to depict day and night, as the moon can be visible in the daytime. Both the Idaean Seal and the Psychro Plaque were found in caves and may therefore depict cave cult. The stepped altar on the Zakro Rhyton (Fig. 32a) has branches rather than trees upon it in conjunction with the horns. Instead of being vertical, however, as on the Idaean Seal, they lie horizontally between the horns as though laid there as an offering. The bone ring from Melos (Fig. 40) may depict such an offering in process. Side B of the Haghia Triadha sarcophagus (Fig. 41) depicts an altar with four sets of horns and a tree on top of it. In her attempt to interpret the altar, Harrison projected Athenian mythology back onto Crete, suggesting that it was an actual sanctuary; a “Pandroseion”, contrary to its small scale in the image. She explained the scene as “an olive tree in a sanctuary, surmounted by bulls’ horns, and the thunder-axe on the bare obelisk standing for Erechtheus.”49 The idea that this structure was an olive grove surrounded by a wall can only be valid if we agree that the structure represents miniaturised architecture.50 Long also interprets this altar as a shrine, by which she meant a larger building which is only depicted as small for reasons of compositional space.51 As Long rightly expresses, in Minoan and Mycenaean art scale is not necessarily accurate. This structure, however, is more likely to be an altar or small shrine than a building one can enter and in fact resembles the altar upon which the nearby female figure places her hands. Nilsson proposed that the horned altar was evidence of “town cult”, because of the appearance of a row of circles running across the top of the altar, features interpreted as beam ends when on images of actual buildings. The presence of these circles suggesting to Nilsson that this altar was a building, despite its small size.52 The horned altar in this scene may have been intended to mnemonically evoke a building, in the manner that columnar shrines suggest gateways, the horizontal row of coloured circles perhaps indeed evoking beam ends. Long explains the presence of the tree on the altar as simply an afterthought which functioned to indicate which deity the ritual was directed toward. She interprets it as an olive tree, even though Minoan glyptic scenes of animal sacrifice primarily occur in the vicinity of palm trees.53 Marinatos interprets the tree as a fruit-bearing variety and contrasts it to the tree on Side A (Fig. 33) which she proposes is a non-fruiting type.54 The tree on Side B is a palm tree, however, and if it is the indigenous






























































47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

Goodison 2010, 12–13. In two dimensional visual art Cavalier perspective is when placement above equals further away. Harrison 1921, 176. Harrison (1921, 190) also interprets the sealstone CMS IX, No.163 as a Pandroseion. Harrison 1921, 176. Long 1974, 66–7. Nilsson 1950, 272. Marinatos 1986. Marinatos 1991, 32.

86

CHAPTER 5

Cretan palm, Phoenix theophrasti, it may not have been edible although if it is a date palm it would have been.55 Location in the “Real” Landscape As well as a rural location, scenes involving shrines and altars in conjunction with trees have been proposed to depict urban locations, although specific sites have usually not been identified. As mentioned earlier, the images discussed here have been suggested by Sourvinou-Inwood to depict scenes set within sacred enclosures, in contrast to images of walls which she suggests depict scenes set outside such enclosures. But is this correct? Do all the images in this chapter portray scenes of the interior of extra-urban cult sites such as peak, rural or cave sanctuaries? Perhaps such scenes could just as easily portray urban sites. Stone or brick altars and shrines depicted in the images examined in this chapter do find parallels in the archaeological record at both rural and urban locations, as well as within and outside of architectural structures; however, whether the cult scenes can be definitively matched to actual cult sites is questionable. Analysis of the components of the images will be undertaken below, and comparison of such components to the architectonic structures and material culture of rural and urban sites situated within the regions of the images’ find spots will be carried out in order to discern any correlations and whether consequently the two types of evidence can be “matched”. Potential Sites The glyptic images originating from Knossos and its environs include one example of a columnar structure, three examples of ashlar structures, one incurved altar and two examples of altars with horns. The columnar structure appears in Figure 21, while the ashlar structures also appear in Figure 21 as well as Figures 17 and 29. The incurved altar, which also features horns, is depicted in Figure 37. Horns upon the altar are also seen in Figures 17 and 21. All up then, actually only four images of built structures in conjunction with trees derive from the Knossos region. The trees with paving on the Sacred Grove and Dance fresco could also be included; the location of this scene probably being the West Court of the palace at Knossos. The New Poros Ring (Fig. 29) may depict a site within Poros, a large urban center situated on the coast 1.5 km from present day Heraklion, which functioned as the port of Knossos. Poros was in reciprocal relationship with Knossos so the ring could just as easily depict a scene at Knossos or on Mount Jouktas, the location of the primary extra-urban sanctuary of Knossos.56 The main evidence for this suggestion is the ashlar structure in the scene which will be discussed further below. Both the Gypsadhes Rhyton fragment (Fig. 17) and the Ring of Minos (Fig. 21) come from close to the Knossos palace; the trees in conjunction with ashlar altars suggest an extra-urban location, possibly Jouktas. The three altars on the Ring of Minos, however, may point to three separate locations, and the large boulders at the bases of the altars may suggest a mountainous landscape. Lastly, the seal stone Figure 37 depicts a palm tree, most commonly associated with coastal sites, so it probably does not point to Jouktas. If we can suggest then, that the Poros Ring, the Ring of Minos and the Gypsadhes Fragment depict ritual activity occurring at Jouktas, what evidence is there at Jouktas that could be correlated to the scenes in the rings? The main pieces of evidence are the stepped altar (Fig. 122), stone horns, and monumental wall. The Ring of Minos depicts two stepped stone altars, one of which supports a tree while the other has horns on top of it. The ashlar altar in the Poros Ring is vertical-sided and is surmounted by a tree, while the Gypsadhes fragment is also vertical-sided and supports horns. The scene on the Gypsadhes fragment also depicts a wall, although it is not clear how high this wall is intended to be, and the one at Jouktas was 3.5m high. All the images depict trees and while it is really




























































55 56

Marinatos 1984, 115. Dimopoulou 1999, 27.

TREES AND CULT STRUCTURES

87

impossible to tell exactly what kinds of trees these are; on the other hand it is possible to confirm that they are definitely not palm trees. While Davis suggested that a palm tree located at a peak sanctuary would need to be potted (being a coastal tree) and intentionally watered, more localised species could grow there naturally.57 It is very hard to discern the species of tree in the Ring of Minos, although dots around the edges of the leaves on the Poros Ring may be read as fruit. The actual peak sanctuary at Jouktas is situated at 809 meters, while Building B and Anemospilia are situated at 730 metres and 400 meters respectively. As we saw in the previous chapter olive and fig trees could grow at this altitude. Several other types of trees have been identified within the archaeological remains of Bronze Age Crete so we need not always limit the suggestions regarding the type of trees in glyptic scenes to the predictable fig and olive.58 While the above characteristics could be used to argue for a peak sanctuary location for the glyptic images, there are many examples of material culture at Jouktas that do not appear within these scenes. Of all peak sanctuaries in Crete, Jouktas has produced the largest and most extensive assemblage; the stepped ashlar altar at Jouktas is only one component of the site. The interior of the sanctuary is also characterised by human and animal figurines and votive limbs, offering tables, stone ladles, votive bronze double axes, stone horns, miniature vessels, animal rhyta, weapons, shells, and other objects. Cooking and feasting occurred there as is evident from the presence of ash, bones, and ceramic cooking, serving, drinking and storage vessels. The site also contained buildings and stone terraces.59 Of the structures and assemblage from the peak sanctuary of Jouktas, only the stepped altar and horns, as well as the wall, are depicted in the glyptic images from the Knossos region. Anemospilia exhibits some characteristics seen in the glyptic images from the Knossos region including ashlar masonry, a stepped altar (Fig. 123), and horns. The ashlar structure is a tripartite cult building consisting of three rooms in which both blood sacrifices and bloodless offerings were performed (Fig. 124). It may have evoked a tripartite shrine, as the threshold of the central area was slightly higher than the two side rooms. A stepped altar with three levels and with a base of natural rock was situated in the eastern room, and decorated ceramic offering vessels were placed upon its steps. A large clay basket found on the stepped altar is similar to the one pictured in the rhyton fragment from Knossos that may depict a tripartite shrine at a peak sanctuary (Fig. 76). Sakellarakis compared the stepped altar at Anemospilia to the possible example in the central court at Phaistos and the one on the Haghia Triadha sarcophagus, discussed below.60 The palatial building at Archanes features many correlates of the types of altars and shrines depicted in the glyptic images examined here. That a constructed openwork platform was a type of cult structure utilised at Archanes is suggested by the four stone incurved altars found packed tightly together against a column in the side of an imposing entranceway into an antechamber to the north of Courtyard 1 (Fig. 125). These were situated close to one another, forming a table or small platform measuring 0.96 x 0.96m. The altars were arranged so that their tops made a square formation, suggesting that their purpose was to form a larger altar or possibly a platform base for a seat. The excavator proposed, by analogy with the Lion Gate at Mycenae which features a sculpted image of an incurved altar, that the position of these altars in the gateway indicated the presence of a “gate shrine”. A nearby fresco depicting a female figure wearing a Minoan flounced skirt and possibly holding vegetation in her right hand on the east wall of Antechamber 2, before the east door of the polythyron leading to Area 3, enhances the cultic nature of the area.61 An alternative interpretation of the incurved altars is that they were single altars, such as those found at Knossos and Malia, placed in storage. In iconography incurved altars are either shown singly, or spaced at intervals alongside each other holding up an openwork platform, and never in a close square formation as found at Archanes, although in order to make such a platform stable, it would require




























































57 58 59 60 61

Davis 2014, 164. I have personally seen trees growing high up on Jouktas. J. Shaw 1973, 135–6. Karetsou 1981, 153; Briault 2007a, 126. Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakalleraki 1997, 269–288, 417–8. Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakalleraki 1997, 495.

88

CHAPTER 5

incurved altars to be placed at each corner. The fresco from Xeste 3 shows four such altars holding up the bottom tier of a constructed openwork platform, while in the example on the Mochlos Pyxis there are eight. Incurved altars may have formed a general supporting function, however, sometimes being used as small altars, as bases for horns of consecration, and other times to hold up a constructed openwork platform. Like the other components of the platform, they were probably stored away during times when not required for ritual activity.62 Such a platform could have been erected in the area of Courtyards 10 and 11, perhaps on top of or near the exedra (Figs. 85) where a tall rectangular stone altar, a small stepped stone altar, a stone double axe base, a triton shell, part of a stone offering table, a fragment of a stone vase, conical cups, animal bones and a drain were also located, near the garden area that may have contained a sacred tree.63 It could also have been erected in Courtyard 1, directly in front of the columned entrance way. A large stone table measuring 1.66 x 0.55 x 0.19m and two sets of plaster horns were found in the upper floor of Hall 10. In Area 12 stone horns may have once crowned the building and a rectangular stone block in the south-west may be an altar. More triton shells were found in Area 17, the Shrine of the Chryselephantine Figures, and Area 18. In the north-west corner of Room 4 was a stepped stone and mudbrick pedestal coated with fine plaster and with an animal figurine on top of it.64 The open-air Theatral Area to the south-east of the main building contained a stepped altar and stone horns. The stepped altar consists of two rectangular steps, the smaller measuring 0.60 x 0.17 x 0.39m and the larger 1.20 x 0.46 x 0.31m, and is set upon a pavement crossed by five walkways. The horns, which are decorated with engraved branches and a trident, rest on one of the walkways. There may also be a second slab-like monolithic altar in this area where plain conical cups were found, and another stone exedra.65 Archanes features most of the examples of actual built structures that appear in the images examined in this chapter. Stepped ashlar altars are evident both in interior rooms as well as at outdoor locations. The example in the north-east corner of Room 4 was located in a cult room that featured a bench against the west wall. Evidence of intense burning suggested that a wooden structure had originally been situated in the centre of the room. This was surrounded by many types of decorated pots and objects made of precious materials such as ivory, faience, and jasper. Amphorae decorated with double axes and an incense burner were also evident. The stepped altar in the outdoor Theatral Area was situated on a public thoroughfare, as is evident by the five walkways that cross the paved area where the altar was located. Such paved courts with walkways are also known from the West Court, Theatral Area, and Royal Road from Knossos, the Theatral Area of Phaistos, and the West Court and north entrance at Malia.66 The ring from Tholos Tomb A at the cemetery of Phourni Archanes, Fig. 34, depicts a tripartite shrine and while such structures have not been found at Archanes itself, the most convincing archaeological evidence for a tripartite shrine comes from reasonably nearby at the villa complex at Vathypetro. Other examples of potential tripartite shrines include structures in the Central Court of the palace of Knossos and in the court of the villa at Nirou Khani (although this may be a stepped altar).67 While the tripartite shrines depicted in the Grandstand Fresco and Zakro Rhyton may have functioned as facades, the example at Vathypetro was free standing. Constructed in the beginning of the LM IA, the structure at Vathypetro was built on a foundation of rubble and reused ashlar blocks (Fig. 86a and b).68




























































62 63 64 65 66 67

68

Krattenmaker 1991, 291. Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakalleraki 1997, 89, 102–4. Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakalleraki 1997, 80, 87–88, 494. Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakalleraki 1997, 104–5, 110, 120–22, 144. Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakalleraki 1997, 120–5. J. Shaw 1978, 446 n.1; Gesell 1985, 29–30, 116, fig. 60, 199, pl.28; Hitchcock 2000, 107. Driessen and Sakellarakis (1997, 73) do not accept the interpretation as tripartite shrines against the east facade of the west wing at the Palace of Knossos or those against the south enceinte of the complex at Nirou Chani – because of their lack of stellar alignment. Driessen and Sakellarakis 1997.

TREES AND CULT STRUCTURES

89

It may have been made of mudbrick as the excavator found no traces of masonry blocks in the vicinity of the foundation. Mudbrick was usually plastered over, however, hiding the joins, and the tripartite shrines on the Archanes Ring (Fig. 34), as well as that depicted on the Zakro Rhyton (Fig. 32b), clearly depict ashlar masonry. Measuring 5.35m north-south by 3.30m east-west, the tripartite shrine at Vathypetro must have been a bigger structure than that depicted on the Archanes Ring, although it was probably not designed to be entered.69 The shrine faced a stoa-like porch, the columns of which approximately line up with the three niches in the shrine,70 perhaps either echoing other columns originally within those niches or evoking a relationship between columns and niches, as seen on the Grandstand Fresco and the gold plaques from Mycenae. Polished, fragmentary stone horns were found in the area between the columned porch and the tripartite shrine.71 Both the Psychro Plaque (Fig. 42) and the Idaean Seal (Fig. 38) were found in caves and may therefore depict scenes of cave cult. The Psychro plaque comes from the Psychro cave located in Lasithi, 1025 meters above sea level on the northern face of the Dictaean mountain range. The cave has three main ritual areas: a broad terrace outside its entrance, an upper chamber and a lower cave. The exterior terrace is over 40 meters long, 4–5 meters wide, and is built of cyclopean masonry. Watrous suggests that ritual participants may have gathered on the large terrace, estimated to have accommodated up to 250 people, in order to observe activity performed by a cult official who had ascended from the cave interior.72 The grid-like marks on the plaque may therefore depict a terrace floor rather than a sanctuary wall. Actual stone horns do not seem to be evident at Psychro; however, they do appear as decoration on pithoi located there. The Idaean Cave, located at an altitude of 1538 meters on the eastern slope of the Psiloriti massif (Mount Ida), also has a broad platform in front of its entrance and features upper and lower areas. It has evidence of horns, although no incurved altars as seen in the Idaean Seal. The Mochlos Pyxis (Fig. 36) may depict an urban scene consisting, as it does, of a ritual event occurring upon a constructed openwork platform which, as discussed above, were temporary constructions that could be set up anywhere. The LM I house in which the pyxis was found was adjacent to and west of the main ritual area of the site and, as Soles suggests, the elite female figure sitting upon the second tier of the platform in the scene may have been the woman who owned the pyxis and lived in this house.73 The platform may have been set up in the Theatral Area of this urban building complex or in the countryside outside the town, perhaps at or near the peak sanctuary of Stavromenos.74 It could also depict a Knossian location; Soles speculates that the elite female owner of the pyxis may have come from Knossos, because of the presence of a rosette (emblematic of Knossos) hairpin.75 The structures depicted on the sealing and rhyton from Zakro (Figs. 30, 32b) may depict the nearby peak sanctuary at Traostalos.76 This site is characterised by buildings constructed of large unworked blocks of local stone dating to the Neopalatial period, as well as animal and human figurines, votive limbs, model boats, offering tables, miniature vessels, lamps, incense burners, ceramic feasting and storage equipment, bones, a baetyl and evidence of fire.77 The stepped ashlar altar with horns depicted on the Zakro Rhyton appears to be constructed of cut stone or perhaps mudbrick, in contrast to any structures evident on Traostalos. The horizontal and vertical marks which make up the stepped altar on the Zakro Sealing also suggest a stylised representation of ashlar masonry. The interior space of the peak sanctuary depicted on the Zakro rhyton seems too small to match the description of the size of




























































69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77

J. Shaw 1978, 444. J. Shaw 1978, 443. Driessen and Sakellarakis 1997, 72. Watrous 1996, 17, 20, 51. Soles and Davaras, 2010, 1; Soles 2011. Sofianou and Papadatos 2015. Marinatos (2010, 131–9) links the rosette motif with Knossos. As mentioned by Soles (2011). J. Shaw 1978, 435 n.12. Chryssoulaki 2001; Blakolmer 2014, 126.

90

CHAPTER 5

Traostalos, the highest plateau measuring 20m x 12m. It could depict the interior of one of the smaller walled spaces such as Building A, an unroofed enclosure, measuring 5m x 3m. 78 Horns and architecture appear at the next most north-easterly peak sanctuary, Petsophas, and there is also a votive ceramic tree from the same site – both components appearing in the glyptic iconography from Zakro. Many of the votive limbs at the site had holes in them for suspension and may have been hung on a tree.79 The images examined that derive from Chania (Figs. 20, 35) show scenes of columnar structures and constructed openwork platforms. There are many areas of Chania where such structures could have been placed.80 Palatial architecture at Chania exhibits several examples of ceremonial and cult areas including House IV in the Haghia Aikaterini Square area in which an offering table and a clay model of a foot were found; a room with pumice stone spread over the floor in the Mathioudakis Plot which has been suggested to indicate the presence of a shrine; and particularly a large platform or podium in the Daskaloyannis Street Complex surrounded by drains in which were found many conical cups. This was situated in the vicinity of a frescoed Lustral Basin and a courtyard with evidence of ash and animal bones, a bothros full of conical cups, and additional rooms with more conical cups and cooking equipment. The large platform is adjacent to a great hall and the excavator suggests that these features indicate the capacity to accommodate many people and the performance of open-air rituals.81 The structures of interest depicted on the Haghia Triadha sarcophagus are the stepped ashlar altar with a tree, and the painted altar surmounted by horns of consecration and a tree (Figs. 33, 41). The sarcophagus is late, dating to the early LM IIIA2 and was found in a small above-ground tomb situated northeast of the villa at Haghia Triadha (Fig. 126 and 127). The interior of the tomb measures 2.39m x 1.95m, was constructed of regular field stones and probably had a superstructure of timber and clay. The doorway of the tomb measured 0.87m wide and was situated in the north end of the east wall, and the floor was of bedrock. The tomb may have been painted and have resembled the structure on the far right of the offering scene on Side A of the sarcophagus, behind the stepped altar and human figure, although no traces of the superstructure or of painted plaster were recovered. 82 The offering scene has also been interpreted as depicting the area outside the tomb.83 Stepped ashlar altars have not been found in the vicinity of the tomb or elsewhere at the site.84 Stone horns, as seen on Side B, have been found at Haghia Triadha in the votive deposit of the Piazzale dei Sacelli (Fig. 128). These have a tubular attachment between the horns, which may have functioned as a




























































78 79 80

81 82 83 84

Chryssoulaki 2001, 61. Briault 2007a, 126; Myres et al. 1902/1903, 274–387; Faro 2008, 271. Peak sanctuaries in western Crete have been poorly investigated and while Faure identified MM and LM I sites at Karavellas, Drapanokefala, Sklokas and Onychas as peak sanctuaries, these have since been excluded from the gazetteer by Rutkowski and Peatfield who rejected all of Faure’s western Cretan peak sanctuaries except Vrysinas. Nowicki suggests that Drapanokefala, Sklokas and Onychas ought to be reexamined however. He also highlights Agios Kyriaki Gremnakas in the south-west of Crete as a peak sanctuary, although this is much too far away from Chania to be relevant here, as well as two more in the Preveli and Plakias areas south of Rethymnon, again, both of which are much too far away from Chania to have been utilised by its inhabitants. Nowicki (2007, 1–31. 2–3, 10, 27–9) suggests that with the identification of these new peaks sanctuaries we should consider the possibility that a similar density of peak sanctuaries existed in western Crete as it did in the east. Andreadaki-Vlazaki 2010, 519. Chania also had close contact with the island of Kythera, known for its elaborate peak sanctuary at Agios Georgios, although no objects relating to constructed openwork platforms have been reported there. Sakellarakis 1996. Also on Kythera, the peak sanctuary of Leska. Georgiadis 2012. Andreadaki-Vlazaki 2010, 518– 528. It is likely however that constructed openwork platforms represented mountains rather than being erected on them, a suggestion that will be discussed further below. Andreadaki-Vlazaki 2002; 2010, 520–22. Long 1974, 11–12. Burke 2005, 408 fig. 7. A stepped altar was reconstructed for the Woman and Altar Fresco from Haghia Triadha by Privitera (2015) however this is a painted altar like the one on Side B of the sarcophagus which is not stepped.

TREES AND CULT STRUCTURES

91

slot in which to insert branches. The location in which the ritual activity in the scenes on the sarcophagus occurs is unclear from the paintings themselves, although it does appear to occur upon a paved surface indicated by the blue and yellow-orange rows of small segmented rectangles evocative of stone blocks, above and below the scenes on both sides of the sarcophagus. The Egyptian style of perspective used in the composition lends credence to the suggestion that the patterns above and below the scenes represent a paved floor. Long also interprets the red and white squares under the double axe in the bull sacrifice scene as depicting pavement. 85 Tomb 4, where the sarcophagus originated, is very near Tholos B.86 A Mycenaean shrine was located near Tholoi A and B, which date to MM II with re-use in LM II–III. A small sacred structure which had incorporated baetyls and had a stone offering table embedded in the center of its paved floor was located south-east of Tholos A.87 An altar platform dating to the LM II period was built against the LM IB Complesso della Mazza Breccia which housed sacred paraphernalia, a paved road and paved area measuring about 40m2 were found within the Complesso della Mazza Breccia which was also connected via a paved area to the Tomba degli Ori.88 The LM IB Shrine Building H, a half-timbered ashlar structure consisting of two rooms, featured a bench against a rear wall and a floor painted with a marine landscape and a polythyron.89 The LM IIIA2 Stoa FG enclosed an open courtyard space and may have sheltered participants taking part in ceremonies in the Piazzale dei Sacelli where stone double axe bases were found. Another structure, the Avancorpo orientale, which La Rosa likens to a bāmāh, featured on the processional routes within the site.90 Processions and libations performed in the vicinity of monumental double axes, as depicted on the sarcophagus, may have taken place in the upper Piazzle and bull figurines and boat models, both of which appear on the offering scenes on the sarcophagus, were found in the open area in front of the megaron.91 Three structures depicted on the rings from Mycenae examined here are columnar (or pier) constructions that were probably reasonably ephemeral. Two of them, Figures 23 and 24, feature trees on top of the structure, while Figure 25 has horns with a cursorily rendered branch, perhaps protruding from a hole. The rocks and pebbled ground in the scenes suggest an outdoor location. One example, Figure 31, is a stepped structure with rocks and trees on either side of the scene and squills on the top of the structure. Mycenaean cultic architectural structures range from buildings to altars and hearths and include furnishings such as benches, larnakes, at least one baetyl, and a small amount of fresco decoration. Mycenaean cultic activity – which occurs at sites ranging from the hearth in the citadel megaron, to cult centers within the citadel, to extra-palatial and rural sites – is characterised primarily by the presence of animal and human figures and smaller figurines, animal rhyta, weapons, glass, faience, shell and precious metal objects are also found, in addition to evidence for animal sacrifice.92 Of the known indicators for Mycenaean cult, only animal sacrifice is alluded to by one of the Mycenaean glyptic images, Figure 24. The LH IIIB Cult Centre at Mycenae is a complex of five buildings with associated courtyards. The structures in the Mycenaean glyptic scenes do not correlate to the altar structures from the Cult Centre, such as the horseshoe shaped altar in Tsountas’ House Shrine (Room Gamma), a plaster covered platform in the Temple Complex (Room 19); the round altar in the cult centre’s central court; or the altar, offering table, and basin in the porch of the megaron.93 The types of columnar structures




























































85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93

Long 1974, 49, 66–7. Burke 2005, 408 fig. 7. Crooks 2013, 15–19. La Rosa 2010. Cucuzza 2001, 169. Cucuzza 2001, 172. Cucuzza 2001, 173; Burke 2005, 413. Wright 1994, 57, 61–3, 66–7; Albers 2004; Whittaker 2004. Aamont 2008; Lupack 2010.

92

CHAPTER 5

depicted in the glyptic images could have been erected within many outdoor areas of the citadel or surrounds, however, yet left no remains. As well as most probably being outdoor scenes, the images may suggest a rural location. This could have been a site in the hinterland of the Mycenaean citadel, 94 or a larger organised hypaethral sanctuary such as the aforementioned Prophitis Ilias or the Mycenaean predecessor of the sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas on the Kynortion Hill above Epidauros. Animal sacrifice and black, fatty ashes are attested at both sanctuaries; those at the sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas contained evidence of goats and bulls.95 Another site, Tsoungiza at Nemea, is thought to have incorporated a built structure which is no longer preserved and was perhaps a type of ephemeral structure as seen in the glyptic examples.96 The structures with the tree in Figure 24, and with horns in Figure 25, are Minoan in style, while that in Figure 23 is probably an interpretatio mycenaea of such structures. 97 Niemeier suggested that Mycenaean artists adopted the schematic Minoan signs for the concept of “sanctuary”, but did not actually use such cult structures and that the depictions in the rings are therefore only visual signs indicating a sanctuary rather than representations of actual structures.98 Although Hägg stresses that the sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas is “basically Mycenaean”, the Minoan characteristics include bronze double axes comparable to Cretan types as seen at the Arkalochori Cave and the peak sanctuary of Jouktas, Minoan pottery, swords, seals and stone fragments. 99 There are so many Minoan characteristics at this site that it would not be surprising if Minoan style columnar structures with trees were also utilised there. The Griffin Warrior Ring 2 from Pylos (Fig. 26) features a columnar shrine constructed of stacked stone blocks or brick piers. Such a structure could certainly have been located within the environs of Pylos. The Linear B texts show that there was no shortage of religious activity in this locality, mentioning the prominent religious center at Sphagianes which was a sanctuary of Poseidon.100 Unlike other columnar shrines, the example in the Griffin Warrior Ring 2 features a net-like pattern in the center space between the piers. If the net pattern indicates a draped fishing net over the shrine, this may allude to a specific connection with the sea and sea deities. The fact that the structure is located upon rocks at the shoreline of the sea may indicate that it was intended to depict a cult scene occurring at a body of water near Pylos, such as the bay of Navarino, or a shrine located upon a prominent headland (discussed further in Chapter 6). The iconography is Minoan in style and Cretan influence at Pylos was extensive by the LBA.101 As the net pattern in conjunction with a shrine does not occur elsewhere – unless this is what the squiggly pattern in the centre of the shrines in the Archanes and Minos Rings indicates – the shrine on the Griffin Warrior Ring 2 may be an example of interpretatio mycenaea of a Minoan cult structure, as mentioned above. Finally, Mikre Vigla on Naxos, a cult site situated upon a summit approximately 60m above sea level, was probably a peak sanctuary. Characterised by architecture consisting of a rectangular stone building with a retaining wall, the site was approached by a ramp lined with massive stone blocks. Although the date of the structure is unclear, the presence of MC, LCI and Minoan pottery sherds date it to the LBA. Fragments suggest that the building may have been plastered, and human and animal figurines and a ceramic bucranium were also evident. The excavators suggest that because of its view to the sea the site may have been a shrine associated with seafaring. In regard to the imagery on the Naxos seal (Fig. 39) the dryness of the location and distance from the coast would seem to preclude the site at Mikre Vigla as a location of the events depicted in the seal, because it features a




























































94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101

Wright 1994, 37–78. Lambrinudakis 1981, 59. Wright 1994, 69–70. Furumark 1965, 89. Niemeier 1990, 166 n.22. Hägg 1984, 121. Nakassis 2013, 12, 130 n.47. Davis 2010, 683.

TREES AND CULT STRUCTURES

93

prominent palm tree. This is also the case with the Naxian Mount Zas, the tallest mountain in the Cyclades with a summit sacred to “Zeus of the Flocks” and a sacred cave.102 The Parergon and Miniaturisation Restrict Identification of Location Unlike glyptic images of cult events set amongst landscape elements such as trees and rocks, or in the vicinity of ashlar walls with trees behind them, some of the structures depicted in the images focussed upon in this chapter are able to be identified at specific sites. We consequently know therefore that some of them do have a basis in reality, and can identify the types of locations at which they occurred. While it seems that the images examined here indicate both urban and rural locations, this does not mean, however, that they depict specific places or events. Although a cult site in the vicinity of the findspot of a gold ring may be characterised by structures that are also depicted in the ring, such as the tripartite shrine in Figure 34 from Phourni Archanes and the architectural evidence of a tripartite shrine at nearby Vathypetro, we cannot say that the image and the physical location can be matched. While known architectural structures in conjunction with trees and female figures feature in these images, rarely are other ritual objects or structures associated with peak, rural, cave or urban cult included. 103 Thus while there are “real” elements within the images, the scenes themselves are imaginary, as in order to fit them into the tiny glyptic medium the canonical life-sized occasions have been abbreviated and miniaturised, and limited to essential components in order to fit within the glyptic frame. These edited images of ritual performances that actually occurred within larger and more complicated spaces must therefore be considered signs rather than scenes. The “Imaginary” – Signs of Relationship with Nature We have seen then, that columnar structures and table altars only appear in iconography and that there is no evidence for such structures in the material record, probably because they were constructed of perishable materials such as wood. Stepped and straight-sided ashlar altars are evident in the archaeological record in reasonably complete form. Architectural foundations suggest the presence of tripartite shrines, stone incurved altars may indicate the existence of constructed openwork platforms, and plaster and stone horns may provide evidence for horned altars, although in urban locations these may have crowned rooftops. In contrast to Sourvinou-Inwood’s suggestion that cult scenes depicting built structures portray the interiors of sacred enclosures and hence rural locations, material evidence of such structures has primarily been found at urban sites. While there is evidence of stepped altars and horns at rural cult sites such as Jouktas and Anemospilia, other stepped altars along with structures such as the tripartite shrine and incurved altars appear primarily at monumental urban complexes. Urban Bāmāh From both iconographic and in corpore examples it is evident that stepped ashlar altars function as support bases for offerings such branches and terracotta containers of various types. Iconography additionally shows that they also function as bases for trees and seats for female figures, and it is in these capacities that they appear in glyptic imagery. Stepped openwork platforms are sometimes depicted in glyptic and fresco iconography as a support for trees and always as seats for female figures, while tripartite shrines on the contrary, are never sat upon – although in the Grandstand Fresco female figures do sit to either side of the tripartite shrine. Only women sit on stepped altars and openwork platforms. There are two examples of female figures sitting on stepped ashlar altars while 12 examples feature female figures upon openwork platforms. Both the stepped altar in the outdoor Theatral Area and the incurved altars at Archanes may have served as structures upon which a female figure sat as part of a ritual performance, although




























































102 103

Barber and Hadjianastasiou 1989, 63–8, 131; Hadjianastasiou 1989, 214; Morris 2007, 100–6. Briault 2007a; Gesell 1985; Tyree 2001.

94

CHAPTER 5

Sakellarakis reconstructs the former as a base for horns of consecration.104 The stepped altar was located in a public place which was identified as “theatral” and compared to similar architectural features at Knossos, Phaistos and Malia. Constructed openwork platforms were erected and could be dismantled as needed, and may have been temporarily set up in outdoor locations at Archanes. Both structures could have been important features, or foci, of public gatherings and processions. We know that a seated female figure was indicative of authority in Minoan figurative art. It is proposed here that images depicting female figures sitting upon stepped structures such as ashlar altars and openwork platforms, sometimes in conjunction with a tree, represent architectonic versions of female figures sitting upon rocks under trees. Just as glyptic images of trees in rocky ground have been interpreted as indicative of groves and mountains, so stepped structures are suggested to be aniconic representations of mountains while columnar structures are proposed to represent groves.105 Haaland and Haaland propose that “the verticality of the natural environment dominates the metaphoric constructions of the ritual landscape”106 and this is particularly applicable to the Cretan landscape. Along with stepped altars and openwork platforms, other structures that are generally triangular or triple such as the tripartite shrine may also be said to evoke mountains. Shaw notes that the facade of the Temple Tomb at Knossos was tripartite, as was the Spring Chamber near the Caravanserai, and suggests that the fresco from Amnissos (Fig. 56) might depict a tripartite shrine in plan; however, it is probably a wall.107 The baetylic back on the Knossos throne (Fig. 51), similar in shape to that depicted upon the Peak Sanctuary Rhyton from Zakros (Fig. 32b), may evoke a mountain. As we know, in the Neopalatial period Minoan elites were concerned with controlling peak sanctuaries and made special efforts to monumentalise those located in proximity to urban centres.108 The Central Courts of palatial buildings were oriented between true north and a sacred mountain (Fig. 129a and b), and the buildings grouped around the Central Court may have evoked mountains around a plain.109 The image of a female figure seated upon a stepped structure then is a scene of enacted epiphany in conjunction with mountain-evoking architecture. In the glyptic examples a sun (Fig. 110) and overhanging rocks, perhaps indicative of a cave (Fig. 69), suggest an outdoor location. The paved floor in Figure 111 may indicate an urban location, while in other examples including the Mochlos Pyxis the location of the scene is more obscure. In both the Xeste 3 and Haghia Triadha frescoes the platform is located in an outdoor location characterised by vegetation and rocky ground, suggestive of a peak sanctuary. This may mean that such platforms were erected at or near peak sanctuaries, but could also indicate that the purpose of such an iconographic setting was to enhance the mountainous nature of the structure as viewed from an urban location. Not only would such a structure evoke peak sanctuary ritual, but it would evoke the actual mountain itself. Archanes is situated directly opposite the eastern side of the peak sanctuary of Jouktas and the stepped altar at the sanctuary directly faces Archanes (Figs 130a and b). That a constructed platform may have been erected at an urban location such as Archanes suggests that the idea of the mountain was transferred to an urban environment where the structure functioned as part of the performance of an




























































104 105

106 107 108 109

Sakellarakis and Sakellarakis 1991, 48–9. Columnar shrines, if they were made of wood, may have been architectonic stylised groves known as “asherim” in the Levant. Horned altars may have also been symbolic structures that evoked male and female forces associated with trees and mountains, particularly the combination of incurved or “waisted” altars, which evoke the Minoan human form as expressed in Neopalatial art, with horns symbolising a bull/storm god/mountain (Hitchcock 2002) and evocative of a peak sanctuary and tree branches evocative of tree goddess/grove. Even the Neopalatial elite female costume may have referenced the tree and mountain combination, its flounced and layered skirt with a smooth tight chiton above being evocative of the visual trope of rocky ground/mountain and tree. Haaland and Haaland 2011. J. Shaw1978, 446. Peatfield 1987, 89–93; 1994, 90–5. Driessen 2004, 77; Hitchcock 2007. Although Goodison (1989) suggests that the East-West orientation was more important.

TREES AND CULT STRUCTURES

95

elite female figure’s relationship with the numinous landscape. If trees and mountains represent ruler deities, a performance in conjunction with theatrical props that symbolised trees and mountains would have enhanced the ritual actor’s authority. Iconography shows that other human figures approach the seated female figure within a cult context, sometimes bringing offerings and at other times making gestures. As an abstracted mountain, the constructed openwork platform at Archanes would have functioned as a theatrical device as part of a performance or spectacle enacted on an urban ritual “stage”. Like the mountain, the constructed openwork platform therefore was a “high place” like the bāmāh in the Levant. While these structures were sat upon, they were not really seats. In iconographic depictions of women sitting on stepped altars and platforms, it is evident that it is an ascending structure first, a seat second. The only example that makes any concession to the sitter’s comfort is the platform in the Xeste 3 fresco where the seated figure rests upon a cushion or pile of cloth. Rather than seats or thrones, these structures are actually altars upon which the female figure, sometimes accompanied by a tree, is displayed. They thus served a dual function, first as a representative of a sacred mountain, bringing the peak sanctuary to an urban setting, and second, as a liminal zone110 in which an elite human female is physically linked to the sacred mountain. On her part, the human figure is thus performing the high place. This may also have been what was happening in regard to the Knossos throne with its “baetylic”, mountain-evoking back. Such mountainous thrones may have once been more prevalent, stone seats similar to the Knossos throne have been found in several locations including near Archanes at Anemospilia.111 That a constructed openwork platform was a temporary structure erected and dismantled, rather than permanently left in place, enhances its interpretation as a theatrical prop which would have been used for particular ritual events. Performance is an embodied communicative event which can materialise ideology and consequently define political reality. 112 As Soar explains, ethnographic studies have shown the importance of elite performance as part of political behaviour in which an authoritative identity is repeatedly performed within ritual.113 During theatrical events involving enacted epiphany performed by female figures seated on symbolic mountains, the divine nature of Minoan elites would have been reiterated and recreated through performance. As Inomata explains, ancient state power was what was seen in the person of the ruler, in monumental buildings, and collective acts.114 Visuality was thus important, and in contrast to the Near Eastern ruler’s ubiquitous presence in visual art, Minoan elites performed authority through physical presence and ritual action.115 Urban palatial sites could then be locations for what Geertz describes as “metaphysical theatre” in which an elite interpretation of the nature of reality is expressed through its physical performance, which simultaneously creates that reality. 116 Associating mountains with palatial architecture brings the symbolic qualities of the axis mundi to the palace and its inhabitants.117 The appropriation of the landscape through architectural design serving, according to Hitchcock, “as an ideology for establishing, maintaining, negotiating and reinforcing power and status.”118 The images examined in this chapter signify the relationship between elite figures and tree and mountain deities associated with rulership by depicting such figures during ritual performances in




























































110 111

112 113 114 115 116 117 118

Renfrew 1985, 19. CMS I No.101 from Mycenae depicting a female figure seated upon a chair with rocks at her back may be another type of version of the mountainous throne. Rehak 1995, 98, 104. The Mother of the Mountain seal, CMS II 8 No.256, is an even more literal representation of the female figure and her relationship to the mountain. Soar 2014, 255. Soar 2009, 21–3. Inomata 2006, 805. Soar 2014, 236. Geertz 1980, 104. Geertz 1980, 114. Hitchcock 2007, 91.

96

CHAPTER 5

conjunction with architectonic structures that functioned as signs of those deities. Stepped structures are evocative of mountains while columnar structures suggest groves. This relationship is expressed visually through the proximity to and gestures of the ritual actors toward these structures. Stepped ashlar structures are sat upon, columnar structures are gestured toward or touched, and the trees upon them handled as well as apparently shaken. In 15 of the examples the human figures are situated in the vicinity of the tree and perform saluting-type gestures with an outstretched or bent right arm. Seven examples involve tree pulling or shaking, while in three examples the tree is touched. The trees are probably intended to be different species; however, only the palm tree is recognisable, while the others can really only be divided into broad and fine leaved types and even that distinction is questionable.119 Males and females are reasonably evenly distributed in regard to which types of structures they are associated with, except for constructed openwork platforms which are only associated with women. In regard to the type of activity they perform, women appear twice as many times in the vicinity of the tree structures and tend to predominate in scenes where the tree is touched, while tree shaking is almost evenly distributed between males and females. Images without any sort of epiphanic event predominate, making up half the examples, while those depicting envisioned or enacted epiphany are approximately evenly divided to make up the other half. In a clay sealing from Haghia Triadha, the Ring of Minos and the Mochlos Pyxis, a female epiphanic figure emerges directly out of a tree, reinforcing the interpretation of an animate, communicative landscape. The “Symbolic” – What do these Signs Mean? Images of human figures in conjunction with architectonic cult structures symbolic of trees and mountains essentially convey the same message as the glyptic images in which a human figure is in relationship to the animate landscape. Both types of image depict encounters with the physiomorphic numina of rulership symbolised by trees and mountains and express the endorsement of a member of the elite by the actual landscape itself, but in the images examined here the numina are evoked in architectonic, aniconic form. These built structures function as altars and shrines but are also utilised by elites as theatrical props in self-conscious performances in which they enact their relatedness to, and endorsement by, landscape numina within an architecturally monumentalised urban location. As in the examples of direct relationship with trees and rocks, groves and mountains, elites position themselves as intermediaries, possessed of privileged cultic knowledge and the agency to interact with numinous places of power.120 As signs rather than scenes, these images present an essentially heterotopic space. Foucault defines a heterotopia as a real space that shares a mythic dimension.121 Heterotopias are spaces of otherness that are neither here nor there and are simultaneously physical and mental: they are counter-sites.122 The canonical peak sanctuary itself is a heterotopia as it is a place with a mythic, supernatural dimension, but the edited glyptic image is also heterotopic as it is a constructed scene. Although rendered in a style that suggests a real-world image, because of their abbreviated nature, glyptic images of tree cult are created, alternate worlds.123 The visual associations between the iconic miniature and the canonical form transcend topography and exist in a kind of virtual – essentially conceptual – interstitial space: a Thirdspace, existing between an actual and an ideologically constructed site.124 As Foucault explains, everyone can enter such heterotopic spaces, with the proviso that they undergo purifications and make certain gestures. He suggests, however, that such spaces hide curious




























































119

120

121 122 123 124

In later Greek cultic iconography different trees in combination with altars signified different deities. Sourvinou-Inwood 1991, 99–143. Colson 1997; Mather 2003. They may have sometimes interacted in a violent manner, as is suggested by tree-shaking scenes. Tully In press b. Von Stackelberg 2009, 52. Foucault 1986, 24. Bailey 2005, 34. Soja 1996; Lefebvre 1991, 33-41; Von Stackelberg 2009, 52; Knappett 2012.

TREES AND CULT STRUCTURES

97

exclusions, the visitor being more of a guest in transit rather than one who was invited.125 The ring images can be seen to function, conceptually, in this manner in regards to the elite appropriation of extra-urban cult places during the Neopalatial period. While the image of the cult structure refers to a peak sanctuary, the human figure’s referent is a member of the elite suggestive, through contiguity, of the actual ring-bearer themself. Priority of access of such a person to the physical cult site is conveyed by the simulacrum engraved upon the precious metal of the rings: the sign inviting voyeurism but implying exclusivity. Non-elites are implicitly excluded from the event, as they are not the ones depicted in such images. While glyptic images of tree cult are heterotopic, existing between topographical and conceptual space, they are promoted as utopic through the verbosity of sphragistic multiplicity. A Utopia is commonly understood to denote an ideal society possessing a perfect socio-politico-legal system – a good place – but its primary meaning is actually “no-place”. As Foucault explains, the perfectly good place does not really exist. Utopias present society in perfected form...but are fundamentally unreal spaces.126 Images of tree cult in Minoan glyptic are such “no-places”, but they are also “good places”, meant to function as ideology. Functionally the cult images are utopic as they promote an association with and relationship between elite actors and benevolent supernatural powers. The ubiquity of landscape means that even in architectonic form it functions to naturalise such a cultural and social construction, representing an artificial utopian world as if it were simply given and inevitable. Recording ephemeral ritual performances in the durable medium of engraved metal such as in the glyptic examples provides extended life to such events and their participants,127 particularly because the images were able to be multiplied and distributed – potentially in perpetuity – as part of the sphragistic process. As well as depicting a performance, the rings themselves were inherently performative,128 functioning to broadcast an original theatrical event that may have had a limited group of spectators to a wider audience, and effectively making a temporal performance continuous. While elite appropriation of peak sanctuaries was panoptic, sphragistic proliferation functioned synoptically, enabling elite spectacle to be distributed and disbursed beyond the physical domain of the ritual practitioners and their cultic setting. Through their multiplication and dispersal such images communicated a message of utopian governance by associating elite figures with the animate landscape. Conclusion Glyptic imagery depicting human figures interacting with altars and shrines that incorporate live trees provide information on the enactment of Minoan ritual, the structures utilised within cult, the beliefs associated with such practices, and the performative methods whereby Minoan elites combined these elements in order to naturalise their authority. Regular public performances by elites would have functioned to convince participants and observers of the “beneficial, necessary, mandated and unavoidable” nature of the political and social status quo.129 The claiming of public cult sites within the landscape through ritual participation, monumentalisation, evocation within urban architecture and depiction in art by Minoan elites of the Neopalatial period presented elite figures as the exclusive intercessors between humans and the animate landscape, and was a method by which they literally and metaphorically demonstrated their rightful position as economic controllers within Minoan society. 130 The representation of these figures in association with cult apparatuses within the reproducible medium of glyptic extended their ritual association with enshrined spiritual forces beyond




























































125 126 127 128 129 130

Foucault 1986, 26. Foucault 1986, 24. Palmer and Jankowiak 1996, 226. Soar 2014, 226. Johnston et al. 2014, 219. Peatfield 2013, 478.

98

CHAPTER 5

the temporal location of physical performance, resulting in propagandistic aggrandisation and the consequent reinforcement of elite power and status.131

































































131

Mather 2003, 28, 37; Hitchcock 2007, 91.

PART 3 INTERCONNECTIONS / KOINÉ




CHAPTER 6 TREES AND BOATS Four Minoan glyptic images involving sacred trees situate them in conjunction with boats and seascapes. These are the Mochlos Ring (Fig. 13), the Makrygialos Seal (Fig. 43), a ring from Amnissos (Fig. 44) and the Ring of Minos (Fig. 21). These images have traditionally been interpreted in three main ways: as a representation of Minoan cosmological concepts; as depicting a vague “Goddess from the sea” who is either a metaphor for a Minoan “thalassocracy” or else symbolic of a sequence of seasonal festivals; and as a ritual scene involving the literal transport of a tree in a ship from one cult site to another. While each of these interpretations incorporates degrees of validity, they are only partial explanations of these images. This chapter proposes that these images can be understood through the examination of their iconography in light of both Minoan religion and contemporary Canaanite seafaring religion. In his early analysis of Minoan culture, Evans attributed Minoan religious concepts to cultural diffusion from the Levant and Egypt.1 Acculturation is often discernible within art and material culture connected to cult and such evidence can provide information on the imitation or adoption of foreign religious concepts.2 It is argued here that the four Minoan glyptic images that combine trees, human figures, boats and the sea represent a combination of native Minoan and Canaanite religious ideas concerning a tree goddess who also had power over the sea. It is further proposed that the images functioned in a protective talismanic capacity and that the fact of their placement upon gold rings linked the Minoan elites who owned them with the exotic aura of transculturality and power associated with overseas trade.3 In order to support this contention the chapter begins by identifying and providing background on the images discussed. This is followed by an examination of previous scholarship on these images and the identification of the two main interpretative questions evident in such scholarship, those being whether the images depict supernatural or ritual scenes. The chapter subsequently proceeds to examine the nature of real Minoan seafaring by investigating southern Cycladic and eastern Mediterranean interaction as a result of trade, and the question of a Minoan “thalassocracy”. Following on from this it is determined that the images are not realistic scenes portraying the practice of seafaring or the ritual events that may have been associated therewith as they do not literally depict such activity and are thus imaginary. The small frame and the miniaturisation that is a consequence of the technique of glyptic engraving meaning that the images consist of selected motifs brought together for the purpose of the image and thus, rather than being scenes, are signs. Next, the conceptual aspect of seafaring is investigated through the examination of Canaanite religion. That it may be used to elucidate Minoan religion is proposed because of the trading links between Crete and the eastern Mediterranean, particularly from the early Middle Bronze Age onward. Egypto-Canaanite goddesses associated with nature and fertility in the form of trees, with royalty, and who protected seafaring are suggested to have been syncretised with an indigenous Minoan tree deity. In addition to elucidating the glyptic images of trees, boats and the sea, further evidence of maritime themes apparent in Minoan cult are examined at the port of Mochlos. Analysis of the gendered aspects of sea and land, Helms’ ethnographic study of the benefits of seafaring beyond trade, and Foucault’s interpretation of the boat as a heterotopic space follow. Finally it is determined that the real and mythic iconographic elements in these images – expressive of protection over seafaring – functioned symbolically to enhance their




























































1 2 3

Evans 1901; 1921, 19; Burns 2010, 292. Melas 1991, 179. Helms 1988; Panagiotopoulos 2011; Cohen 2009; Tully In press c.

102

CHAPTER 6

elite owners’ power and prestige by depicting elite figures in ritual reciprocation with the tree goddess who oversaw such activity, thus linking the patronage of seafaring by elites with the divine. Images Discussed The four images discussed in this chapter derive from three gold rings and one stone seal. Two of the images come from secure contexts on Crete and the other two have shaky proveniences. All the images depict trees in the vicinity of human figures in boats; in two examples the tree is inside the boat; in one it is hovering above the boat; and in the other two trees are close to the boat. In three examples female figures are inside the boats and in one the boat contains seven cursorily rendered figures with a much larger male and female on the shore. Two examples include female epiphanic figures, and one features a hovering object in the sky. In two examples other architecture, vegetation and stones are evident, one image includes dolphins in the sea underneath the boat, while the other image does not contain any other motifs. This latter example is the only one that features a palm tree while the others depict unrecognisable species of trees. In two examples the boats float on water, while in the other two it is only implied. Previous Scholarship – Supernatural or Ritual Scene Beginning with Evans, interpretations of glyptic images that involve human figures, cult structures, boats and seascapes have oscillated between identification as supernatural scenes and as real-world ritual events; sometimes both elements are considered present within an image. The Ring of Minos is a prime example of this dual interpretation. In its initial publication, Evans read the image as a narrative scene depicting “the passage of the Goddess from one rock sanctuary to another across an intervening stretch of sea.”4 Dividing the image into sequences, although not explaining his assignation of its starting point, Evans suggested that the female figure with the stepped altar and tree on the far right was a priestess who pulls down the branch of a sacred tree in order to offer its fruit to “the Goddess”, identified with the female figure sailing in the hippocamp-headed boat. So, already we have a ritual context involving a human being, and a supernatural context involving a “Goddess” within the same vignette, but the presence of the deity makes the entire scene “supernatural”. This goddess, according to Evans, is travelling across the seascape in the center of the image toward the stepped ashlar altar with horns on the left side of the image. This altar is part of the next scene in the sequence; the female figure wearing the elaborate skirt and sitting upon the altar is the goddess from the boat who has now disembarked at this shrine and is “about to receive refection from a male attendant who has pulled down a branch of another sacred tree and tenders a flask containing its juice.” Evans suggests that the hovering epiphanic female figure emerging from this tree “reinforces” this larger goddess’s divinity. Ultimately, in Evans’ opinion, the Ring of Minos should be understood as depicting “the advent of the Goddess”.5 He proposes that it belongs to a cycle involving the “departure of the goddess over the sea, together with her shrine and sacred tree” and the establishment of her cult in a new abode, which is not identified. The three shrines may refer to a relationship between three cult sites on different southern Aegean island colonies or within Crete near the ring’s findspot, Knossos, which had a river. While not a coastal site, Knossos had an affinity for marine and maritime-themed iconography, as seen in the concentration of naturalistic designs with sea-related motifs amongst Temple Repositories.6 Evans sees other seascape imagery including Figure 13, Figure 131 from Haghia Triadha depicting a figure rowing in a hippocamp-headed boat, the “Scylla” sealing from the Temple Repositories depicting a




























































4 5 6

Evans 1936, 950–6. Evans 1936, 950–6. According to Haysom (2011, 147) seal evidence from known contexts suggests that marine and maritime imagery was actually preferred in the north and east of Crete. Ships appear as one of the signs in Cretan Hieroglyphic, which is supposed to have been confined to the north.

TREES AND BOATS

103

sea monster menacing a boat (Fig. 132), the silver siege rhyton from Mycenae depicting swimmers and a sea monster (Figs 133, 53), and the Tiryns Ring (Fig. 48) depicting a departure scene of a boat, as being part of this overall theme as well.7 Basically in accordance with Evans, Platon interprets the Ring of Minos as depicting a “Sea-Goddess”, but sees her role as concerning “protection of the Minoan Thalassocracy”, the proposed Minoan rule over the sea. 8 He interprets the female figure in the boat as the symbolic portrayal of this thalassocracy,9 even though the figure is transporting altars with Cretan land or mountain symbolism – that being horns, probably symbolic of a storm god in the form of a bull – in her boat and follows Evans’ interpretation of the scene as depicting two human cult personnel pulling down the tree branches in order to offer fruit or juice to this “goddess”, after she has left the boat and seated herself upon the stepped ashlar altar with horns. Platon further proposes that the image also – and therefore simultaneously – depicts three sanctuaries situated on a continuous curving coast and compares its composition to the Flotilla Fresco from Room 5 of the West House at Thera in which three settlements are represented with Minoan ships moving from one site to another (Fig. 134). Platon does not explain, however, the method by which the human figures in the Ring of Minos reach the “goddess” from each different sanctuary in order to offer her their fruit. In Platon’s interpretation of this image the “Great Goddess in her special role of a Sea-Goddess”10 plays a metaphoric role, but he tends to conflate literal and symbolic space within the image. Platon combines supernatural with real world events within the one image, but interprets it overall as a symbolic representation of Minoan overseas trade and colonisation. His comparison with the Flotilla Fresco from Thera is problematic. In the Ring of Minos, instead of the three shrines being situated on a continuous shore, closer inspection shows that they are three separate shrines because there is sea, rather than land, depicted between each of them. Rather than the female figure in the boat signifying a “thalassocracy”, perhaps such an idea can be slightly modified to suggest that the female figure with the altars in the hippocamp-headed boat signified protection for maritime activities at three particular trade emporia or colonies that had Minoan-style cult sites and either closely interacted with or were under Minoan, or Knossian, control. According to Warren, the image depicts “the unity of the conception of the natural world in Minoan religion”.11 He suggests that the altars with their trees and baetylic boulders are linked through the sea with the female figure sailing upon it, and interprets the entire image as a ritual event rather than a symbolic scene. Although wavering between a symbolic or literal reading of the female figure in the boat, Warren leans toward an interpretation in which the boat is incorporated within an actual cultic, rather than a “theological”, event. Focussing upon the epiphanic female figure which he interprets as descending from the sky, and the two figures pulling trees, Warren suggests that these represent ritual activity in which the epiphanic figure symbolises “what was imagined or hoped for in such a ritual”. While the overall message we should receive from this image in Warren’s opinion concerns an insight into Minoan religious concepts, he sees the large figures as human and the image thus portraying realworld ritual activity. Rather than depicting the aim of a ritual (a hoped-for epiphany); however, it is more likely that this section of the image depicts a ritual in process with an already manifest epiphanic figure with which a human figure interacts. In line with Evans’ understanding of the Ring of Minos, Dimopoulou and Rethemiotakis also interpret the female figure seated on the stepped altar and the female figure in the boat as “goddesses”, while the two figures shaking trees are considered mortal.12 They suggest that the ring depicts a combination of both conceptual and real-world images and gives an insight into Minoan cosmology. According to




























































7 8 9

10 11 12

Evans 1936, 950–6. Platon 1984, 68. The idea of a “Minoan thalassocracy” (Hägg and Marinatos 1984) is now considered too generalising and inaccurate. Knapp 1993. Platon 1984. Warren 1987, 492. Dimopoulou and Rethemiotakis 2004, 16.

104

CHAPTER 6

this view the epiphanic female figure is interpreted as “the goddess” who is passing through the elements of air, land and sea, symbolically uniting the visible world and sanctifying and fructifying nature. The human figures represent ritual activity involving fertility and the regeneration of nature. The overall image is to be interpreted as a symbolic expression of Minoan power on both land and sea.13 Dimopoulou and Rethemiotakis see the Ring of Minos as a more complete version of the maritime imagery in the Mochlos and Amnissos Rings (Figs 13, 44), and interpret the Ring of Minos as depicting essentially the same scene as these other images which, being portions, render the components – the descending female deity, the ritual of tree worship, and the voyage at sea – separately. In their interpretation of the Ring of Minos, Dimopoulou and Rethemiotakis ultimately agree with Evans and Platon in perceiving the image as a combination of actual and symbolic visual components which together refer to Minoan maritime activity. Compared to the previous scholars, Goodison approaches the Ring of Minos from a novel angle.14 Instead of reading the image as a scene in which the sea is depicted in receding perspective and the shrines are interspersed around a coast, she interprets the “sea” as being rendered vertically, suggesting that it “looks like a hill with a pattern on it” and may be intended to evoke a peak sanctuary. In this scenario the scene depicts a hill upon which are three cult sites, the one on the very top evoking a peak sanctuary, the two on its “slopes” may be rural sanctuaries, while “the base of this hill seems to turn into running water.” Goodison interprets all the figures as human, except the epiphanic hovering female figure which she likens to a “fairy” and suggests “is the visualisation of the spirit of a tree.” Not buying into the theme of real or symbolic sailing activities at all, Goodison suggests that the image portrays a cycle of religious belief marking the change of seasons, the female figure in the boat being representative of this concept.15 Like that in the Ring of Minos, the female figure in the boat depicted on the Mochlos Ring (Fig. 13) tends to be interpreted as a deity. In Sourvinou-Inwood’s analysis of the image she construes the scene as “a goddess arriving at, or departing from, a sanctuary where she is going to assist, or has just assisted, at the performance of the ritual.” Sourvinou-Inwood bases this on her analysis of the combination of the built structure within the boat with images of Egyptian double-headed boats combined with stepped structures as depicted in the Book of the Dead. She suggests that the combination of boat and structure in Figure 13 is an adaptation of the Egyptian motif of the divine boat which carried Egyptian deities along the Nile, to Minoan iconography. Sourvinou-Inwood claims that the ring therefore depicts an emblematic image of a deity in a boat and that although we do not know whether sacred boats for transportation of deities actually existed in Minoan Crete that the image may point towards a ritual involving the arrival of the Minoan goddess from the sea.16 Sourvinou-Inwood thus interprets the image as a supernatural scene, but suggests that it alludes to an actual ritual event. Marinatos also interprets the female figure in the Mochlos Ring as a deity because she is positioned with her back towards the altar structure while facing outwards from it which shows that the figure and altar are to be considered together.17 Thus, like Sourvinou-Inwood, Marinatos determines that this image depicts a goddess arriving in a boat. Comparing this image with Figure 135, depicting a female figure reclining on what is probably the sea, Marinatos suggests that this is another example of the arrival of the goddess from the sea. Marinatos proposes that the sea functioned as a symbolic space for the Minoans and was considered an area of passage to and from an unidentifiable beyond.18 She also refers to later Greek rituals that celebrated the arrival of deities, symbolised by bringing branches into their sacred precincts. So, again, this image has been interpreted as a supernatural scene but one which indicates the existence of corresponding ritual activity.




























































13 14 15

16 17 18

Dimopoulou and Rethemiotakis 2004, 19. Goodison 2010. Goodison 2010, 25–8. A fairy is a reasonable suggestion if we think of later Greek Nymphs who live in trees. Larson 2001. Sourvinou-Inwood 1973, 150, 153; 1989, 97–100. Rehak 1995. Marinatos 1989, 132.

TREES AND BOATS

105

Soles suggests that Figure 13 depicts an “archetypal image of the goddess in her boat” which travels in a “magical dimension.” This goddess, Soles suggests, transports sacred cargo from a supernatural realm to a physical one. Soles connects the image on the Mochlos Ring to those on the Ring of Minos, the Makrygialos Seal (Fig. 43) and the (below mentioned) Mochlos Ship Cup (Fig. 136), suggesting that all images depict scenes in which the ships’ cargoes – being stepped altars with horns or a tree, or unembellished sacred trees – “provided material vehicles that served as intercepts between the human world and the spirit world”. In this interpretation the ships were bringing cult equipment or foci from a supernatural realm to a, presumably, human audience.19 Soles’ interpretation of the Mochlos Ring then falls into the category of a “Goddess from afar”, but rather than coming from over the sea, she comes from another dimension. Although the sites of Mochlos and Makrygialos are nowhere near each other, being located on opposite sides of Crete, the Mochlos Ring (Fig. 13) and Makrygialos Seal (Fig. 43) are frequently discussed together in the scholarship because of their imagery. In fact, as will be shown below, there is reason to discuss them together, because imagery in other media from Mochlos corresponds strongly to that on the Makrygialos seal. Previous scholars have juxtaposed the Mochlos Ring and Makrygialos Seal as representing “supernatural” and “real-world” versions of essentially the same event: a seasonal ritual involving a “Goddess from the Sea”, or her human representative, who visits cult sites situated on the land of Crete. In contrast to the Mochlos Ring, the Makrygialos Seal tends to be interpreted as a ritual scene and has been touted as the “mortal” or “real” version of the scene on the Mochlos Ring. In this scenario it is proposed that a real tree is transported in a boat, accompanied by a priestess who performs ritual action toward it. While the palm tree could have been placed anywhere within the boat in this image, it has been situated in the center of it, as though replacing a mast. The female figure salutes the tree in the gesture associated with reverence toward cultic symbols which suggests that it is no ordinary palm tree and perhaps signifies a deity and/or evokes a place of sacrifice.20 Parallels have been sought for the actual transport of a tree in a boat or ship, and the 18th Dynasty Egyptian Pharaoh Hatshepsut’s importation of incense trees from Punt via ship has been cited as an example of this realworld activity.21 Sourvinou-Inwood suggests that the Makrygialos Seal depicts an actual scene of worship because the female figure is making a ritual gesture, known from other cult scenes, toward the palm tree.22 The images in Figures 37 and 39 depict human figures performing such adoration or saluting gestures toward palm trees associated with cult equipment. Like Figures 21 and 13, activities undertaken such as tree shaking or the performance of gestures which are known from other glyptic cult scenes or figurative media suggest that the Makrygialos Seal depicts cult. Unrealistic aspects within these images such as small hovering figures, elaborately dressed larger-size females, and animal-headed boats – or in the case of the Makrygialos Seal the replacement of a mast for a tree, as well as the scale of the human figure – prompt a symbolic interpretation. As Marinatos notes, it is unlikely that a palm tree did stand upright in a boat, so the image seems to incorporate an element of “symbolic exaggeration”.23 Along with the gesture of the human figure toward the palm tree, we know the palm tree has cultic associations in Minoan art, signifying animal sacrifice.24 It may also represent a deity, as is suggested by glyptic images of female figures associated with “snake frames” and palm trees. In Figure 8 a monkey approaches a female figure seated in front of a palm tree who may be enacting the epiphanic representation of the numen of the tree, and palm trees are associated with female deities in the Levant, Near East and Egypt.25




























































19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Soles 2012. Marinatos 1984, 115. Wilkinson 1998, 83–7; Day 2012, 17; M. Shaw. 2000. Sourvinou-Inwood 1989. Marinatos 1989, 132. Marinatos 1984, 115–6. Kantzios 1999, 419–438, 209. Small hovering epiphanic figures never emerge from palm trees, although what may be enacted epiphanic figures sit under them. Kupitz et al. 2009.

106

CHAPTER 6

Davaras is of the opinion that the Makrygialos Seal depicts a ritual scene and suggests that the female figure represents an actual person, “the ‘grand dame’ of Makrygialos”, who functions as a “high priestess of the Sea Goddess…in the midst of her most important ritual action”.26 He interprets the image as a real-world event involving an actual human being and a real tree in a boat, although the size of the female figure in contrast to the boat suggests otherwise. Interestingly, the imagery on the Makrygialos Seal – sans the human figure – appears on a cup from Mochlos found in Room 2 of Building A in the Artisan’s Quarter (Fig. 136).27 The cup is painted with three ships with ikria/altars and palm trees in place of masts, a palm frond or spray of vegetation is depicted in the vicinity of the ship, and below the ships are horizontal bands which probably indicate the sea. Davaras proposes that both the Makrygialos Seal and the Mochlos Ship Cup refer to a ritual event involving the transference of a holy tree on board a ship, perhaps from one coastal shrine to another or to an inland site, during a festival connected with the spring renewal of nature which he claims was “a common and important ceremony in the Minoan world.”28 Although much smaller, like the Ring of Minos, the Amnissos Ring (Fig. 44) contains several components; the pithos in the scene suggests produce, the epiphanic tree deity suggests divine visitation, communication or influence, and the dolphins may symbolise aggressive sea power.29 The boat has no sail and may be a longboat that is paddled rather than a sailing ship that was rowed, which would suggest southern Aegean inter-island travel. The ship appears to be leaving the shore, as evidenced by the figure holding the steering oar which is usually situated at the back of the ship, but the hovering epiphanic figure appears to be “arriving”, as she faces the human figures on the shore. Rather than necessarily depicting an arrival or departure scene, the image may portray a side view, a “going past” rather than a ship coming to or leaving the shore. Whether the ship is coming or going30 may not really be too important, and the juxtaposition of elite human figures with a boat, over which hovers a female tree numen, may be the main thing to consider in this image. Although it is not surprising to see dolphins in a maritime scene – they are depicted in the Flotilla Fresco from Thera (Fig. 134) and under the boat in the Tiryns Ring (Fig. 48) – they may have also had a symbolic meaning: Marinatos has suggested that the dolphin was classified by the Minoans as a predator, as it was in later Greek art and literature.31 Like the dolphins and lions painted on the ships’ hulls in the Flotilla and Kea Frescoes (Figs 137a and b),32 the dolphins in this glyptic image may be intended to evoke strength and swiftness and to transfer such qualities to the boat.33 In a maritime context – as this scene is – the epiphanic figure could feasibly depict a constellation used for navigation. However, this scene is probably not intended to depict an event occurring at night – although the epiphanic figure could also have seasonal significance associated with constellations.34 The Amnissos Ring has been interpreted by Evans as a combination of human and supernatural elements. He suggests that it depicts a human male saluting a departing goddess, “who may have been returning with her sacred tree to another holy spot.”35 Marinatos also sees the image as depicting human adorants and a divinity. 36 Galanakis discusses the Amnissos Ring image along with the Mochlos Ring, the Makrygialos Seal, the Ring of Minos and the Haghia Triadha sealing (Fig. 131) as together representing the “Minoan Thalassocracy”. He proposes that Minoan maritime endeavour may “have required the presence of a single female divinity – a “‘Goddess-from-the-sea’” – who was




























































26 27 28 29 30 31 32 

34 35 36

Davaras 1997, 126. Davaras 2004. Davaras 2004, 4–5. Marinatos 1990; 1993, 131–2, 156–7; 1986, 45–9; 2000; Kyriakidis 2001; Hägg 1983, 184–5. Wedde 2000, 189–194. Galanakis 2009, 125; Marinatos 1993, 131–2, 156–7; 1986, 45–9; 2000. Wachsmann 1998, 87–88. Laffineur 1983a, 1983b and 2007.
Kyriakidis 2005, 152. Evans [cite?] Marinatos 1989, 135–6.

TREES AND BOATS

107

worshipped in specific rituals before or during important sea travel and expeditions to faraway destinations. He claims that this “Goddess” sailed with a mythical ship in order to inaugurate her cult in new places far beyond, “as this was the period when the Minoans ruled the Aegean and were establishing colonies and new trade points.”37 In Galanakis’ interpretation of these images then, they are supernatural scenes that function as metaphors for Minoan maritime activities. Several themes emerge when examining the ways in which previous scholars have interpreted glyptic images that combine trees, cult structures, boats and seascape. Female figures are interpreted as both deities, particularly “the Goddess”, and as human cult practitioners, sometimes even as specific elites such as the “grand dame of Makrygialos”. The “Goddess” is usually identified as the female figure wearing the most elaborate clothing or the largest female figure, but the epiphanic figure, which is also the smallest female figure, is also categorised as “the Goddess.” Human figures are identified when they perform gestures and activities known from other media as being associated with cult. The “Goddess” is said to be “of the Sea”, a representative and protector of Minoan maritime activities, as well as “of Nature”. In the latter guise she periodically leaves and returns to Crete, metaphorically representing seasonal change in a Frazerian fertility cycle or, in missionary mode, establishes her cult at an overseas destination. The boats in the images have been explained in reference to Egyptian sacred boats that conveyed deities, as well as the more practical Egyptian craft that Pharaoh Hatshepsut used to transport incense trees from Punt. In a literal reading of images of trees inside boats it has been suggested that a physical tree was transported from one Minoan cult site to another at seasonally determined occasions. It has been proposed that the association of a tree in conjunction with Minoan cult structures such as ashlar altars and tripartite shrines was an occasional combination rather than a permanent pairing, dependent upon a ritual calendar based on seasonal change. It is at these altars and shrines that the transported tree is suggested to have been brought and removed from. The sea has been explained as the medium by which Crete colonised other places, as well as symbolising the idea of the unknown. The combination of sea and landscape is explained as cosmological, as well as symbolic of Minoan power over both land and sea. Two overall themes stand out in the interpretation of cultic seascapes and there is a distinct division between those scholars that see glyptic seascapes as entirely symbolic scenes and those that interpret them as depictions of ritual events. Some scholars seem to drift from one type of interpretation to another or combine them, without explicitly elucidating their reasoning. It seems, however, that each interpretation attempts to combine Minoan cult activity with both the practical endeavours of seafaring as well as a proposed conceptualisation of a goddess of the sea or a goddess of nature and fertility who arrives and departs from cult sites, via a boat, at certain seasonally determined times of the year. We know that the Minoans had overseas contacts, both close by in the southern Aegean as well as in the wider eastern Mediterranean that were reached through sailing. That Minoan religious concepts spread to or were adopted by Cycladic islands is evident at locations such as Thera or Kythera38 while Minoan material culture and artistic styles have been found in the Levant and Egypt. As well as a metaphor for the seasons on Crete the idea of a “departure of the Goddess” may also signify a specific sailing season. Location in the “Real” – Minoan Seafaring Background Seafaring in Crete dates back at least 130,000 years ago to the Lower Palaeolithic39 and must have always been an inextricable component of the island landscape. While that landscape was suitable for agriculture and animal husbandry it lacked many natural resources therefore maritime commerce by its inhabitants, who were already seafarers, began early on. As a consequence of the mountainous Cretan landscape, travel by land was often difficult, especially for the transport of heavy goods; so even




























































37 38 39

Galanakis 2009. Sakellarakis 1996, 91. 81–99. Strasser et al. 2010; Younger 2011, 167.

108

CHAPTER 6

trade within Crete often used the sea. 40 Short to medium distance coastal travel was a regular occurrence and travel to the southern Aegean islands was a common activity as well. Consequently as Haysom suggests coastal inhabitants of Crete may have had closer links with a southern Cycladic community than with another Cretan one on the other side of the mountains.41 Iconographic information on Aegean seafaring appears in Crete in the third millennium BCE. Two distinct types of ships can be defined during this period: a sea-going longship and a smaller vessel. Other types of boat may have existed; however, there are no known depictions of them. Three lead models from Naxos, dating to the third millennium, indicate the appearance of the longships (Fig. 138). Longboats also appear on the group of third millennium terracotta artifacts known as “frying pans” found in the Cyclades, mainland Greece and Anatolia (Fig. 139). The group from the Cycladic island of Skyros, from the Keros-Syros culture, being the only type that bears depictions of ships. Some “frying pans” also depict female genitalia and sometimes, in addition, a leafy sprig or branch.42 Such branches appear in conjunction with ships, and with libation jugs, on later Minoan seals, suggesting a cultic function (Fig. 140 and 141). Towards the end of the third millennium longboats disappear from the iconographic record and are replaced by sailing ships, as was the case in the real world with the introduction of sailing ships in the EM III period (Fig. 142).43 The earliest definite Aegean image of a sailing ship is on a seal stone from at tomb at Platanos in southern Crete and is dated stylistically to around 2000 BCE.44 Various types of ships are depicted in subsequent glyptic art where they tend to be represented schematically. Ships primarily occur on MM I–II three-sided prisms and MM III–LM I talismanic gems; thought to have had an amuletic function and to have only been used minimally for sphragistic purposes (Fig. 143).45 Such talismanic style seals were common in the Neopalatial period, while naturalistic marine-related motifs declined in frequency.46 Wachsmann suggests that because of their stylised rather than naturalistic appearance, ships in Minoan glyptic had symbolic significance.47 Before the introduction of sailing boats at the end of the EBA, coastal travel and journeys to the islands were undertaken in boats that were paddled or rowed, while Cycladic longboats were designed to travel longer distances and could thus fully exploit the sea. From the MBA on, two types of boats are evident: smaller boats for coastal journeys and larger sailing merchant vessels or galleys for long distance sea voyages. Merchant vessels were propelled by the wind, while galleys could also be rowed. Sailing boats depicted in Minoan glyptic, on two sherds from Phylakopi and on the Flotilla Fresco from Thera have an estimated length of between 10 and 30m and are characterised by a large cargo space, fast travelling speed and would have had a wide sailing range. The favoured sailing season in the Mediterranean was from early April to late October and it was also possible during the period between October and March, but the frequency of strong winds and gales increased between November and February. Navigation in the Aegean was based upon visual identification of landmarks as the islands were intervisible, the sun’s orientation during the day, and constellations at night.48






























































40 41 42

43 44 45 46 47 48

Betancourt 2008, 20, 209. Haysom 2011, 140. Wachsmann 1998, 71, 73. The leafy branches appear on either side of the pubic triangle, as though interchangeable with pubic hair. The association of trees and female genitalia is also seen in Levantine iconography, discussed in Chapter 7. Wachsmann 1998, 70–1; Coleman 1985; Branigan 1981, 23. Broodbank 2013, 353. Wachsmann 1998, 99–103. Haysom 2011, 149. Wachsmann 1998, 99–103. Berg 2007; 2011, 127; 2013, 9.

TREES AND BOATS

109

Southern Aegean Berg suggests that the islands of the Aegean and the sea ought to be considered as a single interconnected unit, and the sea considered an extension of the landscape.49 In the EBA Cycladic culture spread south to Crete at Ayia Photia in the east, although it was not necessarily a formal Cycladic colony.50 Cycladic imports and Minoan-made copies thereof are found in EBA I–II mortuary assemblages in north- and south-central Crete, indicating intensive inter-regional exchange and contact in the southern Aegean.51 In EM III important harbour settlements in eastern Crete developed at Mochlos, Palaikastro, and Zakro, 52 with EM Mochlos probably controlling exchange between Cycladic and Cretan regions.53 The Minoans had founded a colony on Kythera by the EM II period as a base on the route between western Crete and the southern Peloponnese;54 it formed a link with Lakonia and may also have functioned to bypass the Cyclades in Minoan trade with the mainland. The settlement on Kythera was on virgin ground with Minoan evidence found from the very beginning which suggests that it was a Minoan settlement colony.55 A series of footholds in the eastern Aegean were established during the Protopalatial period at Kasos, Karpathos, Trianda/Ialysos, Tigani, Miletus, and possibly Iasos and Knidos, which connected Crete with the coast of Asia Minor. 56 There is extensive archaeological evidence of Cretan influence on the material culture of the southern Aegean from the MM III to the LM IB periods at sites such as Akrotiri, Phylakopi, Aegina, Ayia Irini, Trianda, Miletos, Iasos, Kythera and the southern Greek mainland, while there is less evidence further north.57 The Cycladic settlements of Akrotiri, Phylakopi and Ayia Irini all suffered destructions at the end of the MBA and when they were rebuilt at the beginning of the LBA, show strong Minoan influence in architecture, fresco, glyptic, pottery and religion which indicate Minoan cultural influence and possibly the presence of a Minoan community.58 The most prolific finds of Minoan pottery are from Thera (although Theran pottery is local in style), Keos, Melos, Rhodes and Miletus and belong to the LM I period. The Minoans may have founded colonies at these locations during the Neopalatial period, although whether these are specific colonies or rather the recipients of an increased intensity in Minoan trade is not certain.59 The presence of a community of Minoans with an interest in trade is suggested by the Minoan system of lead weights at Ayia Irini, Melos and Akrotiri. Figurines at Ayia Irini, a pillar crypt at Melos and the frescoes at Akrotiri show that Minoan religious practices were adopted at these settlements.60 By the Neopalatial period Minoan culture had pervaded these islands to varying degrees as a result of migration, adoption of Minoan methods of administration, and emulation of Cretan culture by local island elites.61 The establishment of these relationships was broadly concurrent with bourgeoning Minoan trade with the east Mediterranean, the rise of Mycenae on the Greek mainland, and the beginning of Minoan trade with this new power.62 Rather than thinking in terms of “coloniser” and “colonised” in regard to Crete’s relationship with the southern Cyclades, however, Knappett suggests that it was more a case of two-way influential relationships in which, as a consequence of Minoan




























































49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62

Berg 2007; 2011, 120. Abulafia 2014, 16–17. Papadatos 2007. Branigan 1981, 23. Branigan 1991, 103. Niemeier 2004, 394. Branigan 1981, 23, 29–32, Niemeier 2004, 394. Haysom 2011, 140. Niemeier 2004, 393–398; Georma, Karnava and Nikolakopoulou, 2014. Branigan 1981, 23. Branigan 1981, 29–32. Davis 2008. Branigan 1981, 32.

110

CHAPTER 6

trade, Cycladic elites were able to become more involved in the Aegean trade network, form links with the Cretan polities and establish conspicuous consumption practices.63 Thalassocracy Thucydides (b. ca.460 BCE) first mentioned a Minoan “thalassocracy” (Pelop. I 4–8), meaning rulership of the sea, and the degree and nature of this relationship with the sea has formed a large component of the debates within Aegean archaeology. In Greek tradition Crete is portrayed as possessing a formidable naval force through which King Minos of Knossos ruled over the Aegean region. This literary tradition was received as historical fact up until 1955 when Starr argued that the Minoan thalassocracy was a concept invented in the 5th century BCE and retrojected back on to Bronze Age Crete in order to justify the supremacy of Periclean Athens in the Delian League.64 Although the term “thalassocracy” was probably coined in the 5th century BCE, the tradition of Minoan rulership over the sea dates back to Hesiod (ca.700 BCE).65 Still, there are two tendencies evident within Aegean archaeology in regard to the question of a Minoan thalassocracy during the palatial period. One school of thought believes that Knossos ruled an empire covering a greater part of the Aegean Sea, while the other argues that the Aegean islands were politically autonomous and that Crete only had economic and cultural influence.66 Archaeological evidence for the tradition of the Minoan thalassocracy has been proposed in relation to Cycladic sites such as Akrotiri, where Cretan styles of living were adopted, or Kastri on Kythera, where trade emporia existed. Cultural influence, or Minoanisation, increased gradually throughout the MBA,67 and a Minoan koiné can feasibly be suggested for the southern Aegean during the Neopalatial period, as is evident by the presence of Minoan style pottery, frescoes, architectural and domestic styles, textile equipment, the use of Minoan weights and measures, cooking and table habits, mortuary and cult practices and bureaucratic and administrative mechanisms such as Linear A tablets and Minoan seals and sealings.68 Although the accuracy of the application of the term “thalassocracy” to Minoan Crete is not agreed upon, scholars at least concur that the Minoan relationship to the Aegean Sea can be characterised as consisting of trade and colonisation. The questions regarding these two activities concern the degree and nature of Minoan influence, colonisation and hegemony in the Aegean, and of long distance trade with the Levant and Egypt.69 While Minoan influence, and possibly control, seems to have been pervasive within the southern Aegean, this was probably not the case in the wider eastern Mediterranean.70 Long Distance In regard to long distance trade, Crete, Cyprus, the Levant and Egypt were all part of the same network of connections. By the Neopalatial period Crete had long been receiving luxury goods and cultural influence by way of long distance sea trade. 71 Raw materials, finished objects and craft techniques deriving from Canaan and Egypt had been arriving in Crete since the EBA, while Minoan pottery was exported overseas. The Minoans adopted aspects of foreign iconography such as the Egyptian goddess Taweret, which was modified to become the Minoan Genius, and the lion of Egyptian or Levantine origin. Minoanising frescoes appear at sites such as Tell el-Dabca in the Egyptian Delta (Fig. 144), Miletos in Anatolia, Alalakh and Qatna in Syria and at Tel Kabri in




























































63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

Knappett and Nikolakopoulou 2008, 37–8. Starr 1955. Niemeier 2004. Niemeier 2004, 393. Burns 2010, 295. Melas 1991, 170–176. Haysom 2011, 140. Knapp 1993, 333. Although the degree to which this contact was direct, and its intensity and diversity, is not agreed upon. Haysom 2011, 186–9.

TREES AND BOATS

111

Israel;72 Egyptian stone vessels, ivory, gold, and depictions of monkeys appear in Crete in the LM I period (Figs 57, 60); while images of the Keftiu are depicted on the tomb walls of Egyptian nobles at this time (Fig. 145).73 Crete has few raw materials and by the beginning of the second millennium became involved in eastern Mediterranean trade routes in order to procure silver, copper, tin, ivory and precious stones in the Levant, for which it exchanged finished products such as textiles, metal vessels, and Kamares ware pottery. A Minoan cup in the Kamares style was found in a warrior tomb in Sidon dating to the start of the MBA (ca.1900–1800 BCE); 74 similar objects have been found at Ugarit, Byblos, Beirut, Ashkelon, Qatna and Hazor and are the first signs of Crete’s involvement in the international exchange circuits. Minoan merchants are attested at Ugarit around 1950–1750 BCE, and tablets from Mari (1800–1750 BCE) record the allocation of tin to the interpreter of the Caphtorites’ (Cretans’) chief merchant and the importing of fabrics, gold vessels and gold weapons with hilts of lapis lazuli from Crete.75 In the MBA II (ca.1750–1550) the presence of Minoan style frescos at Qatna, Kabri and the palace of Yarim-Lim at Level VII of Alalakh indicate elite interaction between Crete and the Levant, and perhaps the temporary gift exchange of Minoan craftspeople.76 That Cretan craftsmanship was valued in the eastern Mediterranean is further suggested by mythological literature from LBA Ugarit (which may date back to the MBA) that mentions the goddess Anat sending the divine messenger, Qadeshwa-Amrur, over the sea via Byblos to the god of handicrafts, Kothar wa-Khasis, in order to bring him from his throne in Caphtor (Crete) to build a palace for the god Baal. Niemeier proposes that this may have been a metaphor for the importation of Cretan craftspeople.77 Cretan writing systems are evident in a potsherd incised with Cretan hieroglyphic at Tel Haror, and a locally made stone basin incised with Linear A signs at Lachish indicates the presence of a literate Aegean person. The presence of an Aegean legume at Tel Nami is witness to the importation of Aegean foodstuffs, and the presence of conical cups and pumice at a cult site at Tel Nami suggest Aegean ritual activity. 78 Minoan writing is a consequence of this contact with the eastern Mediterranean; the appearance of a pictographic script in Crete coincided with the first phase of palace building. 79 Minoan trade with the Near East was contemporary with increased social stratification on Crete and the concepts of town and palace, as well as the palatial administrative method of stamping with clay sealings and using inscribed clay tablets, rather than arising autonomously in Crete, were probably adopted from the Near East where they are much older.80 Early Minoan contact with Egypt was probably via Byblos on the north Levantine coast.81 While it was possible to sail from Crete straight to Egypt, as the winds are favourable for travelling in that direction, it is unlikely that direct sea voyages were undertaken the other way, from Egypt to Crete, because of negative wind and current conditions.82 Egyptian-initiated contact with the Aegean was probably consequently uncommon, and Aegean voyages to Egypt would have had to return by travelling along the Levantine and Anatolian coasts. Egyptian finds on Crete mainly consist of small items such as scarabs, seals, jewellery and pots and tend to be the types of objects that would have been readily available at Levantine ports, and this is also true for Minoan material in Egypt, suggesting that the Levant was the intermediary. Undoubtedly some of the trade involved ephemeral or recyclable




























































72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82

Rehak and Younger 2008, 157. Branigan 1981, 25. McGillivray 2008. Aubert 2013, 252 n.21; Yasur-Landau 2010, 833. Niemeier 1991, 189; Hitchcock 2005; 2008c; Colburn 2008. Niemeier 1991. Yasur-Landau 2010, 833; Artzy 1995. Abulafia 2014, 25. Burns 2010, 292; Lethwaite 1983; Cadogan 1986; Niemeier 1991, 189. Phillips 2010, 825. Lambrou-Phillipson 1991, 12–13.

112

CHAPTER 6

commodities such as metal, textiles, animals and foodstuffs. 83 As mentioned, Crete also adopted Egyptianising symbols such as the deity Taweret in the MM II period. Crete had an extended commercial relationship with Egypt, conducted under the auspices of the Egyptian pharaohs, rather than a political one.84 Although Crete was the westernmost member of the Near East,85 that the Egyptians were aware of its location is evident from the use of the term Wadj-wer, “Great Green”, to refer to the location of islands in the Mediterranean. This term is attested more than three hundred times since Dynasty 5. The term Kf.tiw (Keftiu), thought to specifically refer to Cretans, first appeared around the time of Dynasty 12. The Keftiu and the islands in the midst of the Great Green are directly associated in painted depictions of Aegean “tribute bearers” in the Theban tomb of Rekhmire, dating to the late Thutmose III-early Amenhotep II period (ca. 1425). Minoan style fresco fragments from Tell el-Dabca in the eastern Delta date to the earlier half of Thutmosis III’s reign.86 Broodbank suggests that these frescoes, as well as those from Tell Kabri, are indicative of an elite desire to create an international courtly language comprehensible by eastern Mediterranean coastal elites from different locations, but which excluded native inferiors.87 Long distance trade in the Mediterranean was undertaken by specialist sailors and merchants backed by the major Mediterranean political institutions, rather than by coastal traders, and thus remained the privilege of the elite.88 Both the Theban and the Tell el-Dabca wall paintings signify diplomatic and commercial relations between Crete and Egypt in the Late Bronze Age. Specific representations of Egyptians are not depicted in Aegean art, however, but Nilotic scenes do appear on a dagger from Mycenae Shaft Grave V and the West House fresco from Akrotiri (Fig. 52).89 As Yasur-Landau notes, the deity Kothar-wa-Khasis has mixed Cretan and Egyptian heritage. Crete is “the throne where he sits” and Memphis is “the land of his heritage.”90 As Panagiotopoulos explains, although geographically situated at the outer reaches of the eastern Mediterranean – as measured by geometric space which is concerned with the distance from point A to point B – according to “path space” or “hodological space” which measures the geomorphological, social and psychological parameters that affect human experience during movement between two different places, the sea distances become much smaller and Crete can be understood as an integral part of the Near Eastern world.91 Nevertheless, evidence does not support the idea of a Minoan “thalassocracy”. As seen above, the type of control Crete had in the southern Aegean is not fully understood or agreed upon, and in regard to the Levant and Egypt as Knapp explains, the Keftiu paintings in Thebes cannot be interpreted as an Aegean presence in Egypt but rather only represent the people of Keftiu as bearers of gifts or merchandise, while Minoan style frescoes signify social or political contacts but are not indicative of political domination of the LBA Mediterranean.92 The Parergon and Miniaturisation Restrict Identification of Location Although we know the definite provenance of the Mochlos Ring and Makrygialos Seal, and the proposed find spots of the Amnissos Ring and Ring of Minos, there is nothing within the images that could identify the actual location that these images may represent. Two stepped ashlar altars and one columnar shrine, each situated upon boulders and separated by the sea, appear in Figure 21, and these




























































83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92

Broodbank 2013, 374–89. Phillips 2010, 826–9. Niemeier 1991, 199. Phillips 2010, 822–4. Broodbank 2013, 374–89. Panagiotopoulos 2011. Phillips 2010, 822–4. Yasur-Landau 2010, 834–9. Panagiotopoulos 2011, 37. Knapp 1993, 333–342.

TREES AND BOATS

113

may indicate mountains or headlands, 93 Cycladic settlements that are either Minoan settlement colonies such as Kythera, or possible community colonies that adopted Minoan religion such as Melos and Akrotiri; however, there is no way to confirm this. Figure 13 probably represents a setting on, or evokes the port settlement of Mochlos, while Figure 43 although found within a villa, does not depict any architecture. Figure 44 may have come from the Villa of the Lilies at Amnissos, but does not include any indication of such a structure. While we know that three of these images come from coastal sites and another from a site further into the Cretan hinterland but associated with ports, the actual location of the scenes in these images cannot be determined because the composition is edited to the bare minimum in order to fit into the small glyptic field. Each image does, however, provide the more general location of the sea, either explicitly or through the depiction of a boat suggesting that it is seafaring that is important in these images, rather than the specific identification of which port this was connected with. All of the images are maritime scenes but only the Ring of Minos (Fig. 21) utilises the tricurved arch pattern94 as also seen in the Griffin Warrior Ring 2 (Fig. 26), the Goddess Floating on the Sea sealing (Fig. 135), and the hook-shaped waves at the edge of the shore as seen in the Master Impression (Fig. 77), the river in the Nilotic fresco (Fig. 52), and sea in the north frieze of the Flotilla Fresco from the West House at Akrotiri (Fig. 134), typical of Aegean representations of water. Figure 13 includes cursory marks that probably indicate sea, while Figures 43 and 44 do not depict the sea. The absence of representations of the actual sea is not particularly unusual. As Berg notes, in Minoan iconography seascapes rarely include the element of water, using instead ships, marine animals and marine vegetation to indicate the intended setting.95 Boats imply a seascape, even though in these glyptic images one cannot actually see the wider picture. The compressed and edited space within these four tiny images refers to the vast space of the sea in the actual physical world which is constrained through miniaturisation within the glyptic frame. Each of the four images examined here also include cultic associations through the presence of trees sometimes associated with cult structures such as altars and shrines, hovering epiphanic figures or objects, or the performance by the human figures of physical gestures associated with cult. Wachsmann suggests that the boats in Figures 13, 21 and 43 are “cult boats”,96 while Figure 44 suggests cultic activity by the presence of a hovering epiphanic figure. Each image combines known cultic tropes such as a woman seated upon a stepped altar, tree shaking, gesturing towards a tree, and epiphanic figures emerging from or in the vicinity of a tree, with boats and the sea. While the images therefore may evoke ritual events, that these are not realistic scenes is evident because of the unrealistic scale employed, the presence of stone structures within a boat, a self-propelled boat, and hovering epiphanic figures and signs in the air. The images thus consist of selected components combined together in order to convey a message. Rather than scenes of actual events, these images are signs that signify the cult associations of Minoan seafaring. Tree Cult and Seafaring – The “Imaginary” The Conceptual / Numinous Wood and Water If these images are signs, rather than scenes of ritual or supernatural activity, and thus do not accurately depict actual events or specific locations and signify instead the cult associations of Minoan seafaring, how do they do this? As we saw earlier, previous scholarship on these images identifies several themes including: a goddess visiting different sanctuaries; a departure of a goddess over the sea and her return; the establishment of the goddess’s cult in an overseas location; a goddess from/of the sea; the protection and/or personification of the Minoan “thalassocracy”; indicators of Minoan cosmology; the seasonal cycle; the fructification of nature; the sea as a symbolic passage to an




























































93 94 95 96

Brody 1998, 14. Crowley 1991, 221. Berg 2011, 123. Wachsmann 1998, 112–3.

114

CHAPTER 6

unknowable otherworld; the bringing of sacred equipment from the supernatural world to the mundane one; actual sacred boats; a ritual enactment of the arrival of the goddess from the sea; actual human ritual activity; particular cult functionaries of the sea goddess; and the literal transport of a physical tree in a boat from one cult site to another. In regard to supernatural interpretations such as “the Goddess...”, if Minoan deities were enacted by human ritual participants, then these images are not archetypal cosmological images, but rather ritual events. However, if physically unfeasible events are occurring in these images, then they must not be literal depictions of ritual either. The most likely interpretation is the same as that applied to all the glyptic cult scenes examined here: that these images consist of selected motifs from larger canonical ritual events, but do not necessarily depict those events. While stepped altars, as seen in Figures 13 and 21 are known cult structures, their location within the glyptic compositions in a boat, or set upon enormous boulders amidst the sea – both of which are unrealistic sites for such structures – can only be symbolic. Ritual gestures such as that seen in Figure 43, and the epiphanic figures in Figures 21 and 44, evoke ritual events depicted in other glyptic images but this does not mean that they depict literal ritual events. Rather, known ritual activities – such as a woman sitting upon a cult structure or saluting a tree, tree-shaking or epiphanic manifestation in the vicinity of a tree – are utilised in these images in order to evoke and thus convey the sacred aspect of the image. The resultant images do refer to real events, in that they refer to the cultic associations of Minoan seafaring, but they do not literally depict such events. The combination of the motifs within these glyptic images signifies the supernatural associations of Minoan maritime activity. Rather than referring to the movement of a literal tree from one cult site to another, the transference of Minoan religion to a colony, or the domination of Knossos over sea trade, it is more likely that these images refer to the cult aspects and beliefs concerning Minoan maritime activity itself. As mentioned above, increased Minoan contact with the southern Cyclades and Mycenaean Greece was also contemporary with Crete’s participation in eastern Mediterranean sea trade. The nature of the Minoan religious attitude to seafaring may be elucidated through the examination of contemporary Levantine maritime religion. We know that the growth of Crete’s maritime contact with the eastern Mediterranean was roughly contemporary with the shift from a ritual focus upon ancestral tombs to one of peak sanctuary cult in the Protopalatial period.97 Along with the model of the palace, the veneration of mountains as the home of storm gods represented by bulls and the association of a female deity associated with trees may have also been imported to Crete from the Levant or Mesopotamia. Although a reverent attitude towards and subsequent interpretation of numinous qualities of mountains and other aspects of the natural world probably did arise in an autochthonous manner within Crete, contact with the eastern Mediterranean through trade may have resulted in the syncretisation of such religious concepts, particularly within the elite sphere. As Aubert explains, as a result of long-distance trade, ideological and religious ideas could parallel the diplomatic and commercial activities of two different societies.98 This may have been the case with Crete and Byblos. The religion of Byblos can be categorised as Canaanite. Rather than signifying an ethnic group or culture, the term “Canaan” refers to land, specifically the eastern seaboard of the Mediterranean.99 Archaeological data reveal that the peoples of ancient Canaan shared material culture and patterns of daily behaviour, including cultic behaviour.100 That there was a shared religious system that can be classified as Canaanite and that spanned much of the eastern Mediterranean from southern Anatolia to the Egyptian Delta is evident from parallels in the iconographic and architectural evidence. The chief deities of Canaanite religion were El and Athirat (Ashirta or biblical Asherah) who, in the natural world, were associated with mountains and trees but who also headed council-like pantheons




























































97 98 99

100

Wengrow 2009, 150. Aubert 2013, 261. “Canaanite” therefore refers to any person in the region now known as southwestern Syria, Lebanon, Israel, western Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority. Noll 2007, 61.

TREES AND BOATS

115

modelled on royal hierarchy.101 In regard to trees and boats, the deity of concern here is Athirat. The common linguistic root to Athirat’s name was the ancient word for “place”. Athirat may have originally been the personified sacred place of El, but became his wife and co-worker. Athirat was the mother of the Canaanite pantheon who gave birth to seventy gods as well as nursed the human royal heirs at her breast.102 Associated with fertility as well as the sea, she was also called Elat, a feminine version of El, and bore the Semitic epithet qds, meaning “holy”. In 18th Dynasty Egypt Athirat was fused with the goddesses Hathor and Isis as a sycamore tree goddess that nurtured both the pharaoh and other deceased elites in the afterlife. As the biblical asherah, Athirat is associated with both symbolic and literal trees, and in Byblos she was called Baalat (“Lady”).103 From the early MBA Egypt and Byblos had engaged in a trading relationship, particularly in regards to cedar wood. In the middle of the 3rd millennium the principal divinity of the Byblos pantheon, Baalat Gebal (“Lady of Byblos”), was identified with the Egyptian goddess Hathor. The earliest known archaeological evidence for the identification of Baalat and Hathor dates to ca. 2350 BCE and is a figure of a seated deity representing Baalat but with the solar disk and cattle horns of Hathor. Baalat was an urban goddess who was the protector of the Byblian monarchy. The goddess Hathor was associated with the institution of queenship and hence the Egyptian royal family, and was also a protector of navigators. Baalat Gebal, the “Lady of Byblos”, had the same epithet that Hathor would adopt, of nbt kb / p; that is “Lady of Byblos”. The most ancient and important temple in Byblos was that of Baalat and it contained the most institutional gifts from the Egyptian royal court. The Egyptians saw Baalat as a reflection of Hathor, the goddess whose domain was foreign countries with valuable resources such as timber, oil, silver, turquoise and lapis lazuli. Syncretism between Egyptian and foreign deities was very rare and usually only occurred in regions that Egypt considered itself to own, such as Sinai, and this was evidently the case at Byblos. The syncretism of Canaanite Baalat and Egyptian Hathor lasted for almost two millennia.104 So, Athirat, in her various forms, was a patron of sea-farers and was worshipped in the Canaanite ports of Ugarit, Sidon, Tyre, Byblos, Beirut and Eilat from the MBA into the IA.105 In her guise as “Lady Athirat of the Sea”, and “She who treads on water”,106 Athirat had a divine helper called Fisherman and in her association with the crescent moon – thought to portend weather conditions pertinent to sailing – oversaw navigation. As Baalat-Hathor, Athirat was the protector of steering oars. Brody has shown that Levantine seafarers practised a type of maritime religion that was a sub-category of Canaanite religion and which differed from that participated in by those who never left dry land. As a result of the kinds of concerns and dangers that mariners faced, ancient seafarers in general tended to engage in beliefs and cultic practices centred around deities that oversaw maritime, celestial or meteorological phenomena; they performed rituals at seaside temples and shrines; dedicated votive gifts with maritime themes; perceived ships as animate; designated sacred spaces on board the ship; undertook cult activities on the ship to ensure the safety of the voyage; and engaged in mortuary practices with symbolic connection to the sea.107 Along with Athirat, Canaanite sailors sought the aid of deities that controlled wind and storms such as Baal. The sacred mountain, Baal Zaphon, above Ugarit, as well as being a landmark that guided ships into port, was worshipped in the form of a ship. Shrines and temples were set up upon such prominent landmarks, which also often doubled as locations of fresh water.108 The three shrines depicted on the Ring of Minos may represent sacred mountains or promontories that functioned as landmarks for sailors. A vital part of sailing was, of course, the boat itself. A ship’s prow was often the most sacred




























































101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108

Handy 1994; Noll 2007, 69–72. Noll 2007, 73. Golden 2004. Aubert 2013, 258–261. Rich 2010, 22. Rich 2010. Brody 1998. Brody 1998, 13–19, 39–61.

116

CHAPTER 6

area onboard the ship, where statues of deities might be located, as seen in the gold and bronze female figurine from the Uluburun shipwreck that may have represented Athirat.109 Totemic animals may be incorporated, such as the birds on the prow of ships depicted on EM III and MM seals, the bird head on a boat on a sealstone from Anemospilia, birds and butterflies on the Minoan ships in the Flotilla Fresco from Thera, the dolphins on the hull of the ship in the fresco from Kea, bird heads on Mycenaean galleys and the horse head used as a figurehead on Phoenician ships.110 An unnamed Canaanite marine deity rode a winged sea horse and later Greek art depicts Nereids riding hippocamps.111 The hippocamp-headed prow on the boats depicted in Figures 13, 21, and 131 may refer to such a protective creature, the incorporation of which may have functioned to guard the boat and avert misfortune. That the Minoans were aware of frightening sea creatures is evident from the sea monsters on the Scylla Sealing from the Temple Repositories and the Siege Rhyton from Mycenae (Figs 132, 133). 112 The hippocamp may signify the appropriation of one of these creatures as a protective rather than an aggressive entity. It could alternately, have actually been modelled on a Minoan dragon or, as Soles suggests, a seahorse.113 If depicting an actual horse’s head, seeing as horses were not in Crete at that time, the hippocamp may have been an imported motif that referred to the horse as one of Canaanite Athirat’s totemic animals.114 That the entire ship was a sacred object is proposed by Rich who has provided compelling evidence to suggest that the masts of Canaanite and Phoenician merchant ships may have been seen as the embodiment of Athirat in her association with both trees and seafaring.115 Near Eastern and Egyptian ships (especially the mast) were constructed out of cedar, a product of Lebanon traded through Byblos. Cedar wood was in high demand for the construction of the hulls and masts of merchant ships, as well as sacred boats such as the Pharaonic barques. Cedar was regarded as a sacred material and may have been one of the timbers from which the cultic wooden posts or asherim that represented the tree goddess Asherah (Athirat) were made. A coin from Tyre depicts Athirat standing in a galley as the ship’s patron.116 As we will see in Chapter 7, in Levantine iconography a tree frequently substitutes for an anthropomorphic deity, as it does in Crete in cult scenes that depict stepped ashlar altars or openwork platforms surmounted by either a female figure or a tree, sometimes both. This may be the case with both the Makrygialos Seal (Fig. 43) and the Mochlos Ship Cup (Fig. 136); the tree in the boat in both images, and towards which the human figure is saluting in the Makrygialos Seal, may have been a physiomorphic representation of the deity Athirat. The Carthaginian caduceus, which was an aniconic sign of Athirat in her later North African form as Tanit, and which was erected at the stern of Phoenician ships, developed from the stylisation of a palm tree symbolic of the deity.117 Minoan-style glyptic images of a horned female figure atop a palm standard such as Figure 146 may signify a similar object. Examples of objects that look very much like the caduceus of Tanit/Athirat appear on three Minoan talismanic seals depicting the bows of ships, as well as on ships in the Theran Flotilla Fresco. 118 That the ship itself was considered animate can be deduced by the worship of a deity or totem at the prow or stern, eyes situated at the ship’s prow that functioned to both guide the ship and ward off harm, and ship’s names which are often those of a deity known for traits that benefit sailors. Just as a deified mountain such as the above-mentioned Baal Zaphon may be worshipped in the form of a ship, so too a ship could be the form of a deity, as in the case of the Phoenician ship dedicated to Milqart that was captured by Alexander the Great and honoured by the latter as the deity. That a ship could




























































109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118

Rich 2010, 30. Brody 1998, 87–99, 111; Sakellarakis and Sakellarakis 1991, 150. Brody 1998, 25; Barringer 1995, 39. Wachsmann 1998, 113. Levi 1945; Gill 1963; Palaiologou 1995, 195–199; Soles 2012, 188. Rich 2010, 24. Or Anat’s. Rich 2010, 19ff; 2017, 164. Rich 2010, 29, 25. Brody 1998, 14–72, 161, fig. 66. Wachsmann 1998, 92–4.

TREES AND BOATS

117

be alive is suggested by a letter from the King of Tyre to the King of Ugarit in which a ship that sank in a storm is described as having literally died.119 Later Greek ships were animate, as seen in the example of the Argo in the myth of Jason and the Argonauts in which the figurehead of the goddess Hera was alive and gave counsel to Jason. Incense burners found on a Phoenician ship from Pisa are in the shape of the bust of a goddess, probably Tanit, and such burners were used on board ship by Canaanite ship officials in order to appease ship, sea and port deities, as seen in the painting from the 18th Dynasty Tomb of Kenamum at Thebes.120 In the Minoan glyptic examples of trees, boats and the sea studied here, the animate nature of the ship and the wood from which it was made is indicated most explicitly by the image of the epiphanic hovering female figure and tree in Figure 44 from Amnissos. Such a figure, whose identity and character are defined by the tree behind her, is a sign of communication between the full-sized human figures on the shore and the numen of the boat. If indicative of a constellation it could also represent a constellation and/or Athirat in her role of ruler of navigation by the stars. The tree in place of a mast in Figure 43 – most likely a physiomorphic representation of a deity as suggested above – suggests a ship imbued with numinous power, and the hippocamp prows in Figures 13 and 21 also suggest a living boat. The altars on the ships in Figures 13 and 21, as well as alluding to cultic practice enacted on board a vessel, may evoke the ikria as seen on the Flotilla Fresco from Thera, a structural characteristic that only appears on these festive boats (Fig. 147).121 In turn, the ikria on the Makrygialos Seal (Fig. 43) is reminiscent of an altar. So, in regard to previous scholars’ interpretations of these images, they evoke but do not depict, ritual connected to seafaring and thus also provide an insight into the religious ideas behind such ritual. The “Goddess of the sea” who arrives and departs according to the seasons may have originally arrived in Crete as a result of Minoan interactions with Canaanite culture, initially through trade contact with Byblos. This deity, from whose wood the boat was made and who protected seafarers, may have been syncretised with a similar pre-existing Aegean deity – as EC “frying pans” and EM glyptic iconography pair images of ships with tree branches, perhaps indicative of a sacred tree. Aegean and Levantine deities merged over time through the interaction resulting from seafaring during the MBA and LBA, eventually becoming a single deity as did Baalat and Hathor in Byblos. The veneration of this syncretised goddess may have been transmitted, along with other aspects of Minoan religion, to the southern Cyclades. While sailors, merchants, emissaries and the elites that employed or partnered with them would have been familiar with this transcultural deity122 – the first three groups probably having even visited her counterparts in the eastern Mediterranean – for the majority of Minoans such a divine figure may have represented the unknowable character of the sea and foreign lands, and the intriguing nature of exotic goods derived from those mysterious locations. If the trees in conjunction with boats and the sea represent, more or less, the same deity or numen as the trees amidst rocks, behind walls, and in conjunction with cult structures in other Minoan cult scenes, then – as is the case with the Canaanite goddess – on the one hand the tree is a deity of the sea, while on the other she is also a deity of the land. These images may therefore represent the idea of travelling outwards from Crete on either short or long-distance voyages, under the protection of a “Cretan goddess of the landscape” who is a tree goddess. If this is the case, then even if the Minoan deity is influenced by interaction with the Canaanite deity through seafaring, it is still a Minoan deity embedded within and representative of the Minoan countryside. Thus images of boats in association with trees and important human figures participating in ritual activity depict images of power and protection that derive from the numinous landscape of Crete but which are protective over seafaring and that accompany sailors venturing away from Crete. In this way the boat functions as a heterotopic space in which a portion of the Cretan landscape accompanies the venturing to foreign lands. The transcultural nature of the sea aspect of this tree deity mirrors the activity of Aegean and east




























































119 120 121 122

Brody 1998, 63–85; 2008, 444–52. Brody 2005, 178. Wachsmann 1998, 118. Panagiotopoulos 2011, 39.

118

CHAPTER 6

Mediterranean interaction through seafaring. These images are therefore imaginary scenes which are symbolic and function in a talismanic manner to protect and ensure success for seafaring activities. The “Symbolic – What do these Signs Mean? Cultic Considerations Canaanite coastal temples and cult sites display votive and ritual activity associated with the sea such as the offering of gifts to deities with influence over the sea and the weather (but which are also the deities of the city and landscape), deposition of maritime votives such as anchors and model boats in temples, hypaethral sacred places and in funerary contexts, while cult sites located further inland tend not to exhibit maritime-themed material. 123 Minoan Marine Style motifs are linked with cultic activities, as is evident from their presence in the MM III Temple Repositories at Knossos, along with ten other cult sites, in the form of faience reliefs of flying fish, rocks, shells and argonauts, along with painted sea shells. LM IB Minoan Marine Style pottery is consequently thematically linked with cultic activities.124 Examples of comparable sea-themed cult activity undertaken by the Minoans may be evident at Mochlos. A cult assemblage found in Building B2 at LM IB Mochlos may shed some light on the Minoan boattree-and-female theme (Figs 148, 149). Building B2 displays palatial architectural features and is considered to have been the main ceremonial center of the Neopalatial town. Terraced against a hillslope, the building was three stories high. Two pillar crypts are located on the lower storey at the east end of the building and considerable evidence for ceremonial activity has been found there. Above the pillar crypts was a room paved with green schist plaques and with evidence of red plaster. This room originally had a central column, which was probably made of wood and that rested on the lower pillar, and which formed the northern part of what the excavators claimed was a Minoan Hall (Fig. 150).125 In the pillar crypt below this room were found the head of a female figurine, half a clay boat, parts of two large strainers elaborately painted with added red and white in a LM IB style, the bottom half of a pear-shaped rhyton, Marine Style pottery from Knossos, a stone object resembling a phallus, and a number of loomweights, all of which had fallen from the room above the pillar room (Fig. 151).126 These finds suggest that the upper room served as a shrine – a “column shrine” – as seen in many other upper columned rooms in Minoan elite architecture.127 In the pillar crypt itself were found many pithoi along with a complete ox-hide ingot with an inverted conical cup resting on top of it. Soles and Davaras, the excavators of the building, interpreted the female figurine as a goddess “because of its preternaturally large eyes and its association with a boat” and suggest that the figurine was displayed as part of a small three-dimensional tableau that was featured in the columnar shrine.128 So far then, in this assemblage from the Mochlos column shrine we have two of the components seen in the glyptic images examined here: a female figure and a boat. I suggest that the third component of the images, the tree, can be understood as the wooden column around which these objects were placed.129 Column shrines often occur directly above pillar crypts – small dark rooms containing non




























































123 124 125 126

127 128 129

Brody 1998, 45–58. Berg 2011. Hitchcock (2000, 182) identifies it as an Impluvium or Palaikastro-style Hall. Soles and Davaras 1994, 408; Soles 2001, 235. Another boat model was found in Mochlos House A. Seager (1909, 279) says it is EM I–II. Soles and Davaras 1994, 391–436, 408; Gesell 1985, 33, 69, 74, 75, 85–87, 90, 92–94, 96, 97, 99, 100. Soles 2010, 331–2. Ethnographic examples show that trees, harvested and utilised as wood within architecture are thought to have a ‘second life’ and to be numinous. Knight 1998. This may have been the case in Crete as the evocation of stalagmites and caves within a Pillar Crypt surely is accompanied by the numinous quality of such places, hence so might the column shrine be considered to embody the associations of the live tree. In addition, in Minoan glyptic the palm tree is often replaced by a column. Kantzios 1999, 426. Although Minoan columns within actual architecture were not made of palm trees, rather cypress or fir. Shaw, J. 2009, 91.

TREES AND BOATS

119

load-bearing stone pillars – and replicate the structural plan of the crypt below. In the column shrine the central pillar of the pillar crypt is substituted by a wooden column made from an inverted tree. While a pillar crypt may be an architectonic representation of an aniconic baetylic deity and reference stalactites in Minoan sacred caves, 130 the column shrine is evocative of the Minoan hypaethral sanctuary, which as glyptic evidence suggests frequently incorporated a sacred tree. Marinatos suggests that column shrines were dedicated to the cult of a celestial deity connected with light, while the pillar crypt below should be connected with a chthonic deity associated with darkness.131 Pillar Crypts combine chthonic, ancestral, funerary and fertility associations. Often situated in close proximity to storage areas, they can feature incised double axe signs, bothroi for chthonic libation, and disarticulated human skeletal material. Architectonic evocation of ancestral tombs, as well as cave and peak sanctuaries, suggest that the pillar crypt/column shrine dyad can be read as a distillation and concentration of the Minoan sacred landscape, functioning conceptually, through diachronic and symbolic dimensions, as a cultic nexus. The cult assemblage in the column shrine of Building B2 suggests the manipulation and dioramic display of symbolic objects – the boat, female figurine, and libation equipment – in conjunction with an architectonised hypaethryl sanctuary, the column representing a sacred tree. It would seem that this ritual manipulation was intended to empower the diorama with sacred aspects of the Cretan landscape, as I suggest was also the function of the tree depicted in the glyptic images of trees, boats and the sea examined here. The purpose of such empowerment may have been to link the deity of the sacred tree with seafaring activities, whether to southern Aegean or further eastern Mediterranean locations, and to express that that the empowerment derived from a tree deity who represented the Cretan landscape as well as the seascape. This may be what the image on the Mochlos Ivory Pyxis (Fig. 36) suggests. This decorated box was found in Seager’s Block A on the western side of the site, now called Area 4, in the wall collapse of a LM IB building. The pyxis was a rectangular box with its sides and lid made of elephant ivory and its base made of wood. Its lid measures ca. 11 x 14cm and was designed to be lifted on and off the box below. The side panels were carved in low relief with a seascape pattern while the lid was carved with a scene showing a constructed openwork platform, upon the lowest level of which four figures approach a further three-tiered structure. On the second tier of the platform sits a female figure holding a flower, while on the third tier or top of the structure is a tree in front of which an epiphanic female figure hovers and from which she may have emerged.132 The association of a tree, an epiphanic figure, a structure associated with cult activity enacted in a hypaethryl shrine, a female figure in the seated pose characteristic of enacted epiphany, approaching worshippers, and with a seascape below, suggests that this ritual event – being depicted more prominently on the top of the box while the seascape is in a more “subordinate” position on the sides of the box – was symbolically linked with the sea. Unfortunately the pyxis is broken at the line separating the approaching figures’ upper bodies and only their lower bodies are visible, so we cannot discern what types of gestures they were making, but the male figure closest to the female seated upon the platform may have been saluting her in the gesture seen on the ring from Amnissos (Fig. 44). Such elite figures may be artistic shorthand for a palace or villa with an investment in seaborne trade. In the glyptic image a pithos to the left of the figures suggests storage and may indicate the export or import of goods from overseas. The figures in the scene on the pyxis may similarly be seeking the tree goddess’s blessing and protection for commercial maritime activity. Females, Trees and Boats The images examined here suggest a connection between females and boats; however, this should not be taken as indicating the literal depiction of actual women in boats, female sailors (although not out of




























































130 131 132

Hitchcock 2000, 150–4. Marinatos 1993, 87–98. Soles and Davaras 2010, 1–3; Soles 2016, Pl. LXXXII b.

120

CHAPTER 6

the question)133 or an exclusively female association with the sea. Rather, the female imagery signifies the landscape of Crete. As seen in the previous chapters, women in Minoan art are usually associated with vegetation and rocky flowering landscapes. In comparative cultures such as the Levant and Egypt trees are predominantly gendered female. Thus, the female figures in conjunction with trees, altars, boats and the sea in these glyptic images are shorthand for the symbolic and cultic relationship between elite female figures and the Cretan landscape, as enacted in ritual in conjunction with trees, rocks and built structures that represent groves and mountains in architectonic form. These maritimethemed images therefore link elites with both the land-based cult sites and hence the land itself, as well as with the activity of seafaring, and signify power and protection derived from the numinous Cretan landscape for maritime activities that move away from Crete, and which are gendered male. As seen above, an association between women, trees and ships can be traced back to the third millennium with the iconography of Cycladic “frying pans” that incorporate branches and female genitalia along with ships. As Haysom has explained, in Neopalatial media which depicts marine themes such as pottery, faience, ivory and stone vases, when human figures are included they are always men which suggests that the sea was associated with men134 who were perhaps primarily the ones that travelled over the sea for trade or adventure. As Marinatos explains, in cult scenes women and men are usually segregated, as seen in the Sacred Grove and Dance and the Procession frescoes from Knossos, the Flotilla Fresco from Thera and the Haghia Triadha sarcophagus (Figs 33, 41, 45, 90, 134). This is also the case within glyptic cult scenes, except in images of tree-cult where men and women appear together.135 So it appears to be with the scenes of the female figures, sacred trees and boats, but on a more symbolic level where the sexes come together in the guise of vegetation and nautical activity. Rather than foregrounding the topic of gender, however, the images are about aspects of land and seascape that happen to be gendered. Such images then are really metagendered, combing anthropomorphic female and male, physiomorphic and aniconic elements136 as components that make up the primary message which is the promotion of the idea of Minoan autochthonous power over sea voyages. The reference in Linear B texts to both male and female deities of the sea, Poseidon and Posidaeia, may indicate the divine personifications of such a concept.137 Elite Ideology Ancient Mediterranean seafarers were generally not an elite group within their varied cultures138 and would not have been the owners of the gold rings under consideration here. These were elite objects associated with palatial systems of administration and trade. 139 Just as landscape has ideological properties, so too does seascape. The four glyptic images examined here advertise elite control, through association with protective land deities, over maritime activity such as sea voyages. They do this by depicting the scenes on high status jewelry and multiplying and broadcasting the images through the sphragistic process. Using ethnographic illustrations, Helms has shown that trade is only one of several possible motives for long-distance travel. Along with the acquisition of exotic and prestige goods, engaging in distant voyages away from one’s homeland can also result in the attainment of prestige associated with knowledge of distant realms and regions. This can function as symbolic capital or politically valuable “goods”. In traditional societies, knowledge of geographically




























































133 134 135 136 137

138 139

Hitchcock and Maeir 2014, 626. Haysom 2011. In the Near East water was associated with men. Hitchcock 2009, 100. Marinatos 1987c, 25, 28; Rehak 2000, 271–2. Cadogan 2009, 230. Gulizio and Nakassis 2014, 120. Also, Linear B mentions a Priestess of the Winds which may have referred to a weather god. Two MK Egyptian votive mastheads in Athens, one of which has an inscription, the dedication to “the one whom the land-bringer, the Lord of the Winds, and Hathor, Mistress of the North Wind, shall love.” Broodbank 2013, 373. Brody 2008, 452; Legarra Herrero 2016. Panagiotopoulos 2001, 38.

TREES AND BOATS

121

distant places, peoples and things, usually falls within the domain of political religious specialists. The select few who are able to become familiar with geographically distant phenomena may thus be accorded an aura of prestige and awe, akin to that accorded political-religious specialists or elites in general. This may be what the image on the Amnissos Ring and the Mochlos Pyxis, in which elite figures salute a deity hovering above a seascape, convey. The scene promotes the association between elite human figures and sea voyaging, linking them through the gestural communication of the male figure and the epiphanic deity, with empowerment and sanction from the numinous landscape of Crete to venture (or patronise the venturing) forth on a sea voyage, resulting in the assumption of the exotic aura of transculturality.140 If this was not a prestigious activity it would not be depicted on a gold signet ring. The compressed and edited space within these four tiny glyptic images, in fact, refers to the vast space of the sea in the actual physical world. The boats imply a seascape, even though one cannot actually see the wider picture. As Helms explains, space and distance are not neutral concepts but are accorded sociological, political and especially ideological significance. Geographical distance from a given heartland may correspond with supernatural distance from the center. In this case the heartland or center would be Crete, and as I have suggested, this is symbolised by the trees on the boats which refer to land-based cult sites but which also have a protective power over the sea.141 Because it is a floating piece of space “that exists by itself, that is closed in on itself and at the same time is given over to the infinity of the sea...[and] goes as far as the colonies in search of the most precious treasures they conceal in their gardens...”, the ship is, according to Foucault, “the heterotopia par excellence”.142 The Minoan ship is a real space that transmits place, in the symbolic form of a Cretan cult site, to another place, whether that be a trading emporium, colony or eastern Mediterranean destination. It is through the ship that southern Aegean islands became Minoanised and through which contact was made with distant foreign civilisations. As Allweill and Kallus explain, “Along with the wealth and the goods they were designed to carry, the ships also carried the subversive charge of other cultures and people. The ability of the ship to affect society is released when it touches shore – either at the home port or in some distant culture...”143 Interestingly, in regards to the Minoan symbolism of the tree in a boat, as Driver says, in order “to take root, colonies had to be planted, not built: that way they could reach into the earth, not merely be located upon it. Empires are about extension, but colonies are about depth.”144 So, moving on from the traditional interpretations of these images as depicting a vague “Goddess from the sea” or a literal ritual event, I suggest that the images of female figures, trees, boats and seascape combine both mythic ideas and real events. The juxtaposition of Cretan cult iconography that signifies the symbolic relationship between elite female figures and the landscape with seafaring iconography indicates the existence of a syncretised deity who was associated with both trees, and hence the land, as well as the local and foreign aspects of the seascape – real places and spaces that are usually incompatible.145 The images are multilayered, multivocal and ambiguous. As Davaras notes, on the Makrygialos seal it is not clear whether the structure behind the palm tree is an ikria or an altar and this ambiguity may have been a deliberate morphing of ship components with the paraphernalia of cult, intended to express a kind of hybridity.146 As Goodison observed, the sea surrounded by cult sites on the Ring of Minos may be read as a hill with such structures upon it.147 The combination of ambiguity with gendered aspects of land and sea may suggest that the sea was considered an extension




























































140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147

Helms 1988. Helms 1988. Foucault 1986. Allweill and Kallus 2008. Driver 2004. Foucault 1986. Davaras 2004, 9. Goodison 2010, 26.

122

CHAPTER 6

of the landscape.148 The selection and combination of normally disparate images, their use as symbols rather than literal depictions of an event, and their subsequent miniaturisation inevitably results in hybrid scenes that, although tiny, speak volumes. The images communicate the combination of ritual and cosmology with maritime activities such as travel, trade, colonisation, gendered landscape/seascape, land-derived empowerment, power over the sea, the extension of the center to the periphery, and prestige through knowledge of distance and exoticism. The sea and ships may have even been associated with death; the sea’s liminality contributing to its conceptualisation in many traditional societies as a place which the dead are required to traverse in order to reach the afterlife.149 Conclusion To conclude, rather than seeing these glyptic images of trees, human figures, cult structures, boats and the sea as depictions of a vague sea-deity, literal ritual events, or the movement of an actual tree in a boat from one cult site to another, comparison with Canaanite religion has shown that such images can be interpreted more precisely. The necessarily edited nature of images engraved within the glyptic medium means that although evocative of genuine cosmological concepts and ritual responses thereto, these images are signs rather than actual scenes. As such, however, they are multivocal and convey a combination of messages including: the nature of the numinous landscape power in the form of a tree that protects boats and seafaring; the association of elite figures with such a power through images of ritual interaction with trees, rocks and architectonic structures that represent groves and mountains in conjunction with a seascape; and the implied prestige and power that the owners of such images would obtain through association with such imagery. The Mochlos Ring depicts an elite female figure in an enacted epiphanic pose, seated upon a stepped ashlar altar that includes a tree, inside a self-propelled hippocamp-headed boat. The Makrygialos Seal depicts a female figure performing a cultic salute toward a tree situated inside a boat. In the Amnissos Ring elite figures communicate with a hovering epiphanic tree deity in the vicinity of a boat. A female figure in a hippocamp-headed boat upon the sea is surrounded by three cult structures in the Ring of Minos. Each image is a glyph of the protective power of the Minoan tree deity over maritime voyaging, whether to a nearby Cycladic trading partner, a colony, or to a distant eastern Mediterranean destination. The empowerment of the expedition through supernatural patronage emphasises Minoan land-based power over the sea and extends the Cretan landscape outward to incorporate the seascape. The containment of the iconographic motifs within the confines of a gold ring or stone seal functions to concretise the combined components into a talisman ensuring successful seafaring and the material and conceptual benefits derived therefrom, thus the objects can therefore be interpreted as thalassocratic charms.































































148 149

Berg 2010. Berg 2011, 15, 121; Coldstream 2008.

CHAPTER 7 TREES IN THE LEVANT AND EGYPT As we have seen, Crete was in contact through trade with the Levant and Egypt from the Early Bronze Age with interaction intensifying in the early second millennium, and influence on Crete of aspects of Levantine and Egyptian religion was part of that relationship. Evans claimed that the sacred trees and stones characteristic of Minoan religion were essentially the same as those mentioned in the Bible which he interpreted as exemplifying ancient Semitic cult; that the religions of both regions were aniconic; and were influenced by Egypt. We have already seen that while Minoan religion had aniconic aspects, it was primarily characterised by physiomorphism and anthropomorphism, we know this was also the case in Egypt, and it will be shown to be the case in the Levant as well. This chapter argues that, rather than being characterised by aniconism, iconographic and archaeological evidence from the Middle and Late Bronze Age Levant and Egypt supports an overt visual and conceptual equation between sacred trees and anthropomorphic goddesses. In order to support this contention, the chapter begins by examining the previous scholarship by Evans in which he attempted to explain Minoan religion by reference to the Hebrew Bible. This will be followed by a survey of examples of sacred trees in the biblical text and the identification of the biblical term asherah with the Ugaritic goddess Athirat, elaborating on her association with rulership, particularly queenship. The chapter then moves away from the textual evidence of Iron Age Israel and Late Bronze Age Canaan to focus upon earlier iconographic representations of sacred trees and the goddesses associated with them in the Middle and Late Bronze Age regions of Syro-Mesopotamia, the Levant and Egypt, contemporary with Minoan and Mycenaean civilisations. This is followed by investigation into the types of cult sites associated with sacred trees as described in the biblical text, subsequent to which palatial and cult sites chronologically contemporary with, and in the same three regions as, the iconographic evidence are examined for indications of the presence of a sacred tree. The chapter concludes that sacred trees in the ancient Levant and Egypt were identified with goddesses associated with the life force as manifest in female sexuality and vegetal fertility and which were popular with all levels of society and explicitly associated with the institute of kingship. Previous Scholarship Evans considered Crete and the Levant to be at a similar early stage of religious evolution characterised by aniconism. In his opinion “Semitic cult” was aniconic and had never embraced anthropomorphism but instead clung to what he considered a primitive form of religion. He asserted that “the Greeks transformed their rude aniconic idols into graceful human shapes...[but] the conservative East maintained the old cult in its pristine severity”, not wanting to “sacrifice the awe and dignity of spiritual conceptions to the human beauty of anthropomorphic cult”. Evans proposed that there was a “very deep-lying continuity” between Cretan and Levantine religions, characterised by this tendency toward primitive aniconism as manifest in sacred trees and stones, and that this was probably a result of Semitic influence on Crete, although not necessarily of “direct borrowing”.1 Evans felt that descriptions of “Epiphanies and Visions of the Divine Presence beneath sacred trees and beside holy stones and pillars” found in the biblical text were examples of early aniconic Semitic religion and that they explained scenes of tree cult on Minoan signet rings.2 He cited in particular the




























































1 2

Evans 1901, 130–4. Evans 1901, 130–131.

124

CHAPTER 7

appearance of God to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre (Gen. 18:1), Moses and the Burning Bush (Exd. 3:4), the appearance of the “Angel of the Lord” to Gideon beneath his father’s terebinth (Jud. 6:11), Joshua’s setting up of the Stone of Witness under an oak tree at Shechem (Josh. 24:26), and Deborah sitting under her palm tree (Judg: 4:4) as examples of numinous trees. These animate trees also emitted oracular sounds and voices (2 Sam. 5:24; Judg. 4:4–5) and had powers of locomotion, as in the example of the trees that went out to choose a king (Judg. 9: 8). Evans links these trees to the cultic object termed in the biblical text an “asherah”, which he interpreted as a living tree or dead post or pole that was erected next to pagan Canaanite as well as Israelite Yahwist altars, although he specifically eschewed the idea that the asherah represented a female deity, maintaining that such an object did not refer to a Canaanite goddess called Asherah. Evans also disagreed with the Greek translation in the Septuagint which rendered “asherah” to mean alsos “grove”. Despite rejecting the idea of the tree as a Canaanite goddess associated with groves, Evans did believe that in Semitic thought trees, stones and pillars functioned as three different types of abode for a single divinity, although he did not specify exactly which divinity this was. Proposing that Levantine and Cretan religion had close interconnections and perhaps even an “underlying ethnic community”, thus explaining similarities in their religion, Evans also suggested that the similarities may be due to the influence of Egypt on both Crete and the Levant.3 Biblical and Ugaritic Texts Evans was using the biblical text to shed light upon Minoan tree cult because he thought it supplied examples of ancient Semitic religion. The biblical text is chronologically the most recent source of evidence for Levantine tree cult, however, dating to the IA II (1000–586 BCE), probably having been codified around 600 BCE.4 While some scholars argue that the biblical texts were composed and edited during the existence of the United Monarchy and the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel (ca. 1000– 586 BCE), others insist that they are late compilations, collected and edited by priests and scribes during the Babylonian exile and the restoration (6th and 5th centuries BCE), or even as late as the Hellenistic period (4th–2nd centuries BCE). Although the biblical texts purport to describe events occurring in the distant past, these were probably highly edited versions of such stories coloured by events in the IA II.5 Regardless of the exact period within IA II, the biblical text dates to a much later period than the Minoan Neopalatial period and the flourit of the glyptic scenes of tree cult. The biblical text does, however, contain a lot of material on sacred trees, the most famous biblical trees being the mythological “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil” and the “Tree of Life”, situated within the Garden of Eden (Gen 1:29–3:24). Trees feature in the narrative of the patriarchs such as Abraham who, along with building an altar to Yahweh at the Oak of Mamre, planted a tamarisk tree near Beer-Sheba (Gen. 21:33; 13:18), and Moses who spoke to Yahweh in the form of a burning bush (Exod. 3:2–3). Trees are used as metaphors in Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon, they are used in an oracular mode in Samuel, and feature in the visions of Ezekiel and Daniel. Most of these interactions with trees are presented in an unproblematic manner, however, when it comes to trees in conjunction with cultic activity the tone of the biblical text becomes punitive and the human participants are accused of betraying the true god, Yahweh. In Exodus, Deuteronomy, Judges, 1 and 2 Kings, Chronicles, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Micah, Ezekiel, and Hosea, trees – or their representatives, artificial trees or pillars – at cult sites are singled out as characteristic of incorrect “Canaanite” religious practice and allegiance to foreign gods by the Children of Israel. This negative portrayal of cultic trees in the Bible is alluded to by Evans but not elaborated upon, focussing as he does primarily on numinous trees from, or in the vicinity of which, deities, angels and voices emerge.6




























































3 4 5 6

Evans 1901, 133 n.3, 4, 135. Ackerman 1992. Finkelstein and Silberman 2001. Evans 1901, 132.

TREES IN THE LEVANT AND EGYPT

125

The difference in portrayal of trees in the biblical text where, when represented in mythical, metaphorical and oracular contexts, trees are depicted in a generally benevolent or at least emotionally neutral manner is in contrast to their description as part of cultic practice when the tone changes to one of ire. This probably expresses a minority view held by urban, literate elites who wanted to promote a Jerusalem-based Yahwistic monotheism. It also shows, however, that tree cult was occurring in both the wider landscape of Israel amongst the general populace during the late Iron Age, as well as at the Jerusalem Temple amid the royal family, as will be explained below. As well as describing popular cult activity as taking place “on every high hill and under every green tree”, an expression that occurs in some form or another 15 times in the Bible7 and which alerted scholars to the existence of Syro-Palestinian rural cult sites in the first place, contra Evans, the actual tree or its representative at such sites; the asherah represented by a tree, truncated tree, sacred pillar or cultic pole, is now understood to refer to a female deity. The discovery in 1929 of the Ugaritic corpus of texts, dating to the LBA, ca.1550–1200 BCE, alerted scholars to the existence of the actual goddess Asherah (Ugaritic Athirat, Ashirta) who, as we know is a divine queen, mother of the gods of the Ugaritic pantheon and wife of the chief god, El.8 It is now generally agreed that the biblical asherah refers to the Canaanite goddess Asherah. Asherah is mentioned 40 times in the Hebrew Bible, six of those involve her being paired with the Canaanite deity Baal, the storm god. As wife of the Ugaritic El, who also appears in the Bible as an alternative name for Yahweh, it is unsurprising that Asherah is also eventually paired with Yahweh who takes over characteristics from both El (patriarch of the pantheon) and Baal (storm god). Two extra-biblical inscriptions from southern Levantine IA II sites, Kuntillet ‘Ajrud and Khirbet El-Qom, also pair Yahweh and Asherah, reading; “I bless you by the Yahweh of Samaria and by his Asherah” and “Yahweh of Teiman and his Asherah”;9 and “Blessed be Uryahu by Yahweh / his light by Asherah, she who holds her hand over him.”10 Asherah may have been associated with the trees in the Garden of Eden – Eden itself being the biblical version of El’s sacred place, while the name of the first woman, Eve, so closely associated with the trees, means “life” (Gen. 3: 6) perhaps alluding to Asherah’s role as a fertility and mother goddess. Keel and Uehlinger propose that the association of trees with a goddess was gradually replaced during the IA II by an association with a male deity, particularly Yahweh – his appearance in the burning bush in Exodus and his auditory oracular presence in 2 Samuel perhaps being textual evidence of this. Still, there are many examples of Israelites performing religious acts in the vicinity of sacred groves, trees or their symbolic representatives, the asherim,11 including members of the Judean royal family (1 Kings 15:13, 16:33; 2 Chronicles 15:16). Tree cult may have even occurred within the First Temple at Jerusalem. The Jerusalem temple was the royal chapel of the Judean monarchy and was located next to the palace. Along with two-dimensional tree imagery decorating the temple itself, as suggested by the visions of Ezekiel (41:18, 19), Wyatt suggests that the menorah was intended to evoke the burning bush of Exodus.12 As mentioned in Chapter 1, both the queen of the northern kingdom, Jezebel, and of the southern kingdom, Maaccah, participated in Asherah cult.13 Olyan suggests that worship of Asherah was part of normative Jerusalem cult and that Asherah may have been worshipped side-by-side with Yahweh in the official religion of the southern kingdom of Judah.14 Ugaritic texts show that the role of queen mother at Ugarit was associated with Asherah, queen of the Ugaritic pantheon.15 It is likely that




























































7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15

Fried 2002, 440. Binger 1997. Zevit 2001, 374. Dever 1970; Binger 1997, 94. A selection being Judges 3:7; I Kings 14:23 – 24; 2 Kings 17:9-10; Isaiah 57:5–8; Jeremiah 17:2; and Hosea 4:12–13. Wyatt 2007, 189–90. As did various kings: 1 Kings 16:33; 2 Kings 16:4, 21:3, 7; 2 Chronicles 28:4, 33:3, 19; Jeremiah 3:6. Olyan 1988, 9. Wiggins 1993, 63–66.

126

CHAPTER 7

Israel’s monarchy retained influences from their Canaanite ancestors and that, as at Ugarit, the human figure of the queen mother was actually an earthy counterpart of the goddess Asherah. It would be natural therefore for her to offer cult to her patron deity.16 That sacred trees associated with royalty was a broader Near Eastern concept at this time may be seen in the Assyrian relief carvings depicting the king and the sacred tree. An oracular formula in the Ugaritic Epic of Baal that mentions “a word of tree and a whisper of stone” has been interpreted by N. Marinatos as referring to the type of activity depicted in Minoan glyptic images of tree cult in which human figures interact with trees and lean over large stones.17 Ugaritic mythological texts may contain material dating back to the MBA and we know that there was contact between Crete and Ugarit during that period from the Minoan merchants attested at Ugarit in the early MBA. Along with the Levantine textual evidence from the IA and LBA, contemporary iconographic and archaeological evidence also point to a belief in a female tree deity as well as to cult sites where this deity may have been worshipped as a literal tree. Such evidence is not directly useful in regards to the question of the influence of Levantine tree cult on Bronze Age Crete, however, therefore the chapter will now turn to look at the MBA and LBA evidence for an association of trees and goddesses. Iconography – The Imaginary and Symbolic Syro-Mesopotamian Glyptic, Sculpture, and Wall Painting In late EBA III and MBA IIB (2300–1700 BCE) Syria, glyptic and fresco images depict highly stylised trees in conjunction with female figures. Such figures appear as the trunk or root of a tree, as a palm tree flanked by fishes and caprids, or in anthropomorphic form standing next to a tree. In these compositions the tree is closely associated with water which is sometimes depicted literally or suggested by the presence of fish. An Akkadian cylinder seal from Mari dating to between 2300–2200 BCE depicts two goddesses with leafy branches emerging from their shoulders and body flanking a god seated on a mountain (Fig. 152). The goddesses’ feet are submerged in streams that pour from two animal heads emerging from the base of the mountain.18 A white stone statue of a goddess holding a vase from which water and fishes flow, found in Court 106 of the palace of Zimrilim at Mari and dating to the 18th century BCE, provides another connection between goddesses, water and plants (Fig. 153).19 Glyptic images depicting similar iconography suggest that this vase may have originally held a plant.20 Such is the case with two divine female figures that appear in the fresco of the Investiture Scene from the palace at Mari who also hold vases containing small trees and with streams of water flowing out of them (Figs 154a, b, 155). 21 The fresco painting of the Investiture Scene (2.4 x 1.8m) was situated on the south wall of Inner Court 106, known as “The Court of the Palm”, immediately west of the doorway leading into the Throne Room (Room 64) (Fig. 156).22 The central panel of the painting depicts the king of Mari, Zimrilim (r. 1779–1761 BCE), dressed in an elaborate robe and wearing a dome shaped headdress, facing the




























































16 17 18

19 20 21 22

Ackerman 1998, 154. Wyatt 2007; Marinatos 2009. Winter 1983, Fig. 459; Keel 1998, 2, Fig. 7. Ziffer does not think the female figures in this seal depict tree goddesses per se, but manifestations of water and the power of fertility and mountainous locations where springs watered trees. Ziffer 2010, 411 n.3. Parrot 1959, 5–7, Pls. IV–VI. Porada 1948, No.929; Keel 1998, 22 Fig 6; Selz 2014, 660, fig. 7. Parrot 1958, 54, 58, 63, Pls. VIII–XIV; Ziffer 2010, 417. As Ziffer (2010, 417) notes, rather than be termed “Court of the Palms”, as interpreted from the Mari texts by the excavator Parrot and identified as indicating Court 131, in fact the correct term is “Court of the Palm”, singular, thus suggesting that the court was not a palm grove but only contained a single palm tree as is implied by the stone “flower pot” discussed by Margueron (1987), below.; Charpin 1983.

TREES IN THE LEVANT AND EGYPT

127

goddess Ishtar who hands him the rod and ring, symbols of divine justice.23 The goddess stands facing the king in her canonical warlike pose with her right leg uncovered by her split-skirt garment and her right foot resting upon a recumbent lion. She wears a horned crown and war attire, weapons rise above her shoulders and she holds a curved axe in her left hand. Her right hand is stretched out toward Zimrilim and holds the rod and ring. Supplicant goddesses (lamassu) wearing long flounced garments and horned crowns flank both Ishtar and Zimrilim and another male god stands to the right. The scene probably evokes a ritual enacted in Sanctuary 66 of the Court of the Palm. Its proximity to the Throne Room indicates the importance of the iconography to the ruler. In the lower register two female figures (minor goddesses) face each other, both holding vases out of which trees grow and four streams of water containing fish flow. These two dimensional images correspond to the above mentioned stone statue, probably one of an original pair that were situated outside the Throne Room. In the fresco, the upper and lower scenes in the central panel are separated by a row of six lines, thought to represent the actual stairway of Sanctuary 66. The central panel is also bordered by a frame consisting of six lines that probably correspond to the recessive indented doorway of the sanctuary.24 Outside these lines on either side of the Investiture Scene are stylised trees flanked by griffins, sphinxes and bulls situated on three ascending levels. The bulls, which are on the lowest level, have their right front feet resting upon mountains; both symbols evoke the storm god. These supernatural and powerful animals in turn are flanked by two naturalistic date palm trees, each of which has two date-pickers situated midway up the tree and large doves sitting in the fronds. Minor suppliant goddesses stand behind the palm trees at the outer limits of the image. The sacred trees may have corresponded to sculpted or painted versions that flanked the entrance to the sanctuary, a feature known in other instances of Near Eastern architecture dating back to the 3rd millennium.25 The entire fresco is bordered by running spirals, perhaps signifying water, and another border of dome-like shapes with knobs on their tops, reminiscent of breasts, surrounds the spirals. Parrot proposed that the fresco depicted Court 106, the adjacent Throne Room 64, and the innermost Hall 65 where the Investiture ceremony actually took place. 26 Al-Khalesi suggests that the fresco is a figurative representation of the actual architectural form of Sanctuary 66 and depicts a ritual event occurring inside this structure during which Ishtar’s patronage of the institute of kingship and accompanying bestowal of her qualities of bellicosity, sexual vigour and fertility upon the king were made explicit through ritual.27 The “Pantheon of Mari” tablet mentions two goddesses, Bēlet-ekallim (“Mistress of the Palace”) and Ishtar ša ekallim (“Ishtar of the Palace”) suggesting close association of the deities with the palace. Bēletekallim was the patron of the Lim dynasty and accompanied Zimrilim into battle, while Ishtar was a major Babylonian deity with associations of war and fertility. Her name, Ishtar ša ekallim, may indicate that she was a permanent resident of the palace with a sanctuary inside the building, possibly Sanctuary 66, or that this was the sanctuary used when she “visited”. Mesopotamian deities were known to visit kings for events such as the reaffirmation of the king at the New Year’s festival, the inauguration of a newly constructed palace, and to celebrate military victories over other rulers. The Investiture Fresco confirms a close association between Zimrilim, the ruler of Mari, and the goddess Ishtar. The fresco may in fact depict the annual New Year’s festival during which the king was reenthroned. Iconographic representation of the king in front of the goddess signified that the enthronement of the king and his rule were sanctioned by the deity while the combination of Ishtar and the trees suggest the qualities of power, fertility and the king’s beneficence to his subjects.28




























































23 24

25 26 27 28

Black and Green 1992, 156. Parrot 1958, 132, Pls. XXVII–XXXI. Actually 11 stairs, and the 2 recessions on each side of the doorway in conjunction with the facade and stairway walls make up 6 surfaces. Giovino 2007, 182. Parrot 1950, 37–40. Al-Khalesi 1978, 37; Gates 1994, 70–87. Margueron 2008, 27.

128

CHAPTER 7

Ishtar, the Akkadian version of the Sumerian Inanna whose name means “Lady of Heaven”, was the most important female deity of ancient Mesopotamia during all periods. Her association with the palm tree probably derived from her having originated as the numen of the date storehouse.29 The Mari fresco can perhaps be read as depicting Ishtar in various phases of manifestation from a physiomorphic date palm represented in naturalistic style, to a sacred tree depicted non-naturalistically and perhaps akin to the later biblical asherah pole or Assyrian stylised tree, to her anthropomorphic representation as a female deity. The closer Ishtar gets to the king the more human in form she appears, indicating the importance of the king who sees the deity face-to-face, implying that he is also divine or at least important enough to receive attention from a divinity.30 The fresco may also imply a sacred marriage between Ishtar and the king, as well as have symbolised a special relationship with, and affirmation of, the king by the actual landscape in the form of the numen of the date palm.31 The Mesopotamian concept of the palm tree as a symbol of Ishtar was adopted in the Levant during the MBA through the mediation of Mari. As well as being a symbol of Ishtar and her domains of warfare, sex and fertility, the palm is also a solar symbol, an image of the king and of the virtues associated with kingship such as justice, power over chaos, and the ability to assure the fruitfulness of the earth. The picking of dates, as seen in the naturalistic trees in the fresco, refers to real life activities but may also evoke the idea of the sacred marriage; date clusters and breasts are equated in erotic poetry as objects of desire. The date palm is a symbol of wealth and abundance and as we have seen is coupled with the image of running water. In architecture the palm functioned as an apotropaic device and signified a temple gateway, the place of the god’s manifestation and abode. At Mari such referents to a divine dwelling place, perhaps manifest as a paradisiacal garden, may have been used to suggest the well-ruled kingdom.32 That the symbolic relationship between a female deity, a tree and the institute of kingship found at Mari may have influenced elite ideology in Crete can be proposed from the fact that the Minoans had contact with Mari at this time. The Mari tablets show two-way trade in raw materials and luxury objects between Crete and Mari and the Mari palace may have been the prototype for the original Cretan palace, so the concept of a sacred tree and ideas linking goddesses, trees and kingship may have been transmitted to Crete at this time.33 Levantine Metal Pendants, Figurines and Plaques Pear-shaped sheet gold and electrum pendants (ca. 8 x 5cm) depicting an abbreviated female figure with a prominent pubic triangle above which is situated a tree or branch provide further iconographic evidence for an elite association between trees and goddesses (Fig. 157). Dating to the transition from the MBA to the LBA (ca. 1550 BCE), the pendants have been found at the Levantine sites of Tell Nebi-Mend, Ugarit, Minet el-Baida, Megiddo, Lachish and Tell el-‘Ajjul. 34 Termed “Astarte” pendants, but also identified as Anat or Asherah, they consist of abbreviated female characteristics limited to faces surrounded by Hathoric coiffures, small breasts, and a pubic triangle. A tree or branch is positioned centrally on the pendants, directly above the pubic triangle, perhaps indicating that it is growing from either the navel or genitalia. Such imagery suggests an equation between female sexuality, fertility and vegetation, although some examples, such as that from Megiddo Stratum VII do not feature a tree. As well as depicting a nude female, the piriform shape of the pendants may be intended to evoke the female pudenda, those with incised designs running along the outside edge perhaps signifying pubic hair. Platt proposes that this jewellery form was analogous to a type with




























































29

30 31 32 33 34

Jacobsen 1976, 36, 135. In the myth of Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the Netherworld Inanna transplants a sacred halub tree to Uruk, from the wood of which her throne and bed are eventually made. Black and Green 1992, 109. Marinatos 2010, 60, 78–81. Jacobsen 1976, 39; Black and Green 1992, 157–8; Matsushima 2014. Kantzios 1999. Aubert 2013, 252, n.21; Yasur-Landau 2010, 833; Watrous 1987; Marinatos 2010, 60. Negbi 1970; 1976.

TREES IN THE LEVANT AND EGYPT

129

more abstract triangular shaped pendants worn on a girdle around the hips, emphasising the female genital region.35 Gold and bronze plaques similarly shaped to the piriform Astarte pendants depict a full view of a nude female, possibly a goddess, en face, who wears a Hathor wig and holds animals or plants (one example has snakes behind her) and stands on a lion (Fig. 158). Such images exhibit characteristics of the canonical Mesopotamian nude goddess that dates back to the EBA and which were prolific after the Ur III Dynasty (2119–2004 BCE).36 Rather than holding their breasts as Mesopotamian and Syrian examples do, however, these Levantine examples hold objects such as plants and animals.37 Although not holding trees per se, Keel proposes that they depict a female creator deity associated with vegetation in line with the long Near Eastern iconographic tradition of using vegetation motifs to evoke the fertile and nourishing forces of nature.38 The piriform pendants may depict the same divine female figure as the MBA and LBA sheet gold, silver or bronze peg- and dagger-shaped figurines and pendants from Ugarit, Byblos, Kamid el-Lodz, Nahariyah, Megiddo, Tell el-‘Ajjul and Gezer (Figs 159a, b). Unlike the piriform examples, these stylised female images depict entire, although cursory, female bodies, the feet of which taper to a point. The pointed base suggests that these figurines could have been stuck upright in the earth as miniature cultic poles or asherim, although suspension loops at the top of some examples indicate that they were hung. Examples from Tel el-Ajjul and Kamid elLodz have trees or branches upon their head, reminiscent of the Egyptian artistic device of signifying the type of deity by their head or headdress. 39 Levantine Glyptic Contemporary with these metal objects are 44 scarabs from the southern Levant on which are depicted an en face naked female figure, 38 examples of which also include branches either held by the figure, forming part of her pubic region, or surrounding her (Fig. 160).40 The naked female motif in Levantine glyptic may derive from Syrian glyptic art where a nude goddess is usually flanked by worshippers or facing a male figure, especially a weather god.41 In the Levantine scarabs the female figure appears alone on the seals perhaps because there was less room to depict a more elaborate grouping of figures than on cylinder seals, although in many Babylonian and Syrian examples the nude female, while surrounded by other figures, also appears to stand alone.42 Like the gold and electrum Astarte pendants, the Levantine glyptic examples in which the vegetation is directly associated with the female figure’s pubic region may have been intended to convey the idea that vegetation grows from her genitalia.43 In an example from Tell Aphek the female figure merges with a tree trunk, evocative of the Akkadian seal mentioned above.44 In other examples trees grow from or near a female head; trees are flanked by sphinxes and other animals such as caprids; and male and female figures perform cultic gestures towards trees which are sometimes surmounted by a female head (Fig. 161).45 That the iconographic motif of a divine female figure in conjunction with trees appears on objects made of prestigious materials and on seals indicates a high status for this motif and that Levantine elites worshipped a goddess associated with the fecundity of the natural world.




























































35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

44 45

Platt 1975; Keel and Uehlinger 1998, 54; Benzel 2013. Maxwell-Hyslop 1971, 138–10; McGovern 1985. Although the breast-holding pose is also prevalent in the Levant. Budin 2015b, 3. Keel 1998, 25; Crowley 1989, 64; Åström 1983, 175–6; Kantzios 1999, 424. Negbi 1976, 80–2, 95, 97; McGovern 1985, 31–5; Keel 1998, 25–6; Ilan 1998, 308. Keel, Keel-Leu and Schroer 1989, 97–100; Keel 1995, 117; Budin 2015b, 5. Keel and Uehlinger 1998, 26–7. Winter 1983. Keel, Keel-Leu and Schroer 1989, 97–8, Nos. 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 17, 20, 24, 45. As is also the case in Fig. 156 the Cycladic “Frying Pan”. Keel 1998, 26–7. Keel and Uehlinger 1998, 26–30.

130

CHAPTER 7

Levantine and Egyptian Terracotta and Stone Plaques That such a deity was also popular with non-elites is suggested by its appearance in the form of terracotta moulded figurines, on plaques, and painted decorations on earthenware vessels. Terracotta plaques of the “Qudšu” type are attested in both the northern and southern Levant. Like the gold plaques and seals, these depict an en face nude female figure who wears a Hathor wig (or occasionally an Egyptian nemes); the figure’s arms are bent at the elbows and held out to either side of her body, and hold plants, birds or caprids (Fig. 162).46 The Qudšu plaques are so named because of the inscription QDŠT which derives from the Levantine qdš “holiness” on Egyptian stelae from the New Kingdom (1550–1069 BCE) that also depict this type of figure.47 In Egyptology these are termed “Qedešet” plaques and depict the female figure holding lotus or papyrus in her right hand and snakes in her left, standing on the back of a lion and flanked by the Levantine deity Rešef and the Egyptian deity Min (Fig. 163). In contrast, the Levantine examples do not include the male deities and although sometimes stand upon a lion or horse, mainly stand on a groundline. While the Egyptian version holds different objects in each hand, the Levantine version always holds the same thing in both hands. Instead of the branches or trees associated with the Levantine metal pendants, figurines and seals, the female figure in the Qudšu plaques holds Egyptian water plants such as lotus or papyrus flowers.48 The Levantine and Egyptian plaques combine the iconography of Mesopotamian Ishtar (the lion) with Egyptian imagery associated with Hathor (the coiffure and Egyptian vegetation), while the presence of the horse evokes the Levantine goddess Anat. Many scholars confidently identify the figures on the Qudšu-Qedešet plaques as the goddess Asherah because qdš may have been one of her epithets.49 This identification is contentious, however, as there is evidence that Qedešet was worshipped as an independent deity at Memphis and thus may have been an autonomous goddess with Canaanite origins that was adopted and developed in Egypt. In Budin’s opinion ancient Levantine viewers of the images would have interpreted the Qudšu plaques as depicting Astarte (the Levantine Ishtar) and the Egyptian “Qedešet” plaques as Hathor.50 Both these deities were associated with the combined themes of trees, sexuality, fruitfulness and rulership, subjects which are also in the sphere of Asherah/Athirat. That one of Qedešet’s Egyptian titles was “great of magic”, an epithet used of goddesses associated with the Pharaonic crown51 such as Isis may suggest that Qedešet could be identified at least thematically with Asherah/Athirat, considering the latter’s association with rulership in Byblos, Ugarit, Samaria and Jerusalem, although Qedešet was not worshipped specifically by the Pharaohs in Egypt.52 That qdš was also an epithet of El, husband of Athirat/Asherah, and of whom she may have also been a hypostasis, also links the term to the theme of rulership. Levantine Terracotta Figurine A Late Bronze Age terracotta figurine from Revadim may be another example of a tree goddess. This 11cm high mould-made terracotta figurine (another fragment of an identical figurine from Tell Aphek is 5.5cm) preserved from above the knees, consists of a nude female with long hair that falls down the front of her body and curls at the ends just above her protruding navel (Fig. 164). The hair may be




























































46

47 48 49

50 51 52

The above-mentioned gold plaques and scarab seal images are also of the Qudšu type. The term “Qudšu” (sometimes “Qadesh”) derives from the Egyptian QDŠT which is vocalized as Qedešet when applied to the Egyptian images. Budin 2015b, 2; Tadmor 1982; Keel and Uehlinger 1998, 66–68, 99. Cornelius 2004, 94. Ben-Arieh 1983; Ussishkin 1983, 110–111; Budin 2015a, 325. Albright 1954, 26; Cross 1973, 33–35; Maeir 1986, 81–96; Hadley 1989, 70–73; Cornelius 1989, 61; 1993; Day 1992, 484; Hadley 2000, 46–9, 191–2. The word “qdš” was also an epithet of El, it is morphologically masculine and therefore not appropriate for a female deity. Van Koppen and Van der Toorn 1999. Cornelius 2004, 94–101; Budin 2015a, 325. Gardiner 1988, 583. Cornelius 2004, 97.

TREES IN THE LEVANT AND EGYPT

131

intended to be a Hathor coiffure, even though it is longer than most examples.53 The figurine wears a crescent shaped pendant and two necklaces around her neck and three bracelets on each wrist. Her hands hold open her genital labia and a ridge situated above perhaps indicates pubic hair. Two babies rest on her upper torso, cradled in the curve of her arms, and suckle at her breasts (alternately they may be in utero, rendered transparently). Depicted on each of the figurine’s thighs are trees flanked by caprids which may be intended to evoke Egyptian style thigh tattoos, or to be symbolic.54 The figurine may represent the concept of birth, referring simultaneously to both the birth process and its result. It could portray a mother goddess suckling twins, reminiscent of the ivory plaque from the royal bed of Ugarit depicting the winged goddess suckling two royal children, perhaps the personification of dawn and dusk, Shahar and Shalem (Fig. 165). The trees and caprids on her thighs suggest an association with Asherah. Ostraka from nearby Philistine Ekron mentioning qdš and Asherah, although later dating to the 7th century BCE, may indicate a historical association of this goddess in the region and her subsequent adoption by the Philistines.55 Painted Pottery As suggested by the Investiture Scene fresco imagery from Mari, the divine female figure and the tree can be interchangeable and this is also the case in the Levantine iconographic repertoire.56 Stylised date palms flanked by caprids and fish depicted on painted pottery, as seen in the examples from Tell el-Far’a as well as the Tell al-Yahudieyeh rhyton-juglet from Jericho which also has an anthropomorphic female head atop the vessel, may depict physiomorphic images of the tree goddess (Figs 166, 167). Although the motif of horned animals flanking various types of trees is the most common decorative theme in LBA pottery from the southern Levant, that the palm tree-and-caprid motif is symbolic rather than literal is suggested by the fact that in reality palm trees are too tall for caprids to climb to reach the date clusters.57 The presence of fish in the examples from Tell el-Far’a and Jericho evoke the association of water with trees, as seen on the Akkadian seal and the fresco and stone statue of the goddess with vase from the palace at Mari, and may also suggest Asherah of the Sea.58 That female figures “stand in” for trees flanked by caprids is evident in the example of a MBA seal impression from Kültepe in which caprid heads emerge out of the shoulders of a naked female figure and a LBA Levantine style frieze on an ivory container from Mycenae featuring a nude female between antithetic recumbent goats (Figs 168, 169). Aegean style figures on an ivory pyxis fragment and a hematite cylinder seal from a LBA IIB chamber tomb at Ugarit both depict clothed female figures feeding two caprids, the former seated upon a mountain, suggesting divinity (Fig. 117).59 Further evidence of the interchangability of the tree and goddess can be seen in the example of the Lachish Ewer (Fig. 170). Found outside the Fosse Temple at Lachish but probably having been used in the sanctuary up until its destruction, this vessel dates to the late 13th century BCE and is decorated around the shoulder with a row of trees flanked by horned caprids, lions and birds. The lions and birds evoke Ishtar, the deer may point to Rešef who as we saw was one of the deities flanking the female figure on the Qedešet plaques, while one of the trees has a Levantine goddess name, ’Elat, written directly above it. ’Elat is the female form of El and another name of Asherah and in this instance forms part of an inscription; “Mattan. An offering to my Lady ’Elat”, indicating that this ewer was a gift to the tree goddess, hence her depiction upon it.60




























































53 54

55

56 57 58 59 60

Beck 1986; Budin 2015a, 322. Budin (2015a, 322) suggests that the trees and caprids on the figurine’s legs are a version of the Bes thigh tattoos common in Egypt. Beck 1986; Margalith 1994; Ornan (2007) believes the figurine represents a human and is a birth talisman. May 1939. Keel 1998, 31; Ziffer 2010, 412–3; Gimatzidis 2016. May 1939, 253. Schaffer 1929, 292, Pl.56; Gates 1992, 83; Keel 1998, 31. Tufnell 1940, 47.

132

CHAPTER 7

The tree can also be substituted by an inverted triangle, an essentially abstract aniconic symbol but with anthropomorphic resonance that evokes the pubic triangles of the metal pendants discussed above. Near Eastern iconographic examples of the pubic triangle in association with trees date to the Neolithic period, as can be seen in the Mari stela and incised pottery stands from Ur (Figs 171, 172).61 It is also evident on a goblet found outside the Fosse Temple at Lachish upon which the motif of the tree flanked by caprids is replaced with a pubic triangle (Figs 173a, b). On this vessel four inverted triangles outlined in red paint, and covered with and surrounded by black dots, are flanked by antithetic rampant caprids. Interspersed between each of the four caprid-and-triangle images are vertical wavy lines, probably representing water.62 It appears then that the tree goddess could be represented as the caprid-and-tree motif, the anthropomorphic female figure feeding caprids, as well as the edited symbolic symbol for woman: the triangle. Egyptian Wall Painting, Funerary Equipment, and Texts In Egypt during the first half of the New Kingdom (18th and 19th Dynasties, 1539–1186 BCE) depictions of a tree goddess become prevalent in tomb paintings and reliefs, on Canopic chests and in the Book of the Dead. The canonical example depicts a tree from which a breast and arm protrude; the Pharaoh Thutmosis III (r. 1479–1425 BCE) suckles at the breast (Fig. 174).63 Similar examples include a breast and arms holding a tray of food emerging from a palm tree, and arms pouring water jars emerging from sycamore trees (Figs 175, 176). An example on a limestone stela dating to the 19th Dynasty depicts a sycamore tree from which two arms extend providing food and drink to the deceased, Kamose, and his wife (Figs 176). The tree goddess also appears in full anthropomorphic form in conjunction with the trunk of the tree so that the lower half of her body forms part of the tree, while at other times she stands separately in front of the tree with her whole body visible (Figs 177 and 178). In the tomb of Amenmose (ca.1327–1323 BCE) the goddess stands within the tree whilst distributing food and drink to the ba-birds of the deceased.64 Chapter 59 of the Book of the Dead in the Papyrus of Ani (late 18th Dynasty) depicts the deceased kneeling at a pool in the midst of which a sycamore tree is growing. The goddess Nut is manifest in human form down to the knees with her lower extremities hidden in the tree. She extends her arms toward the deceased with a tray of food in one hand and a jar of water in another. In Chapter 68 the deceased is sitting at the feet of an entirely anthropomorphic figure of Hathor who is seated on a throne with a palm tree behind her. The tree goddess is also depicted as a fully anthropomorphic female figure with a tree upon her head, as in the painting from the tomb of Nakht in Thebes (ca.1392–1382 BCE) (Fig. 179). In this example the tree goddess is depicted twice on either side of an offering table as a female figure with a tree upon her head. She holds a tray of food and a long papyrus stem, symbolic of prosperity. On an 18th Dynasty stela a goddess with a cow’s head emerges from a tree (Fig. 180).65 Goldwasser suggests that the sacred nurturing tree is a metaphor that links the idea of motherhood with fruit-bearing trees, both of which provide care, shade, milk (white sebum) and water (water sources near trees), supply food and shelter.66 The Egyptian motif of the tree goddess tends to evolve from the physiomorphic, with the portrayal of an animate nurturing tree characterised by the presence of arms and sometimes a breast, to the anthropomorphic in which a complete female figure is associated with a tree, although images of trees




























































61 62 63

64 65 66

Ziffer 2010, 412. Hestrin 1987; Ziffer 2010, 415. Keel 1998, 36–7; Verhoeven 1998, 484. Buhl (1947, 86) says it was an oleander, although these are poisonous. This semi-anthropomorphic tree is preceded by a single example of a tree with an arm depicted on the standard of the nome of Hierokonopolis-Kush dating to the Fifth Dynasty (2494–2345 BCE) suggesting that anthropomorphic characteristics may have been combined with trees in iconography early on. Buhl 1947, 92–3. Buhl 1947, 86, 92, 94. Goldwasser 1995, 116, 125.

TREES IN THE LEVANT AND EGYPT

133

with arms continue into the Ptolemaic period.67 The tree is usually a sycamore fig or a date palm, and sometimes an unidentified shrub. In two examples the tree is a combined sycamore-palm tree (Fig. 181).68 Both the sycamore and the palm tree have connotations of “greenness”, symbolic of prosperity, fertility, and general good fortune.69 The Egyptian word for date palm means “sweet” and the word for “sycamore” could also mean “refuge” when written with the house determinative instead of the tree, perhaps referring to their big cavities in which the dead could shelter.70 That the sycamore has funerary and otherworldly associations is emphasised by its depiction in Egyptian afterlife topography as the tree in which deities dwell located on the eastern horizon. Pyramid Text 916a–b mentions the sycamore on the eastern horizon on whose branches the gods sit and Pyramid Text 1485a mentions a protective sycamore. Chapter 109 of the Book of the Dead describes two sycamores of turquoise which stand before the entrance to the sky from which the sun god comes forth every morning, while Chapter 64, probably one of the oldest chapters in the Book of the Dead, mentions one sycamore “I have embraced the sycamore and I have joined the sycamore”. Burial in a wooden coffin may have signified the return to the mother tree goddess; sycamore trees were often planted near tombs and models of sycamore leaves were used as funerary amulets. The tree goddess may have derived from the celestial sycamores and/or tomb and temple garden personification.71 Unlike the Levantine images of the tree goddess, the Egyptian examples are usually accompanied by an inscription naming the deity. In the oldest example of the nurturing tree featuring the Pharaoh Thutmosis, the inscription names the tree “his mother, Isis”. In examples in the Theban tomb paintings, the tree goddess is identified as the sky goddess, Nut. On funerary stelae from Abydos and tomb reliefs at Saqqara the tree goddess is again, Isis, while in the latest dated examples she is identified as Hathor, “Mistress of the West”, whose other epithets included “Lady of the Sycamore” and “Mistress of the Date Palm”. Both Isis and Hathor have explicit relationships to Kingship.72 Chapter 59 of the Book of the Dead in the Papyrus of Ani associates Nut with the sycamore, while in Chapter 68 Hathor is associated with the date palm.73 Keel notes a sometimes confusing combination of goddess names such as an example in which the tree goddess has the sign of Isis on her head but the inscription describes her as Hathor; another in which she has the sign of Neith on her head, the inscription describes her as Nut, but an accompanying text consists of a spell spoken by Hathor. In the Pyramid Text 825a–d Nut is associated with the dead, and from the 18th Dynasty onwards she is depicted on inner side of coffin lids and later on the bottom and sides of the coffin as well. During the 13th and 14th Dynasties texts refer to Nut dispensing food and drink to the dead. Hathor appears as a goddess of the dead especially in Thebes, and Pyramid Texts 1153b–1154b identify Isis with the location to which the dead were brought in the sky. Other goddesses, such as Maat, Imentet, Nephthys and Taweret are also named in connection with the tree goddess, perhaps signifying that the identity of the numinous tree changed according to the location and time period.74 Despite the association with known goddesses, the sacred tree in Pharaonic Egypt was not an official deity and did not have a temple or priesthood.75 While male deities were also associated with trees, they did not merge bodily with them in iconography as the female deities did. Pyramid Text 436a–b mentions the acacia as sacred to Horus, the Doum palm is associated with Thoth as well as Min, who is also associated with cypress trees and lettuce, and Sopdu and Sobk are associated with groves. In the Metternich Stela, Ra is described as a Bennu bird




























































67 68 69 70 71

72 73 74 75

Keel 1998, 36–7; Verhoeven 1998, 484. Goldwasser 1995, 116. Kantzios 1999. Buhl 1947, 80; Goldwasser 1995, 116, 125. Wilkinson 1992, 117; Baines 1984, 55; Goldwasser 1995, 119–20; Buhl 1947, 88; Wilkinson, A. 1998, 63– 170. Buhl 1947, 86; Bleeker 1973; Keel 1992; Goldwasser 1995; Keel 1997. Buhl 1947, 86. Buhl 1947; Bleeker 1973. Goldwasser 1995, 96, 117.

134

CHAPTER 7

sitting on the willow of the great hall of the princes in Heliopolis. Images of Amun-Ra, Thoth and Seshat writing the names of the reigning kings on the fruits and leaves of the Ished tree (probably a persea) date to the reign of Thutmosis III and were meant to grant the king a long life. In a scene from Medinet Habu Atum conducts the pharaoh to the Ished tree while Amun-Ra inscribes his name upon its fruits. Tombs of Osiris which were spread over many locations in Egypt each featured a sacred grove. At the temple of Philae a cedar tree was said to be the location of the ka of Osiris, and Osirian mythology relates that his coffin was enclosed within a cedar tree at Byblos after he had been killed by his brother Seth. In Chapter 109 of The Book of the Dead the sun god is depicted beside two sycamores in between of which stands a black and white spotted bull calf, and in a painting from the tomb of Sennedjen dating to the 19th Dynasty the newly risen sun in anthropomorphic form is seated upon a spotted bull calf that emerges from between the two sycamore trees on the horizon.76 Location in the Real Landscape We have seen that there is a tradition in the iconography of Syro-Mesopotamia, the Levant and Egypt for an association between – and even the interchangability of – trees, or more broadly vegetation, and female figures, as is also the case in images of tree cult in Minoan glyptic. Except for the Investiture Scene Fresco from the palace at Mari which may evoke a ritual event, unlike the Minoan examples the Levantine and Egyptian images primarily depict the female tree rather than ritual interaction of human beings with such a being at cult sites. What kinds of physical cult sites then, might numinous trees have been present at and are they similar to Minoan sites? Bāmôt The biblical text mentions a cult site termed a “bāmāh”, however, there is disagreement in the literature as to exactly what a bāmāh is.77 The noun ‘bāmāh’ occurs almost 100 times in the Hebrew Bible and is usually considered to be “a mound or knoll for purposes of cultic worship”. The term is thought to derive from the Ugaritic “bmt” (back or flanks).78 The Greek Septuagint translated bāmāh as upsilos – high place or mountain; however, while bāmāh is used occasionally in the Bible to designate elevated locations (2 Sam. 1.19; Isa 14.14; Job 9.8), it is actually used far more frequently to convey a strong cultic sense where height may not be implied. Along with hills and mountains, bāmôt are located in valleys, at rural locations and in urban settings including at the gates of cities. The term bāmāh can therefore be considered to mean “cultic place” without denoting a type of location at all.79 In general usage, however, the term bāmāh designates an open air cult precinct situated atop a natural or man-made elevation and characterised by the presence of altars, sacred stones (masseboth), sacred trees or the surrogate wooden poles (asherim), and built structures such as a “bayit”, a house or shrine, or roofed cult buildings.80 Bāmôt are often conflated with the phrase “on every high hill and under every green tree” which occurs in some form or another 15 times in the Hebrew Bible.81 That bāmôt were not exactly the same as such sites is suggested by 2 Kings 16:4 (= 2 Chron 28:4) in which King Ahaz is described as having performed cultic activities in the bāmôt and upon hills and under every green tree. Similarly 2 Kings 17:9–11 apparently distinguishes urban bāmôt from hill top installations featuring masseboth and asherim (cf. 1 Kings 14:23).82 Biblical minutiae aside, it may be the case that the term bāmāh designated architecturally elaborated cult sites such as sacred enclosures which could occur at high or




























































76 77

78

79 80

81 82

Buhl 1947, 80–97; Hays 2015; Wilkinson, A. 1998, 73. The Moabite Shrine or Mesha Inscription contains the only extant extra-biblical reference to the term bāmāh. Fried 2002, 441; Vaughn 1974; Barrick 1992. Fried 2002, 438. Bāmāh is also sometimes used by excavators for what should properly be called mizbe’ah, or altar, which can lead to confusion. Catron 1995, 150–2. As mentioned in 1 Kings 14.23; 2 Kings 18.4; 2 Chron 14.2–3; Ezek 6.3-4; Lev 26.30 and Isaiah 6.13. Barrick 1975, 566; Catron 1995, 153–5; Neiman 1948, 55–60; Irwy 1957. Ackerman 1992; Fried 2002, 440–1. Barrick 1992, 99.

TREES IN THE LEVANT AND EGYPT

135

low elevations and in rural or urban locations, whereas the expression mentioning high hills and green trees referred to non-architecturally elaborated more ephemeral cult sites. For convenience the term bāmāh will be used for both types of place and they will be considered to be cult sites characterised by the real or symbolic presence of mountains, stones, trees, altars and architectural structures.83 As in Crete, architecturally elaborate sites are more easily recognised than ephemeral sites. There is a tradition in the literature on bāmôt in which the term is used interchangeably with “peak sanctuary”, the term usually reserved for open air cult sites typically on mountains in Crete.84 Both types of sites do have similarities; the presence of trees and stones being the features that Evans focussed upon, particularly connecting the Levantine massebah, such as Jacob’s stone at Beth-El (Gen. 28. 14–22), with Minoan baetyls as similar types of animate stone.85 In Minoan archaeology the presence of a baetyl at a site sometimes leads to the assumption of an accompanying tree, no evidence of which survives but which iconography suggests were frequently paired with baetylic stones.86 This is also the case in the Levant where the biblical text pairs sacred trees with sacred stones. This often means that in Levantine archaeology the presence of massevoth at a site is taken to indicate the presence of asherim as well, even in the absence of actual traces of trees or wood. Archaeological evidence for trees including actual tree trunks, acorns, olive pits, nuts, wood ash, pits in rock, and architectural structures does occur at certain Levantine cult sites dating from the Late Neolithic period to the IA II; however, in the main, like the Aegean, actual trees are mostly absent. Bronze Age Bāmôt As mentioned above, the biblical text dates to the IA II period. There are many examples of chronologically corresponding urban and rural cult sites, as well as examples from the earlier IA I, that fit the description of “bāmāh” such as those at Mount Ebal, the Bull Site, Hazor, Arad, Tel Dan, Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, the Jerusalem Cave, Area E-207 at Samaria, En Haszeva, and Horvat Qitmit, but what about those from the Bronze Age that would have been contemporary with Minoan cult sites?87 That worship of a goddess associated with trees was undertaken by all levels of society including royalty has already been discussed in regard to the king of Mari, Zimrilim, and Ishtar, and the later Ugaritic, Judean and Israelite kings and queens who worshipped Asherah. In the biblical text kings assigned cult officials to the bāmôt and leaders such as Samuel and Saul performed sacrifice and burned incense at such locations.88 An association with elites and rural cult sites such as peak and cave sanctuaries was also evident in symbolic and iconographic aspects of Minoan monumental architecture, and an association with symbolic landscape seems to have been the case at Zimrilim’s palace at Mari. Although not technically a “bāmāh”, like the Minoan palaces architectural design features at the palace of Zimrilim may have evoked sacred locations situated in the surrounding landscape.






























































83 84

85 86

87

88

Massevoth may represent / symbolise mountains. Bloch-Smith 2006, 79. Biran 1981, 142; Levi 1981; Iakovidis 1981, 58; Dothan 1981 93; Marinatos 1993, 181; Cucuzza 2001, 172. Marinatos 2009b. Younger 2009. Of the Minoan examples, eight glyptic images depict trees together with baetyls: HM 989; 1043; CMS I No.126; II 3 No.114; II 3 No.252; II 3 No.305; II 6 No.2; II 6 No.6; VI 2 No. 281; XI No.29. In seven glyptic: HM 989; 1700; CMS I No.126; I No.191; II 3 No.114; II 3 No.252; II 6 No.2; VI No.278; VI 2 No. 281, the Knossos Throne Room fresco and the Zakros Rhyton, the baetyls are in conjunction with architectural structures and either trees or other vegetation. In CMS II 3 No.252; VS1A No.180; VI No.278 and II 6 No.2 the baetyls have what may be squills on top of them. In five examples: CMS II 6 No.4; II 7 No.6; Str. Ex. No. 80/1229 and Str. Ex 79/680 the baetyls are featured without vegetation. There is even Late Neolithic-Early Chalcolithic evidence for asherim and massevoth at Eilat and En Gedi. Avner In Press; Mazar 2000. Catron 1995, 154.

136

CHAPTER 7

The Palace of Zimrilim at Mari We have already seen that the Investiture Scene fresco includes the depiction of both realistic and stylised trees, and we know from the Mari texts that there was a location within the palace called the “Court of the Palm.” While some scholars think this refers to the palms in the Investiture Scene, evidence suggests that there may have been an actual palm tree featured as part of the palace’s design. Located at the northern side of the city between a temple of Ishtar on its southwest side and a temple of Ninni-zaza and a ziggurat on its eastern side, the palace of Zimrilim is an almost rectangular structure measuring 200 x 120m. It covers an area of over 25,000m2 and consists of over 300 units including rooms, courtyards and corridors. That it originally had an upper storey means that this figure should be doubled (Fig. 156). The palace is arranged around two large public courtyards: Forecourt 131 and Inner Court 106. Forecourt 131 was accessed through the palace’s single entrance and gatehouse, situated close to its north eastern corner, and was probably a public meeting place open to lower status visitors such as workers, villagers and soldiers. Inner Court 106 is situated in the center of the palace and entry was via a doorway in the northwest corner of Forecourt 131 and along a bent access corridor. Inner Court 106 was decorated with frescoed walls, a doorway in its south wall lead to a double Throne Room and it was probably reserved for elites such as courtiers, diplomats and visitors on royal business. 89 Fragmentary cuneiform texts from the palace mention a “Court of the Palm” (initially interpreted as the plural “Palms”). The excavator, Parrot, perceiving that a large central area in Forecourt 131 was unpaved, suggested that it may have been planted with date palms and restored the area as having a screen of palm trees across the long side of the court in front of Room 132.90 Parrot proposed that this room (132), which has a brick podium at the back that may have supported a throne and originally featured frescoed walls, was the king’s “Audience Chamber”.91 There is no evidence for palm trees in this location, however, and such a row of trees would have obscured the view of the Audience Chamber where the king sat to watch and to be watched during public ceremonies. Alternately, if the trees were planted as a grove in the center of the court, as may be suggested by the missing paving, this too would disrupt public activities, ceremonies and general interaction within the court. Rather than Forecourt 131, Al-Khalesi suggests that the term “Court of the Palm”, ought to be identified with Inner Court 106 and that it refers to the palm trees depicted on the Investiture Scene fresco on the south wall to the west of the doorway of Throne Room 64. Although the fresco on the eastern side of the entry to Throne Room 64 depicted a sacrificial procession, Court 106 may have originally had several such frescoes depicting palm trees, although fragments of antithetic goats flanking a small tree situated upon a mountain are all that remain of any tree-themed paintings.92 That the term “Court of the Palm” may have referred to an actual palm tree, however, is suggested by Margueron on the basis of a square stone base found at the centre of Court 106, situated directly opposite Throne Room 64. Consisting of two superimposed limestone tiles, the lower of which is larger, measuring 110 x 120 x 42cm, while the upper one is smaller at 60 x 90 x 25.5cm, the superimposed tile structure features a deep hole in its center measuring 31.5 x 30 x 70cm. Margueron suggests that this is a “flower pot” for a date palm, although nothing was found within the hole. If the dais in Throne Room 64 was the support for a throne, the king would have sat between the frescoes and directly opposite the live palm tree in the courtyard (Figs 182a, b).93 While the cult activity depicted in the Investiture Scene fresco probably occurred in Sanctuary 66, the presence of an actual tree in Courtyard 106 would have brought the sacredness associated with Ishtar as the numen of the




























































89 90 91 92

93

Al-Khalesi 1978, 3–4. Parrot 1974, 114–15, Fig. 63. Parrot 1958, 57, 74, Pls. XVII–XXI, E. Al-Khalesi 1978, 10–11; Parrot 1958, 28. Gates (1994, 78) suggests that the Investiture Scene fresco was plastered over and covered by the Sacrificial Scene and actually dates to the 33rd or 35th regnal year of Hammurabi. Margueron 1987; Charpin 1983, 211–14; Ziffer 2010, 417.

TREES IN THE LEVANT AND EGYPT

137

date palm within the palace as a tangible physiomorphic presence, further enhancing the ruler’s status as specially favoured by the goddess. Qatna More akin to the biblical description of a bāmāh is a cult complex at Qatna, located between Mari and Byblos in Syria, associated with the Temple of Nin-Egal and the Royal Palace, dating to the MBA II– III to LBA (ca. 1700–1550) (Fig. 183). Described by Wright as a “Courtyard Temple” or “Palace Chapel” in the character of a bāmāh, the Qatna “High Place” is a sacred enclosure that consists of an unroofed rectangular walled structure, measuring 9.50 x 8.25m, which encompasses two smaller adjacent rectangular areas inside of which were found a standing stone or massebah and a carbonised tree stump, interpreted as an asherah. The main enclosure was evidently a court and the two booths containing the massebah and asherah may have been lightly roofed.94 A black stone showing traces of fire, found in the room adjoining the eastern wall of the Sanctuaire within the Temple of Nin-Egal, has been interpreted as a baetyl. Du Mesnil du Buisson suggested that it was an aniconic representation of the local deity worshipped before the installation of the goddess Nin-Egal. 95 Minoan style frescoes depicting a miniature landscape with palm trees amid rocks, papyrus, turtles, a dolphin, crab and a fish dating to the LB I, were found at Qatna in Room N in the north-western part of the palace, suggesting that Crete and Qatna were in contact.96 Megiddo An open air cult site on the mount of Megiddo in northern Israel is characterised by an elevated elliptical stone platform (Round Altar 4017) erected on the highest spot of the mount at 156.60m (Figs 184a, b). It is situated within an enclosure wall and surrounded by temple buildings. Evidence of cult activity on the site including rock cut and stone-built pits, small structures above the bedrock, part of a female figurine, pottery sherds and bones suggesting extensive animal sacrifice, date back to the PNB. Cult activity continued in the same location for a further three millennia with the Round Altar 4017 being built on the site in the EBA. The sacred area at Megiddo can be characterised as a bāmāh: it is located on an elevated site and the altar itself is elevated, in its final form measuring 10m in diameter by 1.50m high and requiring seven stone steps in order to ascend, roofed structures are also present and, although massevoth are not mentioned, there may have been a sacred tree. Ussishkin suggests that Brick Circle 4034, a mudbrick circle 10cm high by 2.25m in diameter, situated in the courtyard of Temple 4050, ought to be compared with the stone circle in the courtyard of the Chalcolithic temple at En Gedi which Mazar in turn suggested originally surrounded a sacred tree.97 Although there is no evidence for a tree in conjunction with the mudbrick circle at Megiddo, charcoal evidence shows the presence of various types of trees at the site in the Bronze Age, including Aleppo pine, olive, evergreen kermes oak and terebinth.98 Two springs were situated approximately 25–30 m below the bāmāh on the northern and western sides of the slope and the Great Temple, situated on the north east edge of the summit, was aligned with another spring at the bottom of the slope. The site was intervisible with other sacred mountain sites, such as the peak of Mount Carmel, originally associated with the cult of Baal – intervisibility of mountain sanctuaries also being a characteristic of Minoan peak sanctuaries.99 Despite various building programs around the central altar, the Megiddo bāmāh remained hypaethral for its entire history and evidence of animal sacrifice show that cult continued on at the site as before. 100




























































94

95 96 97 98 99 100

Du Mesnil du Buisson 1935, Pls. XXVII–XXXIII; Wright 1971a, 23; 1971b, 589, Fig. 4; 1985, 220, 245; 1992, 278. Blocher 2015, 15–16. Von Rüden 2015. Ussishkin 2015, 80; 1980, 11; Mazar 2000, 35. Lipschitz 2000; Lev-Yadun and Weinstein-Evron 2002, 335. Barber 2010; Davis 2014, 523–49. Loud 1948, 76; Ussishkin 2015; Ben-Tor 1994,

138

CHAPTER 7

Nahariyah Founded in the MBA IIA and flourishing until the second half of the LBA, the open air cult site at Nahariyah in northern Israel is located on the coast approximately 800m north of the River Ga’aton and near a freshwater spring (Fig. 185). The site is situated on a low hillock elevated about 2m above its surroundings and has been interpreted as a bāmāh. It consists of an open space with an accompanying temple and a feasting hall. In its first phase the cult site was characterised by a slightly raised space consisting of a circular conglomeration of stones, rubble and pebbles measuring about 6m in diameter and laid directly on the kurkar ground. This was subsequently enlarged to 14m, stone steps were added to the west of the circular structure, a stone pillar was placed at the south and the temple and feasting hall were added. A stone structure was subsequently added to the center of the bāmāh, the remains of which consist of two parallel walls measuring 4m long and 70–80cm high and which may have formed part of a rectangular cell the short sides of which were not preserved.101 Much evidence of cult activity, mainly dating to MBA II B, has been found at the site. An oily substance on the stones of the bāmāh was probably evidence of oil libations, while inside the feasting hall seven subsequent floors, 2m deep, show evidence of sacrifice, cooking and feasting. The early stratum contained silos and all the floor levels had stone bases on which stood wooden columns indicating that the structure was roofed.102 Dozens of kernoi with seven cups, lamps, tiny pottery vessels, fragments of incense stands, jewellry, Hyksos scarabs, weapons and animal and human figurines, and later Cypriot pottery were found around the open area, while black deposits found near the buildings may have come from metal furnaces. Evidence of metal working at the site included a mould for a casting weapons, another mould for casting a statuette of a horned female deity, possibly the goddess Anat, and the cut-out sheet metal female figurines discussed above (Figs 186, 159).103 The bāmāh was probably connected to a settlement 900m distant on the south bank of the River Ga’aton which may have originally been a small port for ships coming to the mouth of the river, and under the control of the Kabri palace nearby.104 Dothan suggested that the cult site was dedicated to Astarte or AsherahYam and arose because of the fresh water spring which would have attracted sailors.105 Tel ‘Ashir Tel ‘Ashir, dating to the Intermediate BA (2200–2000 BCE), is located near Netanya in northern Israel on a hill 48m above sea level and 500m from the sea and overlooks the coast, the southern bank of the Poleg stream, and the Sharon plain as far as the Samaria and Carmel ranges (Figs 187a, b). The site consists of two small hillocks, the cult site being located on the eastern one. The site is a bāmāh, characterised by the presence of two rows of 28 limestone kurkar massevoth, each surrounded by smaller stones and interspersed by long flat limestone altars embedded in the ground. Hearths were situated in the vicinity of the massevoth which were surrounded by a 0.5m high layer of ash containing sherds of cooking vessels, animal bones, jewellry, flint tools, and metal implements such as knives, daggers, awls, pins and a fish hook. In the center of the site, between the two rows of massevoth, was an open area where a mudbrick structure, 1.30 x 2.20m, was found close to the summit of the hill. The layer of ash surrounding this structure was deeper than elsewhere on the site suggesting that it may have been the main focal point of the site. The bāmāh may have also featured a sacred tree as evidence of burnt and carbonised wood, interpreted by the excavator as a beam, was found next to massebah XVIII. All carbonised wood at the site was terebinth, but the excavator suggested that the site was originally situated within a clearing in an oak forest.106 With minimal evidence for settlement, except for a period




























































101 102 103 104 105 106

Ben-Dor 1950; M. Dothan 1956. M. Dothan 1981, 74. M. Dothan 1956; 1981; Avi-Yonah and Stern 1977; Naeh 2012. Yasur-Landau 2016. Dothan, M. 956. Gophna and Ayalon 2004; Gophna 1992, 134. A typical East Mediterranean forest consisted of pines (P. halapensis), evergreen Kermes Oak (Quercus calliprinos), deciduous oaks (Quercus ithaburensis type pollen), olive (olea europaea), pistachio (Pistacia sp.), and occasional Roseaceae, buckthorn (Rhamnus sp.),

TREES IN THE LEVANT AND EGYPT

139

during the MB IIA, the site probably functioned as a gathering and cult place for the inhabitants of settlements in the southern Sharon coastal plain.107 Lachish A group of four potentially interrelated locations at the site of Lachish in south-central Israel, Strata VI–II dating to the LB–Early IA, may have been an example of a site utilised as an urban bāmāh. The area consisted of Cult Room 49; a massebah erected 12m away in the street to the southeast in conjunction with a possible asherah and pits containing broken massevoth; and another massebah 3.5m further down the street, although due to erosion of this area the plan and function of adjoining structures are unclear. Cult Room 49 measured 2.3 x 3m and was built against a terrace wall (Fig. 188). It featured a plastered stone bench that ran around the perimeter of the room with a raised section in the western corner that formed a platform. On the benches and in the vicinity of the platform were found a large collection of cult vessels including four incense burners, a limestone horned altar, chalices, bowls, jugs, lamps, a cooking pot, and a small well-dressed basalt slab broken at its lowest part (preserved portion approximately 0.28 x 0.12m) lying on the doorsill and interpreted as a massebah (although it may be a fragment of basalt saddle quern).108 The above-mentioned massebah with the possible asherah was 1.20 x 0.95m wide x 0.60m thick and situated upon a raised platform or terrace wall. The possible asherah consisted of a 0.5m rounded heap of olive tree ash in front of the stone (an alternate interpretation of this feature being a hearth, a common find associated with massevoth) (Figs 189a, b). Two favissae were situated west of the massebah and Pit 136 contained four broken stones, 0.60–0.70m high and roughly dressed in square shape, identified as massevoth, along with another stone featuring seven cupmarks. Bloch-Smith describes the massevoth in the street as an example of “street cult” which, although the examples at Lachish are later, is evocative of the baetyl at Gournia in Crete.109 Gezer The bāmāh at Gezer in central Israel is characterised by ten large monolithic stones, some of which are up to 3m high, erected in a gentle curve on a north-south axis on a low depression between two rising parts of a mound, just inside the northern city walls in a large open plaza (Fig. 190).110 A 2m-wide platform made of cobble sized fieldstones with an outer curbing of boulders runs under and around the monoliths, although on the west side stones V and VI were set into a plaster like surface containing fragments of burned animal bone and teeth. The platform was interrupted between stones V and VI by a recess to the west containing a square socket stone measuring 1.85 x 1.52m with walls 0.76 m thick, the socket hole being 0.86 x 0.58m and 0.40m deep. The first excavator of the site, Macalister, termed this feature an “Asherah socket”, but admitted that the hole is really too big to hold a vertical tree stump and suggested that this must have been achieved with wedges.111 Dever proposes, on the contrary, that the cavity contained liquid such as water or blood and may have been an altar or laver.112 The site is not connected to a temple, although it was situated within walls, and no cultic accessories were found in association with the stones, possibly as a result of Macalister’s unscientific excavation methods. According to Dever, all ten stones were erected simultaneously but rather than a bāmāh, he suggests that the site served to commemorate or witness an event such as a legal contract or covenant




























































107 108 109

110 111

112

sumac (Rhus sp.), and strawberry tree (Arbutus andrachne). Zohary 1962; 1982a; 1982b; Meiggs 1982; Lev-Yadun and Weinstein-Evron 2002, 335. Gophna and Ayalon 2004; Gophna 1992, 134. Aharoni 1975, 26, Figs 6, 41–3; Avi-Yonah and Stern 1977, 747. Aharoni 1975; Bloch-Smith 2006, 78; Avner (in press); Hood 1989. And there is evidence at Lachish of interaction with Crete dating to the Middle Bronze Age II. Yasur-Landau 2010, 833. Dever 1973, 68. Macalister 1903, 29, Pl.VII, 31. Macalister’s expectation of an asherah was influenced by both the biblical text and William Robertson Smith. 28. He also termed the stones “baetylia”. Dever 1971, 123.

140

CHAPTER 7

between individuals or groups. 113 That the site was a bāmāh, however, can be suggested by the association of bāmôt in the biblical text with tōphet cemeteries containing infants that may have been sacrificed, and burial jars of infants, some of which show traces of burning, were found at levels dating to the MB II A–B.114 The site at Gezer may have been sacred from the EB I, as suggested by cupmarks on the bedrock and by walls and a large plaster surface, perhaps an open court, dating to the EB II; however, there is disagreement about the date of the massevoth.115 Macalister dated this phase to between 2500 and 2000 BCE, but the presence of MB IIC sherds underneath the plastered area discovered in the later excavation suggested a date of around 1600 BCE.116 Ben-Ami proposed that the site dates to around the turn of the third millennium, however, making it contemporary with other examples of huge upright stones evident on both sides of the Jordan River.117 The cult site appears to have gone out of use by the LBA.118 Tell el Dabca The Canaanite Temple complex at Avaris (Tell el Dabca) in the eastern Nile Delta exhibits several components of the bāmāh including an unroofed open area featuring a sacred tree and an altar surrounded by cult buildings. Avaris was a Levantine settlement, capital of the Hyksos dynasty (1637– 1529 BCE) associated by the Egyptians with the Retenu, a term used for foreigners from the southern Levant, from 1750 to 1570 BCE. It was a major harbour and probably facilitated royal Egyptian trade expeditions. The material culture of Avaris is very closely connected to the last stage of the MBA II from the Syro-Palestinian region. Canaanite cults were also evident, particularly the cult of the storm god Baal Zaphon, as illustrated on a local cylinder seal (Fig. 191).119 Temples II and III at Tell el- Dabca (Fig. 192a) are clear examples of MBA Canaanite temples and display a close resemblance to the Levantine temples in Area H (Stratum XVI) at Hazor and the temple in Level VII at Alalakh.120 Temple III is one of the largest sanctuaries known from the MBA, measuring about 30m long, and is the main shrine at this complex (Fig. 192b). Of Near Eastern type, it is characterised by a broad-room sanctuary with a wide, deep niche in the south, a vestibule, courtyard, three entrances from the north, and another from a street on the west. It was painted blue and the excavator suggested that it may have been dedicated to a celestial deity. In front of Temple III was a courtyard measuring 30.74 x 19.19m which was originally shared by Temple II. The space was later divided with a wall leaving a triangular court for Temple II and the larger area as a truncated four-cornered yard in front of Temple III.121 A rectangular mudbrick altar was positioned asymmetrically west of the prolonged axis of Temple III. Charred acorns, preserved due to carbonisation, were found on top of the altar as well as in pits to the south. The pits were purpose-dug and may have held sacred trees. Oak trees were unknown in Egypt and must have been deliberately planted in the sacred precinct as asherim by the Canaanite inhabitants. Charred animal bones and potsherds were also found on top of and in the vicinity of the altar.122




























































113 114 115

116 117 118 119 120 121 122

Dever 1971, 122–3. Catron 1995, 155; Macalister 1903, 32–4; Dever 1971, 121. Cupmarks may be evidence of “proto-bāmôt”, as seen also at Megiddo (mentioned above) and in the example of the Har Yeruham cult platform (ca.2200–2000 BCE). Located at a dual-strata settlement consisting of a domestic site with tumuli containing cist tombs scattered over it, the cult place is situated on a nearby hilltop and consists of an exposed rock platform 0.1 hectare in size, dotted with cup marks and enclosed by a wall. Two animal figurines (one of clay, the other of stone) were found in the ash layer adjacent to a pottery kiln. Gophna 1992, 154; Dever 1971, 121–2. Dever 1967, 57. Ben-Ami 2008, 27. Dever 1971, 121–2. Booth 2005, 22; Bietak 2006; 2011, 28. Mazar 1992, 169. Bietak 2009, 209–228. Müller 1998, 793.

TREES IN THE LEVANT AND EGYPT

141

Offering pits or favissae in the forecourt surrounding the altar contained numerous and varied fragments of pottery and calcinated cattle bones. In two other pits in front of the temple, pairs of donkeys were found.123 Pits associated with Temple III were large, reaching up to a diameter of 3.0m and a depth of up to 2.5m and contained a large amount of pottery types – the biggest containing 215 vessels mainly associated with feasting such as bowls, jars and drinking cups, and a smaller amount of miniature and specifically cultic vessels such as lamps and incense burners.124 Feasting halls, the floors of which were covered with the remains of ritual banquets including animal bones and potsherds, were located nearby. The temple complex was surrounded by cemeteries, suggesting a funerary association.125 The site of Tell el-Dabca is additionally famous for the Minoan style frescoes associated with palatial architecture, initially thought to be contemporary with the Hyksos dynasty and thus suggesting interaction with Crete contemporary with the LM IA period; however, the age of the frescoes has been conclusively established by ceramic evaluation to the early Thutmoside period (1500–1450 BCE), probably the period of Hatshepsut and the young Thutmosis III (1479–1457 BCE), contemporary with the LM IB–II, and the first representatives of the Keftiu delegations and Minoan influence in art in the Theban tombs.126 Conclusion Through examination of both iconographic and archaeological evidence from Syro-Mesopotamia, the Levant and Egypt dating to the Middle and Late Bronze Ages it is evident that trees were considered to be closely associated with female iconography and that they featured iconographically and probably literally within elite palatial architecture as well as at both architecturally elaborated and more ephemeral cult sites within the landscape. Sacred trees in the ancient Levant and Egypt were considered numinous because they were inhabited by goddesses, as is evident from the interchangability between female figures and trees in iconography and the specific identification of such trees with known goddesses. While aniconic elements did exist within Levantine religion, like its neighbours in Mesopotamia and Egypt, it was characterised by anthropomorphic polytheism. Veneration of animate sacred trees was a feature of all levels of society, the tree functioning as signifier of a constellation of concepts including fertility, nurturance, protection, death, regeneration, order and stability. As multivocal symbols sacred trees were co-opted into ruler ideology. Royal figures were closely associated with the benevolent qualities of the numinous tree, their right to rule sanctioned by the goddesses associated with the tree, and by implication by the landscape itself. Sacred animate trees in the Levant appeared earlier and lasted longer than they did in Minoan religion and certainly may have initially influenced the latter, although by the Late Bronze Age they were part of an east Mediterranean religious koiné. Like Crete, Levantine sacred trees were interchangeable with female figures, paired with sacred stones and altars, associated with open-air cult sites on hills and mountains as well as urban palatial locations, and were incorporated into elite ideology. That aspects of both Cretan and Levantine religion were influenced by Egypt is well known, as is the fact of their reciprocal cultural influence on Egypt in turn. While Evans was correct in pointing to the Levant as an influence on and explanation for the presence of sacred trees and their accompanying stones at open-air cult sites in the Aegean, it is only by going beyond the biblical text, back to earlier periods contemporary with Minoan and Mycenaean civilisations, that the similarities between Levantine and Minoan religion become explicit.






























































123 124 125 126

Bietak 2003, 16; 1996, 36; 2009, 209–228. Müller 1998, 793. Bietak 2003b, 155. Cline 1998; Bietak 2000; Fantuzzi 2013, 4.

CHAPTER 8 TREES IN CYPRUS Interest in tree worship in Cyprus was espoused early on by Max H. Ohnefalsch-Richter in his book, Kypros, the Bible and Homer of 1893, the first comprehensive study of Cypriot sanctuaries and cults.1 In this work Ohnefalsch-Richter compared Cypriot cult sites and iconography with other eastern Mediterranean cultures and, like Arthur Evans, particularly relied on descriptions of cult sites in the Bible and contemporary interpretations thereof such as that found in Robertson Smith’s Lectures on the Religion of the Semites. Although Ohnefalsch-Richter categorised tree “deities” as a primitive form in an evolutionary progression from aniconism to anthropomorphism, spoke in terms of classical Greek deities, and was over-enthusiastic in his interpretation of every tree as a representative of divinity, he was correct in his general proposal regarding the existence of sacred trees in Cypriot religion. The use of the biblical descriptions of “high places” characterised by trees, stones and altars to understand Cypriot rural sanctuaries that may have been characterised by sacred trees has also been employed by several subsequent scholars. Trude Dothan likened Stratum III of the cult site at Athienou to a bāmāh, while Wright identified a canonical “Cypriot rural sanctuary”, the essential characteristics of which he derived from “Canaanite” cult sites as described in the biblical text.2 As Hitchcock notes, Cypriot rural sanctuaries do exhibit characteristics in common with both Levantine as well as Aegean sites, and as Marinatos proposes, this may be indicative of an eastern Mediterranean religious koiné.3 Nevertheless, while rural sanctuaries in Cyprus dating to the Iron Age II and later – when the texts comprising the Hebrew Bible were codified – do exhibit similar characteristics to the Israelite cult sites described in the biblical text, the Bible is not contemporary with Late Bronze Age Cypriot cult sites. As is the case in Aegean archaeology, Minoan glyptic images of cult activity in the vicinity of sacred trees and stones have also been utilised to explain Cypriot cult sites. In 1932 Erik Sjöqvist used Aegean glyptic to explain and animate the Cypriot sanctuary at Ayia Irini.4 Wright sees the Aegean glyptic depictions of characteristics such as walled enclosures with elaborate gateways, buildings, altars, standing stones, sacred trees and animals as “according entirely” with the Cypriot rural sanctuary.5 Hitchcock also refers to Aegean glyptic imagery in order to highlight similarities between iconographic and archaeological evidence of Cypriot cult sites that feature sacred trees, stones, pillars and altars, and Minoan cult.6 The iconographic motif of a sacred tree first becomes evident in Cyprus in the Late Cypriot IA (c. 1650–1575 BCE) on imported cylinder seals, and the earliest rural sanctuaries where tree cult could have occurred also date to this period. Aegean iconographic evidence is therefore contemporary with the earliest rural sanctuaries of Late Bronze Age Cyprus, although both Aegean and Levantine religious concepts may have may contributed to tree cult on Cyprus. Evidence for tree cult consists of iconography in various media including cylinder seals, bronze cult stands, Mycenaean pottery and coroplastic art, as well as actual sanctuary sites, and ranges from the Late Cypriot IA to the Roman II period. While trees are represented visually in the former categories, when it comes to sanctuary sites, their ephemerality and consequent disintegration within the




























































1 2 3 4 5 6

Ohnefalsch-Richter 1893; Ulbrich 1998; 2001. 98. Dothan 1981; Wright 1990–91. Hitchcock 2011; Marinatos 2009. Sjöqvist 1932. Wright 1990–91, 280. Hitchcock 2011, 510.

144

CHAPTER 8

archaeological record means that their presence is speculative and based on the analysis of architecture and pits in rock. This chapter seeks to identify and analyse the iconographic representations of tree cult from the Late Cypriot period (LC IA–IIIC c.1650–1050 BCE) and to compare them with five cult sites in order to determine the characteristics and meaning of tree cult within Late Bronze Age Cyprus. To this end it will utilise the imagery on Common Style cylinder seals and bronze cult stands as a guide to identifying cult sites that may have incorporated tree cult. It will be argued that the sacred tree as depicted in Cypriot Common Style glyptic and on bronze cult stands, was a multivocal symbol that contributed to the conjunction of the Late Bronze Age Cypriot economy with divine power. In order to support this contention the chapter will look at the background of seal use in Cyprus, focussing on the prevalence of cylinder seals in the LC period. It will then move on to an explanation of the three distinct iconographic styles evident in Cypriot glyptic, before concentrating on the “Common Style”; the seal type of interest here because of its supposed depiction of ritual. Following this, the chapter will examine the similarities between the imagery on the seals and that on bronze cult stands, and the motifs shared by Common Style seals and the Kourion cult stand will be compared. Initially the motif of the tree will be analysed in regards to its iconographic type, possible species, and its symbolic and practical meaning. This is followed by examination of the human figures in the seals in regards to their gender and activity. Next the investigation moves on to oxhide copper ingots, then bucrania and snakes, and the last motif to be studied is the chair. The chapter then turns to the examination of cult sites that may provide physical correlation with iconographic components of the seals. After some background on rural sanctuaries in Late Bronze Age Cyprus, five sanctuary sites are examined. The main points of interest in regards to attempting to match sanctuaries with seal imagery will be the presence of trees, metallurgy, animal sacrifice, furniture, and cylinder seals. It will become evident that compared to the realistically rendered images in Aegean glyptic representations of tree cult, scenes of tree cult in Cypriot Common Style seals are rendered much more cursorily. Like the Aegean examples, however, the Cypriot images are also signs rather than scenes and are thus imaginary compositions. The lack of exact matches between the iconography and the evidence from the actual – real – cult sites suggests that such images are also symbolic. The chapter therefore concludes that the glyptic motifs are symbols of the general characteristics and experience of rural sanctuaries. While the image of the tree itself may refer to a literal tree, grove or garden associated with a cult site, as well as with trees utilised in the copper industry, it is additionally symbolic as an emblem of royal ideology, power and fertility. It seems likely therefore that the presence of a tree on Common Style seals functioned multivalently, bringing together the real trees associated with the practice of copper mining, with the cultic tree or grove that may have been associated with a rural sanctuary, as well as the further association of a sacred tree with the concept of rulership familiar from the Near East. Cypriot Common Style seals would therefore function as Knapp and Webb propose, which is to incorporate the labour involved in the Cypriot copper industry with divine ideology and therefore naturalise lower-status workers within the social and economic hierarchy.7 Images Discussed Cypriot Cylinder Seals The appearance of seals on Cyprus can be dated back to the latest phase of the Chalcolithic period (ca.2500 BCE) but cylinder seals, the type of seals examined here, did not appear until the LC IA (mid17th century BCE). At first, cylinder seals were imported into Cyprus from the Levant, with local manufacture commencing in the late 16th to early 15th century BCE. 8 Cylinder seals in Cyprus proliferated as a result of international trade and the formation of a state system through which it was regulated.9 State formation in Cyprus was a rapid transition rather than a gradual evolution, and




























































7 8 9

Knapp 1986; Webb 1992; 2002; 2005. Knapp 2008, 153. Smith 1994, 3–4.

TREES IN CYPRUS

145

occurred as a result of increased contact with more complex societies in the eastern Mediterranean and Aegean through trade based on the export of Cypriot copper and the import of prestige goods. During the 16th century BCE the emergent Cypriot state system was administered by the coastal city of Enkomi which, although not controlling the entire island of Cyprus, did control the extraction and export of copper, trade, and foreign relations. 10 This monopoly was eventually superseded by regionally based peer polities, administered by local elites, in the late 14th or early 13th centuries. It was this LBA contact through trade with the city states of Western Asia that brought the cylinder seal to Cyprus.11 Cylinder seals – the type used throughout the Near East – are the most prevalent type of seal in the LC period, with scarabs and conoid stamp seals being less frequent. Cylinder and stamp seals provide the richest and most complex source of LC pictorial representation and probably contributed to the spread of a common symbolic system.12 Seals are found in tombs, sanctuaries and workshops and their style varies according to site location. Those found at sites close to the coast such as Kition and Hala Sultan Tekke show evidence of foreign connections while others found at more inland sites display both a regional iconographic tradition as well as evidence of imported seals.13 The majority of both imported and locally engraved seals appear to come from Enkomi, which may be because it has been so thoroughly excavated, although it certainly was a major centre of glyptic development and production throughout the LBA.14 Unlike their use in the Near East, however, it is questionable as to whether cylinder seals in Cyprus were actually used for sealing as part of an administrative process. Around 1000 cylinder and stamp seals are known from the LC period; however, so far only one seal impression from a locally engraved stone seal has been found. This sealing was discarded and used in the construction of the Floor III in Room 24 of the LC IIC ashlar building at Enkomi.15 Another sealing was reputedly found in the late 19th century at Nicosia Ayia Paraskevi by Ohnefalsch-Richter, but is now lost.16 The lack of sealings suggests that cylinder seals in Cyprus – unlike in the wider Near East – were not used in administrative processes to authorise articles bearing their impressions.17 It has been suggested then that cylinder seals in Cyprus must therefore have been “primarily ritual, amuletic, or talismanic objects” in addition to functioning as jewellery.18 Smith, however, counters that although seal use on Cyprus does not follow known eastern Mediterranean patterns, contextual analysis shows that Cypriot seals functioned in both religious and administrative capacities. There are over fifty impressions associated with LC seal use; however, most are direct sealings on pithoi and loom weights and come from large cylinders made of wood rather than tiny stone seals. This shows that seal use on Cyprus was associated with economic administration. Ultimately, however, the evidence for seal use on Cyprus consists of large impressions for which there are no corresponding seals (because they were wooden and have not survived), and small stone and faience seals for which there are no corresponding impressions. Evidence for record keeping on Cyprus such as clay tablets, wax filled wooden or ivory writing boards, and papyrus or leather texts show that records were kept, but the lack of sealings indicates that it was not done so in the same way as in the Near East or Aegean.19






























































10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Webb 2005, 176. Merrillees 2000, 289. Webb 1999, 262. Smith 1994, 2; 2012, 93–4. Smith 2002, 27–8; Webb 2005, 179. Smith 2002, 14–15. Knapp 2008, 153. Merrillees 2000, 289. Courtois and Webb 1987, 27–8; Kenna 1972, 623–674. Smith 1994, 1–2, 53.

146

CHAPTER 8

Three Iconographic Styles There are three iconographic styles evident in Cypriot glyptic art and these have been classified as the Elaborate, Derivative and Common Styles (Figs 193a, b, c). Initially categorised by Edith Porada on the basis of their material, iconography, and the quality and style of engraving, this tripartite classification was based on Mitannian glyptic categories.20 The three categories of Cypriot glyptic distinguish between skilfully rendered, complex engraving on hematite and less skilled, more schematic imagery on softer stones such as chlorite.21 The iconography of Elaborate and Derivative Style seals is foreign to Cyprus and consists of entirely or partially supernatural scenes in which mythical animals are offered to winged or two-headed deities and heroic or semi-divine figures dominate dependant animals.22 Common Style seals, on the other hand, feature scenes that appear to be set in the human world and include human figures, real world animals, copper ingots and cult paraphernalia such as bucrania. The Elaborate and Derivative styles are both more carefully carved as well as featuring higher status imagery deriving from the supernatural, while Common Style seals are far more roughly rendered as well as featuring fully human imagery.23 Trees appear in each category of seal but their degree of realism is least naturalistic in the Elaborate and Derivative Styles and most realistic (although cursory) in the Common Style.24 The imagery on Elaborate Style cylinder seals consists of complex narrative scenes involving deities and mythological creatures such sphinxes and griffins, and often incorporates imagery from Near Eastern or Aegean glyptic such as winged sun-disks, Minoan genii, lions and chariot scenes suggesting that local elites looked outward to the wider eastern Mediterranean world in order to provide exotic imagery that would lend them prestige. This type of imagery is not present on Cyprus before the importation of cylinder seals in the early LBA and its adoption is one of the signifiers of the transition to the state model. Elaborate Style seals are found outside Cyprus more often than the other styles.25 Elaborate Style seals also feature Cypro-Minoan script which, when written in retrograde is evidence that the seals were intended for sealing.26 Webb argues that Elaborate Style seals would have been owned by high-level elites and that the imagery thereon would have promoted the association between such elites and deities, therefore appearing to provide divine sanction for their exercise of power. Such activity may have been inspired by knowledge of foreign models of political administration and its accompanying ideology.27 An alternative suggestion is that Elaborate Style seals were associated with merchants and traders who frequently travelled to the localities where such imagery originated and so were simply adopting it as a type of international koiné.28 The Derivative Style seal type is visually derivative of the Elaborate Style, but the imagery is less skilfully rendered. Derivative Style is mainly found on chlorite but sometimes on the more prestigious hematite. The seals depict scenes including ritual performances, human figures in conjunction with supernatural or powerful animals such as griffins, lions and caprids, and adoration of trees by such animals. Webb proposes that Derivative Style seals are concerned with the expression of ideology through ritual enactment and that they may have been used by middle- or lower-level managers as emblems of their administrative roles, and/or for transactional purposes. Derivative Style seals are only occasionally found outside Cyprus.29 The term “Common Style” is used to classify a type of seal, characterised by rough carving, in which the human, animal and other components are cursorily rendered and not embellished with any detail.




























































20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Porada 1948. Webb 2002, 117. Knapp 2008, 155. Webb 2002, 135. Meekers 1987, 71. Webb 2002, 135, 180; 2005, 178. Smith 1994, 2. Webb 2002, 136. Knapp 2008, 154. Webb 2002, 118.

TREES IN CYPRUS

147

Porada notes that while the Elaborate Style is cosmopolitan, reflecting the foreign influences to which Cyprus was exposed in the LBA; the Common Style, although incorporating Levantine/Near Eastern motifs, is both physically and visually less sophisticated.30 Two types of Common Style seal include a sacred tree; the first consists of a tree, a standing male figure, a bucranium, an ingot, and concentric circles;31 and the second of a tree, a seated figure with a spear, a standing figure, a snake, bucranium, and sometimes an ingot (Figs 194a, b). Other Common Style seals depict human figures, symbols and script signs. The examples that incorporate the motif of the tree recur repeatedly with only minor variations in composition and have been interpreted as depicting real-world ritual scenes that evoke specific cultic events or activity and actual examples of cult equipment. Webb proposes that Common Style iconography was directed toward middle- or lower-level managerial sectors within the Cypriot copper industry and that through its imagery functioned to conceptually incorporate the labour involved in the extraction, refinement, transport and export of copper, into divine ideology. By presenting copper oxhide ingots to what is presumed to be a sacred tree symbolising a deity, within a ritual sequence, the status and role of lower-level workers for whom this imagery was intended would be naturalised within the social hierarchy.32 Webb interprets the difference in execution and imagery between the three types of Cypriot cylinder seals as functioning as an “iconography of power” in which certain seal types were associated with different groups within the hierarchy of LBA Cyprus. The three tiers of seal imagery functioned to maintain this social stratification by associating each group with various levels of divinity; from the direct association of elites with deities as suggested by the Elaborate Style seals, to the association of middle management with heroic figures and powerful or supernatural animals in the Derivative Style seals, to the instruction of workers in correct ideology and its enactment in cult performance in the Common Style seals. Thus, according to this scenario, the Elaborate Style legitimised privilege while Common Style seals functioned to mask inequality.33 This may be the case from a top-down point of view, but from the bottom-up, it may have been a case of these seals evoking the votive-giving and concurrent supplication of a deity in the form of a tree through offerings of the bounty of the earth – animal fecundity and sourcing metals being two such examples. Rather than being assigned these seals or awarded to them by elites, Graziadio suggests lower status individuals may have actively commissioned them, aspiring to associate themselves with what was essentially/also elite ideology.34 Common Style While glyptic iconography may have functioned to establish and maintain hierarchy in LBA Cyprus, this study is primarily concerned with the ritual activity depicted or implied on the seals and what it says about trees in religious belief. As established above, Elaborate and Derivative Style seals depict entirely supernatural, semi-supernatural, and heroic scenes, while Common Style seals are believed to be scenes of human ritual activity. Because Common Style seals appear to portray real-world objects associated with ritual practice in which a tree is thought to represent a deity, these seals are the main focus here. In regards to Common Style glyptic images, there are just over twenty examples of the category incorporating a tree, a standing male figure, bucrania, ingots and concentric circles, and just under twenty examples of the type that depicts a tree, a seated figure, a standing figure, a spear, bucrania and snakes.35 These two types of scene recur with more or less the same assortment of iconographic




























































30 31

32 33 34 35

Porada 1983, 191. For Mitannian Common Style seals see Salje 1990. Asher-Greve (2008, 133) has suggested that these circular motifs may signify cylinder seals. Jennifer Webb thinks this is unlikely and notes that concentric circles are common on pottery from the EBA through to the MBA [pers. comm. 15/5/2015]. Webb 2002, 126, 137–8. Webb 1992, 119; 2005. Graziadio 2003, 63; Knapp 2008, 157. Webb 2002, 125–6.

148

CHAPTER 8

components but with greater or lesser degrees of variation from the main motifs (at least those identifiable as existing in the real world) which are the tree, the standing or seated human figure, bucranium, ingot, and animals such as caprids or snakes (Figs 195a–f). The most minimalist example of this type of iconography is probably an example from Nicosia Ayia Paraskevi that only depicts a tree, a human figure, an ingot and a bucranium (Fig. 196).36 The fact that the imagery of Common Style seals is recurrent means that not every example needs to be discussed individually. Instead, the motifs will be discussed as generic iconographic characteristics of the two Common Style seal types that feature trees, and their main components analysed in regards to their literal or symbolic nature. Knapp suggests that these Common Style seals represent a narrative scene in which a human brings objects – the bucrania and ingot (either miniature or full sized) – as votive offerings before a tree, symbolic of a deity.37 The images ought not to be considered literal, however, as they do not place the individual motifs within a realistic dimension such as on a groundline, nor does the human figure physically carry the presumably votive offerings which often appear to be scattered about or to float in the air. This indicates that the separate motifs are therefore probably signs evoking ritual activity familiar to the ancient Cypriot viewer, rather than actual scenes of such activity – probably as a consequence of the seals being so small (around 2cm high and 3cm in diameter) – and thus ought to be considered elements of cult activity. That the seal images do evoke a ritual event is supported by the presence of a similar scene on a bronze cult stand. Bronze Cult Stands Cypriot-manufactured bronze cult stands, which appear both within Cyprus as well as at sites in the eastern and western Mediterranean, have been found in contexts with dates spanning the 14th to the early 7th centuries BCE.38 The stand that is of particular interest here dates to the LC IIC or III and is allegedly from Kourion (BM 1920.1220.1) (Fig. 197). This four-sided stand is made of bronze and measures 12.5cm x 9.5cm. Unlike the tiny seals, the stand has much more room in which to render a scene which appears on each of the four sides of the object.39 Three of the panels depict a male figure on the right, facing a stylised tree on the left. The figures carry objects which are probably votive offerings for the tree which in turn may represent a deity (Fig. 198). In the first scene the figure holds either two bags, or possibly fish; in the second panel the figure carries an unidentifiable object over his shoulder that may be either ivory tusks or a bolt of cloth; and the third panel depicts the figure carrying a full sized ox-hide ingot. In the fourth scene the position of the human figure and the tree are reversed. The human figure sits on a stool and plays a harp and is situated on the left, facing the tree on the right. This panel has been suggested to depict another example of a votive offering to the tree, in this case music.40 Alternately, it has been proposed that the reversed positional configuration means that the harp player is the recipient of the three other votaries’ gifts and the tree, rather than signifying a divinity, simply indicates an outdoor location.41 It seems feasible to suggest, however, that one ought to read the fourth panel as the final destination of the procession of the three votaries, and that perhaps the harp player sits next to the tree and would have been depicted doing so in the previous three panels if there had been room. A scene similar to the third panel of the Kourion stand – the figure carrying an oxhide ingot – appears on a Cypriot stand now in Jerusalem (Figs 199a, b). The stand is fragmentary, however, and although the figure carrying the ox-hide ingot forms part of a procession behind a figure carrying a jug and in front of another carrying a goat, it is not possible to see whether they are heading towards a tree, as on the Kourion stand. In the lower panels of the stand, however, appears a decorative motif rendered in a




























































36 37 38 39 40 41

Graziadio 2003, 34, Fig. 26. Knapp 1986, 41. Knapp 1986, 32; Catling 1984, 76–7. Catling 1964, 206. Knapp 1986, 31. Catling 1964, 206.

TREES IN CYPRUS

149

manner that evokes the stylised tree on the Kourion stand.42 This motif appears on many Cypriot cult stands in a decorative facility, however, and it is not evident whether it actually indicates a tree in all cases.43 The juxtaposition of an ingot-bearer and a tree appears on two Mycenaean kraters in the LH IIIA2 style from Enkomi; the “Zeus krater” from Swedish Tomb 17 and a krater from British Tomb 45 (Fig. 200a, b). Knapp argues that the Kourion and Jerusalem bronze stands should be considered contemporary with the kraters and that both these categories of artefact, along with the Common Style seals, share the theme of an ingot in front of a tree.44 Catling interpreted this type of scene as indicative of temple-based management of the Cypriot copper industry. He suggested that the depiction of the ingots on the bronze stands was symbolic of the presentation of oxhide ingots to deities resident at the temples which were subsequently re-distributed to metal craftsmen or traders.45 Whether this is correct or not, the presence of copper ingots in Cypriot art on seals, cult stands, in conjunction with two bronze figurines of deities that stand on ingots (Figs 201a, b), images of men holding ingots in front of stylised trees on Mycenaean kraters, actual miniature bronze votive ingots (Fig. 202), and the presence of metalworking facilities at cult sites (discussed below) does suggest a link between religion and metalworking in the Late Cypriot period.46 It is likely that such imagery does refer to an actual ritual activity,47 as will be discussed further in the section below on cult sites. Cultic Elements Tree The trees depicted on the Common Style seals and on the Kourion cult stand, and which appear to be objects of veneration, have been suggested to represent on the one hand, a deity, and on the other, a symbol of the importance of wood fuel to fire the furnaces used within the copper industry.48 While there may be some truth to the latter suggestion, in regards to the former as we know vegetation motifs are used to evoke the fertile and nourishing forces of nature in Near Eastern iconographic tradition. The Mesopotamian motif of a tree flanked by animal or human attendants was an important, multivalent theme that appeared repeatedly outside Mesopotamia in the Aegean, Anatolia, and the Levant.49 The adoption of the motif of the sacred tree in Cypriot glyptic was probably a consequence of commercial and diplomatic contact with the Near East.50 Increased interaction between Cyprus and the wider Mediterranean during the LC period, and the subsequent adoption of aspects of Near Eastern society, bureaucracy, iconography and religion means that it is not unfeasible to seek a Near Eastern identity for the numinous Cypriot tree. Without textual identification the exact identity of this potential deity cannot be definitely known; however, it may be a female deity associated with kingship, fertility, prosperity and with sacred trees, known from Mesopotamia, the Levant and Egypt as Ishtar, Athirat or Hathor. In regards to specifically Cypriot glyptic iconographic representation of trees, according to Meekers, the tree – which she explicitly terms the “Sacred Tree” – appears on 144 Elaborate, Derivative and Common Style Cypriot cylinder seals and on one sealing. Meekers divides the trees into five types: the




























































42 43

44

45 46 47 48 49 50

Knapp 1986, 31. Catling 1964, Pl. 27 a, b, c, d; Pl. 28 a, b, c, d, e, f; Pl. 29 a, b, c; Pl. 30 a, c, c, d, e, f; Pl. 31 a, b, e, f. In Pl. 37 a, b, c the motif is upside down. Knapp 1986, 35–6. Other scholars disagree, noting the transparency of the proposed ingot and suggesting that it instead depicts a snare or bow for hunting (Vermeule and Karageorghis 1982, 15, 19–20, 30) or a camp stool (Akerstrom 1987, 100–102; Rystedt 1987; Dietrich 1988). Catling 1971, 30. Knapp 1986, 31. Papasavvas 2009, 89. Lagarce 1985, 81; Knapp 1986, 41–2. Crowley 1989, 64; Åström 1983, 175–6; Kantzios 1999, 424. Steel 1997, 41, 39.

150

CHAPTER 8

Bouquet-Shaped Sacred Tree; the Sacred Tree with Palmette and Volutes; the Sacred Tree with Palmette; the Sacred Tree with Volutes; and the Rectilinear Tree.51 It is the latter style that appears on Common Style seals and which is of concern here (Fig. 203).52 The Rectilinear Tree consists of a trunk with leaves or branches projecting outwards on either side represented by straight lines. The central trunk is rendered by a simple vertical stroke, and sometimes its lower portion is broader than its upper section and is dentate. On most examples the branches or leaves are symmetrically placed on either side of the trunk. The tree most closely resembles either a palm tree, in which the branches project upwards, or a pine tree where they project downwards – although this could actually be a palm tree as well. Some examples appear to have date clusters.53 In Cypriot glyptic single trees are depicted, but whether this may indicate one or several trees – a grove – is unclear. In Cypriot pottery a cluster of three palm trees is thought to indicate a grove.54 In Cypriot glyptic trees were often positioned so as to function as dividing vertical icons which act as a border,55 and there was not much room to fit multiple trees on a tiny seal. On the Kourion cult stand which does have more room, however, only a single tree features in each scene. Like the trees on the Common Style seals, the tree on the Kourion cult stand is rendered in a highly stylised manner and is repeated unchanged in each panel. Unlike the Common Style seals though, the tree on the stand consists of a vertical trunk with three curvilinear (volute) branches or areas of foliage on each side.56 Although the scene of votaries bringing offerings to a tree is similar to the images on Common Style seals, unlike the latter, the tree on the stand has more in common stylistically with Meeker’s second category, the Sacred Tree with Palmette and Volutes (Fig. 204). This is actually a very prevalent style of tree in Cypriot seal iconography, deriving from Mitannian glyptic, and appears primarily on Cypriot Elaborate Style seals.57 The use of this form on the cult stand may have been because it was a higher status object than the Common Style seals, meant for a different audience, although still signifying the offerings of votives to a sacred tree.58 Webb interprets the tree on Common Style seals as a palm tree,59 a prominent iconographic motif in the Near East since mid-third millennium Sumer which appears in various degrees of naturalistic or stylised renditions. It is symbolic of fertility and is often associated with religious or ritual scenes, as in the Investiture of Zimrilim fresco from the Court of the Palm in the palace at Mari in which the palm tree is closely associated with the goddess Ishtar. Palm trees flanked by goats or birds are a popular motif on Levantine and Mitannian glyptic of the second millennium BCE and as we know, the pairing of a tree with antithetic ibexes is one of the most common images on Levantine pictorial pottery of the LBA.60 The motif of the sacred tree was probably imported to Cyprus from the Near East in the LBA, so too the religious significance of the image may have been transferred.61 As we saw in the previous chapter, in both Syro-Palestine and Egypt the tree is related to a goddess, linked to kingship, and symbolises fertility, prosperity, and good fortune in general.62 Cyprus had much interaction with the Levantine city of Ugarit whose chief female deity was Athirat/Asherah, associated with the institution of




























































51 52

53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62

Meekers 1987, 67. The Rectilinear Tree is not confined to Cypriot glyptic but also appears in glyptic from Anatolia, the Levant, Mesopotamia, and Greece, probably because it is a simple and fast way to engrave a tree. Kepinski 1982, 135–44. Meekers 1987, 71. Benson 1983, 173. Donald 2011, 5–7. Catling 1964, 206. Meekers 1987, 73. Papasavvas 2009, 92. Webb 2005, 180. Steel 1997, 39. Webb 2005, 177. Kantzios 1999, 422.

TREES IN CYPRUS

151

queenship (and hence kingship), sacred trees, groves, and outdoor cult sites.63 Athirat may be the deity that ought to be considered to be represented by the Cypriot Common Style sacred tree, despite the fact that there are no obvious anthropomorphic goddesses depicted in the scenes. The Common Style seals that depict a seated figure may refer to kingship. In LBA Cyprus such a figure may have indicated if not actual kingship then authority, leadership, and the hierarchy involved in LC economic administration. On the other hand, as Steel explains, imagery that has been removed from its original cultural context and introduced elsewhere can assume new meanings through being misunderstood or deliberately reinterpreted.64 In the case of Cypriot glyptic, however, the motif of the sacred tree in Elaborate and Derivative Style glyptic is so obviously derived from the Near East that there is a good chance that its symbolism was imported as well. It seems at least to have been considered sacred, whether or not it was connected to a female deity and kingship as in the Levant and Egypt. Prevalence of Near Eastern palm tree iconography aside, there may be an indigenous source for the tree on Cypriot Common Style cylinder seals. An argument for the seals depicting pine trees can be put forth based on an actual species known in Cyprus. Pinus brutia or Calabrian Pine is the dominant pine of the pillow lava landscape in the foothills of the Troodos Mountains. The characteristic of this tree that may be responsible for a potential link with ingots in iconography is that in antiquity it was a gossan indicator, meaning a species growing within the vicinity of copper ore bodies.65 In addition, the type of tree most commonly used as pit props within the mines was pine: Pinus brutia and Pinus halepensis. In regard to the idea that trees on Common Style seals refer to trees used for fuel for roasting and smelting in the copper industry, however, dwarf oak (Quercus alnifolia), hawthorn, and olive were the most common hardwoods and would have produced long hot burns,66 as opposed to pine which is well known as an inefficient fuel wood, as is also the case with palm. Trees in Cyprus would also have been used for construction, domestic, ritual, and medicinal purposes. Along with copper, trade in timber was an important Cypriot export. Textual evidence informs us that in the LC IIIB cedar was exported from Cyprus to Egypt for the construction of ships and palace doors. Environmental reconstruction suggests that Cyprus was forested with oak, pine, juniper, cypress, oriental plane, alder, bay, myrtle, and oleander. Wild olive, fig, terebinth and hawthorn were also present. As part of his discussion of trees on cylinder seals, Ohnefalsch-Richter noted that in late 19th century Cyprus, harvesting of lower limbs of trees produced a very knotted trunk where the stumps of cut branches were covered by resin.67 This could explain the “dentate” trunks on Common Style seals mentioned by Meekers that, purely iconographically, might suggest segmented palm trunks. Ultimately we do not really know what species of tree is intended to be depicted on Cypriot Common Style seals. Most examples look like palm trees, while a few seem to be pine. The cursory method of engraving means that another species entirely could have been intended which may have been obvious to viewers of the seals in the LBA, but is not to us now.68 The tree in Common Style seals may have conflated Near Eastern ideas of numinous trees connected to fertility and royal ideology with local Cypriot trees associated with the copper industry, as well as symbolically evoking a rural cult site perhaps characterised by a sacred grove. Human Figures As mentioned above, the human figures in the Common Style seals are mainly depicted in a passive posture in conjunction with the other components such as the tree, ingot, and bucrania. In the examples with seated figures, the figures hold spears, and in some examples which only depict human figures and trees the figures are raising one or both arms and touching the tree (Figs 195d, e, f and 205). The lack of direct contact between the figures and the other objects in the majority of Common




























































63 64 65 66 67 68

Binger 1997. Steel 1997, 43. Burnet 1997, 60–1. Knapp 1999, 237. Ohnefalsch-Richter 1893, 101–41. Burnet 1997, 60.

152

CHAPTER 8

Style seal images examined here is surely because the motifs are emblems, and the whole composition a sign that points to tree cult, rather than a realistic scene thereof. Papasavvas suggests that the seal images were constructed this way because the seal carvers were not personally familiar with such ritual and suggests that, in contrast, the craftsperson that made the Kourion bronze stand was. Thus, while the latter was able to convey a narrative, the former just assembled various iconographical elements that they knew were supposed to go together. 69 It seems much more likely, however, that the differences in narrativity were as a result of the available compositional space in each artistic medium. As Papasavvas notes, the figures on the seals are cursorily executed with no (or minimal) accompanying embellishment in the way of gestures, clothing or headgear. We cannot therefore determine whether they are meant to indicate deities or mortals; however, comparison with the Kourion stand suggests that the standing figures are human.70 The seated figures may be a more important class of human, a human acting as the representative of a deity, or an actual deity.71 Their seated position implies authority; however, other deities associated with copper ingots in Cyprus such as the Ingot God or Bomford figurine (AM 1971888) are not seated (Figs 201a, b). Perhaps the seated figures in the seals should be considered analogous to the seated harp player on the Kourion stand, as well as another on a wheeled stand (BM 1946/10-17/1) and be interpreted as important mortals (Figs 198 and 206). Four bronze figurines of robed and seated young males from Enkomi and an unprovenanced one in the Pierides Museum (all LC IIIB), probably made in Cyprus but influenced by Near Eastern or Levantine prototypes, have been interpreted as the Canaanite deity El; however, the youthfulness of the figures suggests otherwise (Fig. 207). Their skullcaps and shaven heads have been interpreted as signifying human status; however, it is not clear whether they are deities, ancestors, cult officials or rulers.72 The indication of a phallus on several of the standing figures in the Common Style seals points to them being male, although not all of the figures appear to have phalli so we cannot say for sure. The seated figures hold spears, again suggesting that they are male and the accompanying standing figures, although sometimes wearing skirts, could be male or female. When standing, these figures are the same basic shape as the figures on other seals that have penises, so perhaps they are male. The cursory carving of the human figures on Common Style seals means that their sex is not always immediately evident. The figures on the Kourion stand are all male, as are the ingot-bearers on the Mycenaean kraters. A female figure with upraised arms appears in association with two types of tree as well as a horse-drawn chariot on another Mycenaean krater in the Metropolitan Museum, although this does not necessarily reference Cypriot cult practice.73 It seems therefore that in LBA imagery males are associated with tree cult when oxhide ingots are also involved, possibly because they worked in the copper industry, although divine females can be associated with ingots, as seen in the example of the Bomford figurine. The possibility that the human figure on Common Style seals represents a figurine rather than a human being is unlikely because of its noticeably larger size than all the other motifs except the tree. Ingots Copper ox-hide ingots in conjunction with a sacred tree are depicted frequently in Common Style glyptic imagery. Papasavvas suggests that because ingots feature so regularly they ought to be






























































69 70 71 72 73

Papasavvas 2009, 91. Papasavvas 2009, 91. Graziadio 2003, 46–7. Webb 1999, 229–231. Karageorghis 2000, 48–50. A terracotta group of three figures dancing around a tree from Kourion dating to the Archaic period may be either male or female, although breasts are not evident, and another terracotta group circling a tree in the British Museum (1903,1215.6), are definitely female. OhnefalschRichter 1893, Pl. CXXVII, 4.

TREES IN CYPRUS

153

considered an essential component of Common Style glyptic iconography.74 As we have seen, ingots also appear on the Kourion and Jerusalem cult stands and on the two above-mentioned Mycenaean kraters as well as another from Tomb 1 at Pyla Verghi. In addition, Ingots appear in association with the bronze statuettes of the Bomford figurine and the Ingot God, as well as in miniature form. 75 Does the iconographic association with both a sacred tree, essentially a physiomorphic deity, and with explicitly anthropomorphic deities such as the bronze statuettes mean then that, as the Kourion stand suggests, full sized copper oxhide ingots were offered as votives to a deity represented by a tree? Although they appear in cult scenes, no full sized ingots or fragments of them have been discovered in actual cult contexts (Fig. 208).76 Nor have most of the miniature ingots, many of which bear CyproMinoan inscriptions thought to be votive dedications (Fig. 202). Buchholz initially suggested that the miniature ingots were votive objects and Catling proposed that they were offered to deities associated with metallurgy such as the Ingot God and Bomford Goddess.77 Another suggestion was that the miniature ingots were weights rather than votive objects; however, their individual weight measurements vary too much for this to be feasible. 78 There are 17 known examples of whole and fragmentary miniature ingots, only eight of which come from secure archaeological contexts on Cyprus. Seven of them date to the LC IIIA–B while an eighth came from a mixed LC IIC/IIIA context.79 Four ingots inscribed with Cypro-Minoan signs come from Enkomi. Although not from an explicitly cultic context, they were found in the vicinity of the Sanctuary of the Horned God in different levels (spanning 1220–1075 BCE) of, or near, the Reconstructed Ashlar Building. Webb questions their use as cult objects, although acknowledges two possible exceptions: one from Court 44 of the Ashlar Building near the Sanctuary of the Horned God at Enkomi and the other from Alassa Pano Mandilaris. The latter was cut in half and found in a domestic cult place, identified by a group of five terracotta bull figurines and an incense burner.80 The general absence of either full sized or miniature ingots at cult sites, however, may suggest that ingots depicted on Common Style seals, rather than being interpreted literally, refer to an association between metallurgy and cult in general. Bucrania and Snakes Bulls and snakes were ancient indigenous Cypriot motifs, as seen on MC Red Polished relief vessels,81 but were also prevalent themes in the Near East and Aegean. Bull imagery is a ubiquitous feature of Cypriot religion; ceramic objects such as the MC shrine models from Marki depict bucrania set upon vertical posts (Fig. 209), and the EC Vounous enclosure model incorporates a similar shrine structure (although if it was originally topped by bucrania they have been knocked off) which also has undulating vertical lines in between the posts that may represent snakes (Fig. 210).82 The Vounous model also depicts four live penned bulls.83 Terracotta figurines of bulls are common in Cyprus and are found in almost all cult buildings, and around twelve examples of cast metal bull figurines are also known. The early association between bulls and snakes may continue into the Archaic period as seen in bull figurines from Kourion that have snakes wrapped around their forelegs and draped over their




























































74

75

76 77 78 79 80 81 82

83

A few examples appear on Derivative Style seals and only one on an Elaborate Style seal. Papasavvas 2009, 90. Catling 1971; Schaeffer 1965. Initially thought to be made from bronze rather than copper, unlike the full-size ingots, as espoused in Knapp 1986, 41–2, 28. In fact XRF Spectrometry has shown that they are indeed made of copper. Giumlia-Mair et al. 2011, 15. Papasavvas 2009, 101. Buchholz 1959, 19–20; Catling 1971, 29. Giumlia-Mair 2011, 15. Papasavvas 2009, 89, 101–4, 125, Figs 19–23; Spigelman 2012, 138–139. Webb 1999, 241, 300. Steel 2013, 80. Åström 1988. The two bucrania and one gazelle skull are suggested to represent the Levantine deities, Reshef, Baal and Anat. O’Bryhim 1996. Peltenburg 1995.

154

CHAPTER 8

horns.84 Bucrania are depicted on ceramic vessels, in modelled compositions, and as rhyta; stone horns have been found at Myrtou Pighades, Kition Temene A and B, the temenos of Sanctuary I at Kouklia as well as the rural sanctuary at Meniko Litharkes, and there is abundant evidence of animal sacrifice in cult buildings at Myrtou, Kition and Enkomi.85 Ritual displays of horned animal heads and the wearing of bucranial masks are evident in the cultic practices of the LC period as seen in figurines from Ayia Irini, Kourion and Peyia that depict male figures wearing or holding masks in front of their faces, and also from actual skulls found at Kition and Enkomi that have been cleaned of their rear projecting bones so that they could be worn as masks and/or hung on the wall.86 Miniature ceramic votive bull masks have also been found in domestic contexts at Kition.87 Elaborate Style seals suggest the existence of horned divinities and Webb proposes that bull masks may have been worn by cult participants during ritual impersonation of such figures.88 Bull masks may be indicated by the bucrania featured alongside the trees, human figures and ox-hide ingots on the Common Style seals, but they may equally allude to animal sacrifice. Chairs/Thrones The seat on which an authoritive figure sits in Common Style seals may be a throne.89 Iconographic depictions of furniture in Cypriot art consist of three dimensional representations in clay, stone and bronze, and two dimensional images painted as vase decoration, incised on metal bowls, and carved on cylinder seals.90 There are 98 representations of furniture on cylinder and stamp seals and rings dating to the LC, with chairs and stools appearing most regularly while tables and footstools are represented in much smaller numbers. In Near Eastern glyptic, chairs mainly appear in drinking, presentation and adoration scenes, but this is not the case in Common Style Cypriot glyptic. In these examples the seated figure is usually associated with a spear. Theodossiadou identifies the figure as the god or protector of metallurgy and Porada sees the figure as a precursor to the later copper protecting deities standing on ingots.91 Most of the figures have bird-like heads, but whether this is meant to indicate some sort of avian nature or is just a cursory rendition of a human profile is hard to determine. The type of chair the figures sit on has a low back, is without arm supports, and has between one and seven horizontal bars connecting the legs. This style can be compared to the example in the scene of the seated harp player on the Kourion cult stand who appears to be sitting on a backless four legged stool with one bar connecting the legs. The presence of the spear in the glyptic examples may suggest a smiting theme and as Theodossiadou suggests, may signify protection of the copper mining industry.92 The weapon held by the figure may suggest a belligerent deity or ruler rather than a seated cult official, as on the Kourion stand, and may be derived from the Near Eastern iconographic repertoire in which effective kingship is expressed by both warfare, evident by weapons, as well as fertility manifest in the sacred tree.






























































84

85

86 87 88 89 90 91 92

Buitron and Soren 1982, 62–3; Buitron-Oliver 1996, 2–4; Glover 1982, 70–4. Rock cut pits at Kourion dating to the 6th century BCE are evidence of a sacred grove. Webb 1999, 219, 25, 106–7, 83, 236, 179, 279. Architectural structures at the Cypro-Archaic rural sanctuaries Meniko Litharkes and Ayia Irini are proposed to have contained sacred trees. Karageorghis 1977, 17–24; Gjerstadt et al. 1934, 642, 664, 671, 672, 674, 675–7, 797, 820–4; Bourogiannis 2013, 3–6. Webb 1999, 179, 222 Karageorghis 1971; Smith 2009. 106–7. Webb 1999, 179, 222. Winter 1986; Rehak 1995. Smith 2009, 89; Theodossiadou 1996. Theodossiadou 1995; Porada 1976, 102. Theodossiadou 1995.

TREES IN CYPRUS

155

Location in the Real Landscape Bronze Age Sanctuaries As well as using Aegean glyptic to elucidate Cypriot cult sites, Sjöqvist also used the imagery from Cypriot seals. He suggested that depictions of cultic activity – that he interpreted as adoration of trees and a bull god, processions, dancing, altars and offerings – provided clues to the activities that occurred in rural sanctuaries. 93 While in many cases in the Aegean it is difficult to establish concordance between glyptic imagery of cult activity and actual cult sites in the landscape, to an extent this is less challenging in the Cypriot case. Although the proposed iconographic evidence for tree cult – as seen on Common Style seals and the Kourion cult stand – is mainly schematic, we can assume that the objects depicted were either literally or symbolically characteristic of ritual activity. The trees, ingots, bucrania, possible cylinder seals, snakes, weapons, thrones or chairs therefore ought to be evident in some manner within the archaeological record at the types of cult sites to which they correlate. The main components of the iconography that we will be looking for therefore are primarily evidence for trees, followed by that of metallurgy, animal sacrifice, furniture, and the votive use of cylinder seals. After some background material on Cypriot sanctuaries, we will move on to specific examples of cult sites. Physical evidence for Cypriot sanctuaries dates back to at least the mid-second millennium.94 This period corresponds approximately to the destruction of Minoan civilisation where extra-urban sanctuaries had long been established, as they also had – and continued to be – in the Levant.95 Unlike Crete, however, Cyprus seems not to have had mountain, cave or spring sanctuaries, but instead cult sites that were situated on low hills, as is also the case in the Levant, and corresponding to what in Crete are termed “rural sanctuaries”. 96 In their early phases Cypriot rural sanctuaries were characterised by a simple enclosure, later they included some residential buildings and eventually built shrine structures.97 Such sites were mainly spread throughout the landscape and situated away from major settlements although as we will see, the sacred area at Kition may have evoked the rural tradition within an urban environment.98 Cypriot rural sanctuaries not only functioned as ceremonial locations but were also concerned with “sacred economy”. 99 Some LC sites, such as Athienou and Kalopsidha, show evidence of metal production and storage of commodities such as olive oil. 100 The topographical position of rural sanctuaries within the landscape often situates them along routes between copper mines and coastal emporia, indicating that they functioned as way stations for the transport of copper.101 That copper production was linked with cultic activity is evident from the iconography discussed above. By the LBA ceremonial structures arose within urban centers such as LC II Enkomi, but the rural sanctuary continued alongside them, flourishing in the CG period and especially so in the CA period, remaining the dominant type of Cypriot religious site until the establishment of Christianity.102 Ayios Jakovos Dhima Discovered in 1929, the sanctuary of Ayios Jakovos Dhima, which dates from the MC III to the LC IIA2, is located on top of a low hill in north-east Cyprus at the foot of the Karpas peninsula, 8km




























































93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102

Sjöqvist 1940, 2; Collard 2008, 32. Webb 1999. Hitchcock 2011, 509. Rutkowski 1979, 225; Webb 1999, 624; Merrillees 1974, 47. Wright 1992b, 256. Wright 1992b. Burdajewicz 1990, 35–8; Hitchcock 2011, 513. Dothan and Ben-Tor 1983. Keswani 1993. Knapp 1999, 247–8, 233; Wright 1990–91; Wright 1992, 256.

156

CHAPTER 8

southeast of a pass leading through the Kyrenia range and about 22.5km from Famagusta (Fig. 211).103 The sanctuary is also situated 1.5km west of a number of chamber tombs at Melia that date to MC IIIA–LC IIB, but which were not in use at the same time as the sanctuary.104 Characterised by minimal architecture, the cult site was mainly identified and is defined by its ovoid plaster floor which has a diameter of 10.10m. It probably also originally had a wooden enclosure wall, no traces of which remain, with an entrance in the northwest. Close to the center of the space a low stone wall runs in a north-south direction, dividing the floor into two unequal halves. The floor of the east area is 25cm lower than the western floor and a doorway facilitated communication between the two areas.105 Two circular rubble podia, which may have been altars, are situated in the eastern section. One structure measures 2.62m, the other 1.12m in diameter, and both are 0.95m high. The smaller rubble podium is situated against the edge of the enclosure and the larger one is at the northern end of the dividing wall. The presence of two altars may indicate the worship of two deities. While the finds on the floor date to LC IIA (1450–1375 BCE), below the floor to the south of the altars is a rock cut pit, dating to the MC III (1725–1650 BCE) and preceding the sanctuary associated with the plaster floor by around two hundred years. 106 It appears to have functioned as a bothros as it contained ash and broken potsherds and was covered by a layer of rough stones. While it may indicate a previous sanctuary situated in the same place, it also may have been unrelated to the existing one. In the western section of the sanctuary a large terracotta basin or larnax, measuring 1.28 x 0.47m, was embedded within a shallow pit in the rock floor. A person initially entering the sanctuary would have found themselves facing this feature. The western sector of the site may have been accessible to cult participants for the deposition of offerings in and around the basin, while the eastern sector was of more restricted access. To the south-east of the basin was a small trapezoidal rock-cut pit; while to the north was a small cylindrical pit. All the finds from the site were situated around the basin and pits.107 Wright has suggested that the LC IIA2 sanctuary also incorporated a sacred tree which, being perishable is no longer evident. There is no direct evidence for a tree and Wright bases this suggestion on the presence of sacred trees in Aegean glyptic and mentioned in the biblical text.108 He does not explain where such a tree ought to have been and perhaps means within one of the rock-cut pits; the feasibility of growing trees in rock-cut pits will be discussed below. The simple architecture at this site belies the rather elaborate offerings discovered there which include jewellry, precious metal objects, bronze weapons, lumps of iron, terracotta cult paraphernalia, glass, pottery, alabaster, pieces of shell and marble, and foreign exotica from the Aegean, Anatolia, the Levant and Egypt. Four cylinder seals were evident, one of which depicts a Mistress of Animals and a sacred tree and another depicted a Janus-like figure with a goat, a griffin, and a palm tree growing from the forehead of a bucranium. 109 Many authors have suggested a likeness between Ayios Iakovos Dhima and the terracotta models from EC III Vounous and MC I Marki which are proposed as evidence for a tradition of circular and/or archaeologically ephemeral structures at cult sites within the Cypriot and Aegean landscapes.110 The Vounous model is a Red Polished-ware bowl that was found in disturbed Tomb 22 at Vounous (Fig. 210). It consists of a flat-bottomed circular bowl with an entrance way cut in the side in the form of a gateway topped with a raised lintel. In the interior of the bowl are nineteen human figures, only one of which is female, four penned bulls, and another figure located outside the walls and peeping over to view the interior scene. The largest figure in the scene is seated and positioned opposite the entrance.




























































103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110

Gjerstadt et al. 1934, 303. Åström 1972, 828; Sjöqvist 1940, 113–114; Collard 2008, 28, n. 180. Gjerstadt et al. 1934, 356. Gjerstadt et al. 1934, 360–1. Gjerstadt et al. 1934, 356. Wright 1992b, 269, 276–280. Åström 1972, 1; Gjerstadt et al. 1934, 357; Erikson 1993, 27. Sjöqvist 1940, 2; Åström 1972, 769; Rutkowski 1986, 100, 205, 247 n.3, n.4; 1988, 24–6; Webb 1992a, 95; Wright 1992b; 1999, 31; Knapp 1996, 88; 1999, 233–4.

TREES IN CYPRUS

157

To his right a smaller male figure is kneeling at the edge of a semi circular floor ridge that demarcates a cult structure consisting of three pillars (originally surmounted by bucrania) and with snakes dangling from crossbars, attached to the back wall of the bowl. Another group of figures stand facing each other, and the remaining figures stand near the cattle enclosure.111 The vertical, tripartite structure on the back “wall” of the Vounous bowl, which is the focus of the kneeling figure, may be a version of the type of structure seen on two other terracotta shrine models from a MBA cemetery near Marki, another model from Kalopsidha, and a Red Polished IV ware fragment from Psematismenos (Fig. 209). The models consist of three vertical posts topped by horned animal heads, set on a floor upon which stands a female figure next to a pithos, and may have had funerary associations.112 If such structures were made of wood they would have decayed and consequently be archaeologically undetectable. Like the so-called “ephemeral cult sites” proposed for Crete, it is often assumed that these sorts of cult structures were common in Cyprus and that their absence is due to the difficulty of tracing their scanty remains. While such models may indeed approximate the original appearance of Ayios Jakovos Dhima, as Webb notes, however, the deposition of valuable and exotic objects in this case gives the impression of a unique rather than typical phenomenon.113 Because this appears to have been a single-period site, Webb proposes that it was a temporary site used for a “one-off operation” and then abandoned. The rich and exotic finds from the site appear not to have been disturbed since their original interment suggesting that the site went out of use after the objects were dedicated. This is in contrast to most Cypriot sanctuaries which show evidence of long, continuous use as well as destruction and rebuilding and the periodic clearing of accumulated votive objects. The nature of the ritual activity enacted at Ayios Iakovos Dhima is unknown, rectangular pits cut into levelled rock and filled with ash and burnt bone suggests the cooking of animal flesh although there is no evidence of fire. The proximity of the site to cemeteries and the presence of Red Lustrous-ware arm vessels, otherwise only found in mortuary contexts, may indicate a funerary or commemorative function that incorporated animal sacrifice and feasting, drinking and libation, along with the offering of votive objects.114 Contra Webb’s proposal of a one-off ceremony, Collard suggests that several ceremonies could have occurred within a short period at this site. The votive weaponry may suggest an association with warfare and hunting, and the initiation of males, or may reflect a reaction to hardship during the LC I–LC II period, as suggested by late LC I mass burials at nearby Melia.115 Steel proposes that the deposition of exotic and prestige objects demonstrates lavish ritual display by Cypriot elites in the negotiation of new social realities. The lumps of unworked iron, highly prized in the Bronze Age for use in crafting high status or ceremonial objects, are the only instance of this metal on Cyprus at this date and were undoubtedly perceived to be a material of great value and accorded symbolic potency. The manipulation of prestige and exotic objects in elite ceremonial display would have functioned to augment the power and authority of emergent Cypriot hierarchies.116 Athienou Athienou Bamboulari tis Koukouninas is situated inland in eastern Cyprus located upon an approximately 2m high hillock, midway between Nicosia and Larnaca (Fig. 212). Two LC–IA cemeteries lie to its north and south. The site is 2500m2 and characterised by an approximately 1m occupation level which can be divided into four strata spanning the early 16th to the 8th /7th centuries BCE, the main phases being Strata III and II. The earliest remains of the site date to the MC III (Stratum IV) and consist of shallow pits which are possibly the remains of huts, and some pottery.




























































111 112

113 114 115 116

Karageorghis 1970; Peltenburg 1994, 158; Sjöqvist 1940, 41; Steel 2013, 67. Åström 1988, 5; 1966, 15, Fig. 5; Webb 2012; Flourentzos 1993; Webb and Frankel 2010. Such triplicity is also found in Aegean cult with the tripartite shrine. Hitchcock 2011. Webb 1999, 29–35; Collard 2008, 28–39. Webb 1992, 94–6; 1999, 202. Collard 2008, 34–5. Steel 2013, 154–5.

158

CHAPTER 8

Stratum IV may have been a cult site; however, the ceramic assemblage is not overtly votive. The sanctuary was established in Stratum III, dating from the LC IA/B–IIIA. During this phase the site consisted of a large 20m x 16m open court, which was originally walled and bordered to the north by small rectangular rooms. The sanctuary received additional architectural structures in Stratum II (LC IIIA–LC IIIB), after which it was abandoned. Stratum III is characterised by the presence of two thousand intact miniature as well as regular sized LC, LM III and LH IIIB ceramic vessels and up to ten thousand fragments which were found in heaps of several hundred each within the courtyard and the northwest room. That the miniature vessels were votive is suggested by the fact that many do not exceed 1cm in height, whilst others were solid and thus could not have functioned as receptacles. Heaps of unbaked clay suggests that they were made on site.117 Other terracotta objects included a fragmentary offering stand, a bull, two wall brackets and a so-called “snake house” (possibly a rodent trap). 118 An ivory rhyton carved with pictorial motifs including human heads, horned animals, birds, fish and plants, a stone brazier, a stone basin decorated with a bucranium, a bronze chariot with bulls, some jewellry and textile equipment were also evident. A fragmentary Elaborate Style cylinder seal with a design of winged figures with human and animal heads, a fragmentary Common Style seal featuring a rectilinear tree motif, a seal impression on a pithos fragment depicting Aegean style galloping animals, and an Egyptian faience scarab and bronze seal ring with hieroglyphs were also found.119 Metallurgical refuse including nodules, chunks, and scrap metal such as nails, tools, metal spill and pieces of lead was situated inside and around pits across the site. Faunal remains come from seven pits as well as the votive vessel heaps.120 In Stratum II the buildings were modified and a large plaster platform (120m2) was erected. Miniature vessels are absent but regular sized LC and LH IIIC 1B pottery, including eleven LC III pithoi that probably contained olive oil, a jar, wall bracket, a stone basin, a limestone bowl, a brazier, textile equipment, and a stamp seal with a linear design are evident. Evidence of metallurgy continues with roasted ore chunks found east of the court in the northeast room and in channels associated with the platform, as does that of feasting with pits in the court containing roasted ash, bone and horns, and shell material. The majority of bones belonged to sheep/goat, many of which were under 10 months of age, while there was also evidence for cattle, pig, deer, dog, donkey and horse. Almost 300 bird bones, the largest amount of bird remains for any Cypriot Bronze Age site, were found, and there was some evidence of marine animals, rodents, reptiles and insects.121 Dothan interpreted Athienou as a bāmāh but wondered whether it was a “high place” before being associated with metallurgy.122 The presence of copper nodules in the vicinity of the miniature votive pottery has led to debate concerning the metallurgical nature of the site, the question being whether the site was used to roast, smelt or otherwise process copper or whether it was simply a cult site at which metallurgical material was offered in a votive capacity. Maddin et al. propose that a primitive type of smelting occurred at Athienou and to a lesser extent alloying, casting and working. 123 Kassianidou doubts this because already in the beginning of the LC period Cypriot smelting technology was very advanced, as evident at Politiko-Phorades. Nor is there any evidence at the site of metallurgical structures such as furnaces, tuyeres, or waste products from smelting such as slag. The lack of trees for use as fuel in the region also precludes it as a copper producing site, although the 5 kg of scrap metal found in and around the pit in the Stratum III court suggests that some alloying, casting and working processes were performed there.124




























































117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124

Dothan and Ben-Tor 1972; 1983; Dothan 1981. Dothan and Ben-Tor 1983, 53, Pl.18.1–2; Webb 1999, 25. Yogev 1983; Giveon 1983; Porada 1983. Reese 2005. Reese 2005. Dothan 1981, 93. Maddin et al. 1983, 136–7. Kassianidou 2005, 137–8; Catling 1971; Webb 1999, 21–9.

TREES IN CYPRUS

159

Athienou was probably a cult site that also functioned as a way station in between the mining districts of Troulli or Sha (located 8 and 20km away) and one of the coastal centres to the east-southeast such as Enkomi, Kition or Hala Sultan Tekke. As Keswani explains such sites were part of a network via which copper was transported from the mountains to the coasts and crafted and imported goods travelled in turn from the coasts inland.125 Kassianidou is sceptical of the votive character of the nodules because they are a waste product of the roasting process which, she proposes, would not have been a suitable offering for a deity. As Burdajewicz explains, however, during the LC IIIA across the entire Mediterranean the connection of cult with the economy increases.126 Evidence of feasting, drinking and perhaps the use of psychoactive substances may have functioned to motivate the labour force involved in the transport of copper, while the cult context and ritual activity would provide an ideological incentive. Karageorghis proposes a scenario akin to the Levantine Marzeah, a feast that involved eating, drinking and sexual intercourse, evidence of which may be present at the Late Bronze Age bāmāh-style temple at Tell el-Dabca.127 Kalopsidha Koufos Another cult site associated with metallurgy that may have functioned in the same way as Athienou is Koufos, located 25km to the southwest of Athienou and 500m southwest of Kalopsidha, midway between Famagusta and Nicosia. Pottery evidence suggests continuous activity at the site from MC III to LC IIA, with gradual abandonment around 1400 BCE and minor reoccupation in the IA. Measuring approximately 40–50m in diameter, the site has no intact buildings, but remnants of walls suggest the presence of an original large structure. Trench 9 (5m x 1m) produced 223,000 pottery sherds ranging in date from MC III to LC I–II as well as IA material. Miniature votive vessels, primarily juglets and cups with an average height of 6cm, were present alongside various types of regular sized pottery, an offering stand, and a fragment from a zoomorphic figurine. Small bronzes and metallurgical objects such as slag and ore are suggestive of smelting, as is a stone mould, crucibles and scrap metal. Animal bones from immature sheep and goats provide evidence of feasting. The finds at Koufos are contemporary with Athienou Stratum III, and like Athienou the evidence from Koufos suggests large scale communal participation in ritual and feasting. Koufos was also of similar size as Athienou, and was situated on the overland route from the mines of the Troodos to the east coast. 128 Crewe interprets Koufos as a “packaging centre” for an “international production centre” at Kalopsidha that made perfumed oils for use in mortuary ritual and that it only later transformed into a rural sanctuary. Web suggests, however, that it is more likely that along with Athienou, Koufos was established by Enkomi in the early LC as part of the establishment of organisational structures in the hinterland associated with the procurement and transport of copper.129 Myrtou Pighades Myrtou Pighades is located in northern Cyprus on the crossroads between the Kyrenia range and the coastal plain on a small inland plain southeast of Myrtou (Fig. 213). Two cemeteries are situated in the vicinity to the northwest and on a ridge above the site. The cult site may have been up to an acre in size and is the earliest intramural cult place in Cyprus. It features structures dating to LC IIA–IIB (Periods III–IV) consisting of smaller group of rooms around a court (CD1–CD6), over which was built another complex dating to LC II–IIIA (Periods V–VII). A large rubble podium 0.4m high, perhaps a bāmāh took up the entire floor space of CD3, and a ramp may have originally led to it from CD2.130




























































125 126 127 128 129 130

Keswani 1993, 78–79. Kassianidou 2005, 137–8; Catling 1971; Burdajewicz 1990, 35–8. Spigelman 2012, 153; Karageorghis 2011, 38. Webb 1999, 113–119. Crewe 2010, 69; Webb 2012. Taylor 1957; Webb 1999, 35–7.

160

CHAPTER 8

The Period V–VII cult complex (45m x 24–32m), built over the remains of Periods III–IV, consists of an open court surrounded by rooms and a self-contained building at the eastern end of the court, to the north of which was a street. Measuring 12m x 16.5m, the court featured a rubble bench on its eastern wall above which a series of pierced stones were inserted into the wall, thought to be tethering places for sacrificial animals, and nearby was a drain. The south wall also had a bench along it as well as a small recess containing a well. A monumental altar (2.27m high), reconstructed as surmounted by monumental stone horns, was situated at the eastern end of the court and to its north was a rectangular block (1.05 x 0.76m) embedded in the floor. Sockets surrounding the horned altar are suggested to have held cult emblems such as bucrania, snakes or double axes. LC and Mycenean cooking, feasting and cult pottery were found within the court along with a small bronze bull figurine, fragments of a larger terracotta bull and another unidentified zoomorphic figure. The antlers of over forty deer, the horns of two goats and a mouflon were found around the rectangular block.131 The eastern building (16m x 20m) located immediately east of the open court features an internal court surrounded by rooms and corridors. It contained olive processing and storage equipment, decorated pottery, cult paraphernalia, animal bones including notched ox scapulae, metal and stone tools and evidence of metallurgy such as lumps of copper, slag, chunks of furnace conglomerate. A cylinder seal depicting a human figure in the vicinity of a cursorily rendered volute tree was found in Room 25.132 Kition The sacred area at Kition-Kathari is set against the city walls in the northern part of the settlement of Kition which lies underneath the modern city of Larnaca on the south-east coast. Area II of the site, the earliest levels of which date back to the LC II period, measures approximately 2000m2. It consisted of a series of successive sanctuaries and five temples have been excavated there. The area had a LBA and an IA phase, separated by a period of abandonment that lasted from around 1000 to 850 BCE. During the LC III to CG I periods, the sacred area was in continuous use. The final phase structure, a Phoenician temple of Astarte, was eventually destroyed by Ptolemy I.133 Temples 2 and 3, dating to the LC IIC and associated with Floor IV, are the earliest of the five buildings within the temple precinct. They were situated at a distance of 16m from each other on either side of an open area that has been interpreted as a sacred garden.134 The temples consisted of small roofed cellas constructed of mud brick laid on rubble foundations; both temples had hearths and altars and were associated with larger open-air courts. Temple 2 was the first large structure (17.3 x 6.6m) built in Area II. Aligned east-west, Karageorghis interpreted it as a typical Near Eastern style temple with a courtyard to the east and holy-of-holies to the west. It was entered from the south via a street and faced onto Courtyard B rather than on to the sacred garden which it may not have been directly associated with.135 Temple 3, situated north-west of Temple 2 and fronting onto the sacred garden, was a much smaller trapezoidal structure made up of two rooms (Fig. 214). Measuring 5.55 x 2.65–3.15m, it consisted of a main room or hall to the east and a smaller room to the west. The building was roofed but without internal supports and was entered through a lateral entrance (1.25m wide) in the south-east corner. To the left of the entrance was a Ushaped hearth (55m x 0.45m) constructed of small stones packed with earth, ash and bone, which adjoined a roughly circular table (Altar E), and mudbrick benches (0.35m high) lined the south and west walls.136 Toward the north-east area of the floor were three pits (h, i, and j), possibly bothroi, that contained dark soil, pebbles, bones, and other fragmentary material of LC IIC. Pits h and i contained seven fragmentary Mycenaean figurines, three of which were of the psi type, along with 85 faience




























































131 132 133 134 135 136

Webb 1999, 44–8. Hitchcock 2008. Karageorghis and Demas 1985; Smith 2009, 53. Karageorghis 1976, 55; Karageorghis and Demas 1985, 29. Karageorghis 1975, 55. Karageorghis 1976, 56–7; Karageorghis and Demas 1985, 36–7.

TREES IN CYPRUS

161

beads, two Cypriot jugs, two stone anchors, a crucible and a platter, an ivory chip, a Mycenaean krater decorated with a bull, a jar, juglet, glass flask, loomweight and stone bowl.137 Other pits in the area contained ash, bone, rubble, and mudbrick, and copper slag was found in a basin and the fill below Floor IIIA suggesting metallurgical activity. To the east and northeast of Temple 3 and between Temples 3 and 2, was an open area of leveled havara with 116 circular and oblong pits, along with channels, wells, and a rectangular basin (more pits may lie under Phoenician structures that remain in situ). This area was interpreted by the excavators as the remains of a sacred garden (Fig. 215). The garden appeared to belong to the precinct as a whole, but the entrance to Temple 3 faced onto it and must have been specifically associated with it.138 The width of the pits ranges between 0.30–0.50m in diameter, while their depth varies between 0.60 and 0.80m. They do not appear to be in any particular pattern and seem to have been dug randomly. Karageorghis supposed that they were too small to contain tree roots; however, the pits may not have been designed to hold the entire root structure, but merely to deepen the planting capacity in an area of shallow soil over high bedrock. 139 In the archaeological record rock-cut planting pits are mainly found in arid or semi-arid climates with low rainfall where plants are accustomed to sudden flooding and then periods of drought. Although a pit may be small, as long as they receive sufficient water, trees can actually withstand quite compact spaces and still produce a lush canopy. In regard to pits h, u, and j east of Temple 3 at Kition which have a “double” construction with a smaller pit cut into the base of the larger one, Karageorghis and Demas suggest that such a structure indicates a method of retaining water. Without soil analysis or traces of actual plant material or structure, we can only speculate on what type of vegetation was actually present; however, the apparent small size of the pits ought not to preclude an interpretation of trees. Alternately, they may have been only used for shrubs and flowers – later structures, Temples 4 and 5, had evidence of opium use, so perhaps the Temple 3 garden grew opium poppies, although such plants would not require rock-cut pits. The basin (4.55 x 1.65 x 0.9m) was suggested to be a pool for sacred fish; however, it was made of porous havara. Channels running between the temple and garden and terminating at wells probably functioned to irrigate the area.140 The garden associated with Temple 3 may have evoked the trees and groves that were most likely a feature of the rural sanctuary tradition.141 Early in the 12th century BCE (corresponding to Floor IIIA) Temple 3 and the garden were replaced by Temple 1, built over the entire garden area which subsequently went out of use.142 An unusual dark grey stone interpreted as a baetyl was found inside the south-east entry to Temple 1, associated with Floor IIIA. 143 It was not in its original position, which may have been upon an elevated base; nevertheless it was probably placed within the vicinity of the entrance of Temple 1.144 That Temple 1 was built over the sacred garden may indicate that the baetyl was originally associated with the latter. As we know, stones in conjunction with trees were a feature of cult sites in the Aegean and Levant.145




























































137 138 139 140 141 142

143 144 145

Webb 1999, 42. Karageorghis and Demas 1985, 30, 36–7. Karageorghis and Demas 1985 82; Gleason 2013, 243–6. Karageorghis and Demas 1985, 258, 31 Wright 1992b. Karageorghis 1976, 59–72. The sacred area at Kition remained in this particular configuration through the Late Cypriot III (Floors IIIA, III and II). Floor II has traces of tree pits, suggesting another garden, and two pits, reputedly for sacred trees, flanked either side of the Phoenician temple (Floor 3), perhaps continuing on the tradition of the sacred garden, the remains of which underlay it, as well as the tradition of trees flanking the entry to Near Eastern temples dating back to the 3rd millennium BCE. Giovino 2007, 182. Although disturbance by the later Phoenicians makes its chronology uncertain. Crooks 2013, 32–3. Karageorghis 1976, 69, Pl.75. And there was a baetyl at Cypro-Archaic II period Ayia Irini, a site also associated with sacred trees. Gjerstadt et al. 1934, 642, 664, 671, 672, 674, 675–7, 797, 820–4.

162

CHAPTER 8

Conclusion In conclusion, as we have seen in this chapter, evidence for tree cult in Cyprus consists of iconography in various media including cylinder seals, bronze cult stands, and Mycenaean pottery, as well as actual sanctuary sites. As can be seen from the evidence of the five cult sites examined here, elements of the imagery on Cypriot Common Style seals do correlate with features of rural sanctuaries. While the actual tree at cult sites is ephemeral, the glyptic rendition thereof may have signified the rural nature of Cypriot sanctuaries in general, a once-present sacred tree or grove associated with both a bounteous deity, and specific trees used within the copper mining industry. The predominance of male figures on the cylinder seals may reflect the sex of the copper workers or of the administrators who may have also been cult officials, their important role emphasised by depicting them as seated. The ingot in glyptic images may have symbolised metallurgy in general, evident at cult sites in both an industrial and votive capacity, and ubiquitous throughout the landscape as it moved along travel routes from the mountains to the sea. Bucrania, as well as being a traditional Cypriot motif evocative of the importance of cattle, also signified animal sacrifice and subsequent feasting, evident at the rural sanctuaries. Cylinder seals brought such components together in a talismanic capacity, evoking on their tiny surfaces the physically and conceptually larger economic and ideological machine that was the Late Bronze Age Cypriot copper industry.


FINAL SUMMARY In the introduction I identified the aim of the research as the production of new interpretations of Minoan images of tree cult. Previous interpretations in which images of tree cult were thought to depict the separate stages of a seasonal ritual that could be reconstructed if placed within the correct order; a mythical cycle concerning a Great Mother Goddess and her Dying and Rising Consort/Son symbolic of vegetation; or conversely evidence of a primitive evolutionary stage in religion, have been shown to be untenable. Instead, it has been proposed here that Minoan images of tree cult represent a sophisticated and cosmopolitan religious concept that functioned to enhance the status of elite participants through association with ideas of rulership and control over nature. Rather than being true-to-life portraits of particular individuals at specific locations, images of tree cult are imaginary compositions constructed from elements of actual events and places that function as propagandistic visual messages that convey the idea of an intimate association between elite figures and an animate landscape. Images in which a human figure encounters an epiphanic being in a seemingly natural landscape characterised by trees and rocks and without the presence of any built structures show that the landscape was considered animate and convey the idea that elite figures can communicate with, and hence influence, landscape numina. Scenes in which a human figure approaches sanctuary walls suggest a relationship between elite figures and tree and mountain numina resident at monumentalised cult sites within the landscape, particularly peak sanctuaries. Columnar and stepped ashlar cult structures in conjunction with trees evoke the groves and mountains of the animate landscape through architectonic verisimilitude, situating them within urban settings, and emphasise the symbolic association between females and trees. Trees in association with boats and seascape are emblematic of female deities associated with trees and hence landscape and the sea, as well as human rulership, and associate Minoan elites who sponsored seafaring with the prestigious aura of transculturality. Correlations in Levantine religion suggest an east Mediterranean koiné in which local tree goddesses also protected seafaring and which may be syncretic reflections of the interaction resulting from international trade. That goddesses and trees not only had symbolic associations but were actually interchangeable, as is suggested in Minoan iconography, is evident in Middle and Late Bronze Age Levantine and Egyptian iconography. Further similarities between eastern Mediterranean and Minoan religion are apparent in the presence of sacred trees in association with elite palatial architecture as well as at both architecturally elaborated and more ephemeral cult sites within the landscape. While Cypriot tree cult is slightly different in regards to the predominance of male figures and its overt economic character, the symbolism of the tree and the types of sites with which it was associated suggest sufficient similarity to confirm it as a regional manifestation of the wider eastern Mediterranean religious phenomena of sacred trees. The establishment and maintenance of the power of elite peoples through religion is historically constant and conventional. The point in this study, however, is how Minoan elites established power. Minoan images of tree cult depict elite figures performing their intimate association with the numinous landscape through the communicative method of envisioned and enacted epiphanic ritual. The tree in such images is a physiomorphic representation of a goddess type known in the wider eastern Mediterranean associated with rulership and with the additional qualities of fertility, nurturance, protection, regeneration, order and stability. The representation of this deity by elite human females in ritual performance functioned to enhance their self-representation as divinities and thus legitimise and concretise the position of elites within the hegemonic structure of Neopalatial Crete. These ideological visual messages were circulated to a wider audience through the reproduction and dispersion

164

FINAL SUMMARY

characteristic of the sphragistic process, in this way, Minoan elites literally stamped their authority on to the Cretan landscape and hence society.





ABBREVIATIONS AA AJA AM ArchRW AWE BA BAASV BAIAS BASOR BCH BICS BSA CB CBQ CI CMS CultAnth CurrAnth FS GHI Bulletin HSCP HTR HUCA IEJ JAEI JAOS JAR JBL JdI JHS JIES JMA JNES JNSL JPR MTPC OJA OpAth PAN PEQ Prakt RC RDAC SIMA SEL TA

Archäologischer Anzeiger American Journal of Archaeology Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung Archiv für Religionswissenschaft Ancient West and East The Biblical Archaeologist Bulletin of the Archaeological and Anthropological Society of Victoria Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin de Correspondence Hellénique Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies British School at Athens The Classical Bulletin The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Classics Ireland Corpus der Minoischen und Mykenischen Siegel Cultural Anthropology Current Anthropology Feminist Studies German Historical Institute Harvard Studies in Classical Philology The Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual Israel Exploration Journal Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections Journal of the American oriental Society Journal of Anthropological Research Journal of Biblical Literature Jarbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Journal of Hellenic Studies Journal of Indo-European Studies Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Journal of Prehistoric Religion Mycenaean Tree and Pillar Cult and Its Mediterranean Relations Oxford Journal of Archaeology Opuscula Atheniensia Philosophy, Activism, Nature Palestine Exploration Quarterly Praktika tis en Athinais Archaiologikis Hetairias Religion Compass Report of the department of Antiquities, Cyprus Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology Studi epigrafici e linguisti Tel Aviv: Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University

166

ABBREVIATIONS

TUAS VT WA





Temple University Aegean Symposium Vetus Testamentum World Archaeology

WORKS CITED Aamont, C. 2008. “Mycenaean Cult Practice: ‘Private’ and ‘Public’ Ritual Acts.” In Dioskouri. Studies presented to W.G. Cavanagh and C.B. Mee on the anniversary of their 30-joint contribution to Aegean Archaeology, edited by C. Gallou, M. Georgiadis and G.M. Muskett, 30–41. BAR International Series 1889. Abulafia, D. 2014. The Great Sea. A Human History of the Mediterranean. London: Penguin. Ackerman, R. 1991. The Myth and Ritual School: J.G. Frazer and the Cambridge Ritualists. New York: Routledge. Ackerman, S. 1992. Under Every Green Tree: Popular Religion in Sixth-Century Judah. Atlanta: Scholars Press. _____. 1998. Warrior, Dancer, Seductress, Queen: Women in Judges and Biblical Israel. New York: Doubleday. Aharoni, Y. 1975. Investigations at Lachish: the Sanctuary and the Residency (Lachish V). Tel Aviv: Gateway Publishers. Albers, G. 2004. “Re-evaluating Mycenaean Sanctuaries.” In Celebrations. Selected papers and discussions from the Tenth Anniversary Symposion of the Norwegian Institute at Athens, 12–16 May 1999, edited by M. Wedde, 111–46. Athens: Norwegian Institute at Athens. Albright, W.F. 1960 “Some Observations on the new material for the history of the alphabet.” BASOR: 134. Alexandri, A. 1994. Gender Symbolism in Late Bronze Age Aegean Art. Unpublished PhD thesis, Cambridge University. Al-Khalesi, Y.M. 1978. The Court of the Palms: A Functional Interpretation of the Mari Palace. Malibu: Undena Publications. Allweill, Y., and R. Kallus. 2008. “Heterotopias of masculinity along the Tel Aviv shoreline.” In Heterotopia and the City: Public Space in a Postcivil Society, edited by M. Dehaene and L. De Caulter, 191–201. London: Routledge. Al-Radi, S.M.S. 1983. Phlamoudhi Vounari: a sanctuary site in Cyprus. Göteborg: Paul Åström. Andreadaki-Vlazaki, M. 2002. “Are we Approaching the Minoan palace of Khania?” In Monuments of Minos: Rethinking the Minoan palaces. Proceedings of the International Workshop “Crete of the Hundred Palaces?” Université Catholique de Louvain-la-Neuve, 14–15 December 2001 (Aegaeum 23), edited by J. Driessen, I. Schoep, and R. Laffineur, 157–66. Liège: Université de Liège. _____. 2010. “Khania.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Aegean Bronze Age, edited by E.H. Cline, 518–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Artzy, M. 1995. “Nami: A Second Millennium International Maritime Trading Center in the Mediterranean.” In Recent Excavations in Israel: A View to the West. Reports on Kabri, Nami, MiqneEkron, Dor and Ashkelon, edited by S. Gitin, 17–40. AIA Colloquia and Conference Papers 1. Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt. Aruz, J. 1998. “The Aegean and the Orient: The Evidence of Stamp and Cylinder Seals.” In The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium. Proceedings of the 50th Anniversary Symposium Cincinnati, 18–20 April 1997, edited by E.H. Cline and D. Harris-Cline, 301–10. Liège: Université de Liège. Asher-Greve, J.M. 2008. “Images of Men, Gender Regimes, and Social Stratification.” In Gender Through Time in the Ancient Near East, edited by D. Bolger, 119–50. Lanham: AltaMira Press. Åström, P. 1966. Excavations at Kalopsidha and Ayia Iakovos in Cyprus. Lund: SIMA. _____. 1972. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition IV: ID. The Late Cypriote Bronze Age. Relative and Absolute Chronology, Foreign Relations and Historical Conclusions. Lund: The Swedish Cyprus Expedition. _____. 1983. “An Amphora decorated with a Palm-Tree Motif from Hala Sultan Tekke.” RDAC: 175–6. _____. 1988. “A Cypriote Cult Scene.” JPR 2: 5–11.

168

WORKS CITED

Aubert, M.E. 2013. Commerce and Colonisation in the Ancient Near East. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Avi-Yonah, M., and E. Stern. 1977. Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Masada Press; Oxford University Press. Avner, U. Late Neolithic – Early Chalcolithic Burial Sites in Eilat By the Red Sea. IAA Reports (In Press). Bachofen, J.J. [1861] 1975. Das Mutterrecht: eine Untersuchung über die Gynaikokratie der alten Welt nach ihrer religiösen und rechtlichen Natur. Bruxelles: Culture et Civilisation. Bailey, D.W. 2005. Prehistoric Figurines: Representation and Corporeality in the Neolithic. Oxon: Routledge. Bailly, L. 2003. Lacan: A Beginner’s Guide. London: Oneworld. Baines, J. 1984. Fecundity Figures: Egyptian Personification and the Iconology of a Genre. Warminster: Aris and Phillips. Banou, E., and L. Hitchcock. 2009. “The ‘Lord of Vapheio’: The Social Identity of the Dead and its Implications for Laconia in the Late Helladic II-IIIA Period.” In Honouring the Dead in the Peloponnese. Proceedings of the conference held at Sparta 23-25 April 2009, edited by H. Cavanagh, W. Cavanagh and J. Roy, 1–23. University of Nottingham: Online Publication. Barber, E. 2010. “On Middle Minoan Sites and Sight Lines: Communication Strategies in the Bronze Age Mediterranean.” JIES 38: 1–25. Barber, R.L.N., and O. Hadjianastasiou. 1989. “A Bronze Age Settlement on Naxos.” BSA 84: 63– 162. Barrick, B.W. 1975. “The Funerary Character of “High Places” in Ancient Palestine: A Reassessment.” VT 25: 565–95. _____. 1992. “High Place”. In The Anchor Bible Dictionary 3, edited by D.N. Freedman, 196–200. New York: Doubleday. Beck, P. 1986. “A New Type of Female Figurine.” In Insight Through Images: Studies in Honor of Edith Porada, edited by M. Kelly-Buccellati, P. Matthiae and M. van Loon, 29–34. Malibu: Udena Publications. Ben-Ami, D. 2008. “Monolithic Pillars in Canaan: Reconsidering the Date of the High Place at Gezer.” Levant 40: 17–28. Ben-Arieh, S. 1983. “A Mould for a Goddess Plaque.” IEJ 33: 72–7. Ben-Dor, E. 1950. “A Middle Bronze Age Temple at Nahariya.” The Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 14: 1–41. Benson, J.J. 1983. “Thoughts on a Late Bronze Age Motif.” RDAC: 172–4. Benzel, K. 2013. “Ornaments of Interaction: Jewelry in the Late Bronze Age.” In Cultures in Contact: From Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C.”, edited by J. Aruz, S.B. Graff, and Y. Rakic, 258–267. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Berg, I. 2007. “Aegean Bronze Age Seascapes – a case study in maritime movement.” In Mediterranean Crossroads, edited by S. Antoniadou and S. Pace, 387–415. Athens: Pierides Foundation. _____. 2010. “Re-Capturing the Sea: the Past and Future of Island Archaeology in Greece.” Shima: The International Journal of Research Into Island Cultures 4: 16–26. _____. 2011. “Towards a Conceptualisation of the Sea: artefacts, iconography and meaning.” In The Seascape in Aegean Prehistory, edited by G. Vavouranakis, 119–137. Athens: Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 14. _____. 2013. “Marine Creatures and the Sea in Bronze Age Greece: Ambiguities of Meaning.” Journal of Maritime Archaeology 8: 1–27. Betancourt, P. 1977. “Perspective and the Third Dimension in Theran Painting. Temple University Aegean Symposium 2: 19–22. _____. 2008. “Minoan Trade.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age, edited by C. Shelmerdine, 209–229. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bietak, M. 1996. Avaris: The Capital of the Hyksos, recent Excavations at Tell el-Dabca, 36. London: British Museum Press.

WORKS CITED

169

_____. 2000a. “Bronze Age Paintings in the Levant: Chronology and Cultural Considerations.” In The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC. III. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – 2nd Euro Conference, Vienna 28th May – 1st June 2003, edited by M. Bietak, 269– 300. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. _____. 2000b. “‘Rich Beyond the Dreams of Avaris: Tell el-Dabca and the Aegean World: A Guide for the Perplexed’: A Response to Eric. H. Cline.” BSA 95: 185–205. _____. 2003a. “Two Ancient Near Eastern Temples with Bent Axis in the Eastern Nile Delta.” Ägypten und Levante 13: 13–38. _____. 2003b. “Temple or ‘Bet Marzeah’?” In Symbiosis, Symbolism and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel and Their Neighbours from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palestina. Proceedings of the Centennial Symposium W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological research and American Schools of Oriental research Jerusalem, May 29-31, 2000, edited by W. Dever and S. Gitin, 155–68. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. _____. 2006. “The King and the Syrian Weather God on Egyptian Seals of the 13th Dynasty.” In Studies in Honor of Ali Radwan, edited by K. Daoud, S. Bedier and S. Abd el Fatah, 201–212. SASE 34/1. Cairo: Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities. _____. 2009. “Near Eastern Sanctuaries in the Eastern Nile Delta.” In BAAL Hors-Série Vol. VI: 213– 15. _____. and I. Forstner-Müller. 2011. “The Topography of New Kingdom Avaris and Per-Ramesses.” In Ramesside Studies in Honour of K.A. Kitchen, edited by M. Collier and S. Snape, 23–51. Bolton: Rutherford Press. Binger, T. 1997. Asherah: Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament. JSOT Supplement Series 232. Copenhagen International Seminar 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Biran, A. 1981. “To the God who is in Dan.” In Temples and High Places in Biblical Times. Proceedings of the Colloquium in Honor of the Centennial of Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion. Jerusalem 14– 16 March 1977, edited by A. Biran, 142–151. The Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology of Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion. Jerusalem. Bird-David, N. 1999. “‘Animism’ revisited: personhood, environment, and relational epistemology.” CurrAnth 40: S67–S91. Birge, D. 1994. “Trees in the Landscape of Pausanias’ Periegesis.” In Placing the Gods. Sanctuaries and Space in Ancient Greece, edited by S. Alcock and R. Osborne, 231–245. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Black, J. and A. Green. 1992. Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia. London: British Museum Press. Blakolmer, F. 2007. “Minoisch-mykenische ‘Prozessionsfresken’: Überlegungen zu den dargestellten und den nicht dargestellten Gaben.” In Keimelion. The Formation of Elites and Elitist Lifestyles from Mycenaean Palatial Times to the Homeric Period, edited by E. Alram-Stern and G. Nightingale, 41– 57. Akten des internationalen Kongresses vom 3. bis 5. Februar 2005 in Salzburg. _____. 2008. “Processions in Aegean Iconography II: Who Are The Participants?” In DAIS. The Aegean feast. Proceedings of the 12th International Aegean Conference / 12e Rencontre égéenne internationale. University of Melbourne, Centre for Classics and Archaeology, 25–29 March 2008 (Aegaeum 29), edited by L.A. Hitchcock, R. Laffineur, and J. Crowley, 257–267. Liège: Université de Liège. _____. 2010. “A Pantheon Without Attributes? Goddesses and Gods in Minoan and Mycenaean Iconography.” In Divine Images and Human Imaginations in Ancient Greece and Rome, edited by J. Mylonopoulos, 21–61. Leiden: Brill. _____. 2014. “Minoan ‘Landscape Rooms’ and Peak Sanctuaries.” In PHYSIS. L’environnement naturel et la relation homme-milieu dans le monde égéen protohistorique. Actes de la 14e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Paris, Institut National d’Histoire de l’Art (INHA) 11–14 décembre 2012 (Aegaeum 37), edited by G. Touchais, R. Laffineur, and F. Rougemont, 121–128. Peeters: Leuven – Liège. Blanes, R. and D. Espírito Santo. 2014. The Social Life of Spirits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bleeker, C.J. 1973. Hathor and Thoth: Two Key Figures of the Ancient Egyptian Religion. Leiden: Brill.

170

WORKS CITED

Blocher, F. 2015. “Beyond the Euphrates: Qatna’s Distant Relatives.” In Qatna and the networks of Bronze Age Globalism. Proceedings of an International Conference in Stuttgart and Tübingen in October 2009, edited by P. Pfälzner and M. Al-Maqdissi, 11–23. Qatna Studien Supplementa. Übergreifende und vergleichende Forschungsaktivitäten des Qatna-Projekts der Universität Tübingen. Weisbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Bloch-Smith, E. 2006. “Will the Real Massebot Please Stand Up. Cases of Real and Mistakenly Identified Standing Stones in Ancient Israel.” In Text, Artifact, and Image. Revealing Ancient Israelite Religion, edited by G. Beckman and T.J. Lewis, 64–79. Providence: Brown Judaic Studies. Booth, C. 2005. The Hyksos Period in Egypt. Princes Risborough: Shire Publications. Boulotis, C. 1987. “Nochmals zum Prozessionsfresko von Knossos: Palast und Darbringung von Prestige-Objekten.” In The Function of the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, edited by R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, 145–156. Göteborg: Paul Åström.

Bourogiannis, G. 2013. “The Sanctuary of Ayia Irini: Looking Beyond the Figurines.” Pasiphae. Rivista di Filologia e Antichità Egee VII: 35–45. Branigan, K. 1981. “Minoan Colonialism”. BSA 76: 23–33. _____. 1991. “Mochlos – An Early Aegean ‘Gateway Community’?” In Thalassa. L’Egée préhistorique et la mer. Actes de la troisième Rencontre égéenne internationale de l’Université de Liège, Station de recherches sousmarines et océanographiques (StaReSO), Calvi, Corse (23–25 avril 1990), edited by R. Laffineur and L. Basch, 97–105. Liège: Université de Liège. Briault, C. 2007. “Making Mountains out of Molehills in the Bronze Age Aegean: visibility, ritual kits and the idea of a peak sanctuary.” WA 39: 122–141. Briggs, K. 1977. A Dictionary of Fairies. London: Penguin. Brody, A.J. 1998. “Each Man Cried Out To His God”. The Specialized Religion of Canaanite and Phoenician Seafarers. Harvard Semitic Museum Monographs 58. Atlanta: Scholars Press. _____. 2005. “Further Evidence of the Specialized Religion of Phoenician Seafarers.” In Terra Marique: Studies in Art History and Marine Archaeology in Honor of Anna Marguerite McCann on the Receipt of the Gold Medal of the Archaeological Institute of America, edited by J. Pollini, 177–182. Oxford: Oxbow Books. _____. 2008. “The Specialized Religions of Ancient Mediterranean Seafarers.” Religion Compass 2/4: 444–54. Broodbank, C. 2000. An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. _____. 2013. The Making of the Middle Sea. A History of the Mediterranean from the Beginning to the Emergence of the Classical World. London: Thames and Hudson. Buchannan, B. 1966. Catalogue of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in the Ashmolean Museum. Oxford: Clarendon. Buchholz, H.G. 1959. “Keftiubarren und Erzhandel im zweiten vorchristlichen Jahrtausend.” Prähistorische Zeitschrift 37: 1–40. Budin. S.L. 2003. The Origin of Aphrodite. Bethesda: CDL Press. _____. 2015a.“The Nude Female in the Southern Levant: a Mixing of Syro-Mesopotamian and Egyptian Iconographies.” In C. Doumet-Serhal (ed.) Cult and Ritual on the Levantine Coast and its Impact on the Eastern Mediterranean Realm. BAAL Hors-Série X: 315–335. _____. 2015b. “Qedešet: A Syro-Anatolian Goddess in Egypt.” JAEI 7: 1–20. Buhl, M-L. 1947. “The Goddesses of the Egyptian Tree Cult.” JNES 6: 80–97. Buitron, D. and D. Soren. 1982. “Sanctuary of Apollo Hylates”. In An Archaeological Guide to the ancient Kourion area and the Akrotiri Peninsula, edited by H.W. Swiny, 58–66. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities. Buitron-Oliver, D. 1996. The Sanctuary of Apollo Hylates at Kourion. Excavations in the Archaic Precinct. Jonsered: Åströms. Burdajewicz, M. 1990. The Aegean Sea Peoples and Religious Architecture in the Eastern Mediterranean at the Close of the Late Bronze Age. Oxford: BAR International Series 550.

WORKS CITED

171

Burke, B. 2005. “Materialization of Mycenaean Ideology and the Ayia Triada Sarcophagus.” AJA 109: 403–22. Burnet, J.E. 1997. “Sowing the Four Winds: Targeting the Cypriot Forest Resource in Antiquity.” In Res Maritimae. Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory to Late Antiquity. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium “Cities on the Sea”. Nicosia, Cyprus, October 18–22, 1994, edited by S. Swiny, R.L. Hohlfelder, and H. Wilde-Swiny, 59–69. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Burns, B. E. 2010. “Trade.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean, edited by E.H. Cline, 291– 304. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cadogan, G. 1986. “Why was Crete so Different?” In The End of the Early Bronze Age in the Aegean, edited by G. Cadogan, 153–171. Leiden: Brill. _____. 2009. “Gender Metaphors of Social Stratigraphy in Pre-Linear B Crete or is “Minoan Gynaecocracy” (Still) Credible?” In Fylo. Engendering Prehistoric ‘Stratigraphies’ in the Aegean and the Mediterranean. Proceedings of an International Conference, University of Crete, Rethymno 2–5 June 2005 (Aegaeum 30), edited by K. Kopaka, 225–231. Liège: Université de Liège. Calder, W.M. 1991. The Cambridge Ritualists Reconsidered. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Catling, H.W. 1964. Cypriot Bronzework in the Mycenaean World. Oxford: Clarendon Press. _____. 1971. “A Cypriot Bronze Statuette in the Bomford Collection.” In Alasia 1. Mission archéologique d’Alasia 4, edited by C.F.A. Schaeffer, 15–32. Paris: Libraire Klincksieck. _____. 1984. “Workshop and Heirloom: Prehistoric Bronze Stands in the East Mediterranean.” RDAC 1984: 69–91. Catron, J.E. 1995. “Temple and bāmāh: Some Considerations.” In The Pitcher is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gösta W. Ahlström, edited by S.W. Holloway and L.K. Handy, 150–165. JSOT Supp. Ser. 190. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Chapin, A.P. 1995. Landscape and Space in Aegean Bronze Age Art. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. _____. 2004. “Power, Privilege, and Landscape in Minoan Art.” In Charis. Essays in Honour of Sarah A. Immerwahr, edited by A.P. Chapin 47–64. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. _____. 2005. “The Fresco with Multi-Coloured Rocks and Olive Branches from the Northwest Slope Plaster Dump at Pylos re-examined.” In Aegean Wall Painting. A Tribute to Mark Cameron, edited by L. Morgan, 123–130. London: British School at Athens. Charpin, D. 1982. “Un inventaire général des trésors du palais de Mari.” MARI, Annales de recherches interdisciplinaires 2: 211–14. Chryssoulaki, S. 2001. “The Traostalos Peak Sanctuary: Aspects of Spatial Organisation.” In POTNIA. Deities and religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference/8e Recontre égéenne internationale, Göteborg, Göteborg University, 12-15 April 2000 (Aegaeum 22), edited by R. Laffineur and R. Hägg, 57–65. Liège: Université de Liège. Clarke, M. 1997. “Gods and Mountains in Greek Myth and Poetry.” In What is a God? Studies in the nature of Greek Divinity, edited by A.B. Lloyd, 65–80. London: Duckworth. Clifford, R.J. 1972. The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Cline, E.H. 1998. “Rich Beyond the Dreams of Avaris: Tell el-Dabca and the Aegean World – A Guide for the Perplexed.” BSA 93: 199–219. _____. 2011. “Whole Lotta Shakin’ Going On: The Possible Destruction by Earthquake of Stratum VIA at Megiddo.” In The Fire Signals of Lachish. Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Persian Period in Honor of David Ussishkin, edited by I. Finkelstein and N. Na’aman, 55–70. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Cohen, S.L. 2009. “Cores, Peripheries and Ports of Power: Theories of Canaanite Development in the Early Second Millennium B.C.E.” In Exploring the Long Durée. Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager, edited by J.D. Schloen, 69–72. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

172

WORKS CITED

Colburn, C. 2008. “Exotica and the Early Minoan Elite: Eastern Imports in Prepalatial Crete.” AJA 112: 203–224. Coldstream, N. 2008. “A Goddess in a Boat.” In Dioskouroi. Studies presented to W.G. Cavanagh and C.B. Mee on the anniversary of their 30-year joint contribution to Aegean Archaeology, edited by C. Gallou, M. Georgiadis and G.M. Muskett, 23–29. BAR International Series 1889. Oxford: Archaeopress. Coleman, J.E. 1985. “‘Frying Pans’ of the Early Bronze Age Aegean.” AJA 89: 191–219. Collard, D. 2008. Function and Ethnicity: ‘Bathtubs’ from Late Bronze Age Cyprus. SIMA 171. Sävedalen: Åströms. _____. 2011. Altered States of Consciousness and Ritual in Late Bronze Age Cyprus. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Nottingham. Colson, E. 1997. “Places of Power and Shrines of the Land.” Paideuma 43: 47–57. Connelly, J.B. 2007. Portrait of a Priestess: Women and Ritual in Ancient Greece. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Constantinidis, D. and L. Karali. 2012. “Floral or Faunal? Determining Forces on Minoan and Mycenaean Jewellery Motif Selection with a GIS.” In KOSMOS. Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 13th International Aegean Conference / 13e Rencontre égéenne internationale, University of Copenhagen, Danish National Research Foundation’s Centre for Textile Research, 21–26 April 2010 (Aegaeum 33), edited by M.-L. Nosch and R. Laffineur, 493–8. Leuven – Liège: Peeters. Coogan, M.D. and M.S. Smith. 2012. Stories from Ancient Canaan. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Cornelius, I. 1989. “The Lion in the Art of the Ancient Near East: A Study of Selected Motifs.” JNSL 15: 53–85. _____. 1993. “Anat and Qudshu as the ‘Mistress of Animals’: Aspects of the Iconography of the Canaanite Goddesses.” SEL 10: 21–45. _____. 2004. The Many Faces of the Goddess: The Iconography of the Syro-Palestinian Goddesses, Anat, Astarte, Qedeshet, and Asherah c. 1500–1000 BCE. Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg. Cosgrove, D.E. 1984. Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape. London: Croom Helm. _____. 2004. “Landscape and Landschaft. Lecture delivered at the “Spatial Turn in History” Symposium, German Historical Institute, February 19, 2004.” GHI Bulletin 35: 57–71. Courtois, J-C, and J. Webb. 1987. Les cylindres-sceaux d’Enkomi. Fouilles françaises 1957-1970. Nicosia: CAARI. Crewe, L. 2010. “Re-thinking Kalopsidha: from specialisation to state marginalisation.” In The Development of Pre-State Communities in the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honour of Edgar Peltenburg, edited by D. Bolger and L. Maguire, 63–71. Oxford: Oxbow. Crooks, S. (In press) “Natural Landscapes.” In A Companion to Aegean Art and Architecture, edited by Louise Hitchcock and Brent Davis. Hoboke: Blackwell. _____. 2012. “Cult Stones of Ancient Cyprus.” JPR XXIII: 25–44. _____. 2013. What are these Queer Stones? Baetyls: Epistemology of a Minoan Fetish. BAR International Series 2511. Oxford: Archaeopress. _____., C. Tully and L.A. Hitchcock. 2016. “Numinous tree and stone: re-animating the Minoan sacred landscape.” In METAPHYSIS. Ritual Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 15th International Aegean Conference, Vienna Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Aegean and Anatolia Department, Austrian Academy of Sciences and Institute of Classical Archaeology, University of Vienna, 22–25 April 2014 (Aegaeum 39), edited by E. Alram-Stern, F. Blakolmer, S. Deger-Jalkotzy, R. Laffineur, and J. Weilhartner, 157–164. Leuven – Liège: Peeters. Crowley, J.L. 1989. The Aegean and the East: An Investigation into the Transference of Artistic Motifs between the Aegean, Egypt, and the Near East in the Bronze Age. SIMA 51. Jonsered: Paul Åström. _____. 1991. “Patterns in the Sea: Insight into the Artistic Vision of the Aegeans.” In THALASSA. L’Egée préhistorique et la mer. Actes de la troisième Rencontre égéenne internationale de l’Université de Liège,

WORKS CITED

173

Station de recherches sous-marines et océanographiques (StaReSo), Calvi, Corse (23-25 avril 1990) (Aegaeum 7), edited by R. Laffineur and L. Basch, 219–229. Liège: Université de Liège. _____. 2014a. “Beehives and Bees in Gold Signet Ring Designs.” In KE-RA-ME-JA. Studies Presented to Cynthia W. Shelmerdine, edited by D. Nakassis, J. Gulizio, and S.A. James, 129–139. Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press. _____. 2014b. “Images of the Earth in Aegean.” Art In PHYSIS. L’environnement naturel et la relation homme-milieu dans le monde égéen protohistorique. Actes de la 14e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Paris, Institut National d’Histoire de l’Art (INHA) 11–14 décembre 2012 (Aegaeum 37), edited by G. Touchais, R. Laffineur, and F. Rougemont, 465–467. Peeters: Leuven – Liège. _____. 2016. “In the Air Here or from the World Beyond? Enigmatic Symbols of the Late Bronze Age Aegean.” In METAPHYSIS. Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 15th International Aegean Conference, Vienna, Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Aegean and Anatolia Department, Austrian Academy of Sciences and Institute of Classical Archaeology, University of Vienna, 22–25 April 2014 (Aegaeum 39), edited by E. Alram-Stern, F. Blakolmer, S. Deger-Jalkotzy, R. Laffineur, and J. Weilhartner, 89–95. Leuven – Liège: Peeters. Cucuzza, N. 2001. “Religion and Architecture: Early LM IIIA2 Buildings in the Southern Area of Haghia Triada. In POTNIA. Deities and religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference/8e Recontre égéenne internationale, Göteborg, Göteborg University, 12-15 April 2000 (Aegaeum 22), edited by R. Laffineur and R. Hägg, 169–173. Liège: Université de Liège. Dabney, M.K. 2014. “Representations of Fig Cultivation in Aegean Art.” In PHYSIS. L’environnement naturel et la relation homme-milieu dans le monde égéen protohistorique. Actes de la 14e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Paris, Institut National d’Histoire de l’Art (INHA) 11–14 décembre 2012 (Aegaeum 37), edited by G. Touchais, R. Laffineur, and F. Rougemont, 469–470. Peeters: Leuven – Liège. D’Agata, A.L. 1997. “The Shrines on the Piazzale dei Sacelli at Ayia Triadha: A Summary.” In La Crète mycénienne. Actes de la Table Ronde internationale organisée par l’École française d’Athènes, 26–28 mars 1991. Athens: BCH. Suppl. 30. Dakoronia, P., S. Deger-Jalkotzy and A. Sakellariou. 1996. CMS V: Kleinere Griechische Sammlungen, Suppl. 2: Die Siegel aus der Nekropole von Elatia-Alonaki. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. Daniels, S. 1989. “Marxism, culture, and the duplicity of landscape.” In New Models in Geography: The Political-Economy Perspective, edited by R. Peet and N. Thrift,196–220. London: Unwin Hyman. Davaras, C. 1997. “The ‘Cult Villa’ at Makrygialos.” In The Function of the “Minoan Villa”. Proceedings of the Eight International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 6-8 June 1992, edited by R. Hägg, 117–134. Athens–Stockholm: Institutet i Athen. _____. 2004. “The Mochlos Ship Cup.” In Mochlos IC. Period III. Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast: The Artisans’ Quarter and the farmhouse at Chalinomouri. The Small Finds, edited by J.S. Soles, C. Davaras, J. Bending, T. Carter, D. Kondopoulou, D. Mylona, M. Ntinou, A.M. Nicgorski, D.S. Reese, A. Sarpaki, W.H. Schoch, M.E. Soles, V. Spatharas, Z.A. Stos-Gale, D.H. Tarling and C. Witmore, 3–15. Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press. Davies, N. de G. 1917. The Tomb of Nakht at Thebes. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Davis, B.E. 2014. Minoan Stone Vessels with Linear A Inscriptions
(Aegaeum 36). Leuven – Liège: Peeters Davis, E.N. 1986. “Youth and Age in the Thera Frescoes.” AJA 90: 399–406. _____. 1987. “The Knossos Miniature Frescoes and the Function of the Central Courts.” In The Function of the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 10–16 June, 1984, edited by R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, 157–161. Göteborg: Paul Åströms Forlag. Davis, J. 2008. “Minoan Crete and the Aegean islands.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age, edited by C. Shelmerdine, 186–208. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. _____. “Pylos.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean, edited by E.H. Cline, 680–689. Oxford: Oxford University Press. _____. and S.L. Stocker. 2016. “The Lord of the Gold Rings: The Griffin Warrior of Pylos.” Hesperia 85: 627–655.

174

WORKS CITED

Day, J. 2006. “Flower-Lovers? Reconsidering the Gardens of Minoan Crete.” In The Archaeology of Crop Fields and Gardens. Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Crop Fields and Gardens Archaeology. Barcelona (Spain), 1–3 June 2006, edited by J-P. Morel, J.T. Juan and J.C. Matamala, 189–195. Bari: Edipuglia. _____. 2012. “Caught in a Web of a Living World: Tree – Human Interaction in Minoan Crete.” PAN 9: 11–21. Day, J. 1992. “Asherah.” In The Anchor Bible Dictionary 1, A–C, edited by D. N. Freedman, 483–7. New York: Doubleday. Deger-Jalkotzy, S., and A. Sakellariou. 1996. CMS V: Kleinere Griechische Sammlungen, Sup. 2: Die Siegel aus der Nekropole von Elatia-Alonaki. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag. Derrida, J. 1987. The Truth in Painting. Trans. G. Bennington and I. McLeod. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dever, W.G. 1967. “Excavations at Gezer.” BA 30: 47–62. _____. 1970. “Iron Age Epigraphic Material from the Area of Khirbet El-Kôm.” HUCA 40–1: 139– 204. _____. 1973. “The Gezer Fortifications and the ‘High Place’: An Illustration of Stratigraphic Methods and Problems.” PEQ 105: 61–70. _____. 2005. Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel. Grand Rapids: Erdmans. _____., H.D. Lance, R.G. Bullard, D.P. Cole, A.M. Furshpan, J.S. Holladay, J.D. Seger, and R.B. Wright. 1971. “Further Excavations at Gezer, 1967–1971.” BA 34: 93–132. Dietrich, B.C. 1983. “Divine Epiphanies in Homer.” Numen 30: 53–79. Dimopoulou, N. 1999. “The Neopalatial Cemetery of the Knossian Harbour Town at Poros: Mortuary Behaviour and Social Ranking.” In Eliten in der Bronzezeit, edited by R. Habelt, 27–36. Mainz: Monographien des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 43. _____. 2012. “A gold discoid from Poros, Herakleion: the guard dog and the garden.” In Cretan Offerings. Studies in Honour of Peter Warren, edited by O. Krzyszkowska, 89–100. London: British School at Athens. _____. and G. Rethemiotakis. 2000. “The ‘Sacred Conversation’ Ring from Poros.” In Corpus der Minoischen und Mykenischen Siegel. Beiheft 6. Minoisch-Mykenische Glyptik. Stil, Ikonographie, Funktion. V. International Siegel-Symposium Marburg, 23–25 September 1999, edited by I. Pini, 39–56. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. _____. 2004. The Ring of Minos and Gold Minoan Rings: The Epiphany Cycle. Athens: Ministry of Culture, Archaeological Receipts Fund. Donald, A. 2011. “Enkomi, Episkopi, and Alashiya: Glyptic Evidence and Governance in Late Bronze Age Cyprus.” BAASV: 5–7. Donohue, A.A. 1988. Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Dothan, M. 1956. “The Excavations at Nahariyah: Preliminary Report (Seasons 1954/55).” IEJ 6: 14–25. _____. 1981. “Sanctuaries along the Coast of Canaan in the MB Period: Nahariyah.” In Temples and High Places in Biblical Times. Proceedings of the Colloquium in Honor of the Centennial of Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion. Jerusalem, 14–16 March 1977, edited by A. Biran, 74–6. Jerusalem: The Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology of Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion. Dothan, T. 1981. “The High Place of Athienou in Cyprus.” In Temples and High Places in Biblical Times. Proceedings of the Colloquium in Honor of the Centennial of Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion. Jerusalem, 14–16 March 1977, edited by A. Biran, 91–95. Jerusalem: The Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology of Hebrew Union College– Jewish Institute of Religion. _____. and A. Ben-Tor. 1972. “Excavations at Athienou, Cyprus, 1971–2 (Preliminary Report). IEJ 22: 201–8. _____. 1983. Excavations at Athienou, Cyprus 1971–1972. Qedem. Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

WORKS CITED

175

Doumas, C. 1983. Thera Pompeii of the Aegean. Excavations at Akrotiri 1967–1979. London: Thames and Hudson. _____. 1992. The Wall Paintings of Thera. Athens: Thera Foundation. Driessen, J. 2004. “The Central Court of the Palace at Knossos.” In Knossos: Palace, City, State. G. Cadogan, E. Hatzaki and A. Vasilakis (eds.), 75–82. London: British School at Athens. _____. and J. Sakellarakis. 1997. “The Vathypetro Complex. Some Observations on its Architectural History and Function.” In The Function of the Minoan Villa. Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 6–8 June 1992, edited by R. Hägg, 63–77. Stockholm: Åströms. Driver, F. 2004. “Colonies.” In Patterned Ground. Entanglements of Nature and Culture, edited by S. Harrison, S. Pile and N. Thrift, 93–4. London: Reaktion Books. Du Mesnil du Buisson, R. 1935. Le site archéologique de Mishrife-Qatna. Paris. Easterling, P. 1989. “Agamemnon’s skēptron in the Iliad.” In Images of Authority. Papers presented to Joyce Reynolds on the occasion of her seventieth birthday, edited by M.M. Mackenzie and C. Roueché, 104– 121. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society. Eliopoulos. T. 1991. “ The Earliest Minoan Ritual Hammer? Notes on the Emergence of a Cretan Emblem.” JPR 5: 48–61. Eller, C. 2011. Gentlemen and Amazons: The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory, 1861–1900. Berkeley: University of California Press. _____. 2012. “Two Knights and a Goddess: Sir Arthur Evans, Sir James George Frazer, and the Invention of Minoan Religion.” JMA 25: 75–98. Erikson. K.O. 1993. Red Lustrous Wheel-made Ware. Jonsered: Paul Åströms Forlag. Evans, A.J. 1895/1896. “Goulàs: The City of Zeus.” BSA 2: 169–194. _____. 1901. “Mycenaean Tree and Pillar Cult and Its Mediterranean Relations.” JHS 21: 99–204. _____. 1921, 1928, 1930, 1936. The Palace of Minos. A Comparative Account of the Successive Stages of early Cretan Civilization as illustrated by the Discoveries at Knossos. Vols. I–IV. London: Macmillan. _____. 1925. “‘The Ring of Nestor’: A Glimpse into the Minoan After-World and a Sepulchral Treasure of Gold Signet-Rings and Bead-Seals from Thisbê Boeotia.” JHS: 45. _____. 1931. “The Magic Clue of a Royal Signet Ring.” Illustrated London News 4823, vol. 179: 485–9. Evely, D. 1999. Fresco: A Passport to the Past. Minoan Crete through the eyes of Mark Cameron. Athens: British School at Athens and N.P. Goulandris Foundation, Museum of Cycladic Art. Eyers, T. 2012. Lacan and the Concept of the Real. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Fantuzzi, T. 2013. A Matter of Times. Tell el-Dabca and the Interlinked Chronologies of Minoan Crete and Egypt in the Bronze Age. Unpublished MA Thesis, Università Ca’Foscari. Faro, E.Z. 2008. Ritual Activity and Regional Dynamics: Towards a Reinterpretation of Minoan Extra-Urban Ritual Space. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. University of Michigan. Finkelstein, I., and N.A. Silberman. 2001. The Bible Unearthed. New York: Simon and Schuster. Fletcher, B. 1963. A History of Architecture. London: Athlone Press. Flourentzos, P. 1993. “A New Cult Scene on a Sherd in Bronze Age Cyprus.” JPR 7: 27–30. Foucault, M. 1986. “Of Other Spaces.” Diacritics 16: 22–7. Frazer, J.G. 1922. The Golden Bough. A Study in Magic and Religion. London: Macmillan. Fried, L.S. 2002. “The High Places (Bāmôt) and the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah: An Archaeological Investigation.” JAOS 122: 437–65. Friedman, J., and M. Rowlands. 1978. The Evolution of Social Systems. London: Duckworth. Furumark, A. 1965. “The Gods of Ancient Crete.” OpAth 5: 85–98. Gaignerot-Driessen, F. 2016. “The Lady of the House: Trying to Define the Meaning and Role of Ritual Figures with Upraised Arms in Late Minoan III Crete.” In METAPHYSIS. Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 15th International Aegean Conference, Vienna Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Aegean and Anatolia Department, Austrian Academy of Sciences and Institute of Classical Archaeology, University of Vienna, 22–25 April 2014 (Aegaeum 39), edited by E.

176

WORKS CITED

Alram-Stern, F. Blakolmer, S. Deger-Jalkotzy, R. Laffineur, and J. Weilhartner. 21–27. Leuven – Liège: Peeters. Gaifman, M. 2012. Aniconism in Greek Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Galanakis, K. 2005. Minoan Glyptic: Typology, Deposits and Iconography. From the Early Minoan period to the Late Minoan IB destruction in Crete. BAR International Series 1442. Oxford: Archaeopress. _____. 2009. “The ‘Goddess from Beyond the Sea’: Iconographical analysis and interpretation of a group of narrative scenes involving female divinities in Minoan-Mycenaean glyptic.” In Soma 2007 Proceedings of the XI Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology. Istanbul Technical University, 24–29 April 2007, edited by Ç.Ő. Aygűn, 124–129. BAR International Series 1900. Oxford: Archaeopress. Gardiner, A.H. 1988. Egyptian Grammar: being an introduction to the study of hieroglyphs. Oxford: Griffiths Institute. Gates, M.-H. 1992. “Mycenaean Art for a Levantine Market? The Ivory Lid from Minet el Beidha/Ugarit.” In ΕΙΚΩΝ. Aegean Bronze Age Iconography: Shaping a Methodology. Proceedings of the 4th International Aegean Conference/ 4e Rencontre égéenne internationale. University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia 6–9 April 1992 (Aegaeum 8), edited by R. Laffineur and J.L. Crowley, 77–84. Liège: Université de Liège. _____. 1994. “The Palace of Zimri-Lim at Mari.” BA: 70–87. Geertz, C. 1977. “Centres, Kings and Charisma: Reflections on the Symbolics of Power.” In Culture and Its Creators: Essays in Honor of Edward Shils, edited by J. Ben-David and T.N. Clark, 151–171. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. _____. 1980. Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth Century Bali. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Gell, A. 1998. Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Georgoulaki, E. 1990. “The Minoan Sanctuary at Koumasa. The Evidence of the Material.” Aegaeum 6: 5–23. Gere, C. 2009. Knossos and the Prophets of Modernism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. German, S.C. 1999a. Performance and the Art of the Aegean Bronze Age. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Colombia University. _____. 1999b. The Politics of Dancing: A Reconsideration of the Motif of Dancing in Bronze Age Greece.” In Meletemata. Studies in Aegean Archaeology presented to Malcolm H. Weiner as he enters his 65th Year (Aegaeum 20), edited by P. Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier, 279–282. Liège: University of Liège. Gero, J.W. and M.W. Conkey. Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991. Georma, F., A. Karnava and I. Nikolakopoulou. 2014. “The Natural World and its Representations: A View from Thera.” In PHYSIS. L’environnement naturel et la relation homme-milieu dans le monde égéen protohistorique. Actes de la 14e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Paris, Institut National d’Histoire de l’Art (INHA) 11–14 décembre 2012 (Aegaeum 37), edited by G. Touchais, R. Laffineur, and F. Rougemont, 175–181. Peeters: Leuven – Liège. Gesell, G.C. 1976. “The Minoan Snake Tube: A Survey and Catalogue.” AJA 80: 247–59. _____. 1985. Town, Palace and House Cult in Minoan Crete. Göteborg: Paul Åströms. _____. 2000. “Blood on the Horns of Consecration?” In The Wall Paintings of Thera. Vol. I, edited by S. Sherratt, 947–57. Athens: Thera Foundation. Gill, M.A.V. 1963. “The Minoan Dragon.” BICS 10: 1–12. _____., W. Müller and I. Pini. (eds.). Corpus der Minoischen und Mykenischen Siegel, II: Iraklion Archäologisches Museum, 8: Die Siegelabdrücke von Knossos unter Einbeziehung von Funden aus anderen Museen. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2002. Gillies, J. 1996. “Posed Spaces: Framing in the Age of the World Picture.” In The Rhetoric of the Frame. Essays on the Boundaries of the Artwork, edited by P. Duro, 24–43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

WORKS CITED

177

Gimatzidis, S. 2016. “The Tree of Life: The Materiality of a Ritual Symbol in Space and Time.” In METAPHYSIS. Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 15th International Aegean Conference, Vienna, Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Aegean and Anatolia Department, Austrian Academy of Sciences and Institute of Classical Archaeology, University of Vienna, 22–25 April 2014 (Aegaeum 39), edited by E. Alram-Stern, F. Blakolmer, S. Deger-Jalkotzy, R. Laffineur, and J. Weilhartner. 415–419. Leuven – Liège: Peeters. Giovino, M. 2007. The Assyrian Sacred Tree: A History of Interpretations. Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg. Gjerstadt, E., J. Lindros, E. Sjöqvist and A. Westholm. 1934. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition 1927–1931. Vol. I. Text. Stockholm: The Swedish Cyprus Expedition. Gleason, K.L. 1994. “To Bound and to Cultivate: An Introduction to the Archaeology of Gardens and Fields.” In The Archaeology of Garden and Field, edited by N.F. Miller and K.L. Gleason, 1–24. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. _____. 2013. “Detecting and Documenting Archaeological Features of a Garden through Excavation.” In Sourcebook for Garden Archaeology: Methods, Techniques, Interpretations and Field Examples, edited by A.-A. Malek, 217–255. Bern: Peter Lang. Glover, S.C. 1982. “The Cult of Apollo Hylates at Kourion.” In An Archaeological Guide to the ancient Kourion area and the Akrotiri Peninsula, edited by H.W. Swiny, 70–4. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities. Golden, J.M. 2004. Ancient Canaan and Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Goldwasser, O. 1995. From Icon to Metaphor. Studies in the Semiotics of Hieroglyphs. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht/University Press Fribourg. Goodison, L. 1989. Death, Women and the Sun: Symbolism of Regeneration in Early Aegean Religion. London: University of London, Institute of Classical Studies. _____., and C. Morris. 1998. “Beyond the Great Mother: The Sacred World of the Minoans.” In Ancient Goddesses. The Myths and the Evidence, edited by L. Goodison and C. Morris, 113–132. London: British Museum Press. _____. 2009. “‘Why All This about Oak or Stone?’ Trees and Boulders in Minoan Religion.” In Archaeologies of Cult. Essays on Ritual and Cult in Honour of Geraldine C. Gesell, edited by A.L. D’Agata and A. van de Moortel, 51–57. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. _____. 2010. Holy Trees and Other Ecological Surprises. Manchester: Just Press. Gophna, R. 1992. “The Intermediate Bronze Age.” In The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, edited by A. BenDor, 126–159. New Haven: Yale University Press/Open University of Israel. _____, and E. Ayalon. 2004. “Tel ‘Ashir: An Open Cult Site of the Intermediate Bronze Age on the Bank of the Poleg Stream.” IEJ 54: 154–73. Gosden, C. 2005. “Ethnoarchaeology.” In Archaeology: The Key Concepts, edited by C. Renfrew and P. Bahn, 95–101. London: Routledge. Graf, F. 1996. “Pompai in Greece. Some Considerations about Space and Ritual in the Greek Polis.” In The Role of Religion in the Early Greek Polis. Proceedings of the Third International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, organized by the Swedish Institute at Athens, 16–18 October 1992, SkrAth-8⁰, edited by R. Hägg, 55–65. Stockholm: Svenska Institutet I Athen. Graham, J.W. 1959. “The Residential Quarter of the Minoan Palace.” AJA 63: 47–52. _____. (1962) 1987. The Palaces of Crete. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Graziadio, G. 2003. “I ingotti ox-hide nella glittica cipriota.” Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 45: 27–69. Groenewegen-Frankfort, H.A. 1951. Arrest and Movement: an essay on space and time in the representational art of the ancient Near East. London: Faber. Gulizio, J., and D. Nakassis. 2014. “The Minoan Goddess(es). Textual Evidence for Minoan Religion.” In KE-RA-ME-JA. Studies Presented to Cynthia W. Shelmerdine, edited by D. Nakassis, J. Gulizio and S.A. James, 115–128. Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press. Günkel-Maschek, U. 2012. “Reflections on the Symbolic Meaning of the Olive Branch as Head Ornament in the Wall Paintings of Building Xeste 3, Akrotiri. In KOSMOS. Jewellery, Adornment

178

WORKS CITED

and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 13th International Aegean Conference / 13e Rencontre égéenne internationale, University of Copenhagen, Danish National Research Foundation’s Centre for Textile Research, 21–26 April 2010 (Aegaeum 33), edited by M.-L. Nosch and R. Laffineur, 361–7. Leuven – Liège: Peeters. Haaland, R., and G. Haaland. 2011. “Landscape.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual and Religion, edited by T. Insoll, 24–37. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hadjianastasiou, O. 1989. “Some Hints of Naxian External Connections in the Earlier Late Bronze Age.” BSA 84: 205–15. Hadley, J.M. 2000. The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hägg, R. 1981. “Official and Popular Cults in Mycenaean Greece.” In Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the First International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 12–13 May, 1980, edited by R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, 59–65. Stockholm: Åströms. _____. 1983. “Epiphany in Minoan Ritual.” BICS 30: 184–5. _____. 1984. “Degrees and Character of the Minoan Influence on the Mainland.” In The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and reality. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 31 May – 5 June, 1982, edited by R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, 119–121. Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen. _______. 1985. “Mycenaean Religion: the Helladic and the Minoan Components.” In Linear B: A 1984 Survey, edited by A. Morpurgo Davies and Y. Duhoux, 203–225. Leuven: Peeters. _______. 2001. “Religious Processions in Mycenaean Greece.” In Contributions to the Archaeology and History of the Bronze and Iron Ages in the Eastern Mediterranean. Studies in Honour of Paul Åström, edited by P.M. Fischer, 143–7. Vienna: Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut Sonderschriften Band 39. _____. and N. Marinatos (eds.). 1987. The Function of the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 10–16 June, 1984. Stockholm: Svenska institutet I Athen. Hallager, E. 1985. The Master Impression: a clay sealing from the Greek-Swedish excavations at Kastelli, Khania. Göteborg: Åströms. _____. 1996. The Minoan Roundel and Other sealed Documents in the Neopalatial Linear A Administration. Liège: Université de Liège. Hallowell, A.I. 1960. “Ojibwa ontology, behaviour, and worldview.” In Culture in History; Essays in Honor of Paul Radin, edited by S. Diamond, 19–52. New York: Octagon Books. Hamilakis, Y. 2002. “Too Many Chiefs? Factional Competition in Neopalatial Crete.” In Monuments of Minos. Rethinking the Minoan Palaces (Aegaeum 23), edited by J. Driessen, I. Schoep, and R. Laffineur, 179–199. Liège: Université de Liège. Handy, L.K. 1994. Among the Host of Heaven. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Harrison, J.E. 1903. Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion. Princeton: Princeton University Press. _____. 1921. Epilegomena to the Study of Greek Religions and Themis a Study of the Social Origins of Greek Religion. New York: University Books. Harvey, G. 2005. Animism: Respecting the Living World. London: Hurst & Co. Hays, C. 2015. “‘There is Hope for a Tree’: Job’s Hope for the Afterlife in the Light of Egyptian Tree Imagery.” CBQ 77: 42–68. Haysom, M. 2011. “Fish and Ships: Neopalatial Seascapes in Context.” In The Seascape in Aegean Prehistory, edited by G. Vavouranakis, 139–160. Athens: Danish Institute at Athens. Helms, M.W. 1988. Ulysses’ Sail: An Ethnographic Odyssey of Power, Knowledge, and Geographical Distance. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Herva, V.-P. 2006. “Flower lovers, after all? Rethinking Religion and Human Environment in Minoan Crete.” WA 38: 586–98. Hestrin, R. 1987. “The Lachish Ewer and the Asherah.” IEJ 37: 212–23.

WORKS CITED

179

Hitchcock, L.A. 2000. Minoan Architecture. A Contextual Analysis. SIMA 155. Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag. _____. 2005. “Who will personally invite a foreigner unless he is a craftsman?”: Exploring interconnections between Aegean and Levantine Architecture.” In EMPORIA. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference/10e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14-18 April 2004 (Aegaeum 25), edited by R. Laffineur and E. Greco, 691–99. Liège: Université de Liège. _____. 2007. “Naturalizing the Cultural: architectonicized landscape as ideology in Minoan Crete.” In Building Communities. House, Settlement and Society in the Aegean and Beyond, Cardiff University, April 17– 21, 2001, edited by R. Westgate, N. Fisher and J. Whitley, 91–97. London: British School at Athens. _____. 2008a. “Architectures of Feasting.” In DAIS. The Aegean Feast. Proceedings of the 12th International Aegean Conference / 12e Rencontre égéenne internationale, University of Melbourne, Centre for Classics and Archaeology, 25–29 March 2008 (Aegaeum 29), edited by L.A. Hitchcock, R. Laffineur and J.L. Crowley, 317–326. Liège: Université de Liège. _____. 2008b. Theory for Classics. New York: Routledge. _____. 2008c. “‘Do you see a man skilful in his work? He Will Stand Before Kings’: Interpreting the Spread of Architectural Influences in the Bronze Age East Mediterranean.” AWE 7: 17–49. _____. 2009. “Knossos is Burning: Gender Bending the Minoan Genius. In FYLO. Engendering Prehistoric ‘Stratigraphies’ in the Aegean and the Mediterranean. Proceedings of an International Conference, University of Crete, Rethymno 2-5 June 2005 (Aegaeum 30), edited by K. Kopaka, 97–102. Liège: Université de Liège. _____. 2011. “Cypriot Rural Sanctuaries in their Larger Eastern Mediterranean Context.” In Proceedings of the IV. International Cyprological Congress. Lefkosia 29 April – 3rd May 2008, Ancient Section, edited by A. Demetriou, 509–19. Lefkosia: A.G. Leventis Foundation. _____. and A. Maeir. 2014. “Yo-ho, yo-ho, a seren’s life for me!” WA 46: 624–640. _____. and A.P. Chapin, E. Banou, J.H. Reynolds. 2016. “The Conglomerate Quarry at the Mycenaean Site of Vapheio-Palaiopyrgi in Laconia.” Hesperia 85: 65–90. Hodder, I. and S. Hutson. 2003. Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hood, S. 1989. “A Baetyl at Gournia?” Ariadne 5: 17–21. _____. 2005. “Dating the Knossos Frescoes.” In Aegean Wall Painting: A Tribute to Mark Cameron, edited by Lyvia Morgan, 45–81. London: British School at Athens. Hughes-Brock, H. and J. Boardman. 2009. CMS VI 2. Oxford, The Ashmolean Museum. Berlin: Philipp von Zabern. Huskinson, L. and B.E. Schmidt. 2010. “Introduction.” In Spirit Possession and Trance: New Interdisciplinary Perspectives, edited by B.E. Schmidt and L. Huskinson, 1–15. London: Continuum. Iakovidis, S. 1981. “A Peak Sanctuary for Thera.” In Temples and High Places in Biblical Times. Proceedings of the Colloquium in Honor of the Centennial of Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion. Jerusalem, 14–16 March 1977, edited by A. Biran, 54–60. Jerusalem: The Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology of Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion. Ilan, D. 1998. “The Dawn of Internationalism – The Middle Bronze Age.” In The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, edited by T.E. Levy, 297–319. London: Continuum. Immerwahr, S.A. 1990. Aegean Painting in the Bronze Age. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. _____. 2000. “Thera and Knossos: Relation of Paintings to Architectural Space.” In The Wall Paintings of Thera. Vol. I, edited by S. Sherratt, 467–90. Athens: Thera Foundation. Inomata, T. 2006. “Plazas, Performers and Spectators: Political Theaters of the Classic Maya.” CurrAnth 47: 805–42. Irwy, S. 1957. “Massēbāh and bāmāh in 1Q IsaiahA 6 13’.” JBL 76: 225–32. Jacobsen, T. 1976. Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamia. New Haven: Yale University Press.

180

WORKS CITED

Johnston, S.A., P.J. Crabtree and D.V. Campana. 2014. “Performance, Place and Power at Dún Ailinne, a ceremonial site of the Irish Iron Age.” WA 46: 206–23. Kaiser, B. 1976. Untersuchungem zum Minoischen Relief. Bonn: Habelt. Kantor, H.J. 1966. “Landscape in Akkadian Art.” JNES 25: 145–52. Kantzios, N.H. 1999. The Palm Tree – Palmette Motifs and Goddess Imagery in the Bronze Age. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Bryn Mawr College. Karageorghis, V. 1970. “Two religious documents of the Early Cypriote Bronze Age.” RDAC 1970: 10–13. _____. 1971. “Notes on Some Cypriote Priests Wearing Bull-Masks.” HTR 64: 261–70. _____. 1976. Kition. Mycenaean and Phoenician Discoveries in Cyprus. London: Thames and Hudson. _____. 2000. Ancient Art from Cyprus. The Cesnola Collection in The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. _____. 2011. “A Metallurgical Feast?” In Metallurgy. Understanding How, Learning Why. Studies in Honor of James D. Muhly, edited by P. Betancourt and S.C. Ferrence, 29–40. Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press. _____., and M. Demas. 1985. Excavations at Kition. V. The Pre-Phoenician Levels. Areas I and II, Part I. Nicosia: Cyprus Department of Antiquities Cyprus. Karetsou, A. 1974. Ίερòν κορυφής Γιούχτα. Prakt. 1974: 228–239. _____. 1975. Ίερòν κορυφής Γιούχτα. Prakt. 1975: 330–342. _____. 1976. Ίερòν κορυφής Γιούχτα. Prakt. 1976: 408–418. _____. 1977. Ίερòν κορυφής Γιούχτα. Prakt. 1977: 419–420. _____. 1978. Ίερòν κορυφής Γιούχτα. Prakt. 1978: 232–258. _____. 1979. Ίερòν κορυφής Γιούχτα. Prakt. 1979: 280–281. _____. 1980. Ίερòν κορυφής Γιούχτα. Prakt. 1980: 337–353. _____. 1981a. “The Peak Sanctuary of Mt. Juktas.” In Sanctuaries and Cults of the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the First International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 12–13 May, 1980, edited by R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, 137–153. Stockholm: Åströms. _____. 1981b. Ίερòν κορυφής Γιούχτα. Prakt. 1981: 405–408. _____. 1984. Ίερòν κορυφής Γιούχτα. Prakt. 1984: 600–604. _____. 1985. Ίερòν κορυφής Γιούχτα. Prakt. 1985: 286–296. _____. and G. Rethemiotakis. 1991–3. “Ιερό κορυφίς Κόφινα.” Κριτική Εστία: 289–82. Kassianidou, V. 2005. “Was copper production under divine protection in Late Bronze Age Cyprus? Some thoughts on an old question.” In Cyprus. Religion and Society from the Late Bronze Age to the end of the Archaic Period. Proceedings of an International Symposium on Cypriote Archaeology, Erlangen, 23–24 July 2004, edited by V. Karageorghis, H. Matthäus and S. Rogge, 127–141. Cyprus: Leventis. Kaza-Papageorgiou, K. 2006. “Seals and Jewellery.” In The Aidonia Treasure: Seals and Jewellery of the Aegean Late Bronze Age, edited by K. Demakopouloi, 48. Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture Archaeological Receipts Fund. Keel, O. 1992. “Ägyptische Baumgöttinnen der 18.–21. Dynastie. Bild und Wort, Wort und bild.” In Das recht der Bilder gesehen zu werden. Drei Fallstudien zur Methode der Interpretation altorientalischer Bilder, edited by O. Keel, 61–138. Göttingen: Fribourg Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. _____. 1995. “Stamp Seals – The Problem of Palestinian Workshops.” In Seals and Sealing in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the Symposium held on September 2, 1993, Jerusalem, Israel, edited by J.G. Westenholz, 93–142. Jerusalem: Bible Lands Museum. _____. 1997. The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. _____. 1998. Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh. JSOTestament Supplement Series 261. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. _____., H. Keel-Leu and S. Schroer. 1989. Studien zu den Stempelsiegeln aus Palästina/Israel. Band II. Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.

WORKS CITED

181

_____., and C. Uehlinger. 1998. Gods, Goddesses and Images of God in Ancient Israel. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Kenna, V.E.G. 1972. Swedish Cyprus Expedition IV: ID. The Late Cypriote Bronze Age. Relative and Absolute Chronology, Foreign Relations and Historical Conclusions., edited by E. Gjerstadt, J. Lindros, E. Sjöqvist and A. Westholm, 623–674. Lund: The Swedish Cyprus Expedition. _____. and E. Thomas. 1974. CMS XIII: Nordamerika, II: Kleinere Sammlungen. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag. Kepinski, C. 1982. L’arbre stylisé en Asie Occidentale au 2e millénaire avant J.-C. Tome II. Paris: Bibliothèque de la Délégation Archéologique Française en Iraq no 1. Travaux du Centre de Recherche d’Archéologie orientale – Université de Paris I no 1. Keswani, P. 1993. “Models of Local Exchange in Late Bronze Age Cyprus.” BASOR 292: 72–83. Kitchen, K. 1987. “The Basics of Egyptian Chronology in Relation to the Bronze Age Aegean.” In High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International Colloquium on Absolute Chronology Held at the University of Göteborg 20th – 22nd August 1987, edited by P. Åström, 37–55. Göteborg. Knapp A.B. 1986. Copper Production and Divine Protection. Archaeology, Ideology and Social Complexity on Bronze Age Cyprus. SIMA 42. Göteborg: Paul Åströms. _____. 1993. “Thalassocracies in Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean Trade: Making and Breaking a Myth.” WA 24: 332–47. _____. 1996. “The Bronze Age economy of Cyprus: ritual, ideology, and the sacred landscape.” In The development of the Cypriot Economy from the Prehistoric Period to the Present Day, edited by V. Karageorghis and D. Michaelides, 71–94. Nicosia: University of Cyprus. _____. 1999. “Ideational and Industrial Landscape on Cyprus.” In Archaeologies of landscape. Contemporary Perspectives, edited by W. Ashmore and A.B. Knapp, 229–52. Malden: Blackwell. _____. 2008. Prehistoric and Protohistoric Cyprus: Identity, Insularity, and Connectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. _____. 2013. The Archaeology of Cyprus. From Earliest Prehistory through the Bronze Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Knappett, C. 2005. Thinking Through Material Culture. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. _____., and I. Nikolakopoulou. 2008. “Colonialism without Colonies? A Bronze Age Case Study from Akrotiri, Thera.” Hesperia 77: 1–42. _____. 2012. “Meaning in miniature: semiotic networks in material culture.” In Excavating the Mind: Cross-Sections Through Culture, Cognition and Materiality, edited by M. Johnson, N. Johannsen and H.J. Jensen, 97–109. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Knight, J. 2001. “The Second Life of Trees. Family Forestry in Upland Japan.” In The Social Life of Trees: Anthropological Perspectives on Tree Symbolism, edited by L. Rival, 197–218. Oxford: Berg. Koehl, R. 2001.“The ‘Sacred Marriage’ in Minoan Religion and Ritual.” In POTNIA. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference. Göteborg, Göteborg University [12-15 April 2000] (Aegaeum 22), edited by R. Laffineur and R. Hägg, 237–242. Liège: Université de Liège. Kourou, N. 2001. “The Sacred Tree in Greek Art. Mycenaean versus Near Eastern Traditions.” In La Questione delle Influenze Vicino-Orientali sulla Religione Greca. Stato Degli Studi e Prospettive della Ricerca. Atti del Colloquio Internazionale Roma, 20–22 maggio 1999, edited by S. Ribichini, M. Rocchi and P. Xella, 31–53. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. Krattenmaker, K. 1991. Minoan Architectural Representation. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Bryn Mawr College. _____. 1995a. “Palace, Peak and Sceptre: The Iconography of Legitimacy.” In The Role of the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean. Proceedings of a Panel Discussion presented at the Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America New Orleans Louisiana 29 December 1992. With Additions (Aegaeum 11), edited by P. Rehak, 49–59. Liège: Université de Liège. _____. 1995b. “Architecture in Glyptic Cult Scenes. The Minoan Examples.” In Corpus der Minoischen und Mykenischen Siegel. Beiheft 6. Minoisch-Mykenische Glyptik. Stil, Ikonographie, Funktion. V. International

182

WORKS CITED

Siegel-Symposium Marburg, 23–25 September 1999, edited by I. Pini and J-C. Poursat, 117–33. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. Krzyszkowska, O. 2012. “Impressions of the Natural World: Landscape in Aegean Glyptic.” In Cretan Offerings. Studies in Honour of Peter Warren, edited by O. Krzyszkowska. London: British School at Athens Studies 18. Kupitz, Y.S. and K. Berthelot. 2009. “Deborah and the Delphic Pythia: A New Interpretation of Judges 4:4–5.” In Images and Prophecy in the Ancient Eastern Mediterranean, edited by M. Nissinen and C.E. Carter, 95–124. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Kyriakidis, E. 2001a. “Pithos or Baetyl? On the interpretation of a group of Minoan rings.” OpAth 25/26: 117–118. _____. 2001b. “The Economics of Potnia. Storage in ‘Temples’ of Prehistoric Greece.” In POTNIA. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference / 8e Rencontre égéenne internationale. Göteborg, Göteborg University, 12-15 April 2000 (Aegaeum 22), edited by R. Laffineur and R. Hägg, 123–129. Liège: Université de Liège. _____. 2005a. “Unidentified Flying Objects on Minoan Seals.” AJA 109: 137–54. _____. 2005b. Ritual in the Bronze Age Aegean. The Minoan Peak Sanctuaries. London: Duckworth. Laffineur, R. 1983a. “Iconographie mycénienne et symbolisme guerrier.” Art & Fact. Revue des historiens d’art, archéologues, musicologues et orientalistes de l’Université de Liège 2: 38–49. _____. 1983b. “Early Mycenaean Art: Some Evidence from the West House in Thera.” BICS 30: 111– 122. _____. 2007. “Homeric Similes: A Bronze Age Background?.” In EPOS. Reconsidering Greek Epic and Aegean Bronze Age Archaeology. Proceedings of the 11th International Aegean Conference / 11e Recontre égéenne internationale. Los Angeles, UCLA – The J. Paul Getty Villa, 20–23 April 2006 (Aegaeum 28), edited by S.P. Morris and R. Laffineur, 79–85. Liège: University of Liège. Lagarce, J. and E. 1985. Alasia IV. Deux tombes du Chypriote Récent d’Enkomi. Tombes 1851 et 1907. Mission Archéologique d’Alasia 7. Recherches sur les Civilisations, Mémoire 51. Paris: ADPF. Lambrinudakis, V. 1981. “Remains of the Mycenaean Period in the Sanctuary of Apollon Maleatas”. In Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the First International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 12–13 May, 1980, edited by R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, 59–65. Stockholm: Åströms. Lambrou-Phillipson, C. 1991. “Seafaring in the Bronze Age Mediterranean.” In 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), edited by R. Laffineur and L. Basch, 11–15. Liège: Université de Liège. La Rosa, E. 1988. “Haghia Triadha.” Kritiki Estia 2: 329–30. _____. 2010. “Ayia Triada.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Aegean Bronze Age, edited by E.H. Cline, 495– 508. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Larson, J. 2001. Greek Nymphs: Myth, Cult, Lore. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lebessi, A. 1972. Ίερόν τού Ѐρμού και Αφροδίτης είς Σύμηυ βιάννου. Prakt 1972: 193–203. _____. 1973. Ίερόν τού Ѐρμού και Αφροδίτης είς Σύμηυ βιάννου. Prakt 1973: 188–199. _____. 1974. Ίερόν τού Ѐρμού και Αφροδίτης είς Σύμηυ βιάννου. Prakt 1974: 222–227. _____. 1975. Ίερόν τού Ѐρμού και Αφροδίτης είς Σύμηυ βιάννου. Prakt 1975: 322–329. _____. 1976. Ίερόν τού Ѐρμού και Αφροδίτης είς Σύμηυ βιάννου. Prakt 1976: 400–407. _____. 1981. Τό Ίερό τού Ѐρμή και τής Αφροδίτί στί Σύμη βιαννου. Prakt 1981: 193–203. _____. 1983. Τό Ίερό τού Ѐρμή και τής Αφροδίτί στί Σύμη βιαννου. Prakt 1983: 348–366. _____. 1985. Τό Ίερό τού Ѐρμή και τής Αφροδίτί στί Σύμη βιαννου I. Athens: Χαλκινα Κρητικα Τορεύματα. _____. 1988. Ίερόν τού Ѐρμού και Αφροδίτης είς Σύμηυ βιάννου. Prakt 1988: 244–263. _____. 1992. Τό Ίερό τού Ѐρμή και τής Αφροδίτί στί Σύμη βιαννου. Prakt 1992: 211–230. _____. 1993. Τό Ίερό τού Ѐρμή και τής Αφροδίτί στί Σύμη βιαννου. Prakt 1993: 209–230. _____. 2003. Τό Ίερό τού Ѐρμή και τής Αφροδίτί στί Σύμη βιαννου. Prakt 2003: 79–97. _____. 2009. “The Erotic Goddess of the Syme Sanctuary, Crete.” AJA 113: 521–545.

WORKS CITED

183

_____. and P. Muhly. 1990. “Aspects of Minoan Cult. Sacred Enclosures. The Evidence from the Syme Sanctuary (Crete).” AA: 313–36. Legarra Herrero, B. 2016. “An Elite-Infested Sea. Interaction and Change in Mediterranean Paradigms.” In Of Odysseys and Oddities: scales and modes of interaction between prehistoric Aegean societies and their neighbours, edited by Barry P. C. Molloy, 25–51. Oxford: Oxbow. Lefebvre, H. 1991. The Production of Space. Malden: Blackwell. Lethwaite, J. 1983. “Why did Civilization not Emerge More Often? A Comparative Approach to the Development of Minoan Crete.” In Minoan Society: Proceedings of The Cambridge Colloquium, edited by O. Krzyszkowska and L. Nixon, 171–183. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press. Levi, D. 1945. “Gleanings from Crete.” AJA 49: 270–329. _____. 1981. “Features and Continuity of Cretan Peak Cults.” In Temples and High Places in Biblical Times. Proceedings of the Colloquium in Honor of the Centennial of Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion. Jerusalem 14–16 March 1977, edited by A. Biran, 38–46. The Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology of Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion: Jerusalem. Lev-Yadun, S., and M. Weinstein-Evron. 2002. “The Role of Pinus Halepensis (Aleppo Pine) in the Landscape of Early Bronze Age Megiddo.” TA 29: 332–343. Levy, T.E. 1998. The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. London: Continuum. Ling, R. 1991. Roman Painting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lipschitz, N. 2000. “The Archaeobotanical Finds.” In Megiddo III: The 1992–1996 Seasons, edited by I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin and B. Halpern, 487–495. Tel Aviv: Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. 18. Livieratou, A. 2013. “Kalapodi in Phokis”. In The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, edited by R.S. Bangall, n.p. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Logue, W. 2004. “Set in Stone: The Role of Relief-Carved Stone Vessels in Neopalatial Minoan Elite Propaganda.” BSA 99: 149–72. Long, C.R. 1974. The Ayia Triadha Sarcophagus. A Study of Late Minoan and Mycenaean Funerary Practices and Beliefs. Göteborg: Åströms. Lonsdale, S.H. 1995. “A Dancing Floor for Ariadne (Iliad 18.590 – 592). Aspects of Ritual Movement in Homer and Minoan Religion.” In The Ages of Homer: A Tribute to Emily Townsend Vermeule, edited by J.B. Carter and S.P. Morris, 273–284. Austin: University of Texas Press. López-Ruiz, C. 2010. When the Gods Were Born: Greek Cosmogonies and the Near East. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Loud, G. 1948. Megiddo II. Seasons of 1935-39. Text. The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications Volume LXII. Illinois: University of Chicago Press. Lupack, S. 2010. “Mycenaean Religion.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Aegean Bronze Age, edited by E.H. Cline, 263–278. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Macalister, S.R.A. 1903. “Second Quarterly Report on the Excavation of Gezer (August 14th to November 1st 1902).” PEQ 35: 7–50. McEnroe, J. 1995. “Sir Arthur Evans and Edwardian Archaeology.” CB 71: 3–18. Maddin, R., J.D. Muhly and T.S. Wheeler. 1983. “Metal Working”. In Excavations at Athienou, Cyprus 1971–1972, edited by T. Dothan and A. Ben-Tor, 132–138. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Maeir, W.A. 1986. Ašera, extrabiblical evidence. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Manning. S.W. 1995. The Absolute Chronology of the Aegean Early Bronze Age. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. _____. 2010. “Chronology and Terminology.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean, edited by E.H. Cline, 11–28. _____. 2014. A Test of Time and a Test of Time Revisited. Oxford: Oxbow. Mantzourani, E. 2012. “Sexuality or Fertility Symbol? The Bronze Figurine from Makrygialos.” In Philistor. Studies in Honor of Costis Davaras, edited by E. Mantzourani and P. Betancourt, 105–112. Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press.

184

WORKS CITED

Maran, J. and E. Stavrianopoulou. 2007. “Πότνιος Άνήρ – Reflections on the Ideology of Mycenaean Kingship.” In The Formation of Elites and Elitist Lifestyles from Mycenaean Palatial Times to the Homeric Period. Akten des Internationalen Kongresses vom 3.-5. Februar 2005 in Salzburg, edited by E. AlramStern and G. Nightingale, 285–298.Vienna: Österrieichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. March, J. 2002. Dictionary of Classical Mythology. London: Cassell. Margalith, O. 1994. “A New Type of Asherah-Figurine?” VT 44: 109–155. Margueron, J.-C. 1982. “Du nouveau sur la cour du palmier.” MARI 5. 463–482. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les civilisations. _____. 2008. “Mari.” In Beyond Babylon. Art, Trade and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C, edited by J. Aruz, K. Benzel and J.M. Evans, 27–33. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Marin, L. 1996. “The Frame of Representation and Some of Its Figures.” In The Rhetoric of the Frame: Essays on the Boundaries of the Artwork, edited by P. Duro, 79–95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marinatos, N. 1984. “The Date Palm in Minoan Iconography and Religion.” OpAth XV: 115–122. _____. 1984. Art and Religion in Thera. Reconstructing a Bronze Age Society. Athens: D. & I. Mathioulakis. _____. 1986. Minoan Sacrificial Ritual. Cult Practice and Symbolism. Stockholm: Skrifta Utgivina av Svenska Institutet I Athen. _____. 1987a. “Public Festivals in the West Courts of the Palaces.” In The Function of the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 10–16 June, 1984, edited by R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, 135–142. Göteborg, Paul Åströms Forlag. _____. 1987b. “An offering of Saffron to the Minoan Goddess of Nature. The Role of the Monkey and the Importance of Saffron.” In Gifts to the Gods. Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1985, edited by T. Linders and G. Nordquist, 123–32. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. _____. 1987c. “Role and Sex Division in Ritual Scenes of Aegean Art.” JPR 1: 23–34. _____. 1989. “The Tree as a Focus of Ritual Action in Minoan Glyptic Art.” in Fragen und Probleme der Bronzezeitlichen ägäischen Glyptik. Corpus der Minoischen und Mykenischen Siegel. Beiheft 3, edited by F. and I. Pini, 127–43. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. _____. 1990. “The Tree, the Stone and the Pithos: Glimpses into a Minoan ritual.” Aegaeum. Annales d’archéologie égéenne de l’Université de Liège 6: 79–92. _____. 1993. Minoan Religion. Ritual, Image and Symbol. Colombia: University of South Carolina Press. _____. 2000. “Nature as ideology. Landscapes on the Theran Ships.” In The Wall Paintings of Thera: Proceedings of the First International Symposium, Petros M. Nomikos Conference Centre, Thera, Hellas, 30 August-4 September 1997, Vol. II, edited by S. Sherratt, 907–13. Athens: Thera Foundation. _____. 2005. “The Ideals of Manhood in Minoan Crete.” In Aegean Wall Painting. A Tribute to Mark Cameron, edited by L. Morgan, 149–58. London: British School at Athens, 2005. _____. 2007. “The Minoan Mother Goddess and Her Son: Reflections on a theocracy and its deities.” In Bilder als Quellen - Images as Sources. Studies on Ancient Near Eastern artifacts and the Bible inspired by the work of Othmar Keel, edited by S. Bickel, S. Schroer, R. Schurte and C. Uehlinger, 349–63. Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg. _____. 2009a. “Meta-mythology of Baetyl Cult. The Mediterranean Hypothesis of Sir Arthur Evans and Fritz Graf.” In Antike Mythen. Medien, Transformationen und Konstruktionen, edited by U. Dill and C. Walde, 73–80. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. _____. 2009b. “The Role of the Queen in Minoan Prophecy Rituals.” In Images and Prophecy in the Ancient Eastern Mediterranean (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments), edited by M. Nissinen and C.E. Carter, 86–94. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. _____. 2010. Minoan Kingship and the Solar Goddess. A Near Eastern Koine. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. _____. 2011. “The Pseudo-Minoan Nestor Ring and its Egyptian Iconography.” JAEI 3: 17–27. _____. 2015. Akrotiri. Thera and the East Mediterranean. Athens: Troia Ekdotiki Emporiki S.A. Mather, C. 2003. “Shrines and the Domestication of Landscape.” JAR 59: 23–45.

WORKS CITED

185

Matsushima, E. 2014. “Ištar and Other Goddesses of the so-called ‘Sacred Marriage’ in Ancient Mesopotamia.” In Transformation of a Goddess: Ishtar – Astarte – Aphrodite, edited by D.T. Sugimoto, 1–14. Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg. Matz, F. 1958. Göttererscheinung und Kultbild im Minoischen Kreta. Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, Akademie der Wissenschaften und Literatur in Mainz, vol. 7. Wiesbaden. Maxwell-Hyslop, K.R. 1971. Western Asiatic Jewellery c. 3000–612 B.C. London: Methuen. May, H.G. 1939. “The Sacred Tree on Palestinian Pottery.” JAOS 59: 251–59. Mazar, A. 1992. “Temples of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages and the Iron Age.” In The Architecture of Ancient Israel: From the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods, edited by A. Kempinski and R. Reich, 161– 87. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. _____. 2000. “A Sacred Tree in the Chalcolithic Shrine at En Gedi: A Suggestion.” BAIAS 18: 31–6. McGillivray, A. 2008. “The Minoan Sidon Cup.” In The Bronze Age in the Lebanon. Studies on the Archaeology and Chronology of Lebanon, Syria and Egypt, edited by M. Bietak and E. Czerny, 45–9. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. McGovern, P. 1985. Late Bronze Palestinian Pendants: Innovation in a Cosmopolitan Age. Sheffield: JSOT Press. McGowan, E. 2011. Ambiguity and Minoan Neopalatial Seal Imagery. SIMA 176. Uppsala: Åströms. Meekers, M. 1987. “The Sacred Tree on Cypriote Cylinder Seals.” RDAC 1987: 67–76. Meiggs, R. 1982. Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Melas, M. 1991. “Acculturation and Social Mobility in the Minoan World.” In 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), edited by R. Laffineur and L. Basch, 169–88. Liège: Université de Liège. Merrillees, R.S. 1974. “Settlement, Sanctuary and Cemetery in Bronze Age Cyprus.” In The Cypriot Bronze Age. Some recent Australian contributions to the prehistory of Cyprus, edited by J. Birmingham, 44– 57. Sydney: J. Birmingham. Merrillees, R.S. 2000. “The Glyptic of Late Bronze Age Cyprus: An Historical Review.” In Acts of the Third International Congress of Cypriot Studies (Nicosia, 16–20 April 1996), edited by C.G. Ioannides and S.A. Hadjistellis, 289–300. Lefkosia: Choripia Idrymatos a.g. Lebenti. Mettinger, T.N.D. 1995. No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiskell International. Miller, D., and C. Tilley. 1984. “Ideology, Power and Prehistory: An Introduction.” In Ideology, Power and Prehistory, edited by D. Miller and C. Tilley, 1–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mitchell, W.J.T. 2002. Landscape and Power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Momigliano, N. 2006. “Sir Arthur Evans, Greek Myths and the Minoans.” Mythos. La préhistoire égéenne du XIXe au XXIe siècle après J.-C. Actes de la Table Ronde internationale d’Athènes (21–23 novembre 2002), edited by P. Darcque, M. Fotiadis, O. Polychronopoulou, 73–80. BCH Suppl. 46. Athens: École Française d’Athènes. Moody, J.M. 2009. “Environmental Change and Minoan Sacred Landscapes.” In Archaeologies of Cult. Essays on Ritual and Cult in Honour of Geraldine C. Gesell, edited by A.L. D’Agata and A. van de Moortel, 241–9. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. _____. 2017. Veteran and Sacred Trees in Modern and Minoan Crete. Presentation at the New York Aegean Bronze Age Colloquium, 24 March. Morgan, L. 1985. “Idea, idiom and iconography.” In L’iconographie minoenne. Actes de la Table Ronde d’Athènes (21–22 avril 1983), edited by P. Darcque and J.-C. Poursat, 5–19. BCH Suppl. 11 Athens: École Française d’Athènes. _____. 1988. The Miniature Wall Paintings from Thera: A Study in Aegean Culture and Iconography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

186

WORKS CITED

_____. 1989. “Ambiguity and Interpretation.” In CMS Beiheft 3: Fragen und Probleme der Bronzezeitlichen ägäischen Glyptik, Beiträge zum 3. Internationalen Marburger Siegel-Symposium 5.–7. September 1985, edited by W. Müller, 145–61. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. _____. 2005. Aegean Wall Painting: A Tribute to Mark Cameron. London: British School at Athens. Morris, C. “The Iconography of the Bared Breast in Aegean Bronze Age Art.” In Fylo. Engendering Prehistoric “Stratigraphies” in the Aegean and the Mediterranean: Proceedings of an International Conference, University of Crete, Rethymno, 2–5 June 2005, edited by K. Kopaka, 243–249. (Aegaeum 30) Liège: Université de Liège. _____. and A. Peatfield. 2002. “Feeling Through the Body: Gesture in Cretan Bronze Age Religion.” In Thinking Though the Body: Archaeologies of Corporeality, edited by Y. Hamilakis, M. Pluciennik and S. Tarlow, 105–120. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Morris, S.P. 2007. “Apollo, Dionysus and Zeus: On the Sacred Landscapes of Ancient Naxos.” In Άμύμονα έργα. Timitikos tomos gia ton kathigiti B.K. Lambrinoudaki, 96–108. Müller, V. 1998. “Offering Deposits at Tell El-Dabca.” In Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists. Cambridge, 3-9 September 1995, edited by C. Eyre, 793–804. Orientalia Lovaniensa Analecta. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters. Myres. J., R.C. Bosquanet, R.M. Dawkins, M.N. Tod, W.L.H. Duckworth and J.L. Myres. 1902/1903. “The Sanctuary Site at Petsofa.” BSA 9: 274–387. Naeh, L. 2012. “Just a Sip and a Bite: The Miniature Pottery vessels of the Middle Bronze Age II Temple at Nahariyah, Israel – The Key Questions.” In Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. 12–16 April, the British Museum and ICL, London. Vol. 1., edited by R. Matthews, J. Curtis, M. Seymour, A. Fletcher, C. Glatz, J. Simpson. H. Taylor, J. Tubb, and R. Chapman. Harrasowitz: Wiesbaden. Nakassis, D. 2013. Individuals and Society in Mycenaean Pylos. Leiden: Brill. Negbi, O. 1970. The Hoards of Goldwork from Tell El-‘Ajjul. Göteborg: SIMA. _____. 1976. Canaanite Gods in Metal. An Archaeological Study of Ancient Syro-Palestinian Figurines. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press. Neiman, D. 1948. “PGR: A Canaanite Cult Object in the Old Testament.” JBL 67: 55–60. Niemeier, W.-D. 1987a. “Das Stuckrelief des ‘Prinzen mit der Federkrone’.” AM 102: 82–89. _____. 1987b. “On the Function of the ‘Throne Room’ at Knossos.” In The Function of the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 10–16 June, 1984, edited by R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, 163–168. Göteborg, Paul Åströms Forlag. _____. 1988 “The ‘Priest King’ Fresco from Knossos.” In Problems in Greek Prehistory: Papers Presented at the Centenary Conference of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, Manchester, April 1986, edited by E. B. French and K.A. Wardle, 238–41. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press. _____. 1989. “Zur Ikonographie von Gottheiten und Adoranten in den Kultszenen auf Minoischen und Mykenischen Siegeln.” In CMS Beiheft 3. Fragen und Probleme der Bronzezeitlichen Ägäischen Glyptik. Beiträge zum 3. Internationalen Marburger Siegel-Symposium 5.–7. September 1985, edited by W. Müller, 163–186. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. _____. 1990. “Cult scenes on Gold Rings from the Argolid.” In Celebrations of Death and Divinity in the Bronze Age Argolid. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 11–13 June, 1988, edited by R. Hägg and G.C. Nordquist, 165–170. Stockholm: Paul Åströms. _____. 1991. “Minoan Artisans Travelling Overseas: The Alalakh Frescoes and the painted Plaster Floor at Tel Kabri (Western Galilee).” In 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), edited by R. Laffineur and L. Basch, 189–200. Liège: Université de Liège. _____. 2004. “When Minos Ruled the Waves: Knossian Power Overseas.” In Knossos. Palace, City, State, edited by G. Cadogan, E. Hatzaki and A. Vasilakis, 393–8. London: British School at Athens. Nilsson, M.P. (1927) 1950 (2nd ed.). The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and its Survival in Greek Religion. Lund: Gleerup.

WORKS CITED

187

Noll, K.L. 2007. “Canaanite Religion.” RC 1: 61–92. Nowicki, K. 2007. “Some Remarks on New Peak Sanctuaries in Crete: The Topography of Ritual Areas and their Relationship with Settlements.” JdI 122: 1–31. O’Bryhim, S. 1996a. “A New Interpretation of Hesiod’s ‘Theogony’ 35.” Hermes 124: 131–39. _____. 1996b. “The Deities from the Kotchati Sanctuary Models.” JPR 10: 7–14. Ohnefalsch-Richter, M.H. 1893. Kypros, the Bible and Homer. London: Asher. Olyan, S. 1988. Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Olsen, B. 1990. “Roland Barthes: From Sign to Text.” In Reading Material Culture: Structuralism, Hermeneutics and Post-Structuralism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Ono, S. 1962. Shinto. The Kami Way. Tokyo: Tuttle. Ornan, T. 2007. “Labour Pangs: The Revadim Plaque Type.” In Bilder als Quellen - Images as Sources. Studies on Ancient Near eastern artifacts and the Bible inspired by the work of Othmar Keel, edited by S. Bickel, S. Schroer, R. Schurte and C. Uehlinger, 215–35. Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg. Ortner, S.B. 1972. “Is female to male as nature is to culture?” FS 1: 5–21. Palaima, T.G. 1995. “The Nature of the Mycenaean Wanax.” In The Role of the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean. Proceedings of a Panel Discussion presented at the Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America New Orleans Louisiana 29 December 1992. With Additions (Aegaeum 11), edited by P. Rehak, 119–38. Liège: Université de Liège. _____. 2008. “Mycenaean Religion.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age, edited by C. Shelmerdine, 342–61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. _____. 2011. “Scribes, Scribal Hands and Palaeography.” In A Companion to Linear B. Mycenaean Greek Texts and their World (Vol 2), edited by Y. Duhoux and A. Morpurgo Davies, 33–136. Louvain-laNeuve: Peeters. Palaiologou, H. 1995. “‘Minoan Dragons’ on a Sealstone from Mycenae.” In Klados. Essays in Honour of J.N. Coldstream, edited by C. Morris, 195–99. London: University of London. Palmer, G.B. and W.R. Jankowiak. 1996. “Performance and Imagination: Toward and Anthropology of the Spectacular and the Mundane.” CultAnth 11: 225–58. Palyvou, C. 2005. “Architecture in Aegean Bronze Age Art: façades with no interiors.” In Aegean Wall Painting. A Tribute to Mark Cameron, edited by L. Morgan, 185–97. London: British School at Athens. _____. 2006. “Οικοδομικέις μέσά από τιν τέχνη Εποχής του Χαλκού: Τυποποιημένες λυόμενες κατσκυές.” In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Ancient Greek Technology, edited by T. Kazazi and N. Papapetrou, 417–24. Athens: EMAET. Panagiotopoulos, D. 2011. “The Stirring Sea. Conceptualising Transculturality in the Late Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean.” In Intercultural Contacts in the Ancient Mediterranean. Proceedings of the International Conference at the Netherlands-Flemish Institute in Cairo, 25th to 29th October 2008, edited by K. Duistermaat and I. Regulski, 31–51. Leuven: Peeters. Papadatos, Y. 2007. “Beyond cultures and ethnicity: a new look at material culture distribution and inter-regional interaction in the Early Bronze Age Southern Aegean.” In Mediterranean Crossroads, edited by S. Antoniadou and A. Pace, 419–51. Athens: Pierides Foundation. Papagriogiou, I. (In Press). “Η προπαγάνδα της εικόνας: Χώροι εισόδου σε δημόσια αιγαιακά κτήρια της Ύστερης Εποχής του Χαλκού και ο συναφής τοιχογραφικός διάκοσμος.” In Acts of the 11th International Cretological Congress, Rethymno, 21–27 October 2011. Papasavvas, G. 2001. Χαλκινοι Υποστατες απο την Kυπρο και την Kρητη. Λευκοσια: Ιδρυμα Α. Λεβεvτη. _____. 2009. “The Iconography of the Oxhide Ingots.” In Oxhide Ingots in the Central Mediterranean, edited by F. Lo Schiavo, J.D. Muhly R. Maddin and A. Giumlia-Mair, 83–129. Rome: A.G. Leventis Foundation, Cyprus; CNR-Istituto di Studi Sulle Civiltà dell’Egeo e del Vicino Oriente. Papatsaroucha, E. 2014. “Minoan Landscapes: Plant Communities and their Artistic Representations.” In PHYSIS. L’environnement naturel et la relation homme-milieu dans le monde égéen protohistorique. Actes de la 14e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Paris, Institut National d’Histoire de l’Art

188

WORKS CITED

(INHA) 11–14 décembre 2012 (Aegaeum 37), edited by G. Touchais, R. Laffineur, and F. Rougemont, 199–163. Leuven – Liège: Peeters. Parrot, A. 1950. “Cérémonie de la main et réinvestiture.” Studiana Mariana, edited by A. Parrot, 37–40. Leiden: Brill. _____. 1958. Mission archéologique de Mari. Volume II. Le Palais. Peintures murales. Paris: Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. _____. 1959. Mission archéologique de Mari. Volume II. Le Palais. Documents et monuments. Paris: Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. _____. 1974. Mari capitale fabuleuse. Paris: Payot. Peacock, S.J. “An Awful Warmth About Her Heart: The Personal in Jane Harrison’s Ideas on Religion.” In The Cambridge Ritualists Reconsidered, edited by W.M. Calder, 167–84. Atlanta: Illinois Classical Studies. Peatfield, A. 1987. “Palace and Peak: The Political and Religious Relationship Between Palaces and Peak Sanctuaries.” In The Function of Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 10-16 June, 1984, edited by R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, 89–93. Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen. _____. 1990. “Minoan Peak Sanctuaries: History and Society.” OpAth 18: 117–131. _____. 1994. “The Atispadhes Korakias Peak Sanctuary Project,” CI 1: 90–5. _____. 2013. “High Places and Royal Shrines.” In Tara – From the Past to the Future. Towards a New Research Agenda, edited by M. O’Sullivan, C. Scarre and M. Doyle, 475–83. Dublin: Wordwell. Peirce, C.S. 1932. The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Volumes I and II: Principles of Philosophy and Elements of Logic. Cambridge: Belknap Press. Peltenburg, E. 1994. “Constructing Authority: The Vounous Enclosure Model.” OpAth 20: 157–62. Pernier, L. 1935. Il Palazzo Minoico Di Festòs. Scavi e Studi della Missione Archaeologica Italiana a Creta dal 1900 al 1950. Vol. I. Gli Strati Più Antichi e il Prino Palazzo. Rome: La Libreria dello Stato. _____. and L. Banti. 1951. Il Palazzo Minoico Di Festòs. Scavi e Studi della Missione Archaeologica Italiana a Creta dal 1900 al 1950. Vol II: Il Secondo Palazzo. Rome: La Libreria dello Stato. Persson, A.W. 1942. The Religion of Greece in Prehistoric Times. Berkeley: University of California Press. Peterson, S.E. 1981. Wall Paintings in the Aegean Bronze Age: the Procession Frescoes. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Minnesota. Phillips, J. 2010. “Egypt.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean, edited by E.H. Cline, 820–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pini, I. 1981. “Echt oder falsch? Einige Fälle.” In CMS, Beiheft 1. Studien zur minoischen und helladischen Glyptik, edited by W.-D. Niemeier, 135–57. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. _____., J.L. Caskey, M. Caskey, O. Pelon, M.H. Wiencke and J.G. Younger. 1975. CMS 5, Kleinere Griechische Sammlungen. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. _____., J.H. Betts, M.A.V. Gill, D. Sürenhagen and H. Waetzoldt. 1988. CMS XI, Kleinere europäische Sammlungen. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. _____. 1992. CMS V Suppl. 1A. Kleinere Griechische Sammlungen. Ägina – Korinth. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. _____. 1993. CMS V, Kleinere Griechische Sammlungen, Supp. 1B. Lamia-Zakynthos und weitere Länder des Ostmittelmeerraums. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. _____. 1998. “The ‘Ring of Nestor’.” OJA 17: 1–13. Platon, N., and I. Pini. 1975. CMS II, 3. Iraklion Archäologisches Museum, 3. Die Siegel der Neupalastzeit. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. _____. 1985. CMS II, 4. Iraklion Archäologisches Museum, 4. Die Siegel der Nachpalastzeit. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. Platon, N., W. Müller and I. Pini. 1998. CMS II, 7. Iraklion Archäologisches Museum, 5. Die Siegelabdrücke von Kato Zakros, unter Einbeziehung von Funden aus anderen Museen. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. _____. 1999. CMS II, 6. Iraklion Archäologisches Museum, 6. Die Siegelabdrücke von Aj. Triada und anderen zentral- und ostkretischen Fundorten, unter Einbeziehung von Funden aus anderen Museen. Berlin: Gebr. Mann.

WORKS CITED

189

Platon, N. 1971. Zakros. The Discovery of a Lost Palace of Ancient Crete. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. _____. 1984. “The Minoan Thalassocracy and the Golden Ring of Minos.” In The Minoan Thalassocracy. Myth and Reality, Proceedings of the Third International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 31 May-5 June 1982, edited by R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, 65–70. Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen. Platt, E.E. 1975. “Triangular Jewellery Plaques.” BASOR 221: 103–11. Popham, M., E.A. Catling and H.W. Catling. 1974. “Sellopoulo Tombs 3 and 4, Two Late Minoan Graves near Knossos.” BSA 69: 195–257. Porada, E. 1948. “The Cypriot Seals of the Late Bronze Age.” AJA 52: 178–98. _____. 1976. “Three Cylinder Seals from Tombs 1 and 2 of Hala Sultan Tekke.” In Hala Sultan Tekke I: Excavations 1897–1971, edited by P. Åström, D.M. Bailey and V. Karageorghis, 98–103. Goteborg: Åströms. _____. 1983. “Cylinder Seals.” In Excavations at Athienou, Cyprus 1971–1972, edited by T. Dothan and A. Ben-Tor, 120–1. Qedem. Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem. _____. and B. Buchanan. 1948. Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in North American Collections: The Collection of the Pierpont Morgan Library. New York: Pantheon. Postlethwaite, N. 1999. “The Death of Zeus Kretagenes.” Kernos 12: 85–98. Potts, A. 2003. “Sign.” In Critical Terms for Art History, edited by R.S. Nelson and R. Shiff, 20–34. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Preucel, R.W. 2006. Archaeological Semiotics. Malden: Blackwell. Preziosi, D. 1983. Minoan Architectural Design. Formation and Signification. Berlin: Mouton Publishers. _____. and L.A. Hitchcock. 1999. Aegean Art and Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Price, M.J. and B.L. Trell. 1977. Coins and their Cities. Architecture on the Ancient Coins of Greece, Rome and Palestine. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Privitera, S. 2015. “Monumental Architecture, Political Economy, and Religion at Haghia Triadha on Crete: Making Sense of a Late Bronze Age Hiera Polis (Late Minoan III A-B, 14th–13th Centuries B.C.E.). Unpublished paper presented at the AIA New Orleans. Psychoyos, O. and Y. Karatzikos. 2016. “The Mycenaean Sanctuary at Prophitis Ilias on Mount Arachnaio within the Religious Context of the 2nd Millennium.” In METAPHYSIS. Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 15th International Aegean Conference, Vienna, Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Aegean and Anatolia Department, Austrian Academy of Sciences and Institute of Classical Archaeology, University of Vienna, 22–25 April 2014 (Aegaeum 39), edited by E. Alram-Stern, F. Blakolmer, S. Deger-Jalkotzy, R. Laffineur, and J. Weilhartner. 311–318. Leuven – Liège: Peeters. Rackham, O. and J. Moody. 1996. The Making of the Cretan Landscape. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Raphael G. 1983. “Egyptian Scarab and Finger Ring.” In Excavations at Athienou, Cyprus 1971–1972, edited by T. Dothan and A. Ben-Tor, 121. Qedem. Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Reese, D.S. 2005. “Faunal Remains from Israeli Excavations at Athienou-Pampoulari tis Koukkouninas.” RDAC 2005: 87–108. Rehak, P. 1994. “The Aegean ‘Priest’ on CMS I.223.” Kadmos 33: 76–84. _____. 1995. “Enthroned Figures in Aegean Art and the Function of the Mycenaean Megaron.” In The Role of the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean. Proceedings of a Panel Discussion presented at the Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America New Orleans Louisiana 29 December 1992. With Additions (Aegaeum 11), edited by P. Rehak, 95–117. Liège: Université de Liège. _____. 1997. “The role of religious painting in the function of the Minoan villa: the case of Ayia Triadha.” In The Function of the “Minoan Villa”. Proceedings of the Eight International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 6-8 June 1992, edited by R. Hägg, 163–75. Stockholm: Paul Åström. _____. 2000a. “Aegean Priests.” JPR 14: 44–5.

190

WORKS CITED

_____. 2000b. “The Isopata Ring and the Question of Narrative in Neopalatial Glyptic.” In CMS Beiheft 6. Minoisch-Mykenische Glyptik. Stil, Ikonographie, Funktion. V. Internationales Siegel-Symposium Marburg, 23.–25. September 1999, edited by I. Pini, 269–76. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. _____. and J. Younger. 1998. “Review of Aegean Prehistory VII: Neopalatial, Final Palatial and Postpalatial Crete.” AJA 102: 91–173. _____. and J. Younger. 2008. “The Material Culture in Neopalatial Crete.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age, edited by C. Shelmerdine, 186–208. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Renfrew, C. 1985. The Archaeology of Cult. The Sanctuary at Phylakopi. London: Thames and Hudson. Rethemiotakis. G. and N. Dimopoulou. 2003. “The ‘Sacred Mansion’ Ring from Poros, Herakleion.” AM: 1–22. Rich, S.A. 2010. “‘She Who Treads On Water’: Religious Metaphor in Seafaring Phoenicia.” Ancient West and East 11: 19–34. _____. 2017. Cedar Forests, Cedar Ships: Allure, Lore, and Metaphor in the Mediterranean Near East. Oxford: Archaeopress. Rival, L. 2001. The Social Life of Trees: Anthropological Perspectives on Tree Symbolism. Oxford: Berg. Rose, P.W. 2006. “Divorcing Ideology from Marxism and Marxism from Ideology: Some Problems. Arethusa 39: 101–36. Rugoff, R. 1997. “Homeopathic Strategies.” In At the Threshold of the Visible. Miniscule and Small-Scale Art, 1964–1996, edited by R. Rugoff and S. Stewart, 11–71. New York: Independent Curators Incorporated. Rutkowski, B. 1979. “Religious Architecture in Cyprus and in Crete in the Late Bronze Age.” In Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium: The Relations Between Cyprus and Crete, ca. 2000–500 B.C. Nicosia 16th April – 22nd April 1978. 223–7. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities, Cyprus. _____. 1986. The Cult Places of the Aegean. New Haven: Yale University Press. _____. 1988. “Cretan Open-Air Shrines.” Archaeologia 39: 24–6. _____. 1989. “Minoan Sanctuaries at Christos and Koumasa, Crete: New Field Research.” Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 19: 47–51. _____. and K. Nowicki. 1996. The Psychro Cave and Other Sacred Grottoes in Crete. Warsaw: Art and Archaeology/Polish Academy of Sciences. Rystedt, E. 1987. “Notes on a Motif in Mycenaean pictorial vase-painting.” RDAC 1987: 49–55. Sakellarakis, J.A. 1982. CMS I Supplementum. Athen Nationalmuseum. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. _____. 1967. “Minoan Cemeteries at Arkhanes.” Archaeology 20: 276–81. _____. and E. Sapouna-Sakalleraki. 1991. Archanes. Athens: Ekdotike Athenon. _____. 1996. “Minoan Religious Influence in the Aegean: The Case of Kythera.” BSA 91: 81–99. _____. and E. Sapouna-Sakalleraki. 1997. Archanes: Minoan Crete in a New Light. Vol II. Athens: Ammos. Salje, B. 1990. Der ‘Common Style’ der Mitanni-Glyptik und die Glyptik der Levante und Zyperns in der späten Bronzezeit. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Schaeffer C.F.A. 1929. “Les fouilles de Minet-el-Beida et de Ras Shamra (campagne de printemps 1929).” Syria 10: 285–303. _____. 1965. “An Ingot God from Cyprus.” Antiquity 39: 56–7. Schäfer, J. 1991a. “The Role of Gardens in Minoan Civilisation.” In The Civilizations of the Aegean and their Diffusion in Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean, 2000-600 BC. 18-24 September 1989, edited by V. Karageorghis, 84–8. Larnaca: Pierides Foundation. _____. 1991b. “Amnisos – Harbour-Town of Minos?” In 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), edited by R. Laffineur and L. Basch, 111–5. Liège: Université de Liège. _____. 1992. “Gärten in der bronzezeitlichen ägäischen Kultur? Rituelle Bildsprache und bildliches Konzept der Realität.” In Der Garten von der Antike bis zum Mittelalter, edited by M. CarrollSpillecke, 101–139. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

WORKS CITED

191

Schmidt, B.E. and L. Huskinson. 2010. Spirit Possession and Trance: New Interdisciplinary Perspectives. London: Continuum. Schoep, I. 1992. “Feit of Fictie? De waarde van religieuze architectuurvoorstellingen in de prehelleense ikonografie.” In Tijdschrift voor mediterrane archaologie 10: 17–26. _____. 1994. “‘Home Sweet Home’ Some Comments on the so-called House Models from the Prehellenic Aegean.” OpAth XX: 189–210. Seager, R.B. 1901. “Excavations on the Island of Mochlos, Crete, in 1908.” AJA. 13: 273–303. _____. 1912. Explorations in the Island of Mochlos. Boston and New York: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Seeland, K. 1997. Nature is Culture: Indigenous knowledge and socio-cultural aspects of trees and forests in nonEuropean cultures. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Segal, R.A. 1998. The Myth and Ritual Theory: An Anthology. Oxford: Blackwell. Selz, G.J. 2014 “Plant Metaphors: on the Plant of Rejuvenation” In From Source to History: Studies on Ancient Near Eastern Worlds and Beyond, edited by S. Gaspa, A. Greco, D.M. Bonacossi, S. Ponchia and R. Rollinger, 655–67. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Sered, S. 1999. Women of the Sacred Groves: Divine Priestesses of Okinawa. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shanks, M. and C. Tilley. 1982. “Ideology, Symbolic Power and Ritual Communication: A Reinterpretation of Neolithic Mortuary Practices.” In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, edited by I. Hodder, 129–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. _____. 1987. Social Theory and Archaeology. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Shaw, J. 2009. Minoan Architecture. Materials and Techniques. Annuario della Scuola Archaeologica di Atene e della Missioni Italiane in Oriente. Vol. XLIX Nuova Serie XXXIII (1971). Rome: Instituto Poligrafico dello Stato. _____. 1978. “Evidence for the Minoan Tripartite Shrine.” AJA 82: 429–48. _____. 2009. Minoan Architecture. Materials and Techniques. Centro Di Archaeologica Cretese–Universita Di Catania. Aldo Ausilio Editore in Padova–Bottega D-Erasmo. Shaw, M. (1986) “The Lion Gate Relief of Mycenae reconsidered.” In Filia Epi is G.Ε. Milonan Vol. I. 109–123. Athens: Archaeological Society of Athens. _____. 1993. “The Aegean Garden.” AJA 97: 661–85. _____. 2000. “Sea Voyages: the Fleet fresco from Thera, and the Punt Reliefs from Egypt.” In The Wall Paintings of Thera: Proceedings of the First International Symposium, Petros M. Nomikos Conference Centre, Thera, Hellas, 30 August-4 September 1997, 3 Vols., edited by S. Sherratt, 267–282. Athens: Thera Foundation. Shelmerdine, C.W. 1997. “Review of Aegean Prehistory IV: The Palatial Bronze Age of the Southern and Central Greek Mainland.” AJA 101: 537–585. _____. 2008. “Background, Sources, and Methods.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age, edited by C. Shelmerdine, 1–18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shepherdson, C. 2003. “Lacan and Philosophy”. In The Cambridge Companion to Lacan, edited by J.-M. Rabaté, 116–152. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press. Sjöqvist, E. 1933. “Die Kultgeschichte eines cyprischen Temenos.” ArchRW 30: 308–59. _____. 1940. Problems of the Late Cypriote Bronze Age. Stockholm: The Swedish Cyprus Expedition. Smith, A.T. 2003. The Political Landscape: Constellations of Authority in Early Complex Polities. Berkeley: University of California Press. Smith, J.S. 1994. Seals for Sealing in the Late Cypriot Period. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Bryn Mawr College. _____. 2009. Art and Society in Cyprus from the Bronze Age into the Iron Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. _____. 2012. “Resources for the study of seals found on Cyprus.” In Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology: Fifty Years On, edited by J.M. Webb and D. Frankel, 89–101. Uppsala: Åströms. Smith, J.Z. 1973. “When the Bough Breaks.” History of Religions 12: 342–71. Smith, W.R. 1957. Lectures on the Religion of the Semites: first series, the fundamental institutions. New York: Meridian.

192

WORKS CITED

Soar, K. 2009. “Old Bulls, New Tricks: The Reinvention of a Minoan Tradition.” In The Past in the Past: The Significance of Memory and Tradition in the Transmission of Culture, edited by M. Georgiadis and C. Gallou, 16–27. Oxford: Archaeopress. _____. 2014. “Sects and the City: factional ideologies in representations of performance from Bronze Age Crete.” WA 46: 224–241. Sofianou, C., and Y. Papadatos. 2015. “Defining Cultural and Political Entities through Religious Spaces: The Case of Stavromenos Peak Sanctuary in Annatoli, Ierapetra, Crete.” Unpublished paper presented at the AIA New Orleans. Soja, E.W. 1996. Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real and Imagined Places. Malden: Blackwell. Soles, J.S. 2001. “Reverence for Dead Ancestors in Prehistoric Crete.” In POTNIA. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference / 8e Rencontre égéenne internationale. Göteborg, Göteborg University, 12-15 April 2000 (Aegaeum 22), edited by R. Laffineur and R. Hägg, 229–236. Liège: Université de Liège. _____. “2009 Greek–American Excavations at Mochlos.” KENTRO 12: 10–11. _____. 2010. “Evidence for ancestor worship in Minoan Crete: new finds from Mochlos”. Cretan Offerings. Studies in Honour of Peter Warren, edited by O. Krzyszkowska, 331–8. London: The British School at Athens. _____. 2011. “The Goddess and the Ancestors at Mochlos Crete part 4.” The American School of Classical Studies at Athens. http://www.ascsa.edu.gr/index.php/news/newsDetails/videocast-openmeeting-2011/ [accessed 26 Jan 2012]. _____. 2012. “Mochlos Boats.” In Philistor. Studies in Honor of Costis Davaras, edited by E. Mantzourani and P. Betancourt, 187–199. Philadelphia: Instap Academic Press. _____. 2013. “A Temenos of Olive Trees at Mochlos.” KENTRO 16: 14–16. _____. 2016. “Hero, Goddess, Priestess: New Evidence for Minoan Religion and Social Organisation.”In METAPHYSIS. Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 15th International Aegean Conference, Vienna Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Aegean and Anatolia Department, Austrian Academy of Sciences and Institute of Classical Archaeology, University of Vienna, 22–25 April 2014 (Aegaeum 39), edited by E. Alram-Stern, F. Blakolmer, S. Deger-Jalkotzy, R. Laffineur, and J. Weilhartner. 247–253. Leuven – Liège: Peeters. _____. and C. Davaras. 1994. “Excavations at Mochlos,1990–1991.” Hesperia 63: 391–436. _____. 2010. “Greek – American Excavations at Mochlos.” KENTRO 13: 1–3. Sonesson, G. 1989. Pictorial Concepts: Inquiries into the semiotic heritage and its relevance to the interpretation of the visual world. Lund: Aris/Lund University Press. Sourvinou-Inwood, C. 1973. “On the ‘Lost’ Boat Ring from Mochlos.” Kadmos 12: 149–58. _____. 1989a. “Space in Late Minoan Religious Scenes in Glyptic—Some Remarks.” In Corpus der Minoischen und Mykenischen Siegel. Beiheft 3. Fragen und Probleme der bronzezeitlichen ägäischen Glyptik. Beiträge zum 3. Internationalen Marburger Siegel-Symposium 5.–7. September 1985, edited by I. Pini, 241– 257. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. _____. 1989b. “Boat, Tree and Shrine: The Mochlos Ring and the Makrygialos Seal.” Kadmos 27/8: 97–100. _____. 1990. “Against the authenticity of the ring CMS II.3.326: Fragments of a Discourse on Minoan Glyptic.” JHS 110: 192–8. _____. 1991. Reading Greek Culture: Texts and Images, Ritual and Myths. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Spigelman, M.D. 2012. “Copper and Cult in Bronze Age Cyprus.” In Cyprus An Island Culture: Society and Social Relations from the Bronze Age to the Venetian Period, edited by A. Georgiou, 133–143. Oxford: Oxbow. Spycket, A. 2000. The Human Form Divine. Jerusalem: Bible Lands Museum. Starr, C.G. 1955. “The Myth of the Minoan Thalassocracy.” Historia 3: 282–91. St-Denis, B. 2007. “Just what is a garden?” Studies in the History of Gardens and Designed Landscapes 27: 61– 76.

WORKS CITED

193

Steel, L. 1997. “Pictorial White Slip – The Discovery of a New Ceramic Style in Cyprus.” In Four Thousand years of Images on Cypriote Pottery. Proceedings of the Third international Conference of Cypriote Studies. Nicosia, 3–4 May 1996, edited by V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur and F. Vandenabeele, 37–46. Brussels– Liège–Nicosia: A.G. Leventis Foundation. _____. 2013a. “The Social World of Early-Middle Bronze Age Cyprus: Rethinking the Vounous Bowl.” JMA 26: 51–73. _____. 2013b. Materiality and Consumption in the Bronze Age Mediterranean. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. Stewart, S. 1997. “At the Threshold of the Visible.” In At the Threshold of the Visible. Miniscule and SmallScale Art, 1964–1996, edited by R. Rugoff and S. Stewart, 73–84. New York: Independent Curators Incorporated. _____. 2007. On Longing: Narratives of the Miniature, the Gigantic, the Souvenir, the Collection. Durham: Duke University Press. Strasser, T.F., E. Panagopoulou, C. Runnels, P.M. Murray, N. Thompson, P. Karkanas, F.M. McCoy and K.W. Wegman. 2010. “Stone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean.” Hesperia 79: 145–90. Strasser, T.F., and A.P. Chapin. 2014. “Geological Formations in the Flotilla Fresco from Akrotiri.” In PHYSIS. L’environnement naturel et la relation homme-milieu dans le monde égéen protohistorique. Actes de la 14e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Paris, Institut National d’Histoire de l’Art (INHA), 11–14 décembre 2012 (Aegaeum 37), edited by G. Touchais, R. Laffineur and F. Rougemont, 57–64. Leuven – Liège: Peeters. Tadmor, M. 1982. “Female Cult Figures in Late Canaan and Early Israel: Archaeological Evidence.” In Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays, edited by T. Ishida, 139–173. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Taylor, J. 1957. Myrtou-Pighades: a late Bronze Age sanctuary in Cyprus. Oxford: Ashmolean Museum. Televantou, C. 1990. “New Light on the West House Wall-Paintings.” In Thera and the Aegean World Vol. III: 1, edited by D. Hardy, 309–24. London: Thera Foundation. Theodorou-Mavrommaridi, A. 2010. “Defining Ritual Action. A Middle Helladic Pit at the Site of Apollon Maleatas in Epidauros.” In Mesohelladika. La Grèce continentale au Bronze Moyen, edited by A. Philippa-Touchais, S. Voutsaki and J. Wright, 521–533. Athens: École française d’Athènes. Theodossiadou, M. 1995. “Representations of Furniture on Cylinder seals from Late Bronze Age Cyprus.” In Klados. Essays in Honour of J.N. Coldstream, edited by C. Morris, 249–260. London: University of London, Institute of Classical Studies. _____. 1996. “Cypriot Furniture and its Representations from the Chalcolithic to the Cypro-Archaic.” In The Furniture of Western Asia: Ancient and Traditional. Papers from the Conference held at the Institute of Archaeology, University College London. June 28 to 30, 1993, edited by G. Herrmann, 73–84. Mainz: Philipp Von Zabern. Thomas, A. 2016. L’histoire commence en Mésopotamie. Lens, Musée du Louvre-Lens: Snoeck Publishers. Troy, L. 1986. Patterns of Queenship in Ancient Egyptian Myth and History. Uppsala: Uppsala Studies in Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Civilizations 14. Tsipoulou, M. 2012. “Introduction: 25 Years of Excavation and Studies at Petras.” In Petras, Sitea: 25 Years of Excavations and Studies, edited by M. Tsipoulou, 45–68. Athens: Danish Institute at Athens. Tufnell, O., C.H. Inge and L. Harding. 1940. Lachish II: The Fosse Temple. London: Oxford University Press. Tully, C.J. 2012. “The Sacred Life of Trees: What trees say about people in the prehistoric Aegean and Near East.” In Proceedings of the 33rd Australian Society for Classical Studies Conference, edited by E. Anagnostou-Laoutides. http://www.ascs.org.au/news/ascs33/index.html. _____. 2016. “Virtual Reality: Tree Cult and Epiphanic Ritual in Aegean Glyptic Iconography.” JPR XXV: 35-46. _____. (In Press a) “The Artifice of Daidalos: Modern Minoica as religious focus in contemporary paganism.” In New Antiquities: Transformations of Ancient Religion in the New Age and Beyond, edited by D.M. Burns and A-B. Renger. London: Equinox.

194

WORKS CITED

_____. (In Press b) “Agonistic Scenes.” In The Blackwell Companion to Aegean Art and Architecture, edited by L. Hitchcock and B. Davis. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. _____. (In Press c) “Thalassocratic Charms: Trees, Boats, Women and the Sea in Minoan Glyptic Art.” Proceedings of the 12th International Congress of Cretan Studies, 2016, Heraklion, Crete. _____. and S. Crooks. 2015. “Dropping Ecstasy? Minoan Cult and the Tropes of Shamanism.” Time and Mind: The Journal for Archaeology Consciousness and Culture 8: 129–58. _____. and S. Crooks. (In Press). “Enthroned Upon Mountains: Iconography and the Construction of Power in the Aegean Bronze Age.” In The Throne in Art and Archaeology: From the Dawn of the Ancient Near East Until the Late Medieval Period, edited by L. Naeh and D.B. Gilboa. Vienna: OREA. Turkeltaub, D. 2007. “Perceiving Iliadic Gods.” HSCP 103: 51–81. Tylor, E.B. 1871. Primitive Culture. London: J. Murray. Tyree, L. 2001. “Diachronic Changes in Minoan Cave Cult.” In POTNIA. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference. Goteborg University [12-15 April 2000] (Aegaeum 22), edited by R. Laffineur and R. Hägg, 39–50. Liège: Université de Liège. Ulbrich, A. 2001. “An Archaeology of Cult? Cypriot sanctuaries in 19th century archaeology.” In Cyprus in the 19th century AD. Fact, Fancy and Fiction. Papers of the 22nd British Museum Classical Colloquium December 1998, edited by V. Tatton-Brown, 93–106. Oxford: Oxbow. Ussishkin, D. 1980. “The Ghassulian Shrine at En Gedi.” TA 7: 1–44. _____. 1983. “Excavations at Tel Lachish 1978–1983: Second Preliminary Report.” TA 10: 97–175. _____. 2015. “The Sacred Area of Early Bronze Age Megiddo: History and Interpretation.” BASOR 373: 69–104. Van Buren, D.E. 1943. “Mountain Gods.” Orientalia 12: 76–84. Van Damme, T. 2012. “Reviewing the Evidence for a Bronze Age Silk Industry.” In KOSMOS. Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 13th International Aegean Conference / 13e Rencontre égéenne internationale, University of Copenhagen, Danish National Research Foundation’s Centre for Textile Research, 21–26 April 2010 (Aegaeum 33), edited by M.-L. Nosch and R. Laffineur, 163–169. Leuven – Liège: Peeters. Van Effenterre, H. and M. van Effenterre. 1972. CMS IX. Cabinet des Médailles de la Bibliothèque Nationale Paris. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. Van Effenterre, H. 1980. La palais de Mallia et la cité minoenne. I – II. Pubblicazioni dell’ Instituto per gli Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici del Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. Rome: Edizioni dell’Ateneo. Van Koppen, F. and K. Van der Toorn. 1999. “Holy One”. In Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, edited by K. van der Toorn, B. Becking and P.W. van der Horst, 415–418. Leiden: Brill. Vaughn, P.H. 1974. The meaning of ‘Bāmā’ in the Old Testament: A Study of Etymological, Textual and Archaeological Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vavouranakis, G. 2011. The Seascape in Aegean Prehistory. Athens: Danish Institute at Athens. Ventris, M. 1956. Documents in Mycenaean Greek: Three Hundred Selected Tablets from Knossos, Pylos, and Mycenae. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Verhoeven, U. 1998. “The Mortuary Cult.” In Egypt: The World of the Pharaohs, edited by R. Schulz and M. Seidel, 481–489. Cologne: Könemann. Vermeule, E. 1964. Greece in the Bronze Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. _____. and V. Karageorghis. 1982. Mycenaean Pictorial Vase Painting. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Vlachopoulos, A. 2007. “Mythos, Logos and Eikon. Motifs of Early Greek Poetry in the Wall Paintings of Xeste 3.” In EPOS. Reconsidering Greek Epic and Aegean Bronze Age Archaeology. Proceedings of the 11th International Aegean Conference / 11e Recontre égéenne internationale. Los Angeles, UCLA – The J. Paul Getty Villa, 20–23 April 2006 (Aegaeum 28), edited by S.P. Morris and R. Laffineur, 107–18. Liège: University of Liège. _____. 2008. “The Wall Paintings from Xeste 3 Building at Akrotiri: Towards an Interpretation of the Iconographic Programme.” In Horizon. A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, edited by N.

WORKS CITED

195

Brodie, J. Doole, G. Gavalas and C. Renfrew, 451–65. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge. _____. 2014. “Images of Physis or Perceptions of Metaphysis? The Iconography of the Xeste 3 Building at Akrotiri, Thera.” In METAPHYSIS. Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 15th International Aegean Conference, Vienna Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Aegean and Anatolia Department, Austrian Academy of Sciences and Institute of Classical Archaeology, University of Vienna, 22–25 April 2014 (Aegaeum 39), edited by E. Alram-Stern, F. Blakolmer, S. Deger-Jalkotzy, R. Laffineur, and J. Weilhartner, 375–385. Leuven – Liège: Peeters. Von Rüden, C. 2015. “A Touch of Luxury from the Western Fringe of the Ancient World: The Aegean Impact on the Qatna Wall Paintings.” In Qatna and the networks of Bronze Age Globalism. Proceedings of an International Conference in Stuttgart and Tübingen in October 2009, edited by P. Pfälzner and M. Al-Maqdissi, 249–61. Qatna Studien Supplementa. Übergreifende und vergleichende Forschungsaktivitäten des Qatna-Projekts der Universität Tübingen. Weisbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Von Stackelberg, K. 2009. The Roman Garden: Space, Sense and Society. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. Wachsmann, S. 1998. Seagoing Ships and Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant. College Station: Texas A & M University Press. Wade, N. 2016. “In Greek Warrior’s Grave, Rings of Power (and a Mirror and Combs).” New York Times, 3 October. Warren, P. 1969. Minoan Stone Vases. London: Cambridge University Press. _____. 1987. “The Ring of Minos.” In EIΛAΠINH. Tomos timitikos gia ton Kathigiti N. Platona. _____. 1988. Minoan Religion as Ritual Action. SIMA 72. Göteborg: Paul Åströms Forlag. _____. 2004. “Terra cognita? The territory and boundaries of the early Neopalatial Knossian state.” In Knossos. Palace, City, State, edited by G. Cadogan, E. Hatzaki and A. Vasilakis, 159–68. London: The British School at Athens. _____. 2006. “Religious Processions and Stone Vessels.” In Acts of the 9th International Congress of Cretan Studies, Elounda, 1–6 October 2001, I, 3, edited by T. Detorakis, 259–271. Herakleion: n.p. Watrous, L.V. 1984. “Ayia Triada: A New Perspective on the Minoan Villa.” AJA 88: 123–34. _____. 1987. “The Role of the Near East in the Rise of the Cretan Palaces.” In The Function of the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 10–16 June, 1984, edited by R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, 65–70. Göteborg, Paul Åströms Forlag. _____. 1995. “Some Observations on Minoan peak Sanctuaries.” In POLITEIA. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference/5e Rencontre égéenne internationale University of Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut 10–13 April 1994, edited by R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier, 393–402. Liège: Université de Liège. _____. 1996. The Cave Sanctuary of Zeus at Psychro: A Study of Extra-Urban Sanctuaries in Minoan and Early Iron Age Crete. Liège: Université de Liège. _____., D. Xatzi-Vallianou, K. Pope, N. Mourtzas, J. Shay, C.T. Shay, J. Bennet, D. Tsoungarakis, E. Angelomati-Tsoungarakis, C. Vallianos and H. Blitzer. 1993. “A Survey of the Western Mesara Plain in Crete: Preliminary Report of the 1984, 1986 and 1987 Field Seasons.” Hesperia 62: 191– 248. Webb, J.M. 1992. “Cypriote Bronze Age Glyptic: Style, Function and Social Context.” In ΕΙΚΩΝ. Aegean Bronze Age Iconography: Shaping a Methodology. Proceedings of the 4th International Aegean Conference/4e Recontre égéenne internationale. University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia 6–9 April 1992 (Aegaeum 8), edited by R. Laffineur and J.L. Crowley, 113–120. Liège: Université de Liège. _____. 1999a. Ritual Architecture, Iconography and Practice in the Late Cypriot Bronze Age. SIMA 75. Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag. _____. 1999b. “Funerary Ideology in Bronze Age Cyprus: Towards the Recognition and Analysis of Cypriote Ritual Data.” In Studies in Honour of Vassos Karageorghis, edited by G.C. Ioannides, 87– 99. Nicosia: Leventis Foundation.

196

WORKS CITED

_____. 2002. “Device, Image and Coercion: The Role of Glyptic in the Political Economy of Late Bronze Age Cyprus.” In Script and Seal Use on Cyprus in the Bronze and Iron Ages, edited by J.S. Smith, 111–54. Boston: Archaeological Institute of America. _____. 2005. “Ideology, iconography and identity. The role of foreign goods and images in the establishment of social hierarchy in Late Bronze Age Cyprus.” In Archaeological Perspectives on the Transmission and Transformation of Culture in the Eastern Mediterranean, edited by J. Clarke, 176–82. Oxford: Oxbow Books. _____. 2012. “Kalopsidha: forty-six years after SIMA volume 2.” In Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, fifty years on, edited by J.M. Webb and D. Frankel, 49–58. Uppsala: Åströms Forlag. _____. and D. Frankel. 2010. “Social Strategies, Ritual and Cosmology in Early Bronze Age Cyprus: An Investigation of Burial Data from the North Coast.” Levant 42: 185–209. Wedde, M. 1990. “The ‘Ring of Minos’ and beyond: thoughts on directional determination in Aegean Bronze Age ship iconography.” In Hydra. Working Papers in Middle Bronze Age Studies 7: 1–24. _____. 1991. “Aegean Bronze Age Ship Imagery.” In THALASSA. L’Egée préhistorique et la mer. Actes de la troisième Recontre égéenne internationale de l’Université de Liège, Station de recherches sous-marines et océanographiques (StaReSo), Calvi, Corse (23–25 avril 1990) (Aegaeum 7), edited by R. Laffineur and L. Basch,73–94. Liège: Université de Liège. _____. 1999. “Talking Hands: A Study of Minoan and Mycenaean Ritual Gesture.” In Meletemata. Studies in Aegean Archaeology presented to Malcolm H. Weiner as He Enters his 65th Year (Aegaeum 20), edited by P.P. Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier, 911–920. Liège: Université de Liège. _____. 2000. Towards a Hermeneutics of Aegean Bronze Age Ship Imagery. Mannheim: Bibliopolis. _____. 2004. “On the Road to Godhead: Aegean Bronze Age glyptic procession scenes.” In Celebrations. Selected papers and discussions from the Tenth Anniversary Symposion of the Norwegian Institute at Athens, 12–16 May 1999, edited by M. Wedde, 151–86. Athens: Bergen: Greig Medialog. Weingarten, J. 1983. “The Use of the Zakro Sealings.” Kadmos 22: 8–13. Wengrow, D. 2009. “The Voyages of Europa: Ritual and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean circa 2300–1850 BC.” In Archaic State Interaction. The Eastern Mediterranean in the Bronze Age, edited by W.A. Parkinson and M.L. Galaty, 141–60. Santa Fe: Schools for Advanced Research Press. Wheeler-Barclay, M. 2010. The Science of Religion in Britain, 1860–1915. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press. Whittaker von Hofsten, H. 2004. “Some Reflections on Mycenaean Ritual.” In Celebrations. Selected papers and discussions from the Tenth Anniversary Symposion of the Norwegian Institute at Athens, 12–16 May 1999, edited by M. Wedde, 95–109. Athens: Norwegian Institute at Athens. Wiggins, S. 1993. A Reassessment of ‘Asherah’: A Study According to Textual Sources of the First two Millennia B.C.E. Kevelaer: Burtzon and Bercker; Neukircher-Vluyn. Wilkinson, A. 1998. The Garden in Ancient Egypt. London: The Rubicon Press. Wilkinson, R.H. 1992. Reading Egyptian Art: A Hieroglyphic Guide to Ancient Egyptian Painting and Sculpture. London: Thames and Hudson. Wilson, J.W. 2009. Wall Paintings of Processions: The Implications for Gendered Activities in the Late Bronze Age. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of Melbourne. Winter, I. 1986. “The King and the Cup: Iconography of the Royal Presentation Scene on UR II Seals.” In Insight Through Images: Studies in Honor of Edith Porada, edited by M. Kelly-Buccellati, 253–68. Malibu: Udena Publications. _____. 2010. On Art in the Ancient Near East. Vol. 1. Of the First Millennium BCE. Leiden: Brill. Winter, U. 1983. Frau und Göttin. Exegetische und ikonographische Studien zum weiblichen Gottesbild im alten Israel und in dessen Umwelt. Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Frieburg Schweiz Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Wright, G.R.H. 1971a. “Pre-Israelite Temples in the Land of Canaan.” PEQ 103: 17–32. _____. 1971b. “Shechem and League Shrines.” VT 21: 572–603.

WORKS CITED

197

_____. 1991. “The Cypriot Rural Sanctuary. An Illuminating Document in Comparative Religion.” In Studies in Honour of Vassos Karageorghis, edited by G.C. Ioannides, 269–83. Leukosia: Leventis. _____. 1985. Ancient Building in South Syria and Palestine. Vol. I. Leiden-Köln: Brill. _____. 1992. Ancient Building in Cyprus. Leiden: Brill. Wright, J.C. 1994. “The Spatial Configuration of Belief: The Archaeology of Mycenaean Religion.” In Placing the Gods. Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece, edited by S.E. Alcock and R. Osborne, 37–78. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Wyatt, N. 1999. “Asherah.” In Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, edited by K. van Der Toorn, B. Becking, and P.W. van Der Horst, 99–105. Leiden: Brill. _____. 2007. Word of Tree and Whisper of Stone, and Other Papers on Ugaritic Thought. Piscataway: Gorgias Press. Wylie, A. 1985. “The Reaction Against Analogy.” Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 8: 63–111. Xenaki-Sakellariou, A. 1964. CMS I. Die Minoischen und Mykenischen Siegel des Nationalmuseums in Athen. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. Yasur-Landau, A. 2010. “Levant.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean, edited by E.H. Cline, 832–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press. _____. 2016. “ The Baetyl and the Stele: Contact and Tradition in Levantine and Aegean Cult.” In METAPHYSIS. Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 15th International Aegean Conference, Vienna, Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Aegean and Anatolia Department, Austrian Academy of Sciences and Institute of Classical Archaeology, University of Vienna, 22–25 April 2014 (Aegaeum 39), edited by E. Alram-Stern, F. Blakolmer, S. Deger-Jalkotzy, R. Laffineur, and J. Weilhartner. 415–419. Leuven – Liège: Peeters. _____. and N. Goshen. 2014. “The Reformed Mountains: Political and Religious Landscapes in the Aegean and the Levant.” In PHYSIS. L’environnement naturel et la relation homme-milieu dans le monde égéen protohistorique. Actes de la 14e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Paris, Institut National d’Histoire de l’Art (INHA) 11–14 décembre 2012 (Aegaeum 37), edited by G. Touchais, R. Laffineur, and F. Rougemont, 159–163. Leuven – Liège: Peeters. Yogev, O. 1983. “Seal Impression on Pithos Fragment.” In Excavations at Athienou, Cyprus 1971–1972, edited by T. Dothan and A. Ben-Tor, 118. Qedem. Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Younger, J.G. 1988. The Iconography of late Minoan and Mycenaean sealstones and finger rings. Bristol: Bristol Classic Press. _____. 2007. “Time and Event in Aegean Art: Illustrating a Bronze Age Calendar.” In Stephanos Aristeios. Archäologische Forschungen zwischen Nil und Istros. Festschrift für Stefan Hiller zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by F. Lang, C. Reinholdt, and J. Weilhartner, 287–95. Vienna: Phoibos Verlag. _____. 2009. “Tree Tugging and Omphalos Hugging on Minoan Gold Rings.” In Archaeologies of Cult: Essays on Ritual and Cult in Honour of Geraldine C. Gesell, edited by A.L. D’Agata and A. van de Moortel, 43–9. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. _____. 2009b. “We are Woman”: Girl, Maid, Matron in Aegean Art.” In Fylo. Engendering Prehistoric “Stratigraphies” in the Aegean and the Mediterranean. Proceedings of an International Conference, University of Crete, Rethymno, 2–5 June 2005, edited by K. Kopaka, 207–212. (Aegaeum 30) Liège: Université de Liège. _____. 2011. “A View from the Sea.” In The Seascape in Aegean Prehistory, edited by G. Vavouranakis, 161–83. Athens: Danish Institute at Athens. _____. 2014. “The ‘World of People’: Nature and Narrative in Minoan Art.” In PHYSIS. L’environnement naturel et la relation homme-milieu dans le monde égéen protohistorique. Actes de la 14e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Paris, Institut National d’Histoire de l’Art (INHA) 11–14 décembre 2012 (Aegaeum 37), edited by G. Touchais, R. Laffineur, and F. Rougemont, 211–214. Leuven – Liège: Peeters. _____. 2016. “Identifying Minoan Myth”. In METAPHYSIS. Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 15th International Aegean Conference, Vienna Institute for Oriental and European

198

WORKS CITED

Archaeology, Aegean and Anatolia Department, Austrian Academy of Sciences and Institute of Classical Archaeology, University of Vienna, 22–25 April 2014 (Aegaeum 39), edited by E. Alram-Stern, F. Blakolmer, S. Deger-Jalkotzy, R. Laffineur, and J. Weilhartner. 433–438. Leuven – Liège: Peeters. Zeimbekis, M. 1998. The Typology, Forms and Functions of Animal Figurines from Minoan Peak Sanctuaries with special reference to Juktas and Kophinas. Vol. I Text. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Bristol. Zevit, Z. 2001. Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches. London: Continuum. Ziffer, I. 2010. “Western Asiatic Tree Goddesses.” Ägypten und Levante 20: 411–430. Zohary, M. 1962. Plant Life of Palestine, Israel and Jordan. New York: Ronald Press. _____. 1982a. Plants of the Bible: a complete handbook to all the plants with 200 full-color plates taken in the natural habitat. London: Cambridge University Press. _____. 1982b. Vegetation of Israel and adjacent areas. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert.

GLOSSARY Anthracology The study of carbonised plant materials. Bachofenian Matriarchy Johan Jakob Bachofen’s (1815–1887) theories about prehistoric matriarchy, as espoused in his 1861 book, Das Mutterrecht: eine Untersuchung über die Gynaikokratie der alten Welt nach ihrer religiösen und rechtlichen Natur (Mother Right: A Study of the Religious and Juridical Aspects of Gynecocracy in the Ancient World) published in 1861 but which became influential by the late 19th century. It proposed five stages of human evolution: hetaerism, Demetrian matriarchy, Dionysian matriarchy, Amazonism, and the Apollonian age. In this scheme materiality is “feminine” and spirituality is “masculine”. Human evolution is moving from matter toward spirit, thus from Mother Goddesses and the rule of women to Father Gods and the rule of men. Binarism A mode of thought predicated on stable oppositions (such as good and evil or male and female) that is seen in post-structural analysis as an inadequate approach to areas of difference. Also, the analysis of complex objects or systems in terms of binary oppositions, especially in a facile or simplistic way. Brisure Joint, break. In Jacques Derrida’s (1930–2004) book Of Grammatology (1967), refers to the hinged articulation of two parts. The hinge (la brisure) is a join that breaks open; difference and articulation; opening and fragmenting; a fold that holds while dividing. Cavalier Perspective Also called “high point view”, it is a way to represent a three dimensional object on a flat drawing in which “above” equals “further away”. Durkheimean Lens Émile Durkheim (1858–1917) was a French sociologist, social psychologist and philosopher. In his 1912 book The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, he used the Austronesian word “mana” (supernatural power, effectiveness, prestige) to describe an anonymous, impersonal force, immanent in the world and diffused amongst its various objects, which he thought characterised the religious beliefs of primitive peoples. Entheogenic The neologism entheogen was coined in 1979 by a group of ethnobotanists and scholars of mythology: Carl A. P. Ruck; Jeremy Bigwood; Danny Staples; Richard Evans Schultes; Jonathan Ott; and R. Gordon Wasson. The literal meaning of the word is “that which causes God to be within an individual”. Fairy Most commonly a supernatural creature varying in size, powers, span of life, and in moral attributes. Usually represented in diminutive human form and characterised as clever, playful and possessing magical powers. Derives from the French word fai, which comes from the Latin fatae (the Fates), the supernatural ladies who visited the household at times of birth and pronounce on the future of the

200

GLOSSARY

baby. Fairy originally meant “fai-erie” a state of enchantment and was transferred from the object to the agent. Favissae Plural of favissa. A pit or underground treasury near temples or other cult sites for sacred utensils or objects no longer in use. Heterotopia A concept in human geography (the branch of the social sciences that deals with the world, its people and their communities, cultures, economies and interaction with the environment by emphasising their relations with and across space and place) elaborated by philosopher Michel Foucault (1926–1984) to describe places and spaces that are simultaneously physical and mental and thus function as spaces of otherness. Foucault uses the term to describe places that have more layers of meaning or relationships to other places than immediately meet the eye. For example, a garden that consists of plants from around the world and is thus actually a microcosm of different environments is a heterotopia. Lacan’s Real, Symbolic and Imaginary A model of the psyche consisting of three realms or orders, proposed by French psychoanalyst and psychiatrist, Jacques Lacan (1901–1981). The “Real” is the wider reality behind, or the source of, that which we attempt to make finite through recognition and labelling. The “Imaginary” refers to the realm of sensorial perception, and the “Symbolic” is the realm of the psyche that holds language, the Other, societal rules, and the unconscious. Locus Place. A specific point in space; a discrete excavated unit or archaeological context. A distinct portion of an archaeological site, typically separated from other parts of the site by space devoid of cultural materials. Panoptic Showing or seeing the whole at one view. Panopticism refers to the Panopticon, an experimental laboratory of power in which behaviour could be modified, characteristic of a disciplinary society of surveillance. Developed by Michel Foucault in his book Discipline and Punish, it is based on Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon, a circular building with an observation tower containing cells for occupants who could be seen and watched but were not able to see each other nor who watched them. Parergon Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) used the term parergon to refer to the frame of a work of art. Jacques Derrida uses the term to deconstruct the distinction between the inside of the frame (the ergon or work) and outside of the frame (parergon) in order to go beyond these binary oppositions and to highlight what is excluded from the work, but still present (an absent presence), and which he terms “traces”. Peircean Semiotics Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) was an American philosopher whose system of semiotics was triadic, composed of the interpretant, representamen, and object. This is in contrast to Ferdinand Saussure’s (1857–1913) semiotics which was linguistic in approach and dyadic, the sign being was constituted by the signified and the signifier, but which did not involve a referent or actual object existing in the real world. In Peircean semiotics the production of a sign does not have to correspond to a language-like attempt to communicate a message, but rather (or in addition) may be a practical action or object occurring in the material world.

GLOSSARY

201

Sphragistic Of or relating to seals or signet rings. Synoptic Observation that gives a broad view of a subject at a particular time. Synopticon, the reversal of Foucault’s Panopticon: the surveillance of the few by the many, such as in the theatre.

APPENDIX A IMAGES OF MINOAN TREE CULT This appendix contains the Aegean glyptic, fresco painting, and stone vase evidence for images of tree cult that form the major focus of this study. The images appear on 21 gold rings, 2 bronze rings, 1 bone ring, 7 clay imprints from metal rings, 6 sealstones, 3 paintings, 2 fragments from stone vases, 1 ivory pyxis, and 1 bronze plaque. Each glyptic image is presented as the drawing of the impression; the rhyton fragment is also a drawing, while the frescoes are both photographs and drawings. Information about each object accompanies the images. The images are organised according to the order in which they are discussed within Chapters 3 to 6. Figure 1. Drawing of gold ring, HM 1043 from Sellopoulo. Marinatos 2010, 89, Fig. 7.2a.

The ring from Tomb 4 at Sellopoulo (HM 1043) is one in which a baetyl appears to take the main ritual role. The ring’s bezel measures 1.95cm by 1.1cm while the hoop measures 1.58 cm. The Sellopoulo Ring comes from a tholos tomb which the accompanying pottery dates to the LM II–early LM III period, and which a cartouche of Amenophis III (r. 1417–1379 BCE) provides a terminus post quem, although this does not mean that the ring dates to this period however, and it was probably earlier. The ring was worn by a male warrior, but it is not certain whether this person was a Mycenaean or a Minoan who had assumed the militant trappings of the Mycenaeans. If a Mycenaean it would suggest that they had adopted Minoan religious concepts, or were perhaps evoking an ideological connection with such concepts to enhance their legitimacy in elite society in Crete, or it may have been an heirloom or gift. The ring was found in the vicinity of the left hand of the warrior, and because it has a very small hoop, it may have been worn in between the first and second knuckles.1 The scene on the ring depicts, from left to right on the imprint, an ambiguous curved structure with what looks like a rim at the top and may be either a pithos or a portion of architecture. It has also been interpreted as a shield. To the right of this structure a bird swoops down with an object in its beak that has been interpreted as a chrysalis or rhyton. In the center a male figure leans over a large baetylic stone, turns his head back toward the bird, and raises his hand with his elbow bent at 45°. Above the male figure is an object that may depict a shooting star or sprig of wheat. To the right of the scene are




























































1

Popham 1974, 218, Fig. 14 D, 254, 223.

204

APPENDIX A

long cylindrically shaped rocks, stacked vertically, out of which flowers grow at the lower part, while a tree emerges from the top of the rocks and leans over the man and baetyl. Figure 2. Drawing of clay ring impression, CMS II.6 No.5 from Haghia Triadha. Platon et at. 1999, 12.

CMS II.6 No.5 from Haghia Triadha is a sealing deriving from a bronze ring that measured 2.0cm by 1.2cm.2 The image depicts, from left to right, a female figure wearing an elaborate skirt with both her hands raised to her chest. She faces a tree in the center of the scene, which is set in rocky ground. Two rivet holes are visible in the middle of the scene, obscuring the tree. The rocks in this case are conjoined in a mass rather than separate. Chapin terms this type of motif “rockwork” and it appears in fresco scenes depicting continuous rocky borders such as the Partridge and Hoopoe frieze from the Caravanserai at Knossos and the landscape depicted in Xeste 3 Room 3a on the northern wall.3 To the right of the tree is another female figure wearing either a split skirt or Minoan pants. She sits on rocks and is probably intended to be read as a human enacting an epiphany. This figure has her arms raised to shoulder height with her elbows bent at 90°, evoking the later “Goddess with Upraised Arms” figures. Figure 3. Drawing of clay ring impression, CMS II.6 No.6 from Haghia Triadha. Platon et al. 1999, 13.

CMS II.6 No.6 from Haghia Triadha is a sealing that derives from a ring measuring 1.9cm by 1cm.4 The scene depicts, from left to right, a female figure wearing an elaborate skirt with both hands raised




























































2 3 4

Platon et al. 1999, 12. Chapin 2005, 125 n.20. Platon et al. 1999, 13.

IMAGES OF MINOAN TREE CULT

205

near her head with her elbows bent at 90°. She faces a small hovering figure that appears to be emerging from a tree which leans into the scene from the right. The epiphanic figure also wears an elaborate skirt and has both hands raised with her elbows bent at 45°. Underneath the hovering figure and tree are globular boulders which take up the two-thirds of the lower right hand part of the image. The human figure on the left appears to stand on flat ground. Figure 4. Drawing of bronze ring, CMS II.3 No.305 from Kavousi. Platon et al. 1975, 360.

CMS II.3 No.305 from Kavousi5 is a bronze ring measuring 2.4cm by 1.5cm. The scene depicts, from left to right on the seal impression, a female figure wearing an elaborate skirt, with one hand raised and bent at 90°. She faces a tree growing from rocky round situated in the center of the scene, obscured by rivets. On the right of the tree is a hovering, epiphanic female figure with both hands on hips, also facing the tree. The hovering figure wears a horizontally striped skirt, which may be intended to represent the regular Minoan elaborate skirt. The rocky ground, which is made up of small separate boulders, taller than they are wide, is mainly situated to the right of the scene underneath the hovering figure, while the human figure appears to stand on flat ground. 6 Figure 5. Drawing of gold ring, CMS I No.17 from Mycenae. Xenaki-Sakellariou 1964, 30.






























































5 6

Platon et al. 1975, 360. As seen on CMS I No.253; II.6 No.5; II.6 No.30; II.6 No.70; II.8 No.268; and II.8 No.491.

206

APPENDIX A

CMS I No.17 from the Ramp House on the Acropolis at Mycenae is a gold ring, the bezel of which measures 3.4cm by 2.5cm.7 The scene on the ring consists of, from left to right on the imprint; six animal heads, a female figure holding lilies, and above her hovers an epiphanic figure whose body consists of a figure-eight shield and who holds a spear. Next is another female figure offering poppies which she presents to the large seated figure on the right. Directly above the second figure’s outstretched arm, and thus in the very center of the scene, is a double axe which appears to be suspended in the air and therefore may be envisioned or symbolic. Between this figure and the large seated female on the right is a small female figure, perhaps a child, standing upon pebbled ground, who also offers flowers to the seated figure. Towards the right is the large female seated figure who receives the poppies. She sits on a cluster of small rocks underneath a tree, the foliage of which consists of many small globules and thus may be intended to be fruiting. Behind the tree on the far right is another small female figure holding her hands upward and possibly picking fruit. A wavy line, a crescent moon, and the sun are centrally placed in the sky. Figure 6. Drawing of gold ring, CMS I No.219 from Vapheio. Xenaki-Sakellariou 1964, 253.

The gold ring from Vapheio, CMS I No.219,8 was found in the LH II–IIIA1 tholos tomb at Vapheio in a cist grave dug into the floor of a tholos tomb, along with two other rings made of bronze and iron, some amethyst and amber beads, seal stones, the famous gold cups, ten weapons, precious metal and stone vases, scale pans, lead weights, and a set of metal objects associated with sacrificial ritual. Its bezel measures 2.15 cm by 1.38cm. From left to right on the impression the scene depicts a pithos, with some dots around its upper part, perhaps a garland decoration. Above the pithos (and which should be read as next to rather than within) are thin, cylindrical rocks and a tree grows out of the top of this cluster. The tree, which hangs down over the left half of the scene, has dots around the outer edges of its foliage which may indicate fruit. On the ground to the right of the tree and pithos are globular rocks. A male figure stands on the rocks and pulls at the tree. In the center of the scene a female figure standing on flat ground and wearing an elaborate skirt appears to be dancing, her right hand raised with the elbow bent at 90°. Above and to the right of the female figure are three hovering objects which may be envisioned or symbolic depictions of a rhyton, a shooting start or sprig of wheat, and a double axe with tassels. To the far right of the scene a sacred knot or garment, possibly with a sword, lies upon a figure-eight shield or a rock.






























































7 8

Xenaki-Sakellariou 1964, 30. Xenaki-Sakellariou 1964, 253.

IMAGES OF MINOAN TREE CULT

207

Figure 7. Drawing of gold ring, CMS VI.2 No.277, unknown provenance. Hughes-Brock and Boardman 2009, 448–9.

The Ring of Nestor (CMS VI.2 No.277) is a large ring measuring 3.29cm long by 2.18cm wide. It is unprovenanced9 but is said to come from the Kalavatos Tholos Tomb in Greece.10 In the scene on this ring the space is divided into four areas by what may be a large tree (although Evans thought it was a river, the presence of a Minoan Dragon evokes aquatic associations, and rivers do tend to be depicted from above as seen in the Bird and Monkey fresco from the House of the Frescos at Knossos, and the Nilotic fresco from Thera).11 From left to right on the sealing: on the bottom left is a male figure with his left arm raised. To his right are two female figures in elaborate skirts one of whom has her hands raised to shoulder height with the elbow bent at 90°, while the other has her left hand held by another male. This male leads the group towards the right where they are confronted with the lower half of the tree trunk. On the other side of the tree on the bottom right is a scene that may either continue from the previous one or be intended as separate. A female figure in an elaborate skirt approaches the left, as though leaving the scene; she appears to be holding something, perhaps a flower. To her right are two more female figures in elaborate skirts, with bird-like heads, and with their hands in an “adoration gesture” paying homage to a winged griffin sitting on a table. At the far right of the scene, behind the table with her left arm raised with the elbow bent at 135°, is another female figure in an elaborate skirt. In the top left of the image a female figure who appears nude but is probably wearing Minoan pants gestures with one hand raised with the elbow bent at 135°, and converses with another female in a split skirt, who has both arms raised. They sit on the left hand tree branch and above them hover two butterflies and what may be two chrysalises. Next to the female figures is a male figure that has both hands raised to the chest. He faces another female figure in an elaborate skirt whose arms are both raised. Towards the right, which is actually the center of the ring, is the top part of the tree trunk which terminates this scene. The scene on the top right part of the ring begins with wavy stalks of vegetation bearing orbs, perhaps fruit, growing out of the side of the tree. The remainder of the scene consists of a large lion reclining on top of a single-level but double corniced platform which is supported by three incurved altars. The altars rest on the right hand tree branch. Under the platform are two kneeling figures that appear nude, look chubby and perhaps are meant to be children. Because




























































9

10 11

Arguments for and against its authenticity can be found in Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakalleraki 1997, 659; Pini 1998, 1–13; Marinatos 2011, 17–27. Evans 1925; Hughes-Brock and Boardman 2009, 448–9. Palaiologou 1995, 199; Morgan 1988, 34–9.

208

APPENDIX A

of the extremely large tree (if it is a tree) the image on this ring is interpreted here as a supernatural or mythical, rather than a realistic, scene. Figure 8. Drawing of gold ring, CMS IS No.114, unknown provenance. Sakellarakis 1982, 160.

CMS IS No.114 is an unprovenienced gold ring, said to be from Phaistos, the bezel of which measures 1.84cm by 1.26cm.12 The image depicts, from left to right on the imprint, what appears to be a monkey standing upright with its arm extended toward a seated female figure wearing an elaborate skirt. She sits under a palm tree and raises one hand with the elbow bent at 90°. There is no background evident in the scene and the ring’s bezel is very worn, however we can assume from looking at other glyptic and fresco artwork that the female figure was probably intended to be thought of as sitting upon a rock. Because the animal in this scene is performing an essentially human activity, this image may depict a supernatural scene or the female figure may be meant to be interpreted as a deity, as seen in the fresco from Xeste 3, Room 3a on the northern wall.13 Figure 9. Drawing of gold ring, CMS XI. No.29, unknown provenance. Pini et al. 1988, 42.

CMS XI. No.29 is an unprovenanced gold ring from Berlin the bezel of which measures 2.27cm by 1.35cm.14 The image depicts, from left to right on the imprint, a female figure wearing an elaborate split skirt with her left hand raised to the same shoulder. Towards the right another female figure in an elaborate skirt holds a drawn bow and above her are floating objects including a double axe with




























































12 13 14

Sakellarakis 1982, 160; Marinatos 1987b, 126. Krattenmaker 1995, 117–8. Pini 1981, 145–149; Pini et al. 1988. 42.

IMAGES OF MINOAN TREE CULT

209

tassels, and a possible rhyton or chrysalis. She faces a male figure who links his right arm through the bow and holds something in his right hand, and who has floating objects situated above him as well. Further to the right is a female figure wearing Minoan pants, leaning over a large baetylic rock. This figure is situated underneath a tree that, like the Sellopoulo Ring, grows out of thin, vertically positioned rocks and leans over the scene. Alternatively, the “rocks” may depict a gnarled tree trunk. The female figure turns her head backward to face the central scene of the male and female with the bow. Figure 10. Drawing of gold ring, CMS VI.2 No.281 from Knossos. Hughes-Brock and Boardman 2009, 459.

CMS VI.2 No.281 is a gold ring from Knossos, initially published in 1901 in Evans’ Mycenaean Tree and Pillar Cult.15 It measures 2.2 cm by 1.2 cm and the image on the bezel consists of, from left to right on the impression, rocks and vegetation, a female figure wearing an elaborate Minoan skirt with her right arm raised in an “adoration gesture” which consists of having one hand raised touching the forehead.16 A hovering male epiphanic figure with long hair is situated in the center of the image and faces the female figure, holding his right arm out straight at shoulder level and apparently holding a sceptre, with his left arm bent, perhaps with his hand on his hip.17 Behind this figure to the right is a vertical object with a ringed base that may be a pillar, column or flagpole. On the right side of the image is an ashlar masonry structure topped by a cornice, with an open gateway through which can be seen a vertical object which may be a cult stand, and over the top of the structure tree foliage projects.18 The female figure and pole stand on paved ground evident in the center of the image along the bottom.19






























































15

16

17

18 19

Evans 1901, 170; Brock-Hughes and Boardman 2009, 459; As Cynthia Eller (2012, 87) explains, Evans claimed to have found this ring on site at Knossos during his first visit to Crete in 1894, but his notebooks belie the fact that it was purchased in Heraklion from Jean G. Mitsotakis, the vice-consul for Russia and an antiquities dealer. The notebooks originally record that the ring came from Arkadi, this is then this is crossed out and “Vianos” is substituted which in turn is subsequently crossed out and the provenance is listed as Knossos. Wedde 1999, 404, 398. Compare female’s gesture: HM 989; 1700; CMS I 108; I 127; I 292; II 3 103; II 3 252; II 3 305; II 6 2; II 7 1; II 8 252; II 8 256; II 8 273; V 199; V 728; VS IA 55; VS IA 75; VS2 106. Compare: Epiphanic male figures on CMS I 292; VS2 106; VI 278. Wedde 1999, 404. Compare male’s gesture: CMS II 8 256; VS IA 142; V2 608. Lebessi and Muhly 1990, 330. Compare Paving: HM 989; CMS I 126 (pebbly); I 127; I 86; II 6 1; V 199; VS IA 175; VS IB 113; VS IB 114 (wiggly); VS IB 115; VS 2 106; VS 3 68; VI 278; Syme Runner’s Ring; Sacred Grove and Dance Fresco; Haghia Triadha Sarcophagus.

210

APPENDIX A

Figure 11. Drawing of gold ring, CMS XI No.28, unknown provenance. Pini et al. 1988, 41.

CMS XI No.28 is an unprovenanced gold ring from Berlin, allegedly found in Kilia between Sestos and Madytos on the Thracian Chersonese.20 The bezel measures 1.3cm by 0.85cm and depicts, from left to right on the imprint, a female figure wearing an elaborate Minoan skirt whose arm positions are indistinguishable, she faces a long-haired male figure of the same size with his arm outstretched as in the previous image but not holding anything.21 Behind this figure to the right is an ashlar wall with a cornice and a gateway with what appear to be closed doors. Above the structure projects a tree, and in the sky is a sun or star. The whole scene rests on a groundline consisting of two horizontal lines and which does not appear to represent paving. Figure 12. Drawing of bronze ring, CMS II.3 No.15 from Knossos. Platon and Pini 1985, 18.

CMS II.3 No.15 is a bronze ring found at Kato Gypsadhes at Knossos, in a LM context at the site of Hogarth’s House A.22 The ring measures 1.7cm by 0.8cm and silver rivets that once held the hoop to the bezel obscure the central section of the image. The scene depicts, from left to right on the impression, a pithos above which are dots (which have been interpreted as bees), and a female figure in an elaborate Minoan skirt holds her right arm bent at the elbow with the hand touching her right shoulder while her left arm hangs loose.23 To the right of the scene is an ashlar wall without a gateway, above which projects tree foliage.




























































20 21 22 23

Pini et al. 1988, 41. Found by Henrich Schliemann who later donated it to his colleague Frank Calvert. Compare Gesture: CMS II6 6; VI2 280; HM 1043; 1629; Psychro Plaque. Platon and Pini 1985, 18. Crowley 2014; Wedde 1999, 404.

IMAGES OF MINOAN TREE CULT

211

Figure 13. Drawing of gold ring, CMS II.3 No.252 from Mochlos. Platon and Pini 1984, 298.

CMS II.3 No.252 is a gold ring from the port of Mochlos in north-eastern Crete and was found in the surface soil above the EM Tomb 9 in the Prepalatial cemetery among the ruins of a LM IB burial.24 It measures 1.9cm by 1.0cm and the image consists of, from left to right on the impression, a portion of ashlar masonry with a cornice, in front of which are two spheres with diagonal marks projecting upwards which possibly signify double baetyls with squills or grass on top of or behind them25 and a hippocamp-headed boat takes up most of the lower portion of the image. A female figure wearing an elaborate Minoan skirt sits in the boat, facing toward the ashlar wall. She raises her right arm with the elbow bent at 90° in a salutatory gesture that appears to be directed toward the structure to the left, while her left arm is lowered and she rests her left hand upon the lower step of the stepped structure situated directly behind her. The structure consists of horizontal and vertical marks, which may suggest a stylised way of depicting three courses of ashlar masonry that it appears to consist of, and a tree is situated on top of it. The structure is only stepped on one side, a version of which is seen in other stepped ashlar structures. If it is an ashlar structure then the image is unlikely to depict a realistic scene, an idea discussed more thoroughly in the relevant chapters. Dots around the edge of the foliage may be meant to indicate fruit. Vertical marks along the lower area of the image are probably intended to depict the sea, and in the sky is a hovering epiphanic object, consisting of a vertical line with four horizontal bands across it resembling a cult stand and which is also a Linear A sign. The boat has no oars or sail so its method of propulsion is unclear. There is disagreement within the scholarship as to whether the boat is arriving at or departing from the walled structure, and whether the hippocamp indicates the bow or stern. Figure 14. Drawing of gold ring, CMS VS IB No.114 from Nemea. Pini 1993, 117.






























































24 25

Platon and Pini. CMS II. 298; Seager 1912, 89ff. Crooks 2013, 46–7. Compare Double Baetyls: CMS II 6 2; VS IA 180; CMS VI 278.

212

APPENDIX A

CMS VS IB No.114 from Nemea, Aidonia, on the Greek mainland is a gold ring that comes from a funerary context and was found in a small shaft grave belonging to two women in a LBA cemetery near Aidonia.26 It measures 2.48cm by 1.46cm and the image depicts, from left to right on the impression, three female figures wearing elaborate Minoan skirts. The first figure holds a flower above her head with her left hand, her right arm hanging lose at her side. The second figure also holds a flower in her left hand while her right arm is held up with the elbow bent at 45°. The third figure has her left arm bent with her hand on her hip while her right arm hangs down straight at her side. The figures approach an ashlar structure situated on the right of the image. The structure sits atop rocky ground and has a large tree on its right, closest to the female figures, and a smaller tree on its left, in the far right of the scene. The female figures stand on a horizontal ground line under which are zigzag marks that may be intended to signify paving (or water), and in the sky is a wavy line. Figure 15. Drawing of clay sealing, CMS II.6 No.1, from Haghia Triadha. Platon et al. 1999, 7.

This image is a sealing from Haghia Triadha, CMS II.6 No.1. 27 It is reconstructed from three incomplete imprints of an oval signet ring on red-brown to dark brick-coloured burnt clay, which is slightly glossy. The image measures 2.05cm by 1.05cm and consists of, from left to right, a small female figure wearing an elaborate Minoan skirt with her hands on her hips, a larger female figure in the same costume and position, and a third, smaller female figure also in the same costume and gestural position.28 The three figures also each hold long objects in their right hands, perhaps woollen fillets or pieces of cloth. Above the larger figure are 5 to 6 rows of undulating lines, some of which may represent her hair whilst others signify the sky. The two smaller figures may be wearing hats and do not have long hair. The figures look towards the right where a small palm tree spouts from the ground and is situated next to a gateway over which a tree projects.29 The women stand upon a slightly undulating groundline consisting of small vertical marks which may signify paving.






























































26 27 28 29

Pini 1993; Kaza-Papageorgiou 1998; 2006, 49. Platon et al. 1999, 7. Compare CMS I 126 and the Griffin Warrior Ring #2 (Fig. 26). Compare Glyptic Images of Gateways: CMS I 108; II 8 272; V 728; VS IB 113. Such gateways resemble structures in other glyptic scenes that have been interpreted as shrines. The gateways however, as in this case, have a larger “gap” in their middle which suggests that they are structures to be entered, while the columnar shrines have the “columnar” uprights from which they appear to be constructed situated closer together. It is possible that such gateways and the columnar structures may have been intended to be deliberately ambiguous and this is discussed in the relevant chapter. Morgan 1989; Palyvou 2005; McGowan 2010.

IMAGES OF MINOAN TREE CULT

213

Figure 16. Drawing of a clay sealing, CMS II.6 No.2 from Haghia Triadha. Platon et al. 1999, 9.

CMS II.6 No.2 is a sealing from Haghia Triadha reconstructed from two package seals of pyramidal shape consisting of brown, slightly glossy clay.30 The sealing is broken along the sides, top, and bottom which obscures the edges of the scene. The image depicts, from left to right, a female figure wearing an elaborate Minoan skirt with her right arm lowered and her hand bent upwards and projecting towards the right, while her left arm is bent with her hand raised to her shoulder. The figure faces to the right where double baetyls with what may be squills or grass above or behind them are situated in front of a clump of rocks behind which sits a gateway and over the top of which projects a tree. The ground and sky as well as the figure’s head are unable to be seen because of the breakage of the upper and lower edges of the sealing. Figure 17. Drawing of fragment of a serpentine rhyton from Gypsadhes. Evans 1901, 103.






























































30

Platon et al. 1999, 9.

214

APPENDIX A

The fragment from the Gypsadhes Rhyton depicts two male figures in the vicinity of a tree situated behind a wall. Made of black serpentine, this body fragment features a relief scene of an ashlar masonry altar surmounted by horns. In front of this structure two male figures move to the right of the altar and in the background is a wall of polygonal masonry behind which is a tree. Just visible behind the tree is another wall, suggesting an enclosed space which Evans proposed was the temenos of a sacred grove. The male figure to the right of the altar is depicted in profile view. He wears a Minoan loincloth and has his right arm raised, bent at the elbow at 45°, and his left arm lowered, also bent at 45° and appears to be in the midst of vigorous walking or dancing. The figure to the left of the altar is more fragmentary but his bent right knee and lowered arm, bent at 90°, and the touching fingers and thumb of his right hand suggest that he is kneeling on his left knee, perhaps in order to attend to something on the ground. A vertical line above the right horn of the altar, possibly intended to be read as being behind the wall, and to the left of the tree is unidentifiable, however, Evans suggest that it may be “some kind of sacred post or ‘Asherah’”.31 Figure 18. (a) Detail of fresco painting, east wall, first level, Building Xeste 3 at Thera. Courtesy C. Doumas.






























































31

Evans 1901 101–4; 1928, 614–16, Fig. 386; Warren 1969, 85.

IMAGES OF MINOAN TREE CULT

215

(b) Drawing of fresco painting, north and east walls, ground and first levels, Building Xeste 3 at Thera. Doumas 1980, 295.

The fresco painting from the east wall on the first level of Xeste 3 at Thera depicts an ashlar wall in the middle of which is a gateway topped by horns and over which a tree leans.32 The painting extends over the entire width of the east wall of the lower floor of the building. The wall in the fresco painting is constructed of rectangular ashlar masonry painted white, and the gate has inner doors which were probably wooden, surrounded by an outer structure possibly made of stone and crowned by a double cornice upon which sit the horns. The inner sections of the doors of the gateway, at the point where they meet, are white and are decorated with red lilies. The outer parts of the doors that would be hinged to the surrounding uprights are light brown, and vertical red streaks of what has been interpreted as blood appear to drip downwards upon them. The surrounding uprights and lintel are painted with a continuous spiral pattern in red with darker red circles in the center of the spirals. The




























































32

Doumas, 1992; Vlachopoulos 2007, 109.

216

APPENDIX A

horns are the same colour as the walls and also feature vertical drips of blood.33 A tree, probably an olive, leans from the inside of the structure over the horns upon the gate. The fresco is situated directly above a Lustral Basin located on a lower level. On the northern wall to the right of the wall and gateway fresco are depicted three female figures situated amidst rocky ground. The figure on the far left (westernmost) is wearing a diaphanous bodice patterned with crocus flowers and an elaborate, layered Minoan skirt. She walks east, holding a necklace in her left hand. In the center of the composition another young woman wearing a bodice with lattice pattern and a skirt made of long strips sits on a clump of rock. Her hair is decorated with a large sprig of olive leaves which may have come from the tree behind the walls.34 The girl raises her left arm to her forehead and with her right arm touches her foot which is wounded, underneath of which is a crocus blossom. On the right, the easternmost girl whose shaved head signifies that she is younger than the other two who have long hair, is wearing a spotted bodice, an elaborate layered Minoan skirt and is covered by a veil.35 She walks westward, but turns her head back to look eastward at the wall, gateway and tree on the eastern wall. The scene may depict female figures arriving at, or in the case of the figure on the right, leaving, a sacred enclosure situated in a rural landscape. Figure 19. Drawing of gold ring CMS II 3 No.114, from Kalyvia. Platon and Pini 1975, 132.

CMS II 3 No.114 is a gold ring from Kalyvia which was found in the Tombe dei Nobili.36 It measures 1.65cm by 1.3cm and the scene on its bezel depicts, from left to right on the impression, a pithos to the right of which a bird flies upwards toward the centre of the scene. Next to the bird and in the middle of the scene is a male figure, who appears naked but is probably wearing a Minoan loincloth, kneeling on the ground and leaning over a large baetylic stone. His head and forearms are obscured because of the rather minimal and impressionistic rendition of the figure. Further to the right is a female figure who also appears naked but is probably wearing Minoan pants. She clutches a tree which is situated within or on top of a columnar structure which is itself sitting upon vertical rocks. A groundline is evident, but it does not appear to be paved.






























































33 34 35 36

Marinatos 1984, 74. These vertical red marks have also been interpreted as saffron styles. Gesell 2000. Vlachopoulos 2008. Davis 1986. Platon and Pini 1975, 132.

IMAGES OF MINOAN TREE CULT

217

Figure 20. Drawing of clay ring impression, CMS VS IA No.178 from Chania. Pini 1992, 181.

The image CMS VS IA No.178 from Chania is reconstructed from three sealings that were made by a ring image measuring 1.3cm by 1cm.37 The scene depicts, from left to right, a structure consisting of two horizontal strokes at the bottom forming the foundation, on top of which are two vertical pillars, succeeded by three strokes making a triple cornice or entablature and then another two vertical strokes which possibly indicate horns. To the right of this structure is a female figure wearing an elaborate skirt with her arms extended downwards and out in front of her. She faces a mirror image female figure behind of whom is another columnar structure although more cursorily executed than the one on the left and having double columns and a double, rather than triple, cornice. Between the female figures in the center is a tree. The female figures’ outstretched arms meet and either hold each others’ hands or both hold the tree, underneath of which are three vertical marks, perhaps indicating another columnar structure. The image forms an antithetic scene which should be read by dividing it in half which results in a columnar structure and a female figure grasping a tree. Figure 21. Impression of gold ring HM 1700, unknown provenance. Courtesy I. Pini.






























































37

Pini 1992.

218

APPENDIX A

HM 1700, the “Ring of Minos”, is unprovenienced and consequently controversial because of disagreement by scholars as to its authenticity. 38 First published by Evans in 1931 the ring was allegedly found in 1928 in topsoil on the east slope of the Gypsadhes Hill at Knossos. Its findspot was approximately thirty paces away from the later-discovered South Royal Tomb, or Temple Tomb. Closer to the ring’s findspot a cache of gold and semi-precious ornaments were found which had probably been looted from the Tomb, and it has been suggested that the ring derived from the Temple Tomb as well. Despite its lack of provenience it has been dated to the LM IB–II.39 HM 1700 is a much larger ring than is common for Minoan rings, its bezel measuring 3.55 by 2.45cm. The image on the bezel depicts a seascape in the center, upon which a female figure wearing an elaborate skirt and holding a steering oar sails a hippocamp-headed boat in which is a stepped horned altar. The sea rises toward the upper central part of the ring and is edged with waves. Three different cult scenes involving large boulders, altars or shrines and human figures are interspersed around the edges of the sea. From left to right on the impression these consist of three boulders above which is placed a stepped ashlar structure topped by horns. The altar is constructed of ashlar masonry with a wider lower section consisting of three rows of masonry with a cornice, upon which is placed a smaller section of four rows of masonry also topped by a cornice. Horns crown the top of the structure and a female figure wearing an elaborate skirt sits on the edge of the upper section with her feet resting on the lower section. The female figure interacts with a hovering epiphanic female figure in a similar garment, possibly emerging from the tree behind her. To the right of this section and placed in the upper centre part of the ring is a male figure wearing a kilt and kneeling upon the left-most boulder in another group of three boulders. A columnar structure surmounted by a tree rests upon the boulders. The male figure grasps the left-hand side branch of the tree with his left hand and holds a small object with his right hand which has been variously interpreted as a rhyton, a chrysalis or a sprouting bulb or seed.40 Further to the right is a group of two boulders and another stepped ashlar masonry altar. The lower half of the structure consists of five rows of masonry and does not have an obvious cornice, while the upper part also has five rows of masonry and is topped by a cornice. A tree is placed on the top of the structure and a female figure wearing Minoan pants has her right knee upon the lower section of the altar and grasps the tree with her left arm. Figure 22. Drawing of steatite seal, CMS XII No.264, unknown provenance. Kenna 1972, 356.






























































38

39 40

Convincing support for the ring’s authenticity can be seen in: Platon 1984; Warren 1987; Krzyszkowska 2012, 180; and Soles 2011. Evans 1931, 1936, 434–8; Platon 1987, 68; Dimopoulou and Rethemiotakis 2004, 14. Dimopoulou and Rethemiotakis 2004, 20.

IMAGES OF MINOAN TREE CULT

219

CMS XII No.264 is an unprovenanced seal in New York, made from dark green steatite and measuring 1.64cm by 1.57cm.41 The scene depicts, from left to right on the imprint, vertical marks that may indicate either rocks or a flimsy built support,42 on top of which sits a columnar structure with a double cornice out of which a tree grows. A female figure wearing Minoan pants and with bent knees suggesting vigorous movement grasps the tree which bends down into the picture, curving over her. At first glance the structure looks very much like that on the Kalyvia Ring, CMS II 3 114, however the two vertical columns of the structure have small horizontal marks on them indicating stacked masonry or bricks and should thus be considered piers. Figure 23. Drawing of gold ring, CMS I No.126 from Mycenae. Xenaki-Sakellariou 1964, 142.

CMS I No.126 from Mycenae also depicts what are probably piers rather than pillars or columns.43 This scene appears on a gold ring that measures 2.9cm by 1.97cm and depicts, from left to right on the impression, a shrine or altar table with vertical marks underneath that may indicate legs, two unidentified blobs, possibly baetyls, and a hanging wreath. A female figure wearing an elaborate skirt leans over the table with her arms folded, laying her head on her arms, and above her are three jagged vertical marks which may depict hovering wheat spikes or branches. To the right, in the middle of the scene, a female figure wearing an elaborate skirt has her hands on her hips. To the far right a male figure with bent legs clutches a tree, whilst looking backward over his shoulder toward the central scene. The tree is sitting atop a columnar structure that appears to be made from small stacked blocks, and has a double or possibly triple cornice. The vertical component in the central space of this structure has been interpreted as a baetyl but may be intended to be a central decoration as seen on the columnar structure on the Ring of Minos, and the tripartite shrines on the Archanes Ring and Zakro Rhyton (discussed below). The structure sits on some sort of base that may be intended to represent vertical rocks, and is thus raised off the ground like those in the Kalyvia and New York rings. There are two curved marks at the top of the image, perhaps indicating garlands or the sky. The ground is covered in dots that may indicate scattered pebbles or pebbled paving. This ring is thought to be an example of interpretatio mycenae where a Mycenaean artist has attempted to depict an essentially Minoan scene which he is only cursorily familiar with and has hence gotten certain details wrong.44 The main “wrong” component of the ring is the female figure leaning over the table: in Minoan glyptic this pose occurs in conjunction with an actual baetyl, hence the table in this scene has been interpreted as housing baetyls. The remainder of the scene is not particularly problematic, however.




























































41 42 43 44

Kenna 1972, 356. Moody (2017) suggests that the marks below the shrine depict roots. Xenaki-Sakellariou 1964, 142. Furumark 1965; Niemeier 1990, 170, n.68.

220

APPENDIX A

Figure 24. Drawing of gold ring, CMS I No.119 from Mycenae. Xenaki-Sakellariou 1964, 135.

CMS I No.119 is a gold ring from Mycenae, the bezel of which measures 2.85cm by 1.8cm and depicts, from left to right on the impression, a large goat, behind which is a tree.45 The lack of a tree trunk underneath the goat makes the tree appear to be growing out of the goat’s back, however many other examples of glyptic images of goats with trees show that it is really situated behind it. The goat faces in the direction of a male figure wearing a kilt, whose right arm is raised with his elbow bent 90° while his left arm touches a tree. The tree sits on top of, or within, a columnar structure on the right hand side of the scene that consists of two vertical components on either side of another wider vertical mark which may indicate the trunk of the tree, a baetyl, or wider column situated within the space between the side columns. The structure is set amidst rocky ground, the individual components of which look very much like eyes. The scene includes a groundline, but without indication of paving. Figure 25. Drawing of gold ring, CMS VI No.279 from Mycenae. Hughes-Brock and Boardman 2009, 454.

CMS VI No.279 is a gold ring from Mycenae measuring 2cm by 1.2cm, the bezel of which depicts, from left to right on the impression, a columnar structure consisting of two vertical upright pillars on either side of an apparently empty space, crossed by a double cornice and crowned by horns.46 The structure is set amidst rocky ground and cursorily rendered plant material projects out of its base and top. In the center of the scene a female figure wearing an elaborate skirt looks toward and touches the structure with her right hand, although her feet point in the opposite direction. To the right of the scene is a lone tree, its position compositionally balancing the columnar structure. Around the figure,




























































45 46

Xenaki-Sakellariou 1964. 135. Brock-Hughes and Boardman 2009.

IMAGES OF MINOAN TREE CULT

221

tree and structure are numerous lines which have been interpreted as paths inside a sacred enclosure,47 but which probably actually indicate the ground and either background hills or sky. Figure 26. Drawing of a gold ring from Pylos. Davis and Stocker 2016, 641, Fig. 10.

The Griffin Warrior Ring 2 is one of four gold signet rings recently discovered in a large stone-built tomb of Late Helladic IIA date (1580–1490 BCE) near Tholos Tomb IV, at the Palace of Nestor, Pylos. Its bezel measures 4.47 x 2.77cm, while the exterior of the hoop has a diameter of 2.40cm and its interior 1.81cm. The rings were found lying on top of a male skeleton, estimated to have been around 30–35 years old at the time of death, in the area of the ribcage on the right side. The skeleton was not wearing them on his hands and they must have been placed on top of the body by mourners, with the Ring 2 situated around the solar plexus. Over 50 sealstones were also interred on the body’s right side.48 The image on the ring depicts (from left to right on the impression) two female figures wearing skirts with aprons, tight Minoan chitons, and tall hats, with their arms bent at 45° angles and their hands raised to their faces – possibly to their mouths. They face a columnar tree shrine, the sides of which are stone or brick piers and the top or lintel of which features a row of circles, possibly alluding to beam ends. The altar is situated upon rocks and at each side is a palm tree, while on top of the altar is an unidentifiable tree that has been suggested to be ivy leaves on thick stem bases or a Plane tree.49 To the right of the tree shrine are three female figures, the two smaller ones flanking the larger one. These three figures wear elaborate Minoan layered skirts, tight chitons, and possibly scarves around their necks, the ends of which look like wings. Both groups of figures stand on small dots indicating sand, and underneath this, as well as under the central rocky ground, is the familiar Minoan pattern indicating the sea. The scene on the ring appears to be taking place on a beach, perhaps an inlet, or possibly a headland or promontory. Rocks also appear at the top of the image and this may further emphasise the rocky landscape or indicate that the scene occurs on an island.50 While both groups of figures have parallels within other examples of Minoan glyptic (CMS I No.159; II 3 No.218; II 3 No.236; II 6 No.13; XII No.168), the three figures on the right of the scene are also associated with another scene of tree cult (CMS II 6 No.1, Figure 15). Unusually, a net pattern features between the open space of the piers in the columnar shrine in this ring. This is unprecedented in Minoan style cult scenes, although may be what the squiggly marks in the centre of the shrines in the Archanes Ring and the Ming of Minos indicate. The net has little




























































47 48 49 50

Rutkowski 1986, 205. Davis and Stocker 2016, 638, fig. 8. Davis and Stocker 2016, 640, n.35; Moody 2017. Davis and Stocker 2016, 640.

222

APPENDIX A

circles at its intersections and may be compared to the pattern on the reverse of CMS I No.293. That the scene on the Griffin Warrior Ring 2 is set close to the sea, probably on a beach, may suggest that the net pattern indicates a fishing net draped over the shrine. The cockle shells decorating the ring’s hoop contribute to a marine-themed interpretation. Certainly the net pattern on CMS I No. 293 appears to consist of twisted strands suggesting that it too represents an actual net. Figure 27. Drawing of gold ring from Thebes, CMS V No.198. Pini et al. 1975, 153.

This gold ring from Thebes (CMS V No.198) is the only other example of this type of columnar structure in the glyptic repertoire.51 Measuring 2.7cm by 1.6cm, the image on this ring depicts, from left to right in the impression, a columnar structure made of three vertical marks – two thinner ones on either side and one wider one in the center, topped by a double cornice. The structure is situated amidst rocky ground and rocks form the groundline and take up half of the right side of the scene underneath and to the right of the shrine. Rocks also appear in small clumps on the far left and top of the image and evidently emphasise the rocky nature of the landscape. In the center of the image is a bull lying down with its forelegs upon the rocks. A curved shape between the bull’s head and the columnar structure may indicate a tether rope. The columnar structure does not have a tree on top of it, but there is a tree in the far left of the image that leans into the picture, over the bull’s flank. Figure 28. Drawing of serpentine seal, CMS IX No.163 from Ligortino. Van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1972, 188.






























































51

Pini et al. 1975.

IMAGES OF MINOAN TREE CULT

223

CMS IX No.163 from Ligortino is a greenish-black serpentine lentoid.52 It is damaged but it is possible to see, from left to right on the impression, a female figure wearing an elaborate skirt and possibly with her hands on her hips, facing a structure with a tree on top. The structure is rendered with grid-like lines that could suggest that it is made out of wickerwork, but this may in fact be a simplified or stylised rendition of ashlar masonry, and if so, it is constructed of six or seven courses. The altar seems to have a crescent on it which has been interpreted as a garland. It is surmounted by a palm tree and possibly horns. Figure 29. Drawing of gold ring, HM 1629, from Poros. Dimopoulou and Rethemiotakis 2000, Fig. 4.

The “New Poros” or “Sacred Conversation” Ring (HM 1629) is a gold ring which measures 2.1cm by 1.1cm and has good provenance as it was found in a large rock-cut tomb of the Neopalatial period cemetery at Poros Heraklion where the main port of Knossos was located. The ring was part of a larger find of fine jewellery in a LM IB burial. The tomb where the ring was found dates to the MM IIB, it was used continuously up to the Neopalatial period and abandoned in the late LM IB.53 The image on the bezel consists of, from left to right on the impression, a straight-sided ashlar structure consisting of three courses of masonry topped by a prominent double cornice, above which is a tree. A male figure wearing a Minoan kilt faces toward the tree and grasps it, his bent knees suggesting vigorous movement. Above the male figure in the air are dots and possibly a couple of floating epiphanic objects. In the center of the image is another male figure, perhaps wearing a hat, standing on a small platform. Directly above him in the air are a wing and a small hovering epiphanic female figure. The male figure extends his left arm in a salute or greeting to a hovering but full size female figure on the right hand side of the scene. This female figure is in a seated position, she has her arms bent at the elbows as if holding reigns (although none are evident), and two birds below her to the left and right may have been intended to be understood as functioning as vehicles for her. Below each bird is a clump of flowers. The excavators have interpreted this scene as depicting a “Sacred Conversation” between the central male and the larger apparently supernatural female, and they propose that the epiphanic manifestation is caused by the male figure on the left shaking the tree, although he is not actually looking in the direction of the other figures.






























































52 53

Van Effenterre and Van Effenterre 1972, 188. Dimopoulou and Rethemiotakis 2000.

224

APPENDIX A

Figure 30. Drawing of clay seal impression, CMS II 7 No.1 from Zakros. Platon et al. 1998, 3.

CMS II 7 No.1 from Zakros is a package seal impressed by a metal ring which depicts, from left to right on the impression, a stepped structure crowned by two sets of horns.54 Horizontal lines suggest the stylised depiction of courses of masonry. The far left of the structure is obscured by damage. In the center of the scene is a hovering female figure with both her hands on her hips and underneath of whom is an ovoid shape. Towards the right a male figure, the right arm and head of which is obscured by damage to the sealing, leans backward with his left arm dangling down and was probably originally saluting the epiphanic female figure with his right arm. Behind him is a smaller stepped structure, the majority of which is obscured by damage to the sealing. On the lower step are situated horns, while on the higher step a cursorily rendered plant – possibly a small tree, a branch, or large flower – is situated, which curves leftward into the scene. Figure 31. Drawing of gold ring, CMS I No.127, from Mycenae. Xenaki-Sakellariou 1964, 144.

CMS I No.127 is a gold ring from Mycenae that measures 2.45cm by 1.5cm and the image upon the bezel depicts an antithetic scene consisting of, from left to right on the impression, vertical rocky clumps with wavy vegetation, a female figure in an elaborate skirt with hand raised to her forehead, and a stepped structure with two vertical small trees or branches on either side of it and topped by vegetation – possibly squills.55 On the right the scene is almost a mirror image and includes another female figure wearing elaborate skirt with her hand raised to her forehead, behind her however is a more sword-like tree surrounded with dots. All features in the scene are situated upon a groundline




























































54 55

Platon et al. 1998, 3. Xenaki-Sakellariou 1964, 144.

IMAGES OF MINOAN TREE CULT

225

and small vertical marks suggest paving. This image has been interpreted as depicting a front-on view and suggested to be a spring shrine;56 however, as an antithetic scene it should be divided into two halves and interpreted by viewing the scene in profile. In this way the structure appears to be a stepped ashlar shrine. Figure 32. (a) Detail of Peak Sanctuary Rhyton relief, HM 2764, after Shaw 1978, Fig. 8.

(b) Peak sanctuary rhyton (HM 2764) and drawing of relief, after Shaw 1978, Fig. 8.






























































56

Evans 1901, 183.

226

APPENDIX A

This image is the small stepped ashlar altar within the grounds of the peak sanctuary, as depicted on the Zakro Rhyton.57 The stepped altar, which is rendered in profile, consists of two obvious sections that appear to have been constructed separately rather than as a single piece. The smaller section, which is the front “step” consists of four courses of ashlar masonry and is topped by a double cornice. The taller part, which is the back of the structure, is constructed of eight courses of masonry and also surmounted by a double cornice on top of which is placed a single set of horns. Two leafy branches lie over and between the horns and are obviously a temporary feature. Figure 33. Detail of Side A Haghia Triadha Sarcophagus. Heraklion Museum, Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports – Archaeological Receipts Fund. Photo R. Laffineur.

This image is the stepped altar in conjunction with a tree which features on Side A of the Haghia Triadha sarcophagus.58 The structure has three ascending steps consisting of three courses of masonry each, making the nine courses of masonry all up. Directly behind the altar and close enough to be touching it is a tree, evidently planted in the ground. A procession of male figures wearing hide skirts and carrying model animals and a model boat moves toward the structure and directly behind it a male figure in a hide garment, possibly a shroud, stands between the stepped altar and tree and behind him, a small building with decorated doors.






























































57 58

Platon 1971. Paribeni 1903.

IMAGES OF MINOAN TREE CULT

227

Figure 34. Drawing of gold ring HM 989 from Archanes. Marinatos 2010, 96, Fig. A.

HM 989 is a gold ring from Archanes which derives from the side tomb in Tholos Tomb A at the cemetery of Phourni Archanes. It was found in a larnax burial of a female amidst much other jewellery.59 The burial dates from Mycenaean times but the ring may have been an heirloom in use for many years. The image upon the bezel depicts, from left to right on the impression, a structure consisting of five rows of masonry upon which sits a tripartite structure consisting of two outer sections of the same size and a taller inner section. The two outer sections, or piers, appear to be constructed of ashlar masonry while the inner section is formed of two vertical components between which are indistinguishable squiggles. All three sections are topped by double cornices, and the central one is surmounted by a tree. A male figure wearing a Minoan loincloth situated to the right of this structure pulls at the tree, his bent legs, one of which is kicked back, suggest energetic movement. To the right of this figure and in the centre of the image is a female figure wearing an elaborate skirt and facing to the right. Her right arm is by her side while her left arm is bent bringing her hand up to her left shoulder. To the right of the female figure are a hovering dragonfly, butterfly, possible cult stand or Linear A sign, an eye and an arrow. At the far right of the image a male figure wearing a Minoan loincloth kneels upon the ground. The figure’s head leans upon his right shoulder and while his left arm is bent and placed on the top of a large boulder, his right arms encircles the middle of it. The three figures and the ashlar structure are all situated upon paved ground. Figure 35. Drawing of clay sealing, CMS VS IA No.176, from Chania. Pini 1992, 179.






























































59

Sakellarakis 1967; Sakellarakis 1991, 79; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakalleraki 1997, 609, 654.

228

APPENDIX A

CMS VS IA No.176 comes from Chania and is reconstructed from three sealings deriving from a ring that originally measured 1.9cm by1.6cm.60 The image consists of, from left to right, a standing female figure wearing an elaborate skirt with her right arm raised to her chest and her hand touching her chin, while her left arm extends downwards and toward a structure which she faces away from toward her right. The structure has two levels, both of which consist of vertical pillars or columns topped by horizontal double cornices, stone slabs or boards. On the top of the structure is a tree which leans into the center of the scene. Horns may be cursorily rendered on the top of the structure as well, or the marks may be part of the tree. The entire structure is not shown; its far right side is partially obscured by being cut off by the edge of the sealing. It may have been a single stepped structure or a double stepped one, with steps on either side. Krattenmaker sees this structure as a depiction of palatial architecture,61 but because the female figure is practically touching it, rather than simply within the same scene, I suggest that its scale is meant to be realistic in this case, and is therefore a constructed openwork platform. Figure 36. Drawing of Ivory Pyxis Lid from Mochlos. Soles 2016, Pl. LXXXIIa.

The Ivory Pyxis Lid from Mochlos also depicts a constructed openwork platform. This object, which measures 11 by 14cm, was found in Seager’s Block A on the western side of the site, now called Area 4, in the wall collapse of a LM IB building.62 The pyxis is a rectangular box with its sides and lid made of elephant ivory and its base made of wood. The lid is carved with an image showing a constructed cult platform and the side panels are carved in low relief with a sea pattern. The platform consists of




























































60 61 62

Pini 1992, 179. Krattenmaker 1995b, 131. Soles and Davaras 2010, 1.

IMAGES OF MINOAN TREE CULT

229

four layers ascending vertically while simultaneously decreasing in width. The lower-most section of the structure consists of a row of eight incurved altars set upon the ground, upon which are placed horizontal slabs which function as the lowest tier of the platform. The second tier consists of three vertical pillars in between which are two half-rosettes which evoke the shape of the incurved altars below.63 On top of these are two slabs, the lower one slightly larger than the upper one, the difference forming a small step that does not look functional. On top of these slabs are another two vertical pillars with half-rosettes in between, and a second group of double slabs on top of these. The fourth tier consists of a vertical rectangular construction consisting of two side piers or columns, topped by a horizontal double slab or cornice. In the center of the top structure, between the uprights, is a small vertical crevice which is difficult to decipher. On top of the fourth tier sits, or grows, a tree. Four figures, two males and two females, walk upon the first tier, approaching the three-tiered pillar and rosette construction, on the second tier of which sits a female figure wearing an elaborate skirt and holding a flower. From the tree on top of the fourth tier an epiphanic female figure has apparently emerged. Unfortunately the pyxis is broken at the line separating the approaching figures’ upper bodies and only their lower bodies are visible, so we cannot discern what type of gestures they were performing. The first male figure may however have had one hand raised with either his elbow bent at 45° or his hand held at shoulder level on straight arm, both of which are a type of salutation. This gesture is seen in the New Poros “Sacred Conversation” Ring where a male figure directs it toward an epiphanic female figure, very similar to the one on the Mochlos Pyxis. Soles likens this male figure to that on the New Poros Ring and the Zakro Sealing, both of whom have outstretched arms.64 There does not actually seem to be enough room for a fully extended arm on the pyxis however, so perhaps it was bent. Figure 37. Drawing of agate seal, CMS VS IA No.75, from Knossos. Pini 1992, 84.

CMS VS IA No.75 from Knossos is a seal made from brownish-grey and white striped agate that depicts, from left to right on the impression, a palm tree, an incurved altar with double foundation and cornice, upon which sit large horns that seem to be the main feature, as they take up the whole surface of the altar.65 A female figure wearing an elaborate skirt faces the altar and tree and raises her right arm to her forehead, touching it with the back of her clenched hand. Her left arm is bent at the elbow but lowered, with her hand reaching breast level. The palm tree is rendered as being the same size as the female figure and she appears to be directing her gesture toward the tree rather than the altar. The palm tree bends inward toward the center of the scene however this may just be a result of the curved edge of the seal. The components of the scene are set on a groundline but paving is not evident.




























































63 64 65

Marinatos (2010, 136–7) terms it an “incurved podium” and sees it more as a stand rather than an altar. Soles 2011. Pini 1992, 84. Moody (2017) suggests this is a date palm.

230

APPENDIX A

Figure 38. Drawing of rock crystal seal, CMS II 3 No.7, from the Idaean cave. Platon and Pini 1975, 8.

This rock crystal lentoid from the Idaean cave (CMS II 3 No.7), measures 2cm by 1.9cm. It depicts, from left to right on the impression, a spindly and rather abbreviated rendition of a tree, a female figure wearing an elaborate skirt and holding an enormous conch shell, and an unidentified pointed object on the ground in the centre (possibly a small incurved altar with something on top of it).66 On the right is an incurved altar topped by horns and with three branches on either side and in the center of the horns. To the right of the altar is a star, and two horizontal marks make a cursory groundline at the bottom of the scene. Figure 39. Drawing of stone seal, CMS V2 No.608, from Naxos. Dakoronia et al. 1996. 483.

The seal CMS V2 No.608 from Naxos dates to the 13th or 12th century BCE and depicts an altar associated with the paraphernalia of animal sacrifice.67 The image consists of, from left to right on the imprint, a palm tree, a table altar upon which are a krater, a jug, a conical rhyton and a sword, rendered in the manner of Egyptian art where “above” means “next to”. A male figure in the right of the scene holds a spear in his outstretched arm at shoulder height. He faces over the altar to the palm tree which he appears to be focussing upon, however the Egyptian-style perspective used in this image may mean that he stands next to the altar. Nevertheless, the scene appears to indicate a male figure saluting a palm tree in front of an altar upon which is cult equipment.68




























































66 67 68

Platon and Pini 1975, 8. Dakoronia et al. 1996. 483. Moody (2017) identifies this as a date palm.

IMAGES OF MINOAN TREE CULT

231

Figure 40. Drawing of bone ring, CMS I No.410, from Melos. Xenaki-Sakellariou 1964, 426.

CMS I No.410 comes from Melos and is a tiny bone ring measuring 1.5cm by 1.5cm found in a house in District H2:14.69 The scene on the ring depicts, from left to right on the impression, curving marks in the lower left which may be palm leaves above which is a horizontal rectangular structure. The bottom and top edges of the structure are defined by horizontal marks and the middle of the structure consists of three vertical strokes interspersed with small diagonal marks. On top of the structure is a large set of horns which take up the entire space. Above these horns is another vegetal motif which may either be understood as sitting on top of the horns or in the process of being placed there by the female figure in the center of the scene. The female figure wears an elaborate skirt and faces right, toward the structure with her left arm bent at the elbow and hand raised toward the vegetation above the structure, which she may be either touching or holding. Behind her, beginning in the lower right, are more palm fronds which curve upwards. The many palm fronds perhaps suggesting that the scene is set within a palm grove. Figure 41. Detail of Side B Haghia Triadha Sarcophagus. Heraklion Museum, Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports – Archaeological Receipts Fund. Photo R. Laffineur.






























































69

Xenaki-Sakellariou 1964, 426.

232

APPENDIX A

The altar on side B of the Haghia Triadha sarcophagus consists of a vertical rectangular structure that is divided into three parts: two upright outer sections and a central section decorated with a curvilinear design.70 Above the vertical components is a horizontal cornice with a row of circles, possibly intended to evoke beam ends, running across it. Another horizontal cornice lies above and across these circles and functions as the top of the structure; upon it are four sets of horns and a small palm tree. The structure is situated in the vicinity of a large double axe with a bird sitting on top of it and a smaller altar with a ewer and basket of bread. A female figure wearing a hide skirt places her hands over the smaller altar. The altars and double axe are the focal point of a larger scene of preparation of animal sacrifice featuring another female with her arms outstretched over a trussed bull lying upon a table, a male figure playing music, and two goats. Figure 42. Drawing of bronze plaque from the Psychro Cave. Evans 1921, 632, Fig. 470.

Bronze plaque from the votive deposit in the Psychro Cave, held in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (AE.617).71 A male figure dances in the vicinity of a tree in a pot and three sets of horns with branches, in what may be a walled and/or paved sacred enclosure. A bird sits on the left-most branch, a fish hovers in the air (or lies on the ground), and the sun and moon both appear in the sky. The signs on the right underneath the left arm of the human figure may be Linear A signs signifying the name of the dedicant. The bird-like marks on either side of the central branch may also be Linear A signs. The plaque has a small hole in the upper-left corner suggesting that it was originally attached to another object, perhaps made of wood. Figure 43. Drawing of serpentine seal, CMS VS IA No.55, from Makrygialos. Pini 1992, 60.






























































70 71

Paribeni 1903. Evans 1921, 632, fig. 470.

IMAGES OF MINOAN TREE CULT

233

CMS VS IA No.55 is a serpentine amygdaloid seal which comes from a palatial style LM IB period “cult villa” at Makrygialos, a coastal site in southern Crete.72 It was found within a cultic context, near an ashlar altar and in the vicinity of a unique bronze female figurine with what seem to be pronounced sexual characteristics.73 The bezel measures 1.84 by 1.2cm and depicts a boat with diagonal marks along its hull which are probably intended to be oars. Inside the boat on the left (in the impression) is a square structure consisting of horizontal and vertical marks which may be an ikria, but also looks somewhat like a vertical sided ashlar altar. In front of this structure and in the center of the boat is a palm tree in place of a mast. A female figure, the same size as the palm tree, wears an elaborate skirt and faces the tree with her right arm raised and her elbow bent at 90° in a salutatory gesture, while her left arm is also bent at this angle but is lowered and held in front of her torso. Figure 44. Drawing of gold ring, CMS VI2 No.280, from Amnissos. Hughes-Brock and Boardman 2009, 456.

The gold ring, CMS VI2 No.280, is thought to come from the harbour of Amnissos or Poros near Knossos, the main harbour town of Knossos, although its provenance is not secure.74 The ring’s bezel measures 2.0 x 1.0cm and depicts, from left to right in the impression, a pithos, a female figure in an elaborate skirt who is being held by the hand by a male figure wearing a Minoan codpiece. He holds the female figure’s hand with his right hand while raising his left arm with the elbow slightly bent in a gesture of greeting toward a hovering female figure in front of a tree in the air before him. The tree appears to be hovering as well. Below this figure, and taking up two-thirds of the image, is a boat without a sail in which are possibly seven figures, the one closest to the left holding a rudder. Underneath the boat are three dolphins swimming in the sea. There is disagreement regarding in which direction the boat is going and whether it is arriving or leaving the shore where the male and female figure stand with the pithos. The figure holding the rudder however surely indicates that the ship is heading away from the couple on the shore. However, the epiphanic figure faces the shore as though she is arriving. The boat may be have intended to have been thought of as a side view, indicating that it was simply going past rather than a coming to the shore.






























































72 73 74

Pini 1992, 60. Davaras 1997, 126; Mantzourani 2012. Boardman and Brock-Hughes 2009, 456–7; Schäfer 1991.

APPENDIX B AEGEAN COMPARATIVE IMAGES This Appendix contains the comparative Aegean evidence mentioned in the discussion of Aegean images of tree cult. It includes fresco paintings, drawings of glyptic images, seal imprints, metal objects, stone and terracotta vessels, stone sculpture, carved ivory, a plaster cast, architectural plans and site photographs. Figure 45. (a) The Sacred Grove and Dance Fresco from the Palace of Knossos. Evans 1930, Pl. XVIII.

236

APPENDIX B

(b) Detail of dancers in The Sacred Grove and Dance Fresco from the Palace of Knossos. Evans 1930, Pl. XVIII.

(c) Detail of trees in The Sacred Grove and Dance Fresco from the Palace of Knossos. Evans 1930, Pl. XVIII.

AEGEAN COMPARATIVE IMAGES

237

Figure 46. Grandstand Fresco from the palace of Knossos, with Tripartite Shrine. Evans 1930, Pl. XVI.

Figure 47. Gold cut out Tripartite Shrine from Shaft Grave III at Mycenae. Photo R. Laffineur.

Figure 48. Drawing of CMS I. No. 180 from Tiryns. Xenaki-Sakellariou 1964, 204.

238

APPENDIX B

Figure 49. Drawing of stone seal StrEX 80/1129 from Knossos. Warren 1990, Fig. 14.

Figure 50. Drawings of clay ring impression, CMS II.6 No.4, from Haghia Triadha. Platon, Müller and Pini 1999, 11.

Figure 51. Reconstruction of Fresco on the north wall, Throne Room, Palace of Knossos. Hägg and Marinatos 1987, 322, Fig. 3.

AEGEAN COMPARATIVE IMAGES

239

Figure 52. Detail of Nilotic Fresco from the east wall of Room 5 of the West House at Thera. Doumas 1992, 66, Pl. 33.

Figure 53. Silver Siege Rhyton from Mycenae. Vermeule 1964, Pl. XIV.

240

APPENDIX B

Figure 54. Three kouloures situated near the triangular causeway in the West Court, Knossos Palace. Evans 1935, Basement Plan of the Palace.

Figure 55. Drawing of gold discoid from Poros (HM 1716). Dimopoulou 2012, 91, Fig. 9.3.

AEGEAN COMPARATIVE IMAGES

241

Figure 56. Reconstruction of Lily Fresco from Amnissos Room 7, by Mark Cameron. Evely 1999, 183.

Figure 57. Reconstruction of Monkeys and Bluebirds Fresco from the House of the Frescoes Room D, Knossos. Evans 1928, Col. Pl. X.

242

APPENDIX B

Figure 58. Reconstruction of Floral Fresco from the Unexplored Mansion at Knossos, by Mark Cameron. Evely 1999, 209.

Figure 59. (a) Detail of reconstruction of the Kneeling Priestess at Haghia Triadha Villa A Room 14, by Mark Cameron. Evely 1999, 126.

AEGEAN COMPARATIVE IMAGES

243

(b) Detail of reconstruction of the Kneeling Priestess at Haghia Triadha Villa A Room 14. Militello 1998, Pl. 2.

Figure 60. Saffron Gatherer monkey amidst rocks from Knossos. Betancourt 2007, Pl.1A.

244

APPENDIX B

Figure 61. Space 16, the “Hall of the Double Axes”, Palace of Knossos. Evans 1930, 329, Fig. 218.

Figure 62. Space 17, the smaller hall or “Queen’s Megaron”, Palace of Knossos. Evans 1930, Plan E.

AEGEAN COMPARATIVE IMAGES

Figure 63. Plan of Phaistos Palace. Levi 1968, Pl. B.

245

246

APPENDIX B

Figure 64. Plan of the palace at Malia. Van Effenterre 1980, Fig. 72.

AEGEAN COMPARATIVE IMAGES

Figure 65. (a) Space 64 adjacent to rocky outcrop, Palace of Phaistos. M. Shaw 1993, 681, Fig. 20.

(b) Space 64 and rocky outcrop, Palace of Phaistos. Photo C. Tully.

247

248

APPENDIX B

(c) Rock cut pits in rocky outcrop adjacent to Space 64, Palace of Phaistos. Photo C. Tully.

Figure 66. Fresco of Multi-Coloured Rocks and Olive Branches from the dump at Pylos. Morgan 2005, Pl. 3.4.

AEGEAN COMPARATIVE IMAGES

249

Figure 67. Spring Fresco from House Delta 2 at Thera. Betancourt 2007, Pl. 3A.

Figure 68. Rocky landscape on the eastern wall of Room 3a building Xeste 3 at Thera. Doumas 1992, 152, Pl. 116.

250

APPENDIX B

Figure 69. Drawing of clay ring impression, CMS II.8 No.268, Gill et al. 2002, 412.

Figure 70. Drawing of gold ring, CMS I. No.15. Xenaki-Sakellariou 1964, 26.

Figure 71. Drawing of gold ring, CMS I. No.16. Xenaki-Sakellariou 1964, 27.

AEGEAN COMPARATIVE IMAGES

251

Figure 72. Reconstruction of Cat and Agrimi fresco at Haghia Triadha Villa A Room 14, by Mark Cameron. Evely 1999, 96.

Figure 73. Drawing of gold ring, CMS II.3 No.51. Platon and Pini 1984, 61.

Figure 74. Drawing of gold ring, CMS VI No. 278. Hughes-Brock and Boardman 2009, 451.

252

APPENDIX B

Figure 75. Akkadian Cylinder Seal Impression. British Museum (89308).

Figure 76. Rhyton fragment from Gypsadhes. Warren 1969, Pl. 476.

Figure 77. The “Master Impression” sealing from Chania. Hallager 1985, Fig. 11.

Figure 78. Drawing of gold ring, CMS II.3 No.326, unknown provenance. Platon and Pini 1975, 384.

AEGEAN COMPARATIVE IMAGES

253

Figure 79. Drawing of gold ring, CMS I No.514, unknown provenance. Xenaki-Sakellariou 1964, 542.

Figure 80. The Lion Gate at Mycenae. Photo Andreas Trepte.

Figure 81. Drawing of a clay sealing fragment, CMS II.8 No. 273, from Knossos. Gill et al. 2002, 418.

Figure 82. Drawing of “Sacred Mansion” Gold ring from Poros. Rethemiotakis and Dimopoulou 2003, 3.

254

APPENDIX B

Figure 83. (a) Plan of Jouktas Peak Sanctuary. Dickinson 1994, 271, Fig. 8.4.

(b) Plan of Jouktas Wall. Schuppi 2014.

AEGEAN COMPARATIVE IMAGES

Figure 84. Plan of Anemospilia Shrine. Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakalleraki 1997, 271, Fig. 67.

Figure 85. Plan of Palatial Complex at Archanes. Sakellarakis 1991, 29, Fig. 14.

255

256

APPENDIX B

Figure 86. (a) Plan of Vathypetro. Driessen and Sakellarakis1997, 66, Fig. 4.

(b) Tripartite Shrine Foundations at Vathypetro. Photo R. Laffineur.

AEGEAN COMPARATIVE IMAGES

Figure 87. Plan of Mochlos. Soles 2016, Fig. LXXVII.

Figure 88. (a) Drawing of “Meeting on a Hill” fresco (left view). Wachsmann 1998, 90, Fig. 6.9.

257

258

APPENDIX B

(b) Drawing of “Meeting on a Hill” fresco (right view). Wachsmann 1998, 90, Fig. 6.10.

Figure 89. Plan of Kato Syme Rural Sanctuary. Dickinson 1994, 279, Fig. 8.8.

AEGEAN COMPARATIVE IMAGES

259

Figure 90. Detail of reconstruction of the Corridor of Procession Fresco, Palace of Knossos. Evans 1928, 723, Fig. 450.

Figure 91. Reconstruction of the Lily Prince Fresco from Knossos. Niemeier 1988, 239, Fig. 2.

Figure 92. The “Chieftain Cup”. Warren 1969, Pl.197.

260

Figure 93. Drawing of clay ring impression, CMS II 8 No. 237, from Knossos. Gill et al. 2002, 376

APPENDIX B

Figure 94. Drawing of clay ring impression, CMS II 8 No.256, from Knossos. Gill et al. 2002, 397–8

Figure 95. Drawing of gold ring, CMS I No.86, from Mycenae. Xenaki-Sakellariou 1964, 102.

Figure 96. Drawing of gold ring CMS I No.108 from Mycenae. Xenaki-Sakellariou 1964, 124.

AEGEAN COMPARATIVE IMAGES

261

Figure 97. Drawing of clay ring impression CMS II 8 No.272 from Knossos. Xenaki-Sakellariou 1964, 417.

Figure 98. Drawing of gold ring, CMS V2 No.728 from Mega Monastiraki. Pini et al. 1975, 600.

Figure 99. Drawing of gold ring CMS V Supp. 1B No.113, from Nemea. Pini 1993, 114.

262

APPENDIX B

Figure 100. Steatite “baetylic table of offering” from the Dictaean Cave. (a) 1901 restoration Evans 1901, 114. (b) 1921 restoration Evans 1921, 627, Fig. 465.

Figure 101. Plaster cast of a table from Akrotiri; Archaeological Museum of Thera, Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports - Archaeological Receipts Fund. Photo C. Tully

AEGEAN COMPARATIVE IMAGES

263

Figure 102. Roman rustic shrine as depicted in sacro-idyllic fresco scene from the Villa dei Papiri, Herculaneum. Museo Archaeologico Nazionale, Naples.

Figure 103. (a) Sacred Tree, Shimogamo Shrine, Kyoto, Japan. Photo John Dougill.

(b) Peepal Tree, Triambakeshwar, India. Photo Nitin Pandey.

264

APPENDIX B

Figure 104. Drawing of gold ring CMS I No.292, from Messenia. Xenaki-Sakellariou 1964, 329.

Figure 105. Drawing of the Macrinus coin from Byblos. Evans 1901, 138.

Figure 106. Drawing clay impression from engraved stone mould CMS V2 No.422b, from Eleusis. Deger-Jalkotzy and Sakellariou 1996, 322.

AEGEAN COMPARATIVE IMAGES

265

Figure 107. Drawing of gold ring CMS VS 1B No.115, from Nemea. Pini 1993, 119.

Figure 108. Drawing of gold ring CMS VS 1B No.194, unknown provenance. Pini 1993, 219.

Figure 109. Drawing of clay ring impression CMS II 7 No.8, from Kato Zakro. Platon et al. 1998, 13.

266

APPENDIX B

Figure 110. Drawing of gold ring CMS V No.199, from Thebes. Pini et al. 1975, 154.

Figure 111. Drawing of clay ring impression CMS VS IA No.175. Pini, 1992, 178.

Figure 112. Drawing of clay ring impression CMS VS IA No.177, from Chania. Pini 1992, 180.

AEGEAN COMPARATIVE IMAGES

Figure 113. Drawing of gold ring CMS VS 1B No.195, unknown provenance. Pini 1993, 220.

Figure 114. Drawing of gold ring CMS XI No.30, unknown provenance. Pini et al. 1988, 44.

Figure 115. Drawing of gold ring CMS I No.179, from Tiryns. Xenaki-Sakellariou 1964, 202.

267

268

APPENDIX B

Figure 116. Reconstruction of fresco from Haghia Triadha Villa A Room 14, by Mark Cameron. Evely 1999, frontispiece.

Figure 117. Ivory pyxis lid from Minet el-Baida. Louvre (AO 11601).

Figure 118. Drawing of jasper seal stone CMS II 3 No.338, unknown provenance. Platon and Pini 1975, 397.

Figure 119. Drawing of seal stone CMS I No.80, from Mycenae. Xenaki-Sakellariou 1964, 96.

AEGEAN COMPARATIVE IMAGES

Figure 120. Drawing of CMS XI No.52 from Mycenae. Pini et al. 1988, 63.

Figure 121. Sealing from Malia. Van Effenterre 1980, 61, Fig. 84.

Figure 122. Stepped Altar at Juktas Peak Sanctuary. Photo C. Tully.

269

270

APPENDIX B

Figure 123. Reconstruction of the Stepped Altar at Anemospilia. Sakellarakis 1991, 145, Fig. 123.

Figure 124. Reconstruction of Anemospilia Shrine. McEnroe 2010, 66. Fig. 6.21.

AEGEAN COMPARATIVE IMAGES

271

Figure 125. Palatial building at Archanes, incurved altars in entranceway into antechamber north of Courtyard 1 (view north). Photo Olaf Tausch.

Figure 126. Plan of Haghia Triadha. Militello 1999, 16, Fig. 1.

272

APPENDIX B

Figure 127. Tomb 4, Tholoi A and B, and Mycenaean Shrine at Haghia Triadha. Soles 1992, Fig. 4.

Figure 128. Plan of Piazzale dei Sacelli at Haghia Triadha. Gesell 1985, 73, Pl. 16.

AEGEAN COMPARATIVE IMAGES

Figure 129. (a) Mount Jouktas from the Knossos Palace Central Court (view south). Photo C. Tully.

(b) Mount Psiloritis from Phaistos Palace Central Court (view north). Photo C. Tully.

273

274

APPENDIX B

Figure 130. (a) View of Jouktas Peak Sanctuary from Archanes (view west). Photo C. Tully.

(b) View from Stepped Altar on Mount Jouktas to Archanes (view east). Photo C. Tully.

AEGEAN COMPARATIVE IMAGES

275

Figure 131. Drawing of clay ring impression CMS II 6 No. 20, from Haghia Triadha. Platon et al. 1999, 30.

Figure 132. “Scylla” sealing from the Temple Repositories. Evans 1936, 952. (CMS II.8, 1 No. 234. Gill et al. 2002, 372).

Figure 133. Detail of the silver siege rhyton from Mycenae depicting swimmers and a sea monster. Wachsmann 1998, 113, Fig. 6.54 B.

276

APPENDIX B

Figure 134. (a) Flotilla Fresco from Room 5 of the West House at Thera. Doumas 1992, 66, Pl. 35.

(b) Flotilla Fresco from Room 5 of the West House at Thera. Doumas 1992, 66, Pl. 35X.

Figure 135. Drawing of CMS II 8 No.264, from Knossos. Gill et al. 2002, 407.

AEGEAN COMPARATIVE IMAGES

Figure 136. (a) Mochlos Ship Cup. Soles et al. 2004, Fig. 1, A.

(b) Mochlos Ship Cup (complete view). Soles et al. 2004, Fig. 1, B.

Figure 137. (a) Dolphins on Ship’s Hulls, Flotilla Fresco from Thera. Betancourt 2007, Pl. 6B.

277

278

APPENDIX B

(b) Drawing of dolphins on ship’s hulls, Miniature Fresco from Kea. Wachsmann 1998, 87, Fig. 6.4.

Figure 138. Naxos Boat Models. Wachsmann 1998, 70, Fig. 5.1.

Figure 139. Cycladic “Frying Pan” from Chalandriani, Syros. National Archaeological Museum of Athens (4974). Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports – Archaeological Receipts Fund.

AEGEAN COMPARATIVE IMAGES

Figure 140. Ship with Tree Branches. Wachsmann 1998, 100, Fig. 6.29, I.

Figure 141. Drawing of stone seal from Vapheio. Evans 1901, 101, Fig. 1.

Figure 142. Sailing Ship. Wachsmann 1998, 95, Fig. 6.21 D.

279

280

APPENDIX B

Figure 143. MM III–LM I talismanic gem depicting ships. Wachsmann 1998, 98, Fig. 6.25 A.

Figure 144. Reconstructed Minoan style fresco at Tell el Dabca, Egypt. Bietak et al. 2007, cover.

AEGEAN COMPARATIVE IMAGES

281

Figure 145. Keftiu depicted on walls of the Theban tomb of Rekhmire. Wachsmann 1998, 83. Fig. 6.1.

Figure 146. Drawing of haematite stone seal CMS XIII No.39, unknown provenance. Kenna and Thomas 1974, 42.

282

APPENDIX B

Figure 147. Drawing of Ikria in the Flotilla Fresco, south wall, room 5, West House, Akrotiri, Thera. Wachsmann 1998, 93, Fig. 6.14.

Figure 148. Mochlos Site Plan. Soles and Davaras 1994, 393, Fig. 2.

AEGEAN COMPARATIVE IMAGES

Figure 149. Mochlos Building B2 Plan. Soles 2010, 332, Fig. 32.1.

Figure 150. Restoration of Building B2, Mochlos. Soles and Davaras 1996, 188, Fig. 8.

283

284

APPENDIX B

Figure 151. Finds from Building B2 above the Pillar Room. Soles and Davaras 1994, 419, Fig. 10.







APPENDIX C LEVANTINE, EGYPTIAN AND CYPRIOT IMAGES Figure 152. Drawing of Akkadian cylinder seal (2250–2150 BCE) from Mari. Keel 1998, Fig. 7.

Figure 153. White stone statue of a goddess with flowing vase, Mari. Parrot 1959, Pl. V.

Figure 154. (a) Drawing of the Investiture Scene painting from the palace at Mari. Parrot 1958b, 58, Fig. 48.

286

APPENDIX C

(b) Drawing of tresco of the Investiture Scene from the palace at Mari (Louvre AO19826). Thomas 2016, 203, Fig. 209.

Figure 155. Detail of Investiture Scene painting from the palace at Mari. Parrot 1958b, 53, Fig. 47.

LEVANTINE, EGYPTIAN AND CYPRIOT IMAGES


Figure 156. Plan of the Palace of Mari. Parrot 1958a, 441.

Figure 157. Drawing of pear-shaped sheet gold and electrum pendant. Keel 1998, Fig. 17.

Figure 158. Drawings of gold and bronze plaque. Keel and Uehlinger 1998, 67, Fig. 70.

287

288

APPENDIX C

Figure 159. (a) Peg- and dagger-shaped figurines. Spycket 2000, 130. Fig. 126 A–C.

Figure 160. Drawings of scarab seal from the southern Levant. Keel 1998, Fig. 26.

(b) Drawings of peg- and dagger-shaped figurines. Keel 1998, Figs 19, 20, 21.

Figure 161. Drawings of seal depicting human figure performing cultic gestures towards trees. Keel 1998, Fig. 29.

Figure 162. Terracotta Qudšu Plaque. Cornelius 2004, Pl. 5.34.

LEVANTINE, EGYPTIAN AND CYPRIOT IMAGES

289


Figure 163. Qedešet plaque, Stele of Qeh. British Museum EA 191.

Figure 164. Drawing of terracotta figurine from Revadim. Ornan 2007, Fig. 3.

Figure 165. Drawing of ivory plaque from the royal bed of Ugarit. Winter 1983, Fig. 409.

290

APPENDIX C

Figure 166. Drawing of painted pottery from Tell el-Far’a. Keel 1998, Fig. 39.

Figure 167. Drawing of Tell al-Yahudieyeh rhyton-juglet from Jericho. Ziffer 2010, 413, Fig. 3.

Figure 168. Drawing of seal from Kültepe. Keel 1998, Fig. 42.

LEVANTINE, EGYPTIAN AND CYPRIOT IMAGES

291


Figure 169. Drawing of ivory container from Mycenae. Keel 1998, Fig. 44.

Figure 170. Drawing of Lachish Ewer and detail of decoration. Keel 1998, Fig. 49.

Figure 171. Incised slab with abstract female figure and animals from Mari. Aruz 2003, 163, Fig. 106.

Figure 172. Drawing of incised pottery stands from Ur. Ziffer 2010, Fig. 2a, b.

292

Figure 173. (a) Drawing of Lachish Goblet. Keel 1998, Fig. 49.

APPENDIX C

(b) Detail of decoration on Lachish Goblet. Keel 1998, Fig. 50.

Figure 174. Tomb Painting (KV 34) of Pharaoh Thutmosis III suckling at tree breast. Seidel and Schulz 2005, 381.

Figure 175. Drawing of breast and arms holding a tray of food emerging from a palm tree. Keel 1998, Fig. 54.

LEVANTINE, EGYPTIAN AND CYPRIOT IMAGES

293


Figure 176. Drawing of arms and breast emerging from a sycamore tree pouring water. Goldwasser 1995, Fig. 32.

Figure 177. Shabti box decorated with anthropomorphic tree goddess in conjunction the trunk of the tree. British Museum (EA41549).

Figure 178. Drawing of tree goddess standing separately in front of the tree. Goldwasser 1995, Fig. 24.

294

APPENDIX C

Figure 179. Painting of fully anthropomorphic tree goddess with a tree upon her head. Tomb of Nakht. Davies 1917, Pl. 8.

Figure 180. Goddess with a cow’s head emerges from a tree. Stele of Takhae. Museo Archaeologico Nazionale Museo Egizio, Florence.

Figure 181. Drawing of combined sycamore-palm tree. Goldwasser 1995, Fig. 37.

LEVANTINE, EGYPTIAN AND CYPRIOT IMAGES


Figure 182. (a) Reconstruction of Court 106 with palm tree. Margueron 2008, 29, Fig. 14.

(b) Reconstruction of the program of Court 106 and the Investiture Fresco. Margueron 1992, Pl. 47.

295

296

APPENDIX C

Figure 183. Reconstruction and plan of Qatna cult complex. Wright 1991, 279, Fig. 8.

Figure 184. (a) Plan of the Sacred Area at Megiddo with Round Altar 4017. Loud 1948, Fig. 180.

LEVANTINE, EGYPTIAN AND CYPRIOT IMAGES


(b) Round Altar 4017 at Megiddo. Photo Steven Conger.

Figure 185. Plan of Nahariyah. Ben-Tor 1992, 173, Fig. 6.9.

Figure 186. Ancient mould of a horned female deity. Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA 1955-25).

297

298

APPENDIX C

Figure 187. (a) Plan of Tel ‘Ashir Strata I–II remains. Gophan and Ayalon 2004, 157, Fig. 4.

(b) Reconstruction rounded stones and massevoth. Tel ‘Ashir plan of Strata I–II remains. Gophan and Ayalon 2004, 158, Fig. 6.

LEVANTINE, EGYPTIAN AND CYPRIOT IMAGES


Figure 188. Plan of Lachish Loci 49 and 81 Cult Areas. Aharoni 1975, Pl. 60.

Figure 189. (a) Massebah and possible asherah Locus 81, Lachish (view north). Avi-Yonah and Stern 1977, 749.

299

300

APPENDIX C

(b) Massebah and possible asherah, Locus 81, Lachish (view south). Aharoni 1975, Pl. 3.2.

Figure 190. The bāmāh at Gezer. Abercrombie 1995.

LEVANTINE, EGYPTIAN AND CYPRIOT IMAGES


Figure 191. Drawing of cylinder seal impression depicting Baal Zaphon. Bietak 2003a, cover.

Figure 192. (a) Temple Precinct Plan, Avaris/Tell el Dabca. Bietak 2003, 14, Fig. 2.

301

302

APPENDIX C

(b) Detail of Precinct of Temple III, Avaris/Tell el Dabca. Bietak 1996, Fig. 30.

Figure 193. (a) Impression of Cypriot Elaborate Style Cylinder Seal, unknown provenance. No. 1073.

(b) Impression of Cypriot Derivative Style Cylinder Seal, unknown provenance. Porada and Buchanan 1948, Pl. CLXIII, No. 1074

LEVANTINE, EGYPTIAN AND CYPRIOT IMAGES

303


(c) Impression of Cypriot Common Style Cylinder Seal, unknown provenance (AM 976). Buchanan 1966, Pl. 60, No. 975.

Figure 194. (a) Drawing of cylinder seal impression depicting tree, ingot, concentric circles, standing male figure, and bucranium (AM 1920.70). Graziadio 2003, 29, Fig. 6.

(b) Drawing of cylinder seal impression depicting snake, tree, ingot, standing figure, animal, bucranium, seated figure, spear, from Enkomi. Graziadio 2003, 31, Fig. 15.

Figure 195. Drawings of cylinder seal impressions. Recurrent elements in Common Style Seals. (a) AM 1895.79. Graziadio 2003, 29, Fig. 5. (b) From Hala Sultan Tekke. Graziadio 2003, 29, Fig. 1.

304

APPENDIX C

(c) From Enkomi. Graziadio 2003 29, Fig. 8.

(e) From Enkomi. Graziadio 2003, 32, Fig. 14.

Figure 196. Drawing of cylinder seal impression from Nicosia Ayia Paraskevi. Graziadio 2003, 34, Fig. 26.

(d) From Salamis. Mazzoni 1986, Pl. 33, Fig. 40.

(f) Webb 1999, 275, Fig. 87. 6.

Figure 197. Bronze Cult Stand from Kourion. British Museum (1920/12-20/1).

LEVANTINE, EGYPTIAN AND CYPRIOT IMAGES


Figure 198. Four sides of the bronze cult stand from Kourion. Papasavvas 2009, 118, Figs 1–4.

Figure 199. (a) Bronze Cult Stand. Bible Lands Museum, Jerusalem. Papasavvas 2001, 365, Fig. 81.

(b) Detail of Bronze Cult Stand. Bible Lands Museum, Jerusalem. Papasavvas 2001, 366, Fig. 82.

305

306

APPENDIX C

Figure 200. (a) Mycenaean “Zeus” Krater. Cyprus Museum. Papasavvas 2001, 126, Fig. 25.

(b) Krater from British Tomb 45, Enkomi. British Museum. Papasavvas 2001, 126, Fig. 24.

LEVANTINE, EGYPTIAN AND CYPRIOT IMAGES

307


Figure 201. (a) Ingot God. C. Tully.

(b) Bomford Figurine. Budin 2003, 157, Fig. 6g.

Figure 202. Miniature Ingots. Cyprus Museum. Photo C. Tully.

308

APPENDIX C

Figure 203. Typology of Trees on Common Style Seals (numbers 83–111). Meekers 1987, 73, Fig. 1.

Figure 204. The Sacred Tree with Palmette and Volutes (numbers 3–51). Meekers 1987, 73, Fig. 1.

LEVANTINE, EGYPTIAN AND CYPRIOT IMAGES

309


Figure 205. Drawing of seal impression. Webb 1999, 274, Fig. 88.2.

Figure 206. Bronze Wheeled Cult Stand. British Museum (1946,1017.1).

Figure 207. Bronze seated male figures from Enkomi and the Pierides Museum. Webb 1999, 230, Fig. 79.

310

APPENDIX C

Figure 208. Full sized copper oxhide ingot from Enkomi. British Museum 1897, 0401.1535.

Figure 209. Terracotta shrine model from Marki. Åström 1988, cover.


Figure 210. Terracotta enclosure model from Vounous. Peltenburg 1994, 160, Fig. 1.

LEVANTINE, EGYPTIAN AND CYPRIOT IMAGES


Figure 211. Plan of Ayios Jakovos Dhima. Gjerstadt 1934, Plan XIII.

311

312

APPENDIX C

Figure 212. Plan of Athienou Bamboulari tis Koukouninas. Dothan and Ben Tor 1972, 204, Fig. 2.

LEVANTINE, EGYPTIAN AND CYPRIOT IMAGES


Figure 213. Plan of Myrtou Pighades. Taylor 1957, 5. Fig. 3.

Figure 214. Plan of Temple 3 in the sacred area at Kition-Kathari. Webb 1999, 39, Fig. 9.

313

314

APPENDIX C

Figure 215. Plan of remains of the sacred garden between Temples 3 and 2, Kition. Webb 1999, 38, Fig. 9.