Zeus in Early Greek Mythology and Religion: From prehistoric times to the Early Archaic period 9781407311067, 9781407340760

Citation preview

BAR S2492 2013

Zeus in Early Greek Mythology and Religion

ZOLOTNIKOVA

From prehistoric times to the Early Archaic period



Olga A. Zolotnikova

ZEUS IN EARLY GREEK MYTHOLOGY AND RELIGION

B A R

BAR International Series 2492 2013

Zeus in Early Greek Mythology and Religion From prehistoric times to the Early Archaic period

Olga A. Zolotnikova

BAR International Series 2492 2013

ISBN 9781407311067 paperback ISBN 9781407340760 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407311067 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

To my father

ii

CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................... vii INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1 CHAPTER 1. The concept of Zeus in the Iliad. ........................................................................................... 2 1.1. The Homeric language and epics ........................................................................................................... 2 1.2. The characteristics of Zeus in the Iliad .................................................................................................. 3 1.3. The characteristics of Homeric Zeus denoting his natural aspects ........................................................ 4 1.3.1. Zeus as a god of the clear sky ............................................................................................................. 4 Ζεύς / Ζεύς πατήρ ......................................................................................................................................... 4 Zeus’ original female counterpart: her identity and evolution ...................................................................... 8 Zeus-Father as a son-god ............................................................................................................................ 13 1.3.2. Zeus as a storm-god.......................................................................................................................... 16 Zeus as a substitute for the original Greek storm-god ................................................................................ 16 Zeus’ epithets indicating him as a god of storm: νεφεληγερέτα, στεροπηγερέτα, αἰγίοχος, ὑψιβρεμέτης, ἐριβρεμέτης ................................................................................................................................................. 16 Zeus and Mt. Olympos (Thessalia) ............................................................................................................. 17 Zeus and Mt. Ida (Troas) ............................................................................................................................ 18 Zeus and Dodona ........................................................................................................................................ 18 Zeus and Typhoeus ..................................................................................................................................... 18 1.3.3. Concluding remarks on the natural aspects of Homeric Zeus .......................................................... 19 1.4. The characteristics of Homeric Zeus denoting his ruling functions and his intellectual abilities ........ 20 “The ἄναξ of gods and men” ...................................................................................................................... 20 “The supreme and best of gods” ................................................................................................................. 21 Enthroned on the top of Mt. Olympos ........................................................................................................ 21 “‛Υψίζυγος” ................................................................................................................................................ 22 The epithets formed on the basis of the root *mēt-/*mĕt- ......................................................................... 23 “Μητίετα” ................................................................................................................................................... 24 “’Ίδηθεν μεδέων” ....................................................................................................................................... 25 “’Άφθιτα μήδεα εἰδώς” ............................................................................................................................... 25 “‛Ύπατος μήστωρ” ..................................................................................................................................... 26 1.5. Relation of the Homeric concept of Zeus to the basic Indo-European mythological conceptions ..... 28 1.6. Parallels between Homeric Zeus and the Near-Eastern supreme gods ................................................ 31 1.6.1. Enlil .................................................................................................................................................. 33 1.6.2. Marduk ............................................................................................................................................. 34 1.6.3. El ...................................................................................................................................................... 34 1.6.4. Baal .................................................................................................................................................. 35 1.7. Possible ways of entry of the Near-Eastern elements into the epic/mythic image of Zeus.................. 36 CHAPTER 2. The relation of the Homeric concept of Zeus to the Mycenaean religion. ........................... 37 2.1. The evidence for the worship of a deity of the clear sky in the Mycenaean religion........................... 37 At Pylos ...................................................................................................................................................... 37

iii

At Knossos.................................................................................................................................................. 38 At Thebes.................................................................................................................................................... 38 At Mycenae ................................................................................................................................................ 39 2.2. The evidence for the worship of a storm-deity in the Mycenaean religion.......................................... 42 2.2.1. The evidence of the Linear B texts ................................................................................................... 42 2.2.2. The Mycenaean clay idol with a battle hammer or double axe (?)................................................... 43 2.2.3. A male axe-deity (?) in Asine (Argolis) ............................................................................................ 44 2.2.4. A male deity with a double axe (?) in Malthi (Messenia) ................................................................. 44 2.2.5. The emblem comprising a double axe placed between the horns of a bull ....................................... 45 2.2.6. Mycenaean sites located on high places ........................................................................................... 45 2.2.7. Dodona during the prehistoric period .............................................................................................. 47 2.2.8. Figurines of a smiting god ................................................................................................................ 48 2.3. Mycenaean male deities without certain connection with the natural phenomena .............................. 49 2.3.1. The evidence for the worship of male deities in Mycenaean Greece ............................................... 49 Mycenae ..................................................................................................................................................... 49 Tiryns ......................................................................................................................................................... 50 Acropolis of Athens .................................................................................................................................... 50 Phylakopi (Melos) ...................................................................................................................................... 50 Naxos .......................................................................................................................................................... 51 2.3.2. A deified male enthroned figure (?) in the Mycenaean iconography................................................ 51 2.3.3. Some Late Bronze Age male deities in Cyprus ................................................................................. 52 The “Horned God” of Enkomi.................................................................................................................... 52 Seated male deity (or deities) of Enkomi ................................................................................................... 53 2.4. The term for “throne” in the Linear B and in Homer ......................................................................... 54 2.5. The evidence for the association of Zeus with the concept of a “young god” ..................................... 54 2.6. The evidence for the association of the notion of divine to the concept of the supreme power in the prehistoric Greek perception ...................................................................................................................... 57 2.6.1. The Linear B evidence on the wanax ............................................................................................... 57 2.6.2. The architectural evidence: the Mycenaean palatial megaron ....................................................... 59 2.6.3. Diadems ............................................................................................................................................ 64 2.6.4. The Throne Room at Knossos ........................................................................................................... 66 CHAPTER 3. The evidence for the worship and perception of Zeus during the early historic time .......... 68 3.1. The EIA places of worship of Zeus ..................................................................................................... 68 Summary list of the early historic places of worship of Zeus ..................................................................... 68 3.1.1. Dodona ............................................................................................................................................. 69

iv

3.1.2. Pherai (Thessalia)............................................................................................................................. 72 3.1.3/4. Halos (Phthiotis, Thessalia) / Mt. Laphystion (Boeotia)................................................................ 73 3.1.5. Mt. Helikon (Southwestern Boeotia) ................................................................................................ 76 3.1.6. Olympieion in Athens........................................................................................................................ 76 3.1.7. Mt. Hymettos (Attica) ....................................................................................................................... 76 3.1.8. Mt. Parnes (Attica) .......................................................................................................................... 81 3.1.9. Mt. Tourkovounia (Attica) ................................................................................................................ 81 3.1.10. Other sites in Attica ........................................................................................................................ 82 3.1.11. Sta Marmara (Megara) ................................................................................................................... 82 3.1.12. Mt. Oros (Aegina)........................................................................................................................... 83 3.1.13. Mt.Fokas (Phoukas)-Apesas (Korinthia) ........................................................................................ 83 3.1.14. Nemea ............................................................................................................................................. 84 3.1.15. Tretos .............................................................................................................................................. 85 3.1.16. Mt. Arachnaion (Argolis) ............................................................................................................... 86 3.1.17. Larisa hill (Argos) .......................................................................................................................... 86 3.1.18. Olympia (Elis). The early cult of Zeus ............................................................................................ 87 The prehistory of the sanctuary .................................................................................................................. 87 The sanctuary in the EIA (Proto-Geometric – Geometric – Early Archaic periods) .................................. 92 3.1.19. Mt. Lykaion (Arkadia) .................................................................................................................. 100 3.1.20. Mt. Ithome (Messenia) .................................................................................................................. 105 3.1.21. Tsakona, Aphyssou (Lakonia) ....................................................................................................... 107 3.1.22. Kenaion Cape (Euboea)................................................................................................................ 107 3.1.23. Mt. Kynthos (Delos)...................................................................................................................... 108 3.1.24. Mt. Zas (Naxos) ............................................................................................................................ 108 3.1.25. Mt. Atavyros (Rhodes) .................................................................................................................. 109 3.1.26. Mt. Mesavouno (Thera) ............................................................................................................... 110 3.1.27. Psychro (Diktaean) Cave (Crete) ................................................................................................. 110 3.1.28. Idaean Cave (Crete)...................................................................................................................... 111 3.1.29. Amnisos (Crete) ........................................................................................................................... 112 3.1.30. Agia Triada (Crete) ...................................................................................................................... 113 3.1.31. Praisos (Crete).............................................................................................................................. 114

v

3.1.32. Palaikastro (Crete) ....................................................................................................................... 114 3.1.33 /34. Troy / Gargaron, Mt. Ida (Troas) ........................................................................................... 115 3.1.35. Heraion in Samos ......................................................................................................................... 117 3.1.36/37. Heraion at Perachora / Heraion at Argos ............................................................................... 119 3.2. Zeus in the EIA iconography ............................................................................................................. 119 3.3. Evaluation of the evidence presented in the Chapter 3 ...................................................................... 123 SUMMARIZING CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 130 THE WORKS OF ANCIENT AUTHORS USED IN ENGLISH TRANSLAATION ............................ 133 OTHER SOURCES .................................................................................................................................. 133 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................... 134 FIGURES ................................................................................................................................................. 159

vi

LIST OF FIGURES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

8. 9.

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

23. 24. 25.

Golden weights from the Mycenaean Grave Circle A, Shaft Grave III. From Karo (1930) pl.34. The Mycenaean krater from Enkomi (Cyprus), with the representation of a male with scales appearing in front of a chariot. From Karageorghis (1958) pl.98, fig.2. The Hittite stele from Marash with the relief representation of a male with scales. From Riemschneider (1954) pl.76. The relief on a stele from Ugarit (14th century BC): the god El enthroned accepts an offering from a king of Ugarit. From Schaeffer (1939) pl.31. The Mycenaean clay anthropomorphic statue with thought to be a double axe in the raised right hand. From Taylor (1983) fig.31. The bronze figurine representing a Syrian war-goddess with a double axe in her raised right hand (1500-1250 BC). Paris, Louvre, Near-Eastern Collection. Amiet (1980) nu.480. a. The relief on a stone representing the Scandinavian storm-god Thor (Altuna, Sweden, 11th century). From Meletinsky (1994c) 520. b. The Hittite storm-god holding a hammer-axe in his raised right hand and a bunch of thunderbolts in his left one (relief representation on a stele from Syria, 9th century BC). From Amiet (1980) pl.550. c. The Hittite storm-god holding a double axe in his raised right hand (relief representation on a stele from Sendschirli). From Riemschneider (1954) pl.84a. An Archaic Rhodian sherd with the representation of a young, nude male holding a double axe in his raised left hand and a sword in his right one, while fighting against a Centaur. From Cook (1925) 616, fig.514. a. Two LBA bronze-and-gold figurines of a “Smiting God” (Baal ?) from Ugarit (Ras Shamra). From Schaefer (1966) pl.3 (left). b. The stone statuette of the god Reshef from Egypt (late 2nd - early 1st millennium BC). The Metropolitan Museum of Art. From Simpson (1952) 182. c. Two prehistoric bronze figurines of a “Smiting God” from the sanctuary at Phylakopi (Melos): left – height 12.5cm, found east of the East Shrine; right – height 13.7cm, found at the Wall 661. From Renfrew (1985) pls.67-69. The small plaster painted head of a bearded male from the Palace of Mycenae: a. as published by Wace (1949) pl.104b, b. as exposed in the Athens National Archaeological Museum, Mus.nu.7712. Plan of the sanctuaries at Phylakopi (Melos). On the basis of Renfrew (1985). The West and the East Shrines at Phylakopi (Melos). Photo by the author. The clay male idol SF 1550 from the West Shrine at Phylakopi (Melos). From Renfrew (1985) pl.35. A female griffin and a seated figure (representation on a Mycenaean ring). From Crowley (1989) 424, fig.124. The bronze statue of the “Horned God” from Enkomi (Cyprus). From Dikaios (1969-1971) v.3a, pl.139. A bronze figurine of a “seated god” from Enkomi (Cyprus). From Schaefer (1952) pl.69. A Late Minoan IIIB (1300-1200 BC) terracotta figurine of a kouros from Palaikastro (Crete). From Rethemiotakis (2001) color plate 5. A Sub-Minoan terracotta figurine of a kouros from Agia Triada (Crete). From Rethemiotakis (2001) 101, fig.119. The seal-impression from Knossos with the representation of a Minoan king in a rayed diadem, c.1900-1700 BC. From Demargne (1964) fig.147. The Throne Room in the Palace at Knossos. Photo by the author. The “Sacred Oak” in the sanctuary of Zeus at Dodona (imaginative view). From Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) fig.34. The EIA bronze male figurines found in Dodona: a. c.730 BC. From Δάκαρης (1986) pl.24. b. approximately mid-8th century BC. From Δάκαρης (1986) pl.25. c. the late 8th century BC. From Tiverios (1997) 316, nu.9. Map of the area of Halos. From Dyer and Haagsma (1993) 166, fig.1. An EIA bronze male figurine from Halos, possibly representing Zeus Laphystios. From Γιαννόπουλος (1925-1926) 183, figs.1, α-β. a. Mt. Hymettos (Attica), the western slopes, view from Mt. Lykavettos. Photo by the author. b. Plan of the sanctuary of Zeus on Mt. Hymettos (Attica). From Langdon (1976) 6, fig.4.

vii

26. The circular construction in the sanctuary of Zeus on Mt. Hymettos (Attica). From Langdon (1976) 4, fig.3. 27. The Trophonion at Lebadeia in Boeotia (proposed reconstruction). From Turner (1994) fig.19. 28. The graffito inscription “ΣΗΜΙΟΙ ΔΙ”, from the sanctuary of Zeus on Mt. Hymettos (Attica). From Langdon (1976) 14, nu.2. 29. The foundations and the graphic restoration of the EIA “Sacred House” in the sanctuary at Tourkovounia (Athens). From Lauter (1985) 124, fig.20. 30. Mt. Oros (Aegina). Photo by the author. 31. The Late Mycenaean settlement on the top of Mt. Oros in Aegina (sketch plan). From Welter (1938b) 15, fig.7. 32. a-b. The lower part of the sanctuary of Zeus Hellanios, located on the northern slope of Mt. Oros in Aegina (photo and sketch plan). From Goette (2001) pl.91, p.347, fig.105. 33. Mt. Fokas (Phoukas)-Apesas (Korinthia) as seen from the north. Photo by the author. 34. The summit of Mt. Fokas (Phoukas)-Apesas, aerial view. On the basis of Wikimapia. Google (Mount Fokas-Apesas). 35. Plan showing the survey grid and the density of pottery discovered on the summit of Mt. Fokas (Phoukas)-Apesas by NVAP. From Wright and oths. (1990) 607, fig.7. 36. a. The summit of Mt. Fokas (Phoukas)-Apesas: one of the visible ashy spots. Photo by the author. b. Pottery fragments as seen on the surface in the ashy area on the summit of Mt. Fokas. Photo by the author. 37. Pottery fragments (enlarged) seen by the author on the summit of Mt. Fokas (Phoukas)-Apesas in 2009: a/. fragment of the trefoil mouth of a vessel, b/. fragment of the upper part of an open vessel, c/. a very small pottery fragment, d/. fragment of the upper part with the remains of a handle, of an open vessel. 38. Plan of the Nemean sanctuary site. On the basis of Miller (1982) 39, fig.8. 39. The Altar of Zeus in the sanctuary at Nemea. Photo by the author. 40. 8th century BC pottery from the sanctuary area at Nemea: a. fragments of a decorated Late Geometric krater, possibly of Argive manufacture, found east of the temple of Zeus. From Miller (1976) 178-180, pl.31, d. b. a LG skyphos found north of the temple of Zeus. From Miller (1982) 23, pl. 9, h. 41. Two Early Archaic Korinthian aryballoi found in the altar area in the sanctuary of Zeus at Nemea. From Miller (1976) pl. 31, c. 42. A Geometric bronze figurine of a horse from Nemea. From Miller (1990) 52, fig.16. The figurine is exposed in the Museum of Nemea, Mus.nu.BR 20. 43. The Tretos Pass (the NVAP site nu.204). On the basis of Wikimapia. Google (Dervenakia). 44. The small terracotta head of a bearded male found at the NVAP site nu.204. From the Poster of the International Conference “Corinthia and Northeast Peloponnesos. Topography and History from the Prehistoric years until the end of Antiquity. Loutraki, March 26-29, 2009”, left top. 45. Mt. Arachnaion (Argolis). Sketch plan of the remains discovered on the summit of the peak of Agios/Profitis Elias. From Rupp (1976) 264, fig.6. 46. Elis at the end of the prehistoric time - Proto-Geometric period (map). From Eder (2001b) 4, fig.2. 47. The area of the so-called “Black level” in the sanctuary of Zeus at Olympia. From Kyrieleis (2006) Beilage 12. 48. The Great Ash Altar of Zeus in Olympia as could be seen in the time of Pausanias. On the basis of Yavis (1949) 211, fig.53. 49. Plan of the foundations of the EIA “Oval House” identified above the remains of the prehistoric House 7 in Altis, Olympia. From Rambach (2002) 127, fig.7. 50. One of the Early Geometric terracotta Zeus-figurines from Olympia. From Heilmeyer (1972) pl.28, nu.174. 51. Late Geometric terracotta Zeus-figurines from Olympia. From Heilmeyer (1972) pl.30, nus.180, 179, 178. 52. a-b. Geometric terracotta charioteer-figurines from Olympia. From Heilmeyer (1972) pl.23, nus.135 and 137. 53. Late Geometric terracotta figurines of “kouroi” from Olympia. From Heilmeyer (1972) pl.27, nus.167 and 168. 54. A Late Geometric terracotta female figurine (possibly of Hera) from Olympia. From Heilmeyer (1972) pl.35, nu.205. 55. An Early Geometric bronze male figurine from Olympia. From Kunze (1961a) 140, figs.81-82. 56. A Late Geometric bronze male figurine from Olympia. From Kunze (1967) pl.108. 57. The EIA bronze tripod leg from Olympia. From Willemsen (1957) pl.63.

viii

58. A Sub-Geometric krater found in the area of the Stadium at Olympia. From Kunze (1961b) 126, fig.71. 59. An EIA bronze figurine of a charioteer from Olympia. From Kunze (1961a) pl.58. 60. The EIA group of bronze figurines, so-called “a Lord and a Lady”, presumably from Olympia. From Tiverios (1997) 317, nu.18. 61. The ash altar of Zeus atop Mt. Lykaion (Arkadia) before the re-excavation. Photo by the author. 62. The top of Mt. Lykaion (Arkadia) and the area of the temenos of Zeus Lykaios. Photo by the author. 63. The Archaic bronze statue of enthroned Zeus Lykaios found on the territory of the temenos at Mt. Lykaion (Arkadia). From Κουρουνιώτης (1904) fig.12. 64. The Archaic bronze figurine of Zeus Lykaios found on the territory of the temenos at Mt. Lykaion (Arkadia). From Tiverios (1997) 319, nu.27. 65. a. The mountain Ithome as seen from the site of Ancient Messene located at its southern foot. b. The Old Voulkano Monastery on the summit of Mt. Ithome. c. The natural rock, possibly the ancient altar of Zeus Ithomatas, at the north-eastern corner of the Monastery. Photos by the author. 66. The representation of Zeus Ithomatas on a Messenian coin. From Themelis (2003) 28, fig.30. 67. The area of the Kenaion Cape (Northwestern Euboea). On the basis of Wikimapia. Google (Lichada, Euboea). 68. Mt. Kynthos (Delos). Photo by the author. 69. The summit of Mt. Kynthos (Delos): the sanctuary of Zeus and Athena. From Plassart (1928) pl.2. 70. Geometric pottery from the sanctuary of Zeus and Athena on the summit of Mt. Kynthos (Delos). From Plassart (1928) 53, fig.44. 71. Early Archaic pottery fragments with graffito inscriptions, from the sanctuary of Zeus and Athena on the summit of Mt. Kynthos (Delos). From Plassart (1928) 57, fig.48. 72. Mt. Zas (Naxos). Photo by the author. 73. a. EIA bronze bull figurines from Mt. Atavyros (Rhodes). From Heilmeyer (1979) 33, fig.1. b. An Early Archaic pottery fragment with the graffito dedication: “Σ]ΜΥΡΔΗΣ ΜΕ Α]ΝΗΘΗΚΗΝ ΗΟ (?) ΣΥΝΔΟ”, from the sanctuary of Zeus atop Mt. Atavyros (Rhodes). From Maiuri (1932) 236, nu.144. 74. An EIA graffito inscription from the summit of Mt. Mesavouno (Thera). From Guarducci (2008) 108, fig.40. 75. Agia Triada (Crete). Plan of the EIA sanctuary site. From Prent (2005) fig.15. 76. Praisos (Crete). The site plan. From Prent (2005) fig.52. 77. Palaikastro (Crete). Plan of the EIA sanctuary area. From Prent (2005) fig.73. 78. a. Plan of the EIA remains at the site of Troy. From Basedow (2007) pl.4 (down). b. Mt. Ida in Troas (map). On the basis of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tras.png. 79. EIA terracotta female figurines (Hera ?) from the Samian Heraion: a. From Jarosch (1994) pl.36, nu.489, b. From Jarosch (1994) pl.36, nu.496. 80. a. EIA terracotta male figurines (Zeus ?) from the Samian Heraion. From Jarosch (1994) pl. (Tafel) 43. b. one of the EIA terracotta male figurines (Zeus ?) from the Samian Heraion. From Jarosch (1994) pl. (Tafel) 43, nu.866. 81. The EIA terracotta relief from the Samian Heraion. From Kossatz-Deismann (1988) nu.201. 82. The 7th century BC wooden relief from the Samian Heraion. From Kossatz-Deismann (1988) nu.202. 83. The EIA terracotta seated figurine exhibited in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York). From Kranz (1972) pl.2, nus.1-2. 84. The EIA terracotta seated figurine found in the Grave XII in the Athenian Agora. Agora Museum (Athens). From Kranz (1972) pl.2, nus.3-4. 85. An EIA bronze figurine of a charioteer, probably from Olympia. From Flashar (2002) fig.70. 86. The EIA bronze votive shield from the Idaean Cave (Crete). From Κορρές (1972) 219, fig.7. 87. A fragment of a terracotta votive shield of the late 8th century BC, from the Samian Heraion: a warrior in a Korinthian helmet (or a storm-god?) strikes with a lance (or a thunderbolt?). From Walter (1971) fig.71. 88. The representation on the neck of an Attic amphora of the late 8th century BC: a tall, bearded male in a long chiton holds a scepter by his both hands and treads right. From Walter (1971) fig.72. 89. The painted representation on a metope of a Cretan tripod pithos, 700-675 BC: a nude, helmeted

ix

90. 91. 92. 93.

male (right) and a female in a girdled chiton and a polos (left). From Tiverios (1997) 317-318, nu.19. The representation on a relief metope of a Cretan pithos from Arkades, c.675 BC: a male and a female looking front; the male embraces the female and touches her abdomen. Louvre, Mus.nu.CA 4523. Photo by the author (similar to Kossatz-Deismann (1988) 683, nu.199). The representation on the body of a Proto-Korinthian aryballos, c.680 BC: a bearded male with a big sword raises a thunderbolt in his left hand against a Centaur, while supports a scepter by his right hand. From Tiverios (1997) 317, nu.16. The Archaic poros statue of enthroned Zeus, c.550 BC. Part of the “Introduction Pediment” of one of the Archaic temples on the Acropolis at Athens (Acropolis Museum). From Kossatz-Deismann (1988) nu.458. Zeus Olympios. Roman marble-and-bronze statue-copy of the statue by Phidias. Hermitage Museum. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Zeus_at_Olympia.

x

between the Homeric image of Zeus and the perception of Zeus, which would have existed before Homer, that is, during the prehistoric times. Finally, it will be attempted to establish the relation of the mythic-Homeric Zeus to Zeus practically worshiped in the Greek religion in the time of the composition of the Homeric poems. In regard to these tasks, it must be realized the essential difference between mythology and religion: the former is always more mobile (evolvable) and quickly changing sphere that easily creates and adopts new images and motifs, while the latter is traditionally more static and conservative field of ideas, persistently based on and following original concepts.

INTRODUCTION* The idea of this research emerged from the recognition of the undisputed importance of the figure of Zeus in the Greek mythology and religion of the Classical time and afterwards, on the one hand, and the necessity to clarify certain aspects of the perception and the worship of this god in the time before that, on the other. In particular, this research has the aim to analyze the concept of Zeus as it is traced in the early Greek mythology and to compare it critically with the religious concept of this god as that may be inferred from the details of worship of him during the prehistoric - early historic time. As a special feature of the intended investigation, it should be pointed out that Zeus would be considered in terms of the traditional Indo-European mythological and religious conceptions, which means that he will be approached as a god belonging to one of the IndoEuropean mythologies and worshiped in one of the IndoEuropean religions.1

The results of the intended research are supposed to help to understand more clearly the conceptual backgrounds of the figure of Zeus in the Greek mythology and religion after Homer, that is, in the Archaic and Classical times. A note should be made concerning the method of the purposed investigation. Given the problem that always occurs in the study of early religions and mythologies - the fragmentary character of the available evidence, this thesis is intended as an inter-disciplinary research, which is going to select and examine the scattered linguistic, archaeological, representational, literary, and other possible evidence related to the concept of Zeus before Homer and in the period of the final formation of the Homeric poems.

The earliest known in more or less complete form mythological image of Zeus is that outlined during the early centuries of the historic period in the Homeric poems. Hence, in the first part of this study, it is intended to explore the concept of Zeus in the Greek mythology of the early historic time by identifying, systematizing and analyzing carefully the characteristics distinguishing this god in the Homeric poems. It will also be pursued the definition of the position of Greek Zeus as he appears in the Greek mythology from the time of Homer onward in relation to the central gods of other Indo-European mythologies. In other words, it is purposed to answer the question whether Zeus as occurs in the Greek mythology may be considered a traditional Indo-European god. The next step will be examination of the correspondence *This is a translated in English, completely revised, and significantly enriched version of my Ph.D. dissertation accomplished in 2003 at the University of Athens (Greece) under the title “Ο Δίας στην Ιλιάδα: προέλευση των ιδιοτήτων του και η θεώρηση του θεού κατά τους πρώιμους ιστορικούς χρόνους”. Here, I want to express my best thanks to the Professors of the University of Athens: G. Kokkourou-Alevra, A. Ramou, and N. Sgouritsa, who supervised my thesis. Also, I would like to thank the Library of the British School of Archaeology at Athens for technical support and encouragement in preparing my thesis for publication, as well as the Editorial Board of the British Archaeological Reports for accepting my dissertation for publishing. 1 The term “Indo-European” applies to a family of cultures and languages, which are descended from the common Proto-Indo-European proto-culture and protolanguage, respectively. This family comprises the following branches: Germanic, Celtic, Italic, Albanian, Greek, Baltic, Slavic, Anatolian (Hittite, Luwian, Palaic, Hieroglyphic-Hittite, Lydian, Lycian), Armenian, Iranian, Indic, and Tocharian (Central Asia). 1

CHAPTER 1 The concept of Zeus in the Iliad

Proto-Ionic dialect (Peloponnesian = South-Mycenaean Greek language and epic tradition) Early Mycenaean time, | Aeolian dialect (Northern Mycenaean Greek language and epic tradition) Late Mycenaean time, | Aeolian-Lesbian language and epic tradition Dark Age, | Epic Ionic dialect and poetry (Central - Western Ionic) 8th century BC.

1.1. The Homeric language and epics Before starting the analysis of the evidence contained in the Homeric poems, it needs to be pointed out that this evidence is presented in verbal form, by means of the Homeric language. On the other hand, the language constitutes by itself important evidence for the sphere of ideas of its carriers, given that words denote concepts, whereas the way of rendering thoughts in words indicates the mode of thinking. The latest studies identify the Homeric poems specifically as a fragment of the Ionic epic tradition, which had risen some generations before Homer and was formed in the Ionic dialectic-linguistic conditions during the 8th century BC.2 The Homeric language mainly belongs to the Epic Ionic dialect, which is Central or West Ionic.3 However, the Homeric language was still under formation during the composition of the poems and thus appears to have been an artificial mixture of dialects4 representing different historical periods and geographical areas. The Epic Ionic dialect was a development of the Proto-Ionic language, that is, of the Mycenaean Peloponnesian Greek language, which had emerged in the Early Mycenaean time, while the Ionic epic poetry continued the South-Mycenaean, or the Peloponnesian, epic tradition related to the Early Mycenaean period as well.5 However, it is argued that the development of the South-Mycenaean (Proto-Ionic) language and epic poetry into the historic Ionic language (dialect) and epic tradition, respectively, was not direct, and that the Aeolian-Lesbian linguistic and epic phase connected with the Dark Age had antedated the Ionic one.6 The Aeolian dialect spoken by the Greeks who occupied Northern Greece - Boeotia and Thessalia had differentiated from the Proto-Ionic (the South-Mycenaean prehistoric Greek dialect) by the Late Mycenaean Age,7 and, as result, the Northern Mycenaean epic poetry was being formed as a distinct epic tradition, known as the Aeolian one, from the last centuries of the prehistoric period.8 Thus:

To stress, it is neither possible nor correct to derive the Homeric poems directly from the Mycenaean linguistic and epic traditions and to consider them an expression of the Mycenaean trend of thoughts. On the other hand, it should be realized that the Homeric language, which was used for the composition of the poems while being in a state of incomplete formation, reflects the incompleteness of formation of the frame of thoughts of the 8th century BC Ionian Greeks. The consideration of the concept of Homeric Zeus should comply with the following: 1. the fact that the Homeric epics constitute a derivative of the continuous tradition of the Indo-European poetry9 and as such must have been based on common IndoEuropean concepts, mythological patterns, and archetypal characters, 2. the recognition of the Oriental (Near-Eastern) influence on the Greek epic tradition, which was exercised already during the Late Bronze Age due to interactions between the Mycenaean civilization and the Near East, and especially during the so-called “Orientalizing Revolution”, which took place in the Greek culture during the 8th –7th centuries BC, in both the spiritual and material spheres.10 9

E.g., West (1973), and Baldick (1994) 150, argue that the Proto-Indo-European epic tradition may be traced back to c.4000 BC, and that the Greek epic tradition already existed in the 15th century BC. For common IndoEuropean concepts shared by the Greek myths, see the observations by Puhvel (1987) 33-42. For some common Indo-European formulae identified in the Mycenaean Greek language, see Willi (1994-1995); Palaima (19961997). 10 Burkert (1987) 13. See the detailed bibliography in the study by Burkert (1992). There is no unanimity among the scholars regarding the period of the exercise of the Near-Eastern influence on the Greek mythology: some of them, as, for example, West (1995) 57-58, argue for the Mycenaean date and the spontaneous character of the transmission of the Oriental themes into the Greek mythology, while many others insist on that Mesopotamian myths were deliberately being borrowed

2

West (1988) 165-167; Janko (1992) 8-19 “The origins and evolution of the epic diction”. M. West in his latest study has argued that the Iliad was composed around 688 BC or 678 BC, see West (1995). Burkert (1976) 20-21, suggests the date of the composition of the Iliad in the first half of the 7th century BC. 3 West (1988) 166. 4 Kirk (1985) 5-7. For prehistoric Greek dialects, see Thompson (1996-1997). 5 West (1988) 158, West (1973) 183-184. 6 West (1988) 162-165, West (1973) 183-184. A number of Homeric expressions, which could not come directly from the Mycenaean dialect, are marked out by Hoekstra (1965) 142-145. 7 West (1973) 183-184; Buck (1999) 5. 8 West (1973) 183; West (1988) 158-159. 2

The problem of the Near-Eastern influence on the Greek culture in general and on the formation of the Greek epic tradition in particular is enormous and being explored in relevant studies. The discussion raised around this subject has two polar points: according to one group of scholars, the Homeric poems expressed the purely Indo-European ideology and were created on the basis of the traditional Indo-European prototypes,11 while others argue that the Homeric poems were composed of Near-Eastern mythological and epic patterns.12

special ways to certain mortals as their progenitor or fosterer, which is denoted with the titles “διογενής” / “born from Zeus” and “διοτρεφής” / “nurtured by Zeus” mostly applied to kings (note “διοτρεφέων βασιλήων” in the Il. 2.98, and oth.);15  the god descending from elder deities: despite his paternal character, Homeric Zeus also appears as the son of the god Kronos and the goddess Rhea (Il. 15.187-187), and thus bears his father’s name “Κρονίδης” (Il. 1.498, and often) and “Κρονίων” (Il. 1.397, and often), also “Κρόνου πάϊς” (Il. 2.205).16 According to Homer, Zeus is not the only child of Kronos and Rhea: he has two brothers, the gods Poseidon and Aides (Il. 15.187-188), and a sister, the goddess Hera (Il. 4.59-61, 18.365-366);  the god related to the goddess Hera as her official consort and brother (Il. 16.431-432): the relationship between Zeus and Hera is quite problematic because of Zeus’ countless affairs with various goddesses and mortal women (Il. 14.317-327), on the one hand, and due to Hera’s hostile attitude to Zeus, on the other. Although the superior position of Zeus in his marriage with Hera is undisputed, in some cases he is referred to as “the loudthundering husband of Hera” (“ἐρίγδουπος πόσις Ἥρης”, Il. 7.411, 10.329, 13.154, and 16.88), which might imply or remind of a sort of Hera’s own right;  the god associated to the notion of height - the sky and height in general, as well as the mountains Olympos and Ida in particular: he “dwells in the sky” (“αἰθέρι ναίων”, Il. 2.412, 4.166) and “sits on high” (“Ζεὺς δ’ἥμενος ὕψι”, Il. 20.155); he is that “who is above” (“ὑψόθ’ ἐόντι Διί”, Il. 10.16); he is “Ὀλύμπιος” (Il. 1.508, and often), “sitting on Olympos” (Il. 21.388389: “Ζεὺς ἥμενος Οὐλύμπωι”), and “Ἰδαῖος” (Il. 16.605, 24.290-291). The top of Olympos is the place where he lives in his beautiful, “stout-built” palace-house (“δῶμα”, “πυκινόν δῶ”), which is also used for meetings of gods (Il. 1.533-535, 1.570, 5.906, 19.355, and oth.). Clad in gold, he flies in a chariot carried by swift horses with the flowing manes of gold, between the earth and the starry heaven (Il. 8.41-46);  the god having the unchallengeable, overwhelming physical strength: he is “great” / “μέγας” (Il. 2.111, and often) and “μεγάλος” (Il. 6.312, and often), “mighty” / “ἐρισθενής” (Il. 13.54, 19.354, 21.184), “far the mightier” / “πολύ φερτερός” (Il. 4.56, and often), “the mightiest of all” / “κάρτιστος ἁπάντων” (Il. 8.17 and 20.243), “the most mighty” / “ὑπερμενέων” (Ιl. 2.403, and often); “...among the immortal gods he is manifestly supreme in might and strength” (Ιl. 15.107-108); these features make him the “most dreadful”/ “αἰνότατος” to all the others, both men and gods (Il. 1.552, and often);

However, in order to make correct judgments on this matter, it is necessary, first, to identify the traditional Indo-European and non-Indo-European elements in the Homeric poems, and second, to establish the actual correspondence between the former and the latter. As part of the general tasks of this chapter, only one aspect of this big problem will be considered: the IndoEuropean and possible non-Indo-European, precisely Near-Eastern, elements in the image of Zeus as it is presented by Homer in the Iliad. 1.2. The characteristics of Zeus in the Iliad The thematic classification of the numerous characteristics given to Zeus in the Iliad makes it possible to infer the following image –  the god personifying the idea of the absolute fatherhood: his basic name is the compound “Ζεύς πατήρ” / “Zeus-father”, but he may be called simply “πατήρ” / “father”; the epithetic formula “πατήρ ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν τε” specifies his role as that of “the father of men and gods” (Il. 1.544, and often);13 thus, he is frequently appealed to as “Ζεῦ πάτερ” and “πάτερ” regardless of the real state of affinity (for example, by his sister-wife, the goddess Hera, in the Il. 5.757 and 19.121, as well as by various mortals, mainly by the heroes of the Trojan events).14 Except that, he is believed to be related in by Greek poets in the post-Mycenaean period, in the context of the post-Mycenaean re-comprehension of the old Greek mythology, see, e.g., Penglase (1994) 238-241. There is also an intermediate view that certain cultural contacts between Greece and Near East had started during the Bronze Age, but became more intensive during the 8th century BC and especially in the beginning of the Archaic period, see Barnett (1956). 11 See esp. Baldick (1994) 1. 12 This view is especially supported by the scholars who consider the Homeric epos a direct continuation of the Mycenaean poetry, which, as they believe, was a local variation of the Late Bronze Age East-Mediterranean literature, see Webster (1958) 67, 84, 128; Astour (1967) 357. 13 This epithet occurs in the Iliad more than 10 times, Tebben (1998) v.3, 1360, also Dee (2001) 58. 14 For the occurrence of the compound name Ζεύς πατήρ in the Iliad, see Tebben (1998) v.3, 1359, 1361 and 1365: only one time in the nominative form Ζεύς πατήρ (Il. 11.544), 25 times in the vocative form Ζεῦ πάτερ, and several times in the forms of the genitive and the dative

cases, correspondingly πατρὸς Διός and Διὶ πατρί, while there are also 12 occurrences of the formula πατήρ ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν τε without the god’s proper name; also Dee (2001) 57-59. 15 For the use of διογενής and διοτρεφής in the Iliad, see Tebben (1998) v.1, 461-464, 470-471. 16 For the occurrence of these names in the Iliad, see Tebben (1998) v.2, 1016-1018; Dee (2001) 46-49. 3

 the god specialized in storm activities: he is the source of all the natural phenomena of stormy character thunder, lightning, strong winds, rains, snow-falls, and even earthquakes, through which he manifests himself (Il. 7.478-479, 8.75, 8.132-133, 8.170, 11.182-184, 12.252253, 15.377, 17.593-595, 20.56-57, 21.198-199, and oth.); his stormy nature is expressed in a remarkable number of epithets and descriptive formulae, as “lightener, who gives out flashes of lightning” / “ἀστεροπητής” (Il. 1.580, and often), “that who has bright lightning” / “ἀργικέραυνος” (Il. 19.121, 20.16, 22.178), “lightning-gatherer” / “στεροπηγερέτα” (Il. 16.298), “cloud-gatherer” / “νεφεληγερέτα” (Il. 4.30, and often), “shrouded in dark clouds” / “κελαινεφής” (Il. 1.397, and often), “loud-thundering” / “ἐρίγδουπος” (Il. 7.411, and often) and “ἐριβρεμέτης”17 (Il. 13.624), as well as “thundering on high” / “ὑψιβρεμέτης” (Il. 1.354, and often); he is that who “flashes or gleams like lightning” / “ἀστράπτει” (Il. 9.236-237), “hurls the thunderbolt with joy” or “delights in thunder” / “τερπικέραυνος” (Il. 2. 478, and often), and “whose voice is borne afar” / “εὐρύοπα” (Il. 1.498, and often); he is that who rains / “ὕει” (Il. 12.25) and “pours forth rain most violently” / “λαβρόδατον χέει ὕδωρ” (Il. 16.385-386); he rouses from mountains a “blast of wind” / “ὦρσεν ἀπ’...ὀρέων ἀνέμοιο θύελλαν” (Il. 12.252-253); he is that “who bears the aegis (the fearful shield causing storms)” / “αἰγίοχος” (Il. 1.222, and often). He is the god “Δωδωναῖος”, “ruling over wintry Dodona” (“Δωδώνης μεδέων δισχειμέρου”, Il. 16.233-234). The passage of the Il. 2.781-783 informs, without detailed explanation, that Zeus as τερπικέραυνος / “rejoicing in the thunderbolt” is tempestuously opposed to the creature Typhoeus (Τυφωεύς): “...the earth groaned... as beneath Zeus that hurleth the thunderbolt in his wrath, when he scourgeth the land about Typhoeus in the country of the Arimi, where... is the couch of Typhoeus”;  the god who exclusively possesses the extraordinary wisdom and the full knowledge: he is “all-wise” / “μητίετα” (Ιl. 1.507, and often) and the one who knows the eternal values - “ἄφθιτα μήδεα εἰδώς” (Ιl. 24.88);  the god exercising the absolute dominance, supremacy, and sovereignty over both the divine and human spheres: he is “that who decides (weighs) on high” or is “throned on high” / “ὑψίζυγος” (Il. 4.166, 7.69, 11.544, 18.185); he seats on a golden throne on the top of Mt. Olympos (Il. 8.442-443, also 1.498-499, 5.753-754) or occupies the top of Mt. Ida (Il. 11.182-184, 14.157-158, 15.152-153); from there, as if from the symbolic absolute center, he rules the world according to his own plans, designs, and will (note “Ἴδηθεν μεδέων” / that “who rules from Ida”, Il. 3.276, 7.202, 24.308). He is designated as “ἄναξ” / “lord”, “king” (Il. 1.502, and often) and is appealed to as “Ζεῦ ἄνα” (Il. 3.351, 16.233); he is that who “acts as a king / ἀνάσσει among gods and

men” (Il. 2.669), “among all the immortals” (Il. 18.366), “over all mortals and immortals” (Il. 12.242). He is acknowledged as the “most high son of Kronos” / “ὕπατος Κρονίδης” (Ιl. 5.756, and oth.), “the highest and best of gods” / “θεῶν ὕπατος καὶ ἄριστος” (Il. 19.258, 23.43) and merely “the best” (“ἄριστος”, Il. 14.213, 15.108). He is “the counsellor most high” / “ὕπατος μήστωρ” (Il. 8.22, 17.339); he is “high above all lords” / “ὕπατος κρειόντων” (Il. 8.31, and oth.), and is “the most glorious, most great” / “κύδιστος μέγιστος” (Ιl. 2.412, 3.276, 298, 320, 7.202, 24.308). He keeps the sacred golden scales of people’s destiny (“Διὸς ἱρὰ τάλαντα”, Ιl. 16.658, “χρύσεια τάλαντα”, Il. 22.209) and is “for men the dispenser of battle” / “ἀνθρώπων ταμίης πολέμοιο” (Ιl. 4.84, 19.224); he is that “from whom all these things come” (“δ’ἐκ τάδε πάντα πέλονται”, Ιl. 13.632). The Il. 1.5, indicates the will of Zeus as the cause of all the events described in the poem: “the will of Zeus was being brought to fulfillment” / “Διὸς δ’ἐτελείετο βουλή”. The characteristics of Homeric Zeus should be considered closely. 1.3. The characteristics of Homeric Zeus denoting his natural aspects 1.3.1. Zeus as a god of the clear sky Ζεύς / Ζεύς πατήρ The god’s name Zεύς (*ΔιFεύς) has the secure IndoEuropean origin: it traces straight to the Proto-IndoEuropean term for the clear and sunny sky, day-time, and daylight, which was also the name of the PIE God of the clear and sunny sky *dyeu-s /*d(e)iw(o)-s /*di(o)u-n- < the earlier *t’y-eu-s/*t’ei-w(o)-s/*t’iu(n)- derived from the PIE root *t’y-/*t’ei-/*t’iu- “to shine”, “to be shining white”.18 There are a very large number of derivatives from this root meaning “sky”, “day”, “shine”, and “god” in all the Indo-European languages.19 Thus, the etymology of the name of Zeus clearly indicates the god’s original nature as that directly connected with the clear, shining day sky. The name of the god in the form Zεύς, Διός (gen.) < ΔιFός, Διί (dat.) < ΔιFί, etc. is based on the stem diw-, which derives from the PIE forms *t’y-eu-s/*t’ei-w(o)-s. It is significant that the name of Zeus is identified in the Mycenaean language in the form di-we20 (*diweus / *ΔιFεύς) < *t’y-eu-s/*t’ei-w(o)-s: this indicates that the original designation of Zeus used from the prehistoric time was based on the diw-stem. In the Iliad, the name of 18

Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) v.1, 196, 693. Pokorny (1959) v.1, 183-187 (dei-, deie-, dī-, diā-1), Watkins (1969) 1511 (deiw- “to shine”). 20 Morpurgo (1963) 67-69; Chadwick and Baumbach (1963) 198-199 (Ζεύς – di-we); Baumbach (1971) 167 (Ζεύς – di-we); Jorro and Adrados (1985-1993) v.1, 180184; Muhlestein (1956) 83-86, 87-88; Landau (1958) 4344 (Mycenaean PNs with ΔιF-); Gerard-Rousseau (1968) 66-76; Chadwick (1969) 120-121, 132; Heubeck (1970) 63-70. 19

17

According to Janko (1992) 16, the epithets ἐρίγδουπος and ἐριβρεμέτης, where ἐρι- is used instead of ἀρι-, as well as εὐρύοπα instead of εὐρύοπης, are of the Aeolian dialect. 4

Zeus also occurs in the form Ζήν (gen. Ζηνός, dat. Ζηνί, acc. Ζῆνα) based on the stem din-, which derives from the PIE form *t’iu-(n)-. The name of the god in the form Ζήν is not attested in the Mycenaean Greek language; it is a “specifically East Ionic innovation”, which may have entered the epic tradition around 800 BC.21

may be presumed that the particular Homeric fragment was based on very old Greek songs describing regular rides of the Greek sun-god in the sky. The similarity between the image of Zeus flying in the sky in a chariot and those of the Indo-European sun-gods may suggest an original function of Zeus as that of a solar deity.

Apart from the name, some elements of the original “light” and “shining” nature of Zeus seem to have been echoed in the Iliad in such expressions as “Διὸς αὐγάς” (Ιl. 13.837), where αὐγή < *aug- “ray”, “beam” in relation to the rising sun (compare with the meaning of αυγή in Modern Greek: “η λάμψη του ηλίου που διαχέεται στoν ορίζοντα πριν από την ανατολή του”22), and “Ζηνός… ὄσσε φαεινώ” / “the gleaming eyes of Zeus” (Il. 14.236), where φαεινός is an epic adjective frequently used to denote the light of the sun.23 It is worth to be noted that the passage of the Iliad 8.41-46, which describes the god shining with gold and flying in the sky in a chariot carried by his swift horses, those “with flowing manes of gold”, finds striking parallels in the traditional Indo-European image of a sun-god crossing the sky in his chariot.24 It

It is significant that the gods, whose names derive from the PIE forms *t’y-eu-s/*t’ei-w(o)-s/*t’iu(n)- (< PIE root *t’y-/*t’ei-/*t’iu- “to shine”) and are thus cognate to the Greek divine names Ζεύς – Ζήν, are attested in various individual Indo-European mythologies and religions:25  Hittite Siuna – the main god of the early Hittite tribes, god of sun and of the heavenly light. His name derives from the PIE stem *t’iu(n)- and is also attested in the forms Siunas (genitive), Siun (accusative), Hieroglyphic Hittite tina-. In the later Hittite language, the name of the god Siuna was used as an appellative noun meaning “god” in general;26  Luwian Tiwat- the sun-god worshiped during the Bronze Age and the EIA in Western / Southwestern Anatolia; in some texts, he appears under the compound name Tiwata-Tiwata translated as “the sun-god of heaven”;27  Palaic Tiyat- the sun-god worshiped during the Bronze Age in Northwestern Anatolia;  Etruscan Tin or Tinia – the supreme Etruscan god; his name, likewise that of the Hittite god Siuna-, derives from the PIE form *t’iu(n)-, while the two theonyms may be associated with the old Slavic and the Lithuanian nouns meaning “day” - dini > den and diena, respectively. It has been argued that an older form of the name of the Etruscan god Tin is preserved in the Greek mythic name Τυν-δάρεως28 applied to the supposed

The origins and the occurrence of the name Ζήν are examined by Wathelet (1974), who argues that its nominative form, although it is not attested in the preserved Linear B texts, already existed in the Mycenaean language, and that the rest of the forms, the genitive Ζηνός, the dative Ζηνί, and the accusative Ζῆνα, emerged in the post-Mycenaean time, during the Ionic epic phase. This view is shared by Janko (1992) 18-19. The East Ionic form Ζήν based on the stem din- with the η-vocalization has to be distinguished from the Doric form Ζάν, which is likewise based on the din-stem, but on that with the α-vocalization. The forms of Zeus’ name based on the stem din- with the η-vocalization are also identified in the Elean and the Cretan dialects of the historic time: note Ζῆνα in Elis (Buck (1999) 71), Δῆνα in Elis (Buck (1999) 71) and at Dreros (SIG 527.18-20), which are possibly from *Δήν, as well as Ττηνός and Ττῆνα at Gortyna (GDI 5024.23, 60, 61, 77), Τῆνα at Hierapytna (GDI 5039.12), Τηνί somewhere in Crete (GDI 5145.12), which are, perhaps, from *Ττήν / *Τήν. However, the Cretan forms Τάν and Δάν, and the Elean term Ζάνες, where the stem din- has the α-vocalization, are attested as well (Cook (1925) 341-344 n.6) and should be referred to the influence of the Doric dialect. 22 Pokorny (1959) v.1, 87 (aug-); Μπαμπινιώτης (1998) 317 (αυγή); also Janko (1992) 148: “αὐγή is properly a “ray” from a fire or the sun”. The translation of the Il. 13.837 suggested by Murray and Wyatt, Homer. The Iliad (1999) is “the splendour of Zeus”. 23 Liddell and Scott (1996) 1911 (φαεινός). Note also the designation of Zeus in the Hymn of Kouretes from Palaikastro, dated to c.300 BC, but based on a much more earlier version: “παγκρατὲς γάνους” / “the lord of all that is… gleaming”, Murray (1908-1909) 357-358, line 3 (see also Chapter 3, 3.1.32. Palaikastro). 24 E.g., the description of the Vedic sun-god Suria in the RV 1.50.8-9. Another remarkable example is the lines of the Homeric Hymn to the Greek sun-god Helios: “As he 21

rides in his chariot, he shines upon men and deathless gods, and piercingly he gazes with his eyes from his golden helmet. Bright rays beam dazzlingly from him, and his bright locks streaming from the temples of his head gracefully enclose his far-seen face…” (Hymn. Hom.(31) Sol. 8-12, similar in Hymn.Hom.Merc. 68-69). Note also one of the earliest possible representations of the Rising of Helios on a Theran amphora of c.670-660 BC: in the main panel, a bearded figure, a rider or a charioteer, is shown in controlling a horse, Coldstream (1965). For the Indo-European origins of the theme of the sun’s chariot, see West (1988) 153. 25 The evidence presented below is generally based on the studies by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) v.1, 196, 692700; Pokorny (1959) v.1, 183-187 (dei-, deie-, dī-, diā1); Watkins (1969) 1511 (deiw- “to shine”); Stuart (19841987) v.1, p. 148-150 (diu-, diuos); Liddell and Scott (1996) 753 (Ζάν, Ζανός), 754 (Ζεύς); also Cook (1914) 1 n.2; Kretschmer (1924). The sources of specific information about certain gods are indicated in particular notes. 26 Gurney (1977) 9-10; Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) v.1, 196, 408, 758, 759 n.6, 793. 27 Woudhuizen (1994) 72, 78. 28 Pokorny (1959) v.1, 186. 5

human father of Διόσ-κουροι (Kastor and Polydeukos), literally “the sons of Zeus”, who were also called Τυνδαρίδαι “the descendants of Τυν-δάρεως” (Hdt. 4.145). This alternation of the two divine names may indicate a close interaction of the two variations of the IndoEuropean God of the clear sky, Greek Ζεύς and Etruscan Tin / Τυν, on a very early phase of the Greek mythology;  Old Italian Diouis > Latin Iovis (attested also in Oscan, in the dative form Diuvei) – Jupiter, the supreme Roman god; although in the Roman mythology he mainly appears as a storm-god, his genetic link with the notions of day and clear sky was preserved in various aspects of his cult, e.g. in his cult epithet Dianus (CIL 5.783.1-2), which is a clear cognate of the Greek adjective εὐ-διανός = εὔ-διος “shining”, “clear” (in relation to the sky);  Old Germanic *T(e)iwaz < PIE *t’eiwos - the skygod and main deity of the early German tribes, also known as a warrior-god;  Old English Tiu < Tiw (< Old Germanic *T(e)iwaz) – the god of war and sky, also called “the great God”;  Old Norse Tyr or Tir (< Old Germanic *T(e)iwaz)29 – the god of sky and former supreme Scandinavian god (replaced in this position by the storm-god Thor); he was called “wise” and “the most brave”; he also had military functions and was worshiped with ritual dances of armed men, as well as with human sacrifices;  Prussian Deiws – the supreme Prussian god, lately designated as Okopirms “the first one”;  Baltic Diev(a)s – the god of sky and supreme god in the Baltic pantheons; he was responsible for the fertility of crops, controlled the destiny of people and the world order; he was imagined as one riding on a horseback or in a horse-drawn chariot in the sky;30  East Slavic (Russian) Diy-Div (Дый – Див) – the old supreme East Slavic god of the clear sky and sun;31 his name is also traced in the Slavic word for rain dozd’ < *duzdi < *dus-dyu “bad dyu” (= “bad day”);32  Sanskrit Dyάus - the supreme deity in the Vedic pantheon, god of sky and father-god;33  possibly, Illyrian-Albanian Ζά(ν) – the god of sky; his name is preserved in the name of the Albanian mountain Ζάνα; it might derive from the PIE form *t’iu(n)- with α-vocalization, and is, perhaps, related to the Dorian form of the name of Zeus Ζάν.

Norse, and the English ones, had a pronounced warlike appearance. That feature may have emerged because of the military character of the corresponding societies at the time of the formation of their basic religious and mythological concepts. Whatever the reason, the characteristic of Homeric Zeus “the dispenser of battle for men” (Ιl. 4.84, 19.224) appears to parallel the warrior function ascribed to the Germanic, Scandinavian, and English gods of the clear sky. The Norse god of the clear sky Tyr, likewise Homeric Zeus, was considered a wise god. Baltic Diev(a)s, similar to Homeric Zeus and the Indo-European gods of sun, was believed to ride in a chariot through the sky, while the Greek and the Baltic gods both played certain role in the destinies of people. The linguistic material helps to observe that the designation Ζήν < den-/din- < *t’iu(n)- is distinct from the main Greek form of the god’s name Ζεύς < diw- < *t’y-eu-s/*t’ei-w(o)-s and recent in relation to it. To judge linguistically, it is linked to the Hittite and the Etruscan (< Northeast Balkan / Northwest Anatolian?34) forms of the designation of the Indo-European God of the clear sky. It might appear that the East Ionic form Ζήν was formed out of the name of the Hittite god of the clear sky Siuna-/Tina-. That would have been due to gradual adaptation of this name to the Greek language in the context of inevitable contacts with the great Hittite cultural-religious heritage, which the Greeks of Asia Minor experienced even in the first centuries of the historic time, the period marked with the renaissance of Hittite traditions in art and language. The use of the Hittite noun siuna- as a general word for god in the Anatolian area may also have contributed to the formation of the East Ionic form Ζήν. It is noteworthy that in the Il. 22.301-302, the two forms of the name of the god are put together in one phrase: “τό… φίλτερον ἦεν Ζηνί τε καὶ Διὸς υἷι ἑκηβόλῳ” / “…this was the pleasure of Ζήν and of Ζεύς’ son, the god who strikes from afar”. This combination might echo the fact that the two divine names were originally associated with two different gods.35 Moreover, it has been suggested to translate the phrase of the Il. 23.43, with the unusual combination of definite and indefinite pronouns: “…Ζῆν’ὅς τίς τε θεῶν ὕπατος καὶ ἄριστος…”, as “Zeus, or

The above evidence, first of all, indicates that the gods of the clear sky, whose origin, likewise that of Greek Zeus, goes back to the PIE god *t’y-eu-s/*t’ei-w(o)-s/*t’iu(n)-, originally held supreme positions in the Indo-European pantheons. The place of Homeric Zeus at the very top of the divine hierarchy as presented in the Greek epic poetry, thus, completely corresponds to this situation. It may also be observed that some of the Indo-European gods of the clear-shining sky, precisely the Germanic, the

34

For the origins of the Etruscan language, see the study by Adrados (1989). 35 Something analogous is traced in the Old Testament literature, which combined the traditions about the originally distinct gods: Canaanite El (in the Greek version normally θεός “god” and ‛Ύψιστος “the Most High”) and Hebrew Yahweh (in the Greek version always Κύριος “Lord”). Note, for example, Deuteronomy 32.8-9: “When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance,.. he fixed the bounds of peoples according to the number of the sons of God [El]. For the portion of the Lord [Yahweh] is the people of Jacob.” / “ὅτε διεμέριζεν ὁ ‛Ύψιστος ἔθνη,.. ἔστησεν ὅρια ἐθνῶν κατὰ ἄριθμὸν ἀγγέλων θεοῦ. καὶ ἐγενήθη μερὶς Κυρίου λαὸς …Ἰακώβ.” However, the official Judaic doctrine interpreted those two gods as one deity with various names.

29

Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) v.1, 700; Watkins (1969) 1511 (deiw- “to shine”). 30 Gimbutas (1963) 199-200. 31 Ivanov and Toporov (1994b, c). 32 Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) v.1, 587. 33 Toporov (1994b). 6

by whatever name the highest of the gods to be called”.36 This remarkable verse seems to be indicative of the original heterogeneity of the concepts of Ζεύς and Ζήν, which, perhaps, was not already quite realized in the time of Homer. However, in the course of time and mostly due to the mixture of both the divine names in the epic diction, “Ζήν” became normally used and widely attested designation for Zeus.

also be recognized in the frequent Homeric epithets of mortals διογενής and διοτρεφής implying the notions of being “Zeus-born” or “sprung from Zeus” and “nurtured / fostered by Zeus”, respectively. In relation to this, it is worth attention the acknowledgment of Thetis that Zeus literally “gave” her “to bear and to rear a son (Ahilleus)” (Il. 18.436). The later traditions about the birth of Athena from Zeus’ head and of Dionysos from Zeus’ thigh40 likewise seem to indicate the original character of Zeus as that of the progenitor of all.

For establishing the origins of Greek-Homeric Zeus from the PIE God of the clear sky, it is important to note that the linguistic evidence also reveals the composite name of the PIE supreme divinity as *t’yeu(s)-phHther “God of the clear sky-Father”.37 This designation indicates the original perception of his nature as profoundly paternal and points at the association of him with the male procreating principle. It is significant that the PIE compound *t’yeu(s)-phHther had been preserved in the most frequent Homeric designation of Zeus Ζεύς πατήρ “Zeus-father”, used regardless of the real state of fatherhood, with the extended variant πατήρ ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν τε. Homeric Zeus thus appears as quite a complete version of the PIE god *t’yeu(s)-phHther in the Greek mythology. Furthermore, the frequent occurrence of the vocative form Ζεῦ πάτερ in the Homeric poems deserves to be noted: it seems to reveal a very old, yet strong, Greek oral tradition to address prayers to the god of the clear sky, Zeus, invoking him as a father.38 A similar tradition is clearly observed in the Latin and the Umbrian languages, where the name of the PIE God of the clear sky-Father *t’yeu(s)-phHther had survived in the form of the vocative, correspondingly as Jupiter and Iupater literally meaning “oh, Jove (< Diouis)-father”, while both were normally used as nominatives. A compound divine name cognate to the Greek form Ζεύς πατήρ is also attested in the Sanskrit language as Dyάus pitά “Dyάus (sky-god)-father”.39

Perhaps, because of his undisputed role as that of the common father of all, Zeus quite early began to be seen as the supreme arbiter and regulator of human relations those practiced not only within a family, but also between families, within a community, and between communities. Thus, in the Iliad, Zeus is called with the epithet Ξείνιος (Il. 13.624-625) indicating him as the god-protector of the rights of hospitality as supposed for both guests and hosts, while in the Odyssey, he is referred to as Ἑρκείος (Od. 22.334-336) – the god of the house court, protector of family property, as well as Ἱκετήσιος (Od. 13.213) “suppliants’ god” and “ἐπιτιμήτωρ ἱκετάων τε ξείνων τε” (Od. 9.270-271) “avenger of suppliants and strangers”. Significantly, Zeus was actually worshiped under these epithets in the historic time (e.g., Zeus Xenios at Sparta, Paus. 3.11.11; Zeus Herkeios in Olympia, Paus.5.14.7; Zeus Ikesios at Athens and Sparta, Paus. 1.20.7; 3.17.9). It would have been the role of the PIE God of the clear, sunny sky as the father-begetter of all, which determined the originally supreme position of the gods of the clear sky in the individual Indo-European mythologies.41 40

Hymn.Hom.(28) Ath. 4-5: “…to whom wise Zeus himself gave birth out of his aught head”, also Hymn. Hom. Ap. 312-314 “…cloud-gathering Zeus… apart from me [Hera] has given birth to bright-eyed Athena…”; Hymn. Hom. Vacch. 7: “The father of gods and men gave you birth”. It is generally considered that the emphasis on the paternal character of Zeus responds to the conditions of establishment of a patriarchal society among the Greeks; see Calhoun (1935), Kerenyi (1976). 41 The general characteristics of the Indo-European mythologies and religions are referred to in the present Chapter on the basis of the following studies: Gamkrelidze, Th.V. and Ivanov, V.V. (1995) IndoEuropean and the Indo-Europeans. A Reconstruction and Historical Analysis of a Proto-Indo-European Language and a Proto-Indo-European Culture. 2 volumes. Berlin and New-York; Tokarev, S.A. (Gen.ed.) (1994) The Myths of the Peoples of the World (in Russian: Мифы Народов Мирα). Encyclopedia. 2 volumes. Moscow, Minsk and Smolensk; Mallory, J.P. and Adams, D.Q. (eds.) (1977) Encyclopedia of the Indo-European Culture. London and Chicago; Cardona, G., Hoenigswald, H.M. and Senn, A. (eds.) (1970) IndoEuropean and Indo-Europeans. Papers Presented at the 3rd Indo-European Conference at the University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia; Puhvel, J. (ed.) (1970) Myth and Law among the Indo-Europeans. Berkeley, Los-

The original concept of the old Indo-European God of the clear sky-Father, underlying Homeric Ζεύς πατήρ, may 36

Leaf (1900-1902) v.2, 474 n.43: “The use of ὅς τίς with a definite particular antecedent is almost unique, and is rendered stranger by the addition of the generalizing τε which is nowhere is joined to ὅς τίς”. 37 Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) v.1, 196, 680, 692-700. 38 Note the only survived vocative forms in the modern Russian language, which does not have the vocative case: Gospodi / Господи (literally “oh, Lord”) < Gospod’ / Господь (Lord) and Boze / Боже (literally “oh, God”) < Bog / Бог (God), apparently pointing at an old invocatory practice of the early Russians. 39 Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) v.1, 196. It is worth noting that in the Slavic religion and mythology, because of the gradual disappearance of the original Slavic god of clear sky Diy-Div (Ivanov and Toporov (1994b, c) ), the role of the Indo-European God of the clear sky and allfather was eventually taken by the god Sventovit-Rod, whose name is composed of the Slavic words svet “shine”, “light”, and rod “genetic line”, “lineage” (Ivanov and Toporov (1994j), Rybakov (1987) 249, 443). 7

half-divine creature,45 seems to have been disrespected by the East Slavs long before they started to frame their pantheon. In the supposed universe structure, the IndoEuropean gods evolved from the PIE God of the clear sky certainly occupied the upper sphere, but they were not linked to any exact symbolic point. All these features do not correspond to the inexhaustible, unwearied energy, the dynamic leadership, the unlimited power, and the creative mental activities of Homeric Zeus, whose house placed on the top of Olympos plays the role of the symbolic center of the universe.

However, most of them, as Vedic Dyάus, Hittite Siuna, Baltic Diev(a)s, Scandinavian Tyr, Slavic Diy-Div and Sventovit-Rod, show the lack of action and generally appear passive in the preserved myths related to them. This may be explained by a very early date of formation of those gods’ mythological concepts and, hence, their quite primitive, unelaborated character. It is remarkable that the notions of governing, sovereignty, and self-willed intellectual activity are not associated with the IndoEuropean gods of the clear sky in most of the individual Indo-European mythologies.42 For example, in the Hittite myths, the Sun-god Siu(s)-Siuna, even though he was recognized by the other Hittite gods as the supreme one and supposedly presided over divine assemblies, generally appears weak and helpless.43 Baltic Dievas, in spite of the possession of higher powers, was never regarded as the ruler over the divine realm.44 Slavic DiyDiv, treated in the survived folklore tradition as a minor

It is noteworthy that in the Iliad, the basic Homeric designation of Zeus – “πατήρ” occurs only in association with the god’s name in the form Ζεύς and is not attested in combination with the form Ζήν. In other words, the compound Ζεύς πατήρ was not replicated in an analogous divine name with Ζήν. The only allusion to Ζήν as a father in the Iliad may be recognized in the designation Ζηνὸς γόνος / “son of Ζήν”, applied to Idomeneus, an ἄναξ from Crete (Il. 13.449). It appears that the paternal characteristic of the god designated as Ζήν was not especially treated in the epic diction before Homer. An attempt to adapt the form Ζήν to the traditional compound Ζεύς πατήρ may be attested only from the time of Hesiod, who composed the verse: “ Ῥείη…τέκε… Ζῆνά τε μητιόεντα, θεῶν πατέρ’ἠδὲ καὶ ἀνδρῶν ” / “Rhea… bare… wise Zeus [Zen], father of gods and men” (Hes. Theog. 453-457). This, actually nonsensical, phrase was apparently modeled by Hesiod on the analogous, widely known formulae with Ζεύς (Il. 1.544, and often).

Angeles and London; Puhvel, J. (1987) Comparative Mythology. Baltimore and London; Larson, G.J. (ed.) (1974) Myth in Indo-European Antiquity. Berkeley; Dumezil, G. (1958) L’ideologie tripartie des IndoEuropeens. Brussels; Bowie, F. (2000) The Anthropology of Religion. Oxford. For the individual Indo-European mythologies, the following studies were used: for the Hittite mythology - Gurney, O.R. (1977) Some Aspects of Hittite Religion. The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy, 1976. Oxford; for the Greek mythology Burkert, W. (1985) Greek Religion. Archaic and Classical. Oxford; for the Roman mythology - Dumezil, G. (1970) Archaic Roman Religion. With an Appendix on the Religion of Etruscans. 2 volumes. Chicago and London; for the Scandinavian mythology - Hollander, L.M. (1928) The Poetic Edda. Austin; Young, J. (1954) The Prose Edda. Cambridge; Terry, P. (1982) Poems of the Vikings: The Elder Edda. Indianapolis; TurvillePetre, E.O.G. (1964) Myth and Religion of the North. London; Foot, P. and Wilson, D.M. (1979) The Viking Achievement. The Society and Culture of Early Medieval Scandinavia. London; for the Celtic mythology Davidson Ellis, H.R. (1988) Myths and Symbols in Pagan Europe: Early Scandinavian and Celtic Religions. Manchester; Goodenough, S. (1997) Celtic Mythology. New York; Atkinson, R.J.C. (1956) Stonehenge. London; Clarke, D.V., Cowie, T.G. and Foxon, A. (1985) Symbols of Power at the Time of Stonehenge. Edinburg; Jacobstal, P. (1969) Early Celtic Art. 2 volumes. Oxford; for the Baltic mythology – Gimbutas, M. (1963) The Balts. London; Biezais, H. (1972) Die Himmlische Gotterfamilie der alten Letten. Uppsala; Puhvel, J. (1973) The Baltic Pantheon, Baltic Literature and Linguistic. Columbus; for the Slavic mythology Rybakov, B.A. (1981) The Paganism of Ancient Slavs (in Russian: Язычество Древних Славян). Moscow; Rybakov, B.A. (1987) The Paganism of Old Russia (in Russian: Язычество Древней Руси). Moscow. 42 Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) v. 1, 695. 43 Golan (1993) 28. 44 Gimbutas (1963) 200.

Zeus’ original female counterpart: her identity and evolution The Indo-European linguistic, folk-lore, and mythological evidence reveals that the Indo-European God of the clear sky *t’y-eu-s /*t’ei-w(o)-s /*t’iu(n)- (>*dyeu-s /*d(e)iw(o)-s /*di(o)u-n-) initially had a female counterpart designated with a derivative from the same root *t’y-/*t’ei-/*t’iu-. Her original (PIE) designation *di(u)v-i-a /*d(e)iw-a /*di(o)u-n-a is traced in a sufficient number of divine female names and terms identified in various Indo-European languages, mythologies, and religions, precisely:  in the name of the Mycenaean Greek goddess di-u-ja / di-wi-ja > *Diwija > ΔιFια,46 the direct female cognate of Zeus (Myc. *ΔιFεύς) and, seemingly, old supreme Greek 45

Ivanov and Toporov (1994b, c). It has been read in the PY Cn 1287.6, PY Tn 316.6, PY An 607.5, KN Xd 97, and possibly in the TH Gp 313.2 (where di-wi-ja[ ), see Landau (1958) 43, 44; Morpurgo (1963) 67 (di-u-ja / di-wi-ja); Ruijgh (1967) 130-131; Baumbach (1968) 152; Heubeck (1970) 69; Deroy (1974) 13, 25; RE Suppl. XV (1978) col. 1003 (diuja); Jorro and Adrados (1985-1993) v.1, 178-179 (di-u-ja); Leukart (1994) 175-177; Aravantinos, Godart and Sacconi (2002) 177. For the derivation of di-u-ja / di-wi-ja from the main theme *diw- < *t’yeu-/*t’eiw-, see esp. Heubeck (1970) 69: di-u-ja < diu-ija, where –ija is a female suffix; also Jameson (1960) 37. 46

8

 in the name of the old supreme Slavic goddess Diva (vocative form Divo > noun divo “miracle”), who was paired with Div-Diy; in various Slavic languages, her name is attested in the forms Divά / Divy (Cheh.), Dzivo (Polish), Dziwja / Dziwica (Serbian-Luz.);54  in the Vedic female term for the sky Dyava / Dyaur, which also designated the feminine side of the supreme sky-god Dyάus (RV 1.57.5c, 3.54.6a-d);55  in the Phrygian divine name evtevey, the “Good Goddess (of the shining sky)” (< *ew(e)-diwija), possibly applied to the Great Mother-Goddess Kybela (note the Greek epithet εὔδιος < *εὔ-διFος “clear sky” < *εὔ-ΔιFος “Good *ΔιFεύς / Ζεύς”),56  in some other terms.57

goddess with the characteristics of a universal female deity;  in the ancient Greek epithet δῖα < ΔιFια < di-u-ja / diwi-ja, applied to various goddesses and women with the intention to emphasize their high or exclusive position as well as their beauty; it could be used alone and as a part of the epithetic formulae δῖα θεάων and δῖα γυναικῶν;47  in the name of the old Italic goddess Divia / Diuvia / Diovia, who survived in Rome as Dia (CIL 6.2023, 2030)48 and was partly transformed into Diana < Divi-ana, the deity of the Moon, nature, birth, and virginity;49  in the name of the supreme Etruscan goddess Uni < *dioun-, the consort of the supreme Etruscan god Tin;50  in the name of the Etruscan Moon-goddess Tiu;51  in the name of the supreme Roman goddess Juno < *(D)io-u(i)n-o, the sister and wife of Jupiter;52  in the name of the Gaulish goddess Divona known from inscriptions (CIL 12.1241, 2768);  in the name of the highest Lithuanian goddess Deive, the consort of the supreme Lithuanian god Dievas;53

The old Indo-European goddess’ original name *di(u)v-i-a /*d(e)iw-a /*di(o)u-n-a derived from the root *t’y-/*t’ei/*t’iu- may be etymologized as “she-clear sky”. It reveals her direct genetic kinship with the PIE God of the clear sky *t’y-eu-s/*t’ei-w(o)-s/*t’iu(n)- and indicates her original nature as that expressing the female aspect of the initial Indo-European concept of the clear sky and daylight.

47

For δῖα < ΔιFια < di-u-ja, see Προμπονάς (1980) 95 n.29; Gerard-Rousseau (1968) 68-69. For the use of δῖα in the Iliad and the Odyssey, see Tebben (1998) v.1, 457, and Tebben (1994) v.1, 331-332. 48 Indigenous Italic Divia/Diuvia must have been the original female cognate and counterpart of Jupiter < *Diovis, as far as the names of both are based on the stem *diw-. She was replaced by Juno, whose name is based on the stem *dioun- (perhaps, under the Etruscan influence), but continued to be worshipped separately from Jupiter. In Rome, the ancient religious community of Fratres Arvales specifically venerated her as Dea Dia: the goddess had her own sacred grove and was honored at a specific festival, which was held for her in May and lasted three days. Perhaps, she was seen in some relation to the sunlight and the light of the moon, as well as to the fertility of the earth (Whatmough (1922) 184-185; Altheim (1938) 166; Pokorny (1959) v.1, 185; Dumezil (1970) v.1, 35; Beard, North and Price (1998) 195). 49 Pokorny (1959) v. 1, 185 (diuios). 50 Prayon (2002). 51 Stoltenberg Giessen (1957) 18-19; Pokorny (1959) v.1, 185 (diuios). 52 It has been argued that Juno was originally a feminine deity of the bright day sky, but also had strong links with the moonlight and especially with the first moon. She was worshipped as a goddess of fertility, harvest, marriage and childbirth, and was probably connected with the beginning of summer, as the Roman month June bearing her name may indicate (Shields (1926) 10-11, Ernout and Meillet (1985) 328-329 (Iuno); Stuart (1984-1987) v.1, 150). 53 Deive was especially concerned about fertility, wild nature (forests, lakes), and marriage, but also had strong potentialities to become “bad” or “evil” goddess connected with the notions of death and plague; moreover, she could be associated with the negative demonic powers. In spite of her position as the official consort of the supreme god Dievas, she could also appear as his antagonist (Ivanov and Toporov (1994a); Usener

Arguing for the primitive Indo-European perception of the female side of the shining-sunny sky and tracing its Greek survivals, one may note the feminine noun αἴθρη “air”, used by Homer with the particular meaning “clear sky”,58 and the word αἰθήρ meaning “the highest level of the air”, which occurs in Homer as a feminine noun and (1896) 89; Pokorny (1959) v.1, 186). 54 Diva had strong links with the sky and the sun, but also with the earth, especially with the earth in spring, with the month May, and harvest. She was venerated as a patroness of femininity and birth and appeared as a divinity of life in general. It has been argued that Diva was originally the Slavic mistress of the world. In some Slavic traditions, the name Diva is applied to primitive female deities imagined as beautiful young women connected with the month June and the period of harvest, as well as with lakes and more generally with the wild nature and its negative aspect, see Rybakov (1987) 437438, 508, 528, 582, 632, 672-3, 678; Ivanov and Toporov (1994b, c). 55 In the Rig Veda, Dyava/Dyaur is joined with the female deity of earth ksama (formally cognate to Greek χθών, Pokorny (1959) v.1, 414), and both are imagined as beautiful and very young divine sisters, who are, however, characterized as “the mothers of everything” (RV 3.54.7a-d, 8a; 3.31.12c), Monier-Williams (1899) 499-500 (Dyava). 56 Woudhuizen (1993) 16-17, 22; Liddell and Scott (1996) 710 (εὔδιος). 57 Note also some Indo-European words for goddess, as Oscan *deiva (attested in the form of the dative pl. deivai “for the goddesses”, Buck (1974) nu.45. 15, 43), Cornish dewes, and Early Modern Albanian zeve, all derived from the same root *t’y-/*t’ei-/*t’iu-, Stuart (1984-1987) v.1, 150. 58 Liddell and Scott (1996) 37 (αἴθρη). 9

only in the later Greek language became a masculine one.59 It may be stated that the original feminine gender of the words αἴθρη and αἰθήρ in the Greek language was rooted in and thereby points at the primal Greek idea about the female aspect of the sky. Furthermore, it deserves to be mentioned the Homeric verse “αἰθέρος ἐκ δίης”, literally “from the clear-sunny feminine air” (Il. 16.364-365): it remarkably combines the femininegendered noun αἰθήρ and the adjective δῖα, which was normally used as a divine female epithet. Such a combination may be seen as an echo of the original association of the notion of the divine femininity with that of the clear sky in the Greek oral tradition and perception. Likewise, the later Greek terms εὐ-δία “clear sky”, “good weather”, and ἐν-δία “mid-day”, with the Macedonian form ἐν-δέα, all of them being of the feminine gender, indicate the original Greek perception of the day-sky as that, which may have female nature. Moreover, it is significant that the Greek term εὐδία finds its direct linguistic correspondence in the Phrygian divine name evtevey < *ew(e)-diwija literally meaning “good goddess of the shining sky” (see above), which suggests a common origin of both in the same religious concept.

fairly known in Europe from the Neolithic period and were especially favoured in the Helladic world during the Late Bronze Age.64 In relation to this, it is significant that even in the historic time certain bird-elements pointing at the initial connection with the sky still occurred in the cults of various Greek goddesses (especially in those of Athena, Hera, and Aphrodite, as well as in some others). Concerning the PIE Goddess of the clear sky *di(u)v-i-a /*d(e)iw-a /*di(o)u-n-a, it is necessary to emphasize that the direct etymological cognation between her and the PIE God of the clear sky signifies the original perception of these two deities as twin brother and sister,65 or as the pair “he-clear sky-and-she-clear sky”. The concept of the PIE Goddess of the clear sky may be established on the basis of the characteristics of the IndoEuropean female divinities derived from her. Thus, it may be attested that in most of the cases those divinities were officially paired as spouses with the gods developed from the Proto-Indo-European God of the clear sky *t’y-eus/*t’ei-w(o)-s/*t’iu-n-, held the position of supremacy, were connected with the sky, etymologically with the clear day sky, as well as with the moon, the fertile earth, and the wild nature, were associated with spring and the beginning of summer, were concerned about womanhood, marriage and motherhood, but could also be linked to youth and virginity. Some of them had certain negative characteristics and a sort of orgiastic or even evil character, as it is usual for deities of a very early origin, and tended to separate from their original male counterparts. It may be argued that all these features originally characterized the Proto-Indo-European goddess *di(u)v-i-a /*d(e)iw-a /*di(o)u-n-a, who therefore has to be considered not only the twin sister, but also the wife of the PIE God of the clear sky *t’y-eu-s /*t’ei-w(o)-s /*t’iun- (> *dyeu-s /*d(e)iw(o)-s /*di(o)u-n-).

Generally, the worship of supreme female deities as goddesses of sky and sun is attested from the Neolithic time in various cultures.60 It has been observed that in the Indo-European Early Bronze Age religious symbolism the sun was closely associated with the female sex.61 The original Indo-European designation of the sun *s(a)wHel/n- was heteroclite and initially had a feminine and a neuter forms.62 The female aspect of the original IndoEuropean concept of the sun is traced in some IndoEuropean religious and mythological traditions (especially Germanic, Baltic, and Celtic), where the sun appears as a female deity (as Germanic Sol, Baltic Saule).63 The original Indo-European comprehension of the female nature of the sun is still exposed in some modern Indo-European languages, where the word for the sun is of feminine gender (as sonne in German).

The circumstance that the Proto-Indo-European God and Goddess of the clear sky initially formed a pair of twins who became spouses evokes the traditional Indo-European myth of the twins’ incest, which conventionalized the primitive Indo-European conception about the beginning and evolution of life through the interaction of two opposite, but cognate basic principles imagined as twin brother and sister.66 The development of this myth is

Furthermore, the universal association of early female divinities with the sky may be recognized in the female idols performed with the features of a bird (as a bird-like head and wings), given that a bird might be viewed as a manifestation of a sky-deity. Such representations are Liddell and Scott (1996) 37 (αἰθήρ). Golan (1993) 12-32; Przyluski (1950) 26, 133. Two Neolithic representations of females, possibly deities, with a nimbus, which may have been used for rendering the idea of shine, are worth to be noted: a goddess with a nimbus, 6th millennium BC, from Asia Minor (Mellaart (1970) v. 2, 329) and a female with shining nimbus, from Romania, Neolithic period (Dumitrescu (1979) pl.54). Note also the old Sumerian Sky-goddess Antum, female counterpart of the Sky-god Anu; see Afanasieva (1994a). 61 Goodison (1989) 16-20. 62 Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) v.1, 590-591. 63 Ward (1970) 410; Gimbutas (1963) 190, 198-199; Rankin (1987) 261-262. 59

64

For the bird-like appearance of primitive female deities, see Gimbutas (1989) 2-17, 30-41, and oths. For the Greek Bronze Age female statuettes resembling birds, see French (1971) 109, fig. 1. 65 For the Indo-European twins myth, see Ivanov (1994a). 66 For the Indo-European myth of the twins’ incest, see Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) v.1, 680-681; the scholars refer to the Indo-Iranian myth about Yama, the first human, and his sister Yami who tried to persuade him to commit incest (RV 10.10), the Old Hittite myth about thirty twin brothers who married their thirty sisters, and the Celtic myth about three twin brothers and a sister, of whom the latter persuaded her brothers to sleep with her so she would not be childless.

60

10

predetermined by the necessity to eliminate from it the incestuous element, so that the twins-lovers/spouses may become antagonists and even reach the full separation. Sequentially, one of the twins, usually the sister, can be substituted by other divinity and even completely disappear from the mythology and religion.67 Thus, concerning the Greek religion and mythology, it appears that Zeus (< Myc. *Diweus) and *Diwija (< Myc. di-u-ja / di-wi-ja) represented the original Indo-European divine couple of the divinities of the clear sky, twin brother and sister / husband and wife, and held together the supreme position in the initial Greek pantheon. However, the available evidence related to the Mycenaean period, especially the Pylian tablet Tn 316, indicates that in the Late Bronze Age, the goddess di-u-ja / di-wi-ja was worshiped as an independent deity separated from the god di-we > Zeus.68 This means that the Greek version of the original Indo-European couple “he-clear sky and sheclear sky” had definitely been separated by the Mycenaean time, and almost nothing was anymore remembered about their initial cognation and their former marriage.69 However, the religious perception of the Greeks needed to put forward some other female deity in such an important place as that of the female counterpart of the supreme god. The following indications help to infer that the main successor of the old goddess of the clear sky *Diwija in the Greek religion and mythology as known from the late prehistoric time onward was the goddess Hera. During the Mycenaean period, she as e-ra70 had occurred in pair with di-we / Zeus in his sanctuary Diwijon at Pylos, at least for one certain ceremony (PY Tn 316.8-9). In the Greek mythological tradition as attested from Homer, Hera held the position of the official sister and wife of Zeus, but she was always opposed to him and even appeared wrathful and evil (note her typical epithets in the Iliad: “angered”, “wrathful” / χωομένη, Il. 21.384, 413, and “crafty” / δολοφρονέουσα, Il. 14.197). As it may be observed, the remarkable Homeric scene of Zeus’ seduction by Hera (Il. 14.153-350) bears certain features of the traditional Indo-

European myth of the twins’ incest. It is noteworthy that in some myths Hera appears able to beget offspring by herself, without having been fertilized by a male element,71 while the Archaic poet Alkaeus called Hera “the Aeolian illustrious Goddess, Mother of all / πάντων γενέθλαν”.72 It does not seem impossible to suppose that the concept of Hera originated in that of some earlier goddess, who was considered the mother of all and was adequate to the god-father of all, Ζεύς πατήρ < *t’yeu(s)phHther. Hera’s physical strength demonstrated in her ability to shake Olympos at the moment when she takes her seat upon it, on her throne (Il. 8.198-199), is strikingly identical with that of Zeus (Il. 8.442-443), while no other of the Homeric gods is endowed with the same power. The same physical powers of these two deities, perhaps, signify their association with the same or cognate forces of nature, as it was supposed in the original kinship of Zeus with *Diwija. Similarly to Zeus and the IndoEuropean solar deities, Homeric Hera rides in the sky in a golden chariot drawn by swift horses (Il. 5.720-732, 748), and there is also evidence for the worship of this goddess as a Charioteer in the historic time (e.g., at Lebadeia in Boeotia, Paus. 9.39.4). This feature might recall the association of Hera with the solar nature,73 which would have been analogous to the original link of Zeus with the shine of the sun. In regard to this, it is important that certain characteristics given by Homer to Hera link her to the notions of sun-like shine and whiteness: e.g., in the scene of the seduction of Zeus, Hera “plaited the bright (φαεινούς, lit. “shining like the sun”) tresses, fair and ambrosial” (Il. 14.176-177), and “abundant grace shone from” her / “χάρις δ’ἀπελάμπετο πολλή” (Il. 14.183), while her veil “was white as the sun” / “λευκόν δ’ἦν ἠέλιος ὥς” (Il. 14.184-185). The reference to Hera in the Il. 71

In the mythology, the ability of parthenogenesis was not exclusive for Hera; however, the following myths related to her are worth of attention: according to the Homeric Hymn to Pythian Apollo, Hera bore the monstrous creature Typhon, adversary of Zeus, having become pregnant with him by touching the earth (Hymn. Hom. Ap. 331-352), and, likewise, without intercourse with Zeus, she bore Hephaistos (Hymn. Hom. Ap. 317). According to some other mythological traditions, Heba and Ares were the fatherless children of Hera (Cook (1906) 366). 72 Lobel and Page (1955) 176, frg. G 1.7-8 ; Page (1955) 161-169, frg. G 1.7. 73 Curtius (1879) 551-552, initially supported by Liddell, H.G. and Scott, R. (1883) A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford, p. 654, suggested that the name ‛Ήρη / ‛Ήρα may derive from the Indo-European root *sauel-/*sauol/*suuel-/*suel-/*sul-, used for the designations of the sun, sky, and celestial bodies (Pokorny (1959) v.1, 881), and thus should be related to the Sanskrit suvar and the Avestic hvare, both meaning “sun”, “light”, and “fire” < Indo-Iranian svar- “celestial fire”, the Greek word ἠέλιος / ἥλιος “sun”, the Lat. sol, -is “sun”, and oths. This etymology was eventually rejected, but an attempt to connect the name of Hera with the primitive IndoEuropean notions of sky and sun is worth of attention .

67

Zolotnikova (2004) 61. The text and the translation of the Tn 316 tablet see in Palmer (1963) 261-268; Ventris and Chadwick (1973) 286-287; Προμπονάς (1980) 90-97. 69 The marriage of *Diwija > Dia and Zeus was echoed in the Thessalian myth about the birth of Peirithoos, the king of Lapithes, from Zeus and Dia, Il. 14.317-318. 70 For the identification of the Linear B e-ra with the name of the goddess ‛Ήρη / ‛Ήρα in the Pylian tablet Tn 316 = Un 11.8, and in the tablet TH Of 28.2 from Thebes, see Ventris and Chadwick (1973) 126; Spyropoulos and Chadwick (1975) 91, 105; Προπμπονάς (1980) 96 n.32. An unclear “…era/ije[re]u” read in the tablet Kn As 821.2 from Phaistos may be interpreted as “ἱερεύς of Hera”, which suggests the presence of this goddess at Phaistos (Gerard-Rousseau (1968) 95-96). However, e-ra is also abundantly attested as a place-name in the tablets from Knossos (Palmer (1963) 276). 68

11

18.239-241: “the unwearying sun was sent by ox-eyed, queenly Hera to go his way, unwilling, to the stream of Ocean. So the sun set…”, seems to praise Hera’s omnipotent power in the sky and her obvious supremacy over the sun. In the most expressive way, the solar and shining nature of Hera seems to have been rendered in the clay akroterion of her temple in Olympia, which is dated to the end of the 7th – beginning of the 6th century BC: it was performed as a great disc comprising multiple concentric circles and possibly resembled a “solar or an astral symbol”.74 In addition, it may be noted that Hera maintained in her supposed appearance some bird-like features: in the Il. 5.778, she is compared to a dove, while the earliest representations of Hera found in some of her the most ancient cult-places (the Heraia at Argos, Samos, and Delos) follow the iconography of a bird-goddess (see Fig.79).75 The characteristics pointing to the bird-nature of Hera may, likewise, indicate her original connection with the sky and, hence, her derivation from an early skygoddess.76 Finally, attention must be given to the goddess’ name – ‛Ήρη / ‛Ήρα: it is virtually a simplest feminine adjective formed on the basis of the Indo-European root *ier-/*ior-, which expresses the notions of fury, rage, wrath, passion, violent anger, and vigor,77 and it literally means “furious”, “wrathful”, etc.. It seems likely that the goddess known as Hera originally had some other name, as well as qualities of furious, raging, wrathful, and violent deity; the latter may have been the reason of that she began to be designated with the epithet ἥρη / ἥρα, which eventually would have replaced her personal name. It is relevant to note that the association of characteristics

related to rage and fury with gods / goddesses is normally rooted in primitive religious perception. To sum up the considered above, the early Greek religion and mythology seem to have inherited from the initial Indo-European divine system the worship of the God of the clear sky and the Goddess of the clear sky under the Greek names Ζεύς and *Diwija. Those deities personified correspondingly the male and the female aspects of the clear day sky and would originally have been perceived as cognate to each other, self-appeared divine elements or powers, which, as far as their anthropomorphic concepts were being shaped, started to be imagined as a brother and a sister, on the hand, a husband and a wife, on the other, and, finally, the father and the mother of all. In the original Greek religious perception, they were most probably considered the primal supreme divine couple, but were treated in the primitive Greek mythology in accordance with the Indo-European twins myth in the variation a brother and a “bad” sister, who become a husband and an “evil” wife, respectively. Perhaps, on a certain phase of the evolution of the Bronze Age Greek religion and mythology, the original sister and consort of the god Zeus, the goddess *Diwija, began to be seen as an evil-minded and antagonistic to Zeus deity and possibly even as a furious and wrathful goddess, who may have been characterized with the adjective-epithet ἥρη / ἥρα. The result of the development of the old and primitive concept of the early Greek goddess *Diwija must have been her differentiation into several female deities, one of which, the main, inherited the position of Zeus’ sisterwife as well as a furious, wrathful, and competitive character, just as the designation ἥρη / ἥρα might imply. She would have been that female deity who from the late prehistoric time onward was worshiped in the Greek religion and occurred in the Greek mythology as Hera ‛Ήρη / ‛Ήρα. The very goddess *Diwija continued to be worshiped separately from Zeus Πελείαι, as well as with the goddess I-pe-me-de > Ἰφιμέδεια, both mentioned together with her in the Pylian tablet Tn 316. Di-u-ja / di-wi-ja practically disappeared from the Greek religion and mythology towards the beginning of the historic time. However, it is remarkable that in the historic time the worship of ΔιFια was practiced in Pamphylia, where she was honoured as one of the highest goddesses.78

74

Γιαλούρη and Γιαλούρης (1999) 81, Museum of Olympia, nu. Π 2969. 75 Waldstein (1902-1905) v.2, 3-44 “The Terracotta Figurines”; Jarosch (1994), esp. pl. 36 (see also Chapter 3, 3.1.35. Heraion in Samos); Plassart (1928) 160, fig.116 – terracotta statuette of “uniquely winged Hera” from the mid-sixth century BC deposit at the Heraion in Delos. 76 O’Brien (1993) 4, 234, argues that early Hera was both a sky-goddess and a chthonic earth-goddess. 77 Kazansky (1989) 54-58. The scholar argues that, apart from the name ‛Ήρη / ‛Ήρα, the Indo-European root *ier/*ior- had produced a number of other Indo-European mythic and personal names and appellatives, as the Greek mythic name ‛Ηρακλής, which is etymologically analogous to the old Russian personal name Ярослав (Iaroslav) – both literally meaning “famous by his rage”, the Greek word ἥρως, the Russian word ярость (iarost') “rage”, and the name of the Luvian war-god Yarri-. West (1988) 157, supposes that the name ‛Ήρη / ‛Ήρα may have derived from the original *Yera ( (?) Hera is the

79

12

mythological tradition used by Homer in relation to Zeus and Hera was basically Indo-European, although it had been modified in the course of time. Zeus-Father as a son-god A serious inconsistency of the concept of Homeric Ζεύς πατήρ with the very idea of the Indo-European God of the clear sky-progenitor, a self-born deity of whom everything is sprung, lies in the state of Zeus as that of a son of other deities, denoted in the Homeric poems by means of the epithets Κρόνου πάϊς (Il. 2.205), Κρονίδης (Il. 1.498, and often), and Κρονίων (Il. 1.397, and often). The myth about the generations of the gods older than Ζεύς πατήρ was not especially referred to by Homer (note brief Il. 14.274, and 15.225), but it was narrated in details by Hesiod in the Theogony only some decades later. The study of Hesiod’s poem has made it possible to conclude that the Greek succession myth had been shaped during the Dark Age – 8th century BC80 on the basis of the NearEastern, precisely Babylonian and Hurrian, prototypes, which may have become known to the late prehistoric EIA Greeks through the Hittite or Phoenician versions of the correspondent myths.81 However, it is worth to be noted that in the late Hittite mythology, the Hittite counterpart of Greek Zeus - the sun-god Siuna was not included in the line of the generations of gods represented by Babylonian, Hurrian, and Hittite deities, but held an independent and arbitrary position.82 This case suggests that it had not been the adoption of the Near-Eastern succession myths, which caused the mythic sonship of Greek Ζεύς πατήρ. Virtually, the Greek mythology could adopt the succession myth and develop such a divine system, which supposed Ζεύς πατήρ to be the youngest and last among the supreme gods, only after the secure combination of the concept of Zeus-Father with that of a young god / divine son. That must have happened before the end of the prehistoric period and, as it seems, not under the Near-Eastern influence, but because of some other reasons. Nevertheless, the origins of the idea about the sonship of Greek Ζεύς πατήρ should be searched beyond the Indo-European tradition.

phenomena accompanying storm, such as thunder, lightning, rain, etc.. Originally, the common IndoEuropean Storm-God was clearly distinct from the IndoEuropean God of the shining day sky not only by his nature, but also by his primary name, which was pherkhou-n(o)-/*pheru-n(o)- derived from the root pherkho(u)-(s)/*pheru-(s) “oak” (supposedly, the exclusive tree of the Storm-god).83 Significantly, most of the names of the Indo-European storm-gods trace to this root, which had also produced numerous derivatives expressing the notions of thunder, rain, clouds, and mountain top (where clouds are concentrated) in various Indo-European languages, e.g.: the name of the Hittite god Pirwa (or Peruwa) who was worshiped in association with mountain rocks, and the Hittite noun peruna- “cliff”; possibly, the name of the Thracian deity Περκων; the name of the Vedic god of thunder and rain Parjάnya-, the Sanskrit noun parjanya- “rain cloud”, the name of the Vedic mountain-god Pάrvata-, and the Sanskrit noun parvata- “mountain” and “mountain clouds”; the names of the Lithuanian and Latvian gods of thunder Perkunas and Perkuns respectively; the Old Prussian noun percunis “thunder”; the name of the Slavic-Russian god of thunder and of the prince’s military entourage Perun, as well as the Old Russian noun perun “thunderbolt”; the Latin noun quercus “oak” ( *περ-τι- > τερ-πι- due to metathesis) would have been from *pherkhou-s and *peraunos - from *pheru-n(o)-.100 97

For example, the Vedic storm-deity Indra was thought of as born for a specific mission - to kill the regressive and anti-cosmic creature Vritra (RV 3.51.8c-d; 8.78.5; 10.55, and oth.), while the Vedic hymns always stress that he performed all his world-ordering actions having been intoxicated by the divine drink Soma (RV 1.56.6c; 2.12.2). According to RV 3.38.9a, Indra arranged the world not alone, but with another important god Varuna, whereas both were directed by a specific supreme reason. It may be argued that an echo of the same idea occurs in Kleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus, where all the exploits of Zeus, the god of thunderbolt, are considered the fulfillment of a particular purpose determined by the supreme “universal reason” (κοινός λόγος), while Zeus guides the universe in its evolution according to “one ever-existing rational order for everything”, see Thom (2005) 40-41, and Zunz (1958), lines 7-21, esp. the lines 12 and 21. 98 See for the general characteristics of the Indo-European Storm-god the studies by Ivanov and Toporov (1994f) 529-530; Ivanov and Toporov (1994g, h); Meletensky (1994c); Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) v.1, 694-695. For the Indo-European storm-deity, see also Usener (1905); Blinkenberg (1911) 14. 99 Pokorny (1959) v.1, 1094 (trep-2); Liddell and Scott (1996) 1777 (τερπικέραυνος). 100 Janko (1992) 348 (without specifying explanation). Mikkola (1898) 303, argued that the Greek word κεραυνός must be derived from the PIE root *pheru-(s) >*pheru-n(o)- and has to be considered an alteration of the tabooed *περαυνός: κεραυνός < *perauno
Diwijon,111 while the terms applied to sanctuaries in the historic time were τέμενος “open-air sacred place”, ἱερόν “sacred place” in general, and ναός “temple”, or lit. “dwelling” < ναίω “to dwell”. Except that, the idea of the built “houses of gods” on Mt. Olympos does not exactly correspond to the archaeological evidence for the religious activity on that

108

For Ζεύς αἰγίοχος, see Tebben (1998) v.1, 35-36; for νεφεληγερέτα Ζεύς, see Tebben (1998) v.2, 1169 (over 20 times); for Ζεύς ὑψιβρεμέτης, see Tebben (1998) v.3, 1704 (4 times). 109 Μπαμπινιώτης (1998) 1262 (Όλυμπος). 110 Tebben (1998) v.3, 1249-1250.

111

Jorro and Adrados (1985-1993) v. 1, 179-180 (di-u-jo); Ilievski (1963) 148-149; Chadwick and Baumbach (1963) 198-199 (Ζεύς).

17

mountain, where the earliest known sanctuary was built only in the Hellenistic time (see later, Chapter 2, 2.2.6. Mycenaean sites located on high places). Furthermore, the Homeric picture of the δῶμα Διὸς discords with the open-air character of worship of Zeus, which predominated in all the Greek territories during the early historic time (see Chapter 3). All these circumstances cause the question concerning the origins of the theme of the “house of Zeus” on Mt. Olympos in the Greek Aeolian epic diction, from which it passed into the poems of Homer and into the Classical Greek mythology.

characteristic Πελασγικός applied to the god of Dodona by the epic diction may have been a reminiscence of a pre-Greek origin of the cult and also an indication of its strongly maintained non-Greek character, which seems to have been reflected in the attendance of the god by a remarkable body of priests, the Helloi / Selloi, known as Zeus’ “interpreters, with unwashed feet, sleepers on the ground” (Il. 16.234-235). However, the circumstance that the cult-place at Dodona was mentioned in the Homeric poems in association with Zeus indicates that the original storm-god of Dodona, whoever he was, had been substituted by Zeus apparently before the composition of the Homeric poems.

Zeus and Mt. Ida (Troas) The mountain Ida in Asia Minor (see Fig.78) is another important point of the stormy activities of Homeric Zeus: “the son of Kronos”/ Κρονίδης, “whose voice resounds afar”/ εὐρύοπα, likes to occupy the mountain highest peak Gargaron, where he appears “wrapped in dark clouds” / κελαινεφής (Il. 14.157-158, 15.152-153, 24.290-291). Sometimes, “the father of men and gods” manifests himself on the peaks of Mt. Ida having come “down from heaven” and “holding lightning in his both hands” (Il. 11.182-184). The remarkable Homeric scene of Zeus’ seduction by Hera (Il. 14.153-350), too, is connected with the mountain Ida. Zeus when referred to by Homer in association with Mt. Ida is called Idaios (Il. 16.605, 24.290-291), and the mention of a “priest of Idaean Zeus” (“Διὸς ἱρεὺς Ἰδαίου”) in the Il. 16.604-605 might suggest that the cult of this god could actually be practiced in Western Asia Minor in the late prehistoric – early historic time (see also Chapter 3, 33 / 34. Troy / Gargaron, Mt. Ida).

Zeus and Typhoeus Homer briefly mentions the myth, undoubtedly well known to the Greek audience of the 8th century BC, about the victorious combat of Zeus τερπικέραυνος with the creature Typhoeus / Τυφωεύς, who after his defeat was hidden under the mountains Arimes and is struck by the thunderbolts of Zeus, when the god feels angry with him (Il. 2.781-783). Some more details of this myth are known from the later tradition: Typhoeus was thought of as a cruel and evil monster with one hundred heads, created by Gaia or Hera to challenge Zeus and “to be a plague to men”, but Zeus struck him with a thunderbolt, burned all his heads, and cast him beneath the earth (Hes. Theog. 820-868; Hymn. Hom. Ap. 305- 355, Pind. Pyth. 1.15-28; Aesch. Sept. 511-514, 517, 521- 524; PV 351372).113 The iconographical image of Typhoeus is known from the 7th century BC: it was a combination of anthropomorphic and reptile features; representations of the battle of Zeus and Typhoeus are attested from the mid 6th century BC.114

Zeus and Dodona The link of Zeus with Dodona, which is attested from the time of Homer due to the famous appeal by Ahilleus to “Ζεῦ ἄνα-lord (or king), Δωδωναῖε, Πελασγικέ”, “ruling over wintry Dodona” (Il. 16.233-234), had played a special role in the formation of the concept of Zeus as that of a storm-god. It is significant that both the Homeric poems clearly indicate the existence of the well-known sanctuary of Zeus at Dodona already in the earliest historic time (Il. 16.233-235, Od. 14.327-328, see also Chapter 3, 3.1.1. Dodona). As the etymological evidence suggests, Dodona must originally have been associated with some Indo-European storm-deity, whose name or epithet would have given the place its name:112 the place-name Δωδώνη appears to have been formed on the basis of the root *dheu-dh- “to shake”, which had produced a number of imitating the sound of thunder designations of storm-gods in other Indo-European traditions, as Dodol and Dunder among the Southern Slavs, and Dundulis, Dundutis, and Dudusenis among the Balts (see above). Perhaps, it is possible to argue that the original storm-deity of Dodona was male - a god whose name may be reconstructed as something like *Δωδών (< *δων-δων as a thunder-resembling sound ?). The

The name Τυφωεύς used by Homer had the alternative form Τυφάων (Hes. Theog. 306): both derive from the original form Τυφώς due to “accumulation de suffixes” άων and -εύς, which may indicate “une origine prehellenique” of the monster’s name.115 The stem of the name Τυφωεύς, which is τυφ(ο)-, traces to the IndoEuropean root *dheu-/*dheue- in the suffixed form dheu-bh- expressing the notion of cloudy and smoky air. In the Ancient Greek language, this root had produced such words as τύφω “to raise a smoke”, “to create a cloud”, and τῦφος “smoke”, “vapour”, generally “darkness”, “fogginess”.116 It is noteworthy that the early mythological tradition considered Typhoeus / Typhaon the father of fierce winds: “…From Typhoeus come boisterous winds which blow damply, except Notos and Boreas and clear Zephyros…” (Hes. Theog. 869-870). In 113

For the myth of Typhoeus, see especially the study by Worms (1953). 114 Touchefeu-Meynier (1997). 115 Ruijgh (1968) 119-120; Chantraine (1968) 1148 (Τυφωεύς). 116 Pokorny (1959) v.1, 261 (dheu-, dheue- 4), 263-264 (bh-Erw.: dheubh-); Chantraine (1968) 1148 (Τυφωεύς); Liddell and Scott (1996) 1838 (τύφω); Σταματάκος (1972) 1018 (τῦφος).

112

Note the conjecture made by Evans (1974) 104: “… the name Dodona is derived from the cult name of a thunder-god”. 18

myth about Zeus and Typhoeus has to be connected with the Early Bronze Age.

the later Greek language, the initial form Tυφώς and the contracted form Τυφῶν of the mythic name Typhoeus / Typhaon were used as appellative nouns with the meanings “whirlwind”, “cyclone”, and “tempestuousviolent storm”.117 Concerning this, it deserves to be noted Suida’s interpretation of the ancient Greek word τυφῶν as a violent, big, strong lightning or as a concentration of clouds in the sky, as well as strong winds.118 With the last of those meanings, the word τυφῶν had been borrowed by some other Indo-European languages (note typhoon in English, typhon in French, Taifun in German). Thus, the etymology, in combination with the mythic tradition, indicates that the name of the monster Typhoeus / Typhaon < *Τυφώς is, firstly, linked to the notions of tempestuous wind, hurricane, storm, and the like, secondly, cognate to certain names of Baltic and Slavic storm-gods, as well as to the place name Δωδώνη likewise formed on the basis of the root *dheu-/ *dheue> *dheu-dh-, and, finally, clearly distinct from the names used to designate adversaries of storm-gods in other IndoEuropean traditions.

1.3.3. Concluding remarks on the natural aspects of Homeric Zeus To summarize the above, the consideration of the characteristics indicating the natural aspects of Zeus as he appears in the Iliad leads to the conclusion that the figure of Homeric Zeus had been a combination of two main archetypal Indo-European gods - the God of the clear sky, passive god-father of all, and the Storm-god, active and energetic deity, victorious adversary of an anti-cosmic monster. The former is recognized due to the very name of Zeus, given that Ζεύς πατήρ < *t’yeu(s)-phHther, while the latter is implied in most of the epithets and functions of Zeus as he is described and acts in the Homeric poems, even though the proper name of the original Greek < Indo-European storm-god had not been preserved in that synthesis. It is important that the god of the clear sky and the storm-god both appear to have been actually venerated by the early Greeks, whether only on the level of beliefs or in certain forms of cult practice, but their evolution during the Bronze Age is not exactly certain. Except for the association with the stormy activity, untraditional for the Indo-European gods of the clear sky, another feature, which especially distinguishes Greek-Homeric Zeus among the other Indo-European gods having the same with him origin from the PIE god *t’yeu(s)-phHther, is his position as that of a son of other deities, older than he.

All the above seem to suggest that the creature Typhoeus / Typhaon originally personified a concept of a stormdeity and probably was a pre-Greek (Balkan?) variation of the Indo-European Storm-god. Hence, the myth about the tempestuous contraposition between Zeus “rejoicing in the thunderbolt” and Typhoeus may be understood as a reminiscence of the replacement of a pre-Greek stormdeity by an analogous Greek god, which may actually have happened within the context of the Greek invasion in Greece in the Early Bronze Age. Therefore, the chthonic affinities of Typhoeus / Typhaon, in particular his snake-like appearance and his position under the earth, as well as negative characteristics given to him in the Classical Greek mythology, may have been the result of his transformation into the adversary of a new stormgod, the Greek one, who, according to the basic IndoEuropean myth, was supposed to fight against a regressive monster-dragon.119 Perhaps, the core of the

This radical change of the original concept of Zeus, which is attested in the Greek mythology from the time of Homer, requires a special commentary. It may be argued that the transformation of the original Greek god of the clear sky into the storm-god was mainly caused by the association of the former with the mighty Thessalian storm-god, who would have been worshiped by the Aeolian Greeks as Ὀλύμπιος ἀστεροπητής and probably had occupied the central place in the Northern Greek pantheon towards the end of the prehistoric time. It appears that the early Aeolian Greeks must have had some remarkably deep, genetic links with the ideas about storm and always kept especially favourable attitude towards the storm-deities: this is suggested by the etymology of their ethnic name Αἰολεῖς formed from the Indo-European root *uel- “to turn around”, “to wind around”, etc.,120 as well as by the fact that in the historic time their mythic progenitor Αἴολος, lit. “Fast moving”, was venerated by all the Greeks as the lord of winds. The association of Zeus with the Thessalian storm-god would have begun within the Northern Mycenaean, that is, Aeolian, mythological imagery during the Late Mycenaean time, when the Northern Mycenaean cultural traditions became separated from the South-Mycenaean (Peloponnesian) ones. This association must have been completed before the end of the Dark Age, given that

117

Liddell and Scott (1996) 1838 (Τυφῶν, Τυφώς, Τυφωεύς); Etymologicon Magnum 772.30-31: “…τυφὼν γὰρ ἐστὶν ἡ τοῦ ἀνέμου σφοδρὰ πνοή…”. 118 Suida, τυφῶν: “κεραυνὸς βίαιος, πολὺς καὶ πνευματώδης. ἢ πνεῦμα καπνῶδες, ἐρρωγὸς ἀπὸ νέφους… τοὺς γὰρ καταιγιώδεις ἀνέμους τυφώς καλοῦσι”. 119 Scholars traditionally compare the combat between Zeus and Typhon, as that between Zeus and the Giants, with similar oriental myths and, thus, relate it to the NearEastern influence, see Walcot (1966) 31; Kirk (1973) 223; Dietrich (1974) 56-57. It is worth to be noted here the opinion of Littleton Scott (1970) 120, who assumes that “Zeus’ battle with the monster derives from an isolated story paralleling… the typical Indo-European myth of a fight between a second-function or warriorfigure and a tricephalic monster (cf. Indra versus the son of Tvastar, and the like)”. However, Littleton Scott believes that “this story later fused with a widespread non-Indo-European dragon-slaying account… that had been introduced into Greece by the Phoenicans in the

early 8th century BC” (ibidem). 120 Pokorny (1959) v.1, 1140-1142 (uel-). 19

Olympios Zeus securely passed into the Ionic epic as a storm-god. It may be supposed that the original warlike character of Greek Zeus, which is also attested in the concepts of other Indo-European gods of the clear sky, facilitated the transition to him of the functions of the Storm-god, who was traditionally imagined as a warrior.

Tocharian A noun natak “lord” may have derived from the original *wnatak, where *wn->n-,123 while wanax may be its cognate vocalized form. Wanax would thus have been quite an old Greek term virtually meaning “lord”, “master”.124 This interpretation may be confirmed by a bilingual Cypriot inscription of the early 4th century BC, where Fάναξ is equated with the Phoenician ‘dn [adon] “lord”.125 However, the precise content of the term wanax in the Mycenaean time, that is, the actual scope and the character of power of the supreme Mycenaean ruler, is still discussed (see Chapter 2, 2.6.1. The Linear B evidence on the wanax).

Concerning the sonship of Zeus-Father, the circumstance that Zeus was linked to Mt. Olympos as a son of Kronos, Κρονίδης (Il. 1.498) and Κρονίων (Il. 5.753-754), helps to realize that the idea about the descent of Ζεύς πατήρ from elder deities must have appeared before the Aeolian Olympos-oriented mythic-epic patterns related to Zeus started to be created, that is, before the Late Mycenaean period. This observation should be combined with the dominant mythological tradition about the birth and childhood of Zeus in Crete, as well as with the widely attested worship of Zeus as a divine child in Crete during the historic time.121 Hence, it may be hypothesized that the idea about the sonship > birth of Ζεύς πατήρ basically had Cretan roots and that it had been caused by the assimilation of Zeus with an indigenous Cretan young god, which would have taken place in the context of the Greek presence in Crete during the Mycenaean period. However, the reasons of that and the actual circumstances of the process still need to be clarified.

Concerning the definition of Homeric Zeus as the absolute lord-ruler of gods and men, it needs to be emphasized that most of the supreme Indo-European gods did not personify the idea of power in general and were not regarded as those who exercise autocratic authority, whether in the realm of gods or among the people.126 The same applies to the Mycenaean religion, in which an association between the Mycenaean concept of the supreme (secular) power as that carried by the wanax and the concept of any of the prehistoric male deities is not established. In relation to the origins of the Homeric concept of the supreme divine power as expressed in the epithet “ἄναξlord of gods and men”, it must also to be pointed out that the comprehension of the supreme Mycenaean rulerwanax as a god is not really attested (see Chapter 2, 2.6.1. The Linear B evidence on the wanax). This means that, although Homeric Zeus ἄναξ was formally compared to the head of the Mycenaean state wanax, in conceptual terms, it would not have been the Mycenaean institution of wanax, which was used as the actual prototype of the Homeric image of the supreme god – the ruler of people and king of gods, presiding over the pantheon.

Finally, it deserves to be noted that some epithets of Homeric Zeus expressing his physical and natural qualities and used in association with his name in the form Ζεύς do not occur in association with the form Ζήν, and vice versa. 1.4. The characteristics of Homeric Zeus denoting his ruling functions and his intellectual abilities A special group of the epithets given to Zeus by Homer is formed by those, which indicate his ruling position and his intellectual activity.

Furthermore, to this point, there is no Linear B evidence for designation of Zeus – Diwe with the epithet wanax > ἄναξ during the Mycenaean time. In regard to this observation, it should not be misinterpreted the occurrence of the name of Zeus in association with the ancient vocative form of ἄναξ - ἄνα, in the appeal “Ζεῦ ἄνα”, attested in the Iliad twice (Il. 3.351 and 16.233): it has been argued that in the particular case, ἄνα is just “a rare religious archaism”, which may not be ascribed to the “Achaean substratum” in the epics;127 its combination with the name of Zeus in the Homeric language, in fact, does not represent Mycenaean formulae. It has also been

“The ἄναξ of gods and men” The official status of Zeus in the Homeric system of gods is defined with the term-title ἄναξ (Il. 1.502, and often) accepted to mean “lord”, “king”; Homeric Zeus “rules over (acts as a king of) gods and men” / “θεοῖσι καὶ ἀνθρώποισιν ἀνάσσει” (Il. 2.669). The epithet ἄναξ bears a clear reference to the Mycenaean title wa-na-ka = wanax > Fάναξ, which is attested in the Mycenaean terminology as the designation of the supreme ruler of the state.122 Although it is not clear whether the term wanax was of the Indo-European origin and what the exact etymology of this term is, an analogous word seems to have been identified in one of the Iranian languages: the

123

Winter (1970) 53. Chantraine (1968) 84 (ἄναξ) : “sire”, “seigneur”, “maitre”. 125 Lenz (1993) 88 n.124. 126 Ivanov and Toporov (1994f) 528; Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) v.1, 692-700. It deserves to be mentioned that Homer used the epithet ἄναξ θεῶν καὶ ἀνθρώπων in its full nominative form in relation to Hypnos (Il. 14.233), although in an ironic way, as it might appear. 127 Janko (1992) 348. 124

121

Possible early origins of the worship of Zeus Kretagenes are discussed by Bloedow (1991). For Cretan Zeus, see especially the study by Verbruggen (1981). 122 Notably, in the historic time, the Phrygian king Midas, in one of the Phrygian inscriptions (a rock-cut dedication to him dated to c.600 BC, from Gordion) was likewise designated with the term-title wαναξ (in dative): “μιδαι λαFαγεταει Fανακτει”, Lenz (1993) 84-85. 20

by Zeus, simply “most glorious, most great” (Il. 3.298).131 It seems possible to suppose that there was a pre-Homeric tradition, perhaps rooted in actual religious practices, to address prayers to Zeus, or specifically to Zeus Idaios of Troas, beginning those with the invocatory words “Zeus, most glorious, most great”. It may also be observed that the early epic diction had two distinct ways to express the superiority and excellence of Zeus, using formulae with the name of the god either in its original form Ζεύς or in the later, that is, East Ionic, form Ζήν. This circumstance gives more grounds for the suggestion that there was a phase in the Greek epic-religious past, when Ζεύς and Ζήν appeared as two similar, but distinct gods, whose characteristics and qualities were originally denoted with similar, but different epithets. In relation to this, it deserves to be mentioned the remark by Pausanias (8.2.3) that Κekrops, a mythic king of Athens, “was the first to name Zeus [Δία] the Supreme god [‛Ύπατον]”, as if implying that Zeus was not always called among the Greeks with that title.

pointed out that in the Classical mythology the title ἄναξ was applied to Zeus relatively rare.128 It is noteworthy that in the Iliad the title ἄναξ does not occur in association with Zeus’ name in the form Ζήν.129 It deserves to be noted that in his references to the character of power of Zeus, Homer did not use for him the epithet βασιλεύς, which was widely applied to the god in later Greek tradition, while its verbal equivalent has been identified in the Mycenaean language.130 “The supreme and best of gods” The supremacy (majesty) and the superiority (lit. “excellence”) of Homeric Zeus in relation to other gods are stressed in several weighty epithets, as the epithetic formulae θεῶν ὕπατος καὶ ἄριστος / “the most high and best of gods” and ὕπατος κρειόντων / “the highest above all lords”; the former occurs in the Iliad twice, with both the forms of the name of the god, Ζεύς and Ζήν (Il. 19.258 and 23.43), while the latter is attested only once, in combination with Zeus’ patronym Κρονίδης, in the vocative form (Il. 8.31). The simple epithets ὕπατος and ἄριστος are also applied to Zeus in the Iliad, but only in association with the form Ζήν and the patronym Κρονίδης (Il. 5.756, 8.22, 14.213, 15.104/108, 17.339). Attention may be given to the phrase “…Ζῆν’.., τόν περ ἄριστον ἀνδρῶν ἠδὲ θεῶν” / “…Zeus (in the East Ionic form Zen), …the greatest among men and gods” (Il. 19.95-96). Another remarkable formula is Ζεῦ κύδιστε μέγιστε / “Zeus, most glorious, most great”, attested in the Iliad 6 times, only in the vocative case and always with the form Ζεύς: 4 times in the extended formularized appeal “Ζεῦ πάτερ, Ἴδηθεν μεδέων, κύδιστε μέγιστε”/ “Father Zeus, that rules from Ida, most glorious, most great” (Il. 3.276, 3.320, 7.202, and 24.308), one time as a part of the large invocation to Zeus “most glorious, most great, lord of the dark clouds, that dwells in the heaven” (Il. 2.412), and one time in the appeal to all the “immortal gods” presided

Enthroned on the top of Mt. Olympos Homeric Zeus demonstrates his absolute superiority by performing the impressive enthronement on a golden throne on the top of the mountain Olympos. The context of the correspondent Homeric passage (Il. 8.442-443) suggests that in the epic tradition the golden throne of Zeus placed on the top of Olympos was regarded not only as an organic element and a symbol of his power, but also as the absolute focal point of the imagined divine realm. In relation to this, it must be pointed out that the motif of a divine throne had not been specifically developed by the common Indo-European perception and therefore the idea of a throne of god as an expression of divine power is not clearly traced among the IndoEuropean mythological patterns; in the Indo-European mythological imagery, the gods, even the supreme ones, as a rule do not occur enthroned.132 This would have been due to a very low level of social complexity and, hence, quite primitive social organization of the Indo-Europeans in the time of the formation of their common mythological models and even during the development of the individual Indo-European mythologies.

128

Hemberg (1955) 8, 11. The scholar has demonstrated that in the Classical mythology the epithet ἄναξ solely was frequently applied to different gods, but especially to Appollo, Poseidon, and Ares. In the Iliad, ἄναξ is used as a standard designation of leaders of both the Achaeans and the Trojans; for some of them a special formula ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν is used as a title of rank, see Tebben (1998) v.1, 117-118. 129 Tebben (1998) v.2, 754. 130 The word βασιλεύς is identified with the Mycenaean qa-si-re-u ( α directly derives from the root *mendh-/*mHndh- ), while the root itself is formed from the suffixed stem *men-dhē- bearing the notion of one’s sense directed on, concentrated on, or focused on something (“den Sinn worauf setzen”). In particular, *mendh-/*mHndh- (“to learn”) > a). Old Indian *mēdhā (“wisdom”) > Old Indian mēdhira “wise”; b). suffixed zero-grade form *mndh-tā > *mazdhā > Old Iranian / Avestan mazdāh- and mazdā (“wise”). Remarkably, a number of other cognate Indo-European adjectives meaning “wise”, as the Lithuanian mandras and the Old Slavic mōdr (with the Russian form mudry/мудрый and the Serbian-Croatian form mùdar), also derive from this root.156

“Μητίετα” The appellative μητίετα,151 which is a Verbaladjektive, derives from the form *mēt- of the root *meH-: it is argued that μητίετα < Myc. *metiwet- < *met-ti-unt-,152 where -unt- is a Mycenaean suffix denoting the state of completeness, which comes as a result of a certain act.153 Given the meanings of the root *meH- in its pure form and in the form *mēt-/*mĕt-, as well as the specific meaning of the suffix –unt-, it is possible to interpret the word μητίετα literally as “that who has learned the measurements of everything” = “that who has all positive knowledge”.154 In terms of the theory of cognizance, Zeus as μητίετα, that is, as the god who has learned and, therefore, knows everything existing in a material form, may be characterized as a cognitive subject opposed to the object of cognizance, the true reality: his knowledge about it was not inherent in him from the beginning, but was obtained by him. In the Iliad, the epithet μητίετα is used only in association with the name of the god in the original form Ζεύς and always in the nominative case - “μητίετα Ζεύς” or “Ζεύς μητίετα”. Mητίετα as a noun with -τα ending virtually presents the word’s original vocative form, which was adapted by the epic diction, apparently from quite common invocations, to serve as nominative. These circumstances together with the assumed Mycenaean origin of the word μητίετα seem to indicate the old Greek concept of a “wise god”, who was thought of literally as “full of knowledge about all the material things”. It seems quite likely that already during the prehistoric time that god was imagined as Zeus. This presumption may be supported by that the standard Homeric phrase “Διὶ μῆτιν ἀτάλαντος”, lit. “equal to Zeus in wisdom” (Il. 7.47, and often), implying the superiority of Zeus’ intelligence, is proved to have developed from the Mycenaean *Diwei mētim smtálantos.155 It appears natural that the oldest god - Ζεύς πατήρ was thought of as that who knew everything, as it is emphasized in the Il. 13.355: “…Zeus was the elder born and the wiser”, and in the Il. 13.631-632: “Zeus-Father, in sooth men say that in wisdom you art above all others, both men and gods…”

In fact, it is not certain whether such small and definitely very early Indo-European roots as *meH- > *mēt- > μητίετα and *mendh- > mēdhira / mazdāh were originally cognate. Therefore, it would not be secure to argue that the Greek epithet μητίετα and the VedicAvestan epithets mēdhira / mazdāh derive from the same proto-term. However, it may not be ignored a close correspondence between the literal meaning of the Greek compound divine name Ζεύς μητίετα, implying that Zeus is “that who has filled his mind with all positive knowledge about the objective reality”, and the idea expressed by the Vedic-Avestan religious terms Asura mēdhira and Ahura mazdāh, which virtually mean that the Indian god Varuna and the supreme Iranian god are both “wise” due to their power to cognize the objective reality by straining their minds. Here, it needs to be emphasized that the Indo-European tradition to designate the intelligence and cognitive abilities of gods with the terms, which imply the primacy of the objective reality in relation to a god, who cognizes it and perceives it, reveals the original Indo-European comprehension of the independent and uninfluenced order of the existent in relation to the intellect and the will of gods.157

meaning of the root *mē-/*mĕ- as “to measure”. 150 The list of cognate derivatives see in Pokorny (1959) v.1, 703-704 (mē- 3), and Watkins (1969) 1528 (mē- 2). Note also Chantraine (1968) 699 (μῆτις). 151 The epithet μητίετα is traditionally translated as “counselor”, “a lord of counsel”, and “all-wise”, see Liddell and Scott (1996) 1130 (μητίετα); also Murray and Wyatt, Homer. The Iliad (1999) for Il. 1.175, 1.508, and oth. . 152 Leukart (1994) 42-43, 291. 153 Meier-Brugger (1992) 22-23. For the Mycenaean word formation, see the study by Bader (1969). 154 Chantraine (1968) 699 (μῆτις), suggests the relation of the epithet μητίετα to “l’intelligence pratique”. 155 West (1988) 157; Janko (1992) 11.

156

Pokorny (1959) v.1, 730 (mendh-); Watkins (1969) 1529 (mendh-). 157 It deserves to be noted that in the RV 1.25.11, the allknowing god Varuna medhira (RV 1.25.20b) is referred to as only a passive observer of “what has been created and what is going to be created”; he does not interfere in the process of the creation of the reality, which seems to be performed by itself according to a certain order. 24

be mentioned that even long time after Homer, in the Classical period, worshipers of Zeus in Olympia called the god ὑψιμέδων, that is, “ruling on (or from) high”, and not “ruling from a certain point” (note, e.g., the dedication of the Samians on the statue of Lysander set in the precinct of Zeus at Olympia, c.405 BC: “ἐν… τεμένει Διός ὑψιμέδοντος”, Paus. 6.3.14).

“’Ίδηθεν μεδέων” The exact meaning of the root *meH- in the form *mēd/*mĕd- can be established in conformity to the notion associated to its simplest derivative - the Latin noun modus “order”, given the alternation of the root vowel e||o (as in the Greek pair λέγω – λόγος).158 The combination of the meaning of the root *meH- in its pure form as “measure” with the circle of notions associated to the word modus “order” suggests the specific meaning of the root in the form *mēd-/*mĕd- as “to proportion”, “to conform”, “to co-ordinate”.159 The use of the verb μήδομαι in the Il. 2.37: “ἅ ῥα Ζεὺς μήδετο ἔργα” / “what deeds Zeus was planning”, implies that the original meaning of the verbal root *mēd-/*mĕd- also comprised the notion of intention or purpose, which is virtually a design intended to be accomplished.

“’Άφθιτα μήδεα εἰδώς” The verbal root *mēd-/*mĕd- in the vocalized form *mēd- produced the substantive μῆδος, with the plural form μήδεα, which is related to Zeus in the phrase of the Il. 24.88: “Ζεύς ἄφθιτα μήδεα εἰδώς” /lit. “Zeus who knows eternal μήδεα”.162 Mήδεα εἰδώς is a formula attested in the Iliad 3 times: in the referred to verse of the Il. 24.88, in the Il. 7.278 in relation to a herald of the Trojans, who “πεπνυμένα μήδεα εἰδώς” /lit. “knows wise or prudent μήδεα”, and in the Il. 17.325 in relation to Aineas’ adviser, who “φίλα… μήδεα εἰδώς” / lit. “knows kind μήδεα”. This formula also occurs two times in the Odyssey, in various contexts. Thus, the knowledge of μήδεα appears to be a certain concept of the early Greek thought.163 In regard to this conclusion, attention should be given to the group of the Mycenaean compound personal names with me-de corresponding to the alphabetic Greek –μήδης < mēd-:164 those indicate that the concept of μήδεα already existed in the Mycenaean age, if not earlier, given that personal names normally have early origins.

Thus, it becomes clear that the participle μεδέων derived from the root *mĕd- in a literal sense means “one who co-ordinates and regulates”, that is, “one who acts as a regulator, an arbitrator or a governor”.160 The potency to influence on the future, mainly through exercising influence on the present, would also have been implied in the meaning of this word, but, perhaps, was not emphasized. Homeric Zeus governs from Mt. Ida. The idea of ruling from Ida was expressed in the vocative formula “Ζεῦ πάτερ Ἴδηθεν μεδέων, κύδιστε μέγιστε”, which occurs in the Iliad 4 times (Il. 3.276, 3.320, 7.202, and 24.308). The formulaic character of this phrase suggests that the epic diction had developed the idea about Zeus’ function to rule from Ida before Homer. The literal meaning of the expression Ἴδηθεν μεδέων indicates the poetic view of the mountain as the pivotal point of regulating and governing. This makes the mountain, Ida in the given case, symbolic of the absolute center, or attaches to it the importance of the cosmic pivot. Correspondingly, the god occupying this mountain appears associated to the symbolic center of the world. This idea was not characteristic of the traditional Indo-European mythological frame of thoughts, because the IndoEuropean mythological systems were arranged according to the axial-linear (vertical-horizontal) principle, practically without a focal point, and even the most important Indo-European gods are not known to have been associated to the supposed cosmic center.161 It might

Given that the basic meaning of the verbal root *mēd/*mĕd implies the notions of regulating-coordinatingproportioning, a substantive directly derived from this root may be interpreted as a designation of what represents by itself a result of such acts, that is, something that has been accurately measured, properly proportioned and established as a constant determinate model or standard (models or standards in the plural 162

Murray and Wyatt, Homer. The Iliad (1999), translate this phrase as “Zeus whose counsels are everlasting”. Benveniste (1973) 399, suggested the following interpretation: “Homeric medea eidόs -…he is one…who in every circumstance knows how to take the tried and tested measures, which are necessary.” 163 Note the proposed interpretations of μήδεα: by Pokorny (1959) v.1, 705 (med-1) – “Sorge”, “Ratschlag”; by Σταματάκος (1972) 622 (μῆδος) – “σκέψεις”, “σχέδια”, “επινοήσεις”, “τεχνάσματα”; by Liddell and Scott (1996) 1125 (μῆδος) – “counsels”, “plans”, “arts”; by Benveniste (1973) 400 – “designs”, “thoughts”, ibidem, 405: “…the substantive *medes- or *modo- will probably mean ‘the tried and tested measure, which brings order into a confused situation’.” 164 Ventris and Chadwick (1973) 95; Προμπονάς (1980) 92 n.15, 95 n.28 with the correspondent bibliographic references: a-no-me-de = Ana-medes(?), a-pi-me-de = Amphimedes (possibly not a name, but a title), e-ki-mede = Ekhemedes (note Ἐχεμήδα, fem.), e-ti-me-de-i (in dat.), e-u-me-de = Εὐμήδης (Hom.), pe-ri-me-de = Περιμήδης (Hom.), i-pe-me-de-ja = Ἰφιμέδεια.

158

Benveniste (1973) 401. According to Benveniste (1973) 404, the precise meaning of the verbal root *med- is “to take with authority measures appropriate to a present difficulty”; also Watkins (1969) 1528 (med-): “to take appropriate measures”. 160 Benveniste (1973) 399 and 403, interprets Ζεύς μεδέων as “Zeus the moderator” and “governing, ruling over”; also ibidem 405: “this traditional epithet [μεδέων] relates to the power possessed by the lord of gods to apply the “measure” in given circumstances…” 161 Kuiper (1961); Ivanov and Toporov (1994f) 528; Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) v.1, 692-693, 695-700. 159

25

mean “to cognize the true reality”.168 This view of knowledge is especially evident in pairs of derivatives from the Indo-European root *weid- “to know” and “to see”, such as the Greek οἶδα “to know” and εἴδω “to see”, the Vedic veda “to see” and “to know”, the Old Russian vedat’ (ведать) “to know” and videt’ (видеть) “to see”. This idea may also be recognized in the concepts of various Indo-European gods, who are “wise” and “omniscient” because they are also “all-seeing”, while their vision is understood as both external and internal: note, e.g., the Vedic god Varuna, who is not only “farseeing” and “seeing the hidden” (RV 1.25.5c, 11.a-b), but also “wise” / mēdhira (RV 1.25.20b), and another Vedic god Indra, who is “wise” (RV 1.62.12c), because he is “richly gifted to see” (RV 1.61.16d, 1.62.13d, and oth.). Likewise, it may be referred to the epithet πανόπτης “allseeing” implying “the all-knowing one”, applied to the Greek god Helios (note Od. 11.109). The same idea seems to have been expressed in the images of manyeyed and many-headed Indo-European gods, such as that of three-eyed Zeus, whose old wooden statue, placed in the Acropolis of Argos, was believed to have been brought from Troy (Paus. 2.24.3-4); a number of other Greek and Hittite many-eyed deities and various Slavic, Celtic, and Thracian many-headed gods are known as well.169 The Scandinavian mythological motif, which identifies the eye of Odin with the source of wisdom,170 too, may trace to this idea.

form) to be followed (note the derivative from the same root μέδιμνος designating a unit of volume measure). In a larger sense, μήδεα would have had meanings that are more general, such as “recognized rules”, “established unchangeable laws”, and “fundamental principles of being that are not subject to any influence”. Interpretations like these seem to be consistent with the context of the Homeric phrases, which clearly imply the importance of knowledge of μήδεα, on the one hand, and the power given by this knowledge, on the other. As far as the acts designated with terms formed on the basis of the root *mēd-/*mĕd have regulative, stimulating, and intentional character, the meaning of a substantive form derived from this root may connote a power to influence on the reality and even some sort of design. Moreover, the very idea of knowledge of μήδεα suggests the recognition of their self-sufficiency. Therefore, μήδεα of the early Greek thought may be understood as the basic principles or values of the reality, which would have been established and influenced by nobody, but supposedly determine the reality in its actual state and in its evolution (see also below, the note 188). It appears that in the time of Homer, the Greek thought distinguished among those basic principles or values the “everlasting” ones / 165 ἄφθιτα, the “wise” or “prudent” ones / πεπνυμένα, and the “kind” ones / φίλα, perhaps, according to their more specific meaning and significance. Based on the above, it seems possible to interpret ἄφθιτα μήδεα mentioned by Homer as the “eternal fundamental principles, which determine the entire being”, or, in simple words, “the causes/reasons of all things and events”. Hence, Ζεύς ἄφθιτα μήδεα εἰδώς (Il. 24.88) may be considered as the god who knows the causes/reasons of everything that exists or happens in the way it does. The suggested interpretation agrees with Zeus’ status as that of the supreme god (note the remark addressed by Hera to Zeus: lit. “a mortal man… does not know so many μήδεα”, Il. 18.363166). It is noteworthy that Hesiod always used the expression “Ζεύς ἄφθιτα μήδεα εἰδώς” in the context of Zeus’ superiority over rebelled, but failed Prometheus (Hes. Theog. 545, 550, 561).167

The Indo-European notion to see = to know, likewise the earlier analyzed Indo-European notions of wisdom as expressed through the roots *mēt- and *mendh-, indicates the original Indo-European understanding of the primacy of the actual reality in relation to any intellect, even to that of a god. In accordance with this, the reality must originally have been comprehended as conditioning and cognized, while an intellect as conditioned and cognizing. “‛Ύπατος μήστωρ” The characteristic of Homeric Zeus ὕπατος μήστωρ171 is worth of special attention. Μήστωρ is a contracted form of the very old Greek compound personal name *Μηστιάνωρ or *Μητι-άνωρ known from the Pylian Linear B tablets (it occurs in the PY Ub 1318 in the form of the

At this point, it should be noted that the participle εἰδώς, which forms part of the formula “εἰδώς ἄφθιτα μήδεα”, belongs to a circle of the Indo-European notions equating knowledge with vision, which makes “to know (something)”, “to cognize (something)” to be equal with “to see (that) in a special way”, and, in turn, “to see” to

168

Liddell and Scott (1996) 350 (γιγνώσκω): οἶδα “to know by reflection”, and γιγνώσκω “to know by observation”. 169 Pettazzoni (1956) 115, 151-156. 170 Meletinsky (1994a) 242. 171 The epithet ὕπατος μήστωρ is traditionally interpreted in the absolute and generalizing sense: “consiliorum moderator” (Ebeling (1885) v.1, 1098 (μήστωρ) ); “Kluger Berater” (Pokorny (1959) v.1, 705 (med-1) ); “conseiller”, “inspirateur”, “maitre” (Chantraine (1968) 693 (μήδομαι), Benveniste (1975) 30); “adviser”, “counsellor” (Liddell and Scott (1996) 1129 (μήστωρ), Benveniste (1973) 400); “the counsellor most high” (Murray and Wyatt, Homer. The Iliad (1999) for the Il. 8.22).

165

Cunliffe (1963) 64, interpreted ἄφθιτος in relation to the immaterial things as “that cannot come to nought”. 166 The translation of this phrase suggested by Murray and Wyatt, Homer. The Iliad (1999) v.2, is: “mortal… knows not all the wisdom”. 167 Richardson (1993) 286 (on the Il. 24.88). This formula also occurs in the Hymn. Hom. Cer. 321, and in the Hymn. Hom. Ven. 43, with the suggested translation “Zeus, whose wisdom is everlasting”, Evelin-White, Hesiod. Homeric Hymns. Epic Cycle. Homerica (1995) 312-313, 408-409. 26

nominative, and in the PY Vn 1191 in the form of the genitive): *Μηστι-/*Μητι-ανωρ < me-ti-ja-no < *mēd/*mēt-ti-H2nor, where *μηστι- (< μηδ-τι-) < *mēd- / *μητι- < *mēt-.172 In conformity to the above discussed meaning of the root *mēd-/*mēt-, on the one hand, and the rule of subjection of the second root of a compound name to its first root as the accusative to the nominative, on the other, the old name *Μηστι-άνωρ or *Μητι-άνωρ may be interpreted as “that who thinks about men”, “that who puts order among/for men”, and “that who determines-predetermines-designs something for men”. In the Mycenaean time, the old name *Μηστι-/*Μητιανωρ was transformed into mēstor = μήστωρ, in which the suffix –τωρ replaced the second root: the Mycenaean mēstor is identified as a personal name in Linear B tablets from Knossos (in the documents Og 0467 and Dx 5295)173 and possibly as an appellative in the Pylian document PY Na 924.2.174 In linguistic terms, the function of the suffix -τωρ is to indicate the permanent nature of one’s ability to perform the act designated with the first root;175 therefore, the suffix -τωρ is characteristic of agent nouns.176 Correspondingly, a noun comprising the suffix -τωρ designates a permanent carrier of the ability to perform the act denoted with the first root. Hence, the virtual meaning of *mēstor = Μήστωρ < *Μηστι-/*Μητι-ανωρ may be understood as “that who due to his nature regulates-rules-thinks-determinespredetermines-designs”. Perhaps, the Mycenaean personal name Μήστωρ was intended for heirs of the Mycenaean kings as a wish to become intelligent and clever rulers. A functionary designated with the title μήστωρ would have specialized in ruling-administrative activities requiring certain intellectual abilities.177

*Μήστειρα, the original female form of Μήστωρ/μήστωρ, is restored from the female personal name Κλυται-μήστρη, in which -μήστρη < -μήστειρα (as *-πάτειρα in Κλεόπατρη).178 This seems to point at an old Greek idea of a “she-counselor”. This conclusion may be supported by the traditional interpretations of the name Κλυταιμήστρη as “she famous by her advises” or “she who takes the decisions in a celebrated way”.179 However, it is not really certain whether the female form *μήστειρα emerged as a designation of the female counterpart of the Mycenaean official mēstor = μήστωρ (in the same way as wanassa - wanax) or had been a result of the Greek, and perhaps common Indo-European, practice of forming male-female pairs of personal names. The linguistic analysis of the word μήστωρ helps to understand the nature of Homeric Zeus-μήστωρ as that of a god who has the inherent ability or permanently carries the function to think, to regulate, to rule, to plan, and to predetermine; this actually makes him the god who plans in his mind and predetermines the events according to his thoughts. The emphasized ὕπατος μήστωρ suggests the interpretation of this characteristic in the absolute sense: as the cause and virtual creator of the reality. Using the terminology of later philosophical theories, the divine mind of Homeric Zeus - ὕπατος μήστωρ appears to be that “absolute idea”, of which all phenomena are thought to be partial manifestations. This interpretation of the epithet ὕπατος μήστωρ corresponds to the belief expressed by Menelaos that it is Zeus from whom “… all these things come” (Il. 13.632), and especially to the basic idea of the Iliad: “…the will of Zeus was being brought to fulfillment” (Il. 1.5). Concerning the characteristic ὕπατος μήστωρ, it may be observed that it virtually involves a complex of interrelated and interdependent concepts: the god’s will – the god’s plan-design – the god’s knowledge of what is supposed to be. It is apparent that the power implied in the characteristic ὕπατος μήστωρ overpasses that of all the other mental abilities of Homeric Zeus, even in their sum. It is noteworthy that in the Iliad, the formulaic epithet ὕπατος μήστωρ is used only in association with the form Ζήν (Il. 8.22, 17.339).

172

Jorro and Adrados (1985-1993) v.1, 445 (me-ti-ja-no); Heubeck (1957) 30; Landau (1958) 83. Ruijgh (1966) 132, 136 n.27, interpreted Pylian me-ti-ja-no as Μεστιάνωρ and derived μεστι- from μέδο-; but he also admitted that me-ti-ja-no could be Μηστιάνωρ or Μητιάνωρ. 173 Palmer (1963) 307; Jorro and Adrados (1985-1993) v.1, 446 (me-to-re). 174 Lejeune (1956) 160, argued for the possibility to identify me-to-re in the Py Na 924.2 as “appelatif au nomin. pl.” with the meaning “les conseillers”. See also Baumbach (1968) 190 (me-to-re); Jorro and Adrados (1985-1993) v.1, 446 (me-to-re). 175 Benveniste (1975) 28-44, 55, 62. 176 Benveniste (1973) 400-401. 177 The personal name Μήστωρ and the word μήστωρ were variously used in the Greek language during the historic times. The former occurred in the Greek mythology and is also attested as the second part of various compound personal names, see Roscher (1890-1897) 2845 (Mestor); Von Kamptz (1982) 255, points at one of Priamos’ sons called Μήστωρ (Il. 24.257) and refers to the real personal name ’Αγα-μήστωρ attested in the 5th century BC; according to Fick (1894) 208, the following ancient Greek personal names with μήστωρ as the second part are known: ’Αντι-μήστωρ, Θεο-μήστωρ, Λεο-μήστωρ, Πραξιμήστωρ, and Εὐρυ-μηστορ-ίδης. The term μήστωρ is

known not only as Zeus’ exclusive divine epithet (according to Bruchmann (1893) ), but also as a part of the descriptive formula θεόφιν μήστωρ ἀτάλαντος / “the peer of the gods in counsel”, applied to Priamos, Patroklos, and Neleus (Il. 7.366, 17.477; Od. 3.409). Μήστωρ was also used as an appellative noun meaning “specialist of approved skill”, “master”, mainly in relation to medicine and warfare, note the Il.4.328, 6.278, and 23.16: “masters of the war-cry”, “a mighty deviser of root” (the translations are suggested by Myrray and Wyatt, Homer. The Iliad (1999) ). Note also Liddell and Scott (1996) 1129 (μήστωρ): “skilled assistant to a surgeon” in Ionic prose. 178 Heubeck (1957) 31; von Kamptz (1982) 255. 179 Benveniste (1973) 401. 27

Zeus denoting his position among the other gods, especially Ζεύς πατήρ, μητίετα Ζεύς, and Ζεύς ὑψίζυγος, go back to the earliest Greek ideas about the god of the clear sky-progenitor and wise head of pantheon. The compound designation Ζεύς ἄναξ may have been created in the post-Mycenaean epic diction on the basis of what was remembered about the Mycenaean system of power. The formulaic epithet Ζεῦ κύδιστε μέγιστε attested only in invocations seems to have had its origins in the Aeolian Greek tradition connected with the veneration of Zeus Idaios of Mt. Ida in Troas during the late prehistoric early historic times. The weightiest epithets indicating the superiority of Homeric Zeus, such as θεῶν ὕπατος καὶ ἄριστος and ὕπατος μήστωρ, used mostly or only with the recent Ζήν-form of the god’s name, perhaps, emerged in the East Ionic epic diction by the time of Homer. The question remains whether and in what degree these qualities were characteristic of the religious and mythological concepts of Zeus before Homer.

*** To underline, given the characteristics relating to hierarchy, authority, and intelligence, Zeus appears in the Iliad as the undoubted supreme, all-powerful, allknowing, all-determining, and all-causing god, who is enthroned on the top of Mt. Olympos or Mt. Ida and rules from there, as if from the symbolic absolute center, both the divine and human spheres according to his own design and will.180 Some of the Homeric characteristics of 180

Note the opinion expressed by Launderville (1986) 167: “…Zeus was acknowledged as the sovereign ruler of the cosmos by both the Achaeans and the Trojans”. However, in the Greek philosophy and literature, this interpretation of Zeus started to be especially accentuated only from c.5th century BC, because of the application of his name to the early Greek philosophic idea of the selfexistent and self-explanatory principle, or law, ruling the universe. The official beginning of this trend might be connected with Herakleitos, who introduced the concept of the “divine intelligence”, which “πάντα κυβερνᾶ”, and that of “the thinking governor of the Universe”, whom he designated “Zeus” (Burkert (1985) 309; West (1971) 144). Anaxagoras elaborated the concept of νοῦς “mind”, which he considered a universal agent moving and guiding everything. Diogenes from Apollonia, a pupil of Anaxagoras, identified the Anaxagorean “mind” with the air, and applied the names “god” and “Zeus” to this “eternal and immortal body”, which, as he argued, pervades everything and rules everything, “being the finest substance” (Burkert (1985) 321). In dramaturgy, Aeschylus created the most impressive images of Zeus as those of the absolutely universal godall-father constituting the beginning of everything, allprocreating, all-causing, all-determining, all-controlling, almighty and all-powerful. Many passages may be referred to as examples, e.g. Ag. 1485-1487: “…by will of Zeus, author of all, worker of all! For what is brought to pass for mortal men save by will of Zeus?”; Sept. 116: “O father Zeus, thou all-perfecter”, 255: “Almighty Zeus”; Supp. 524-526: “Lord of lords, most blessed among the blessed, power most perfect among the perfect, o Zeus, all-happy”, 374: “enthroned in sole sovereignty, thou dost determine every issue”, 574-575: “Zeus… through endless time, the lord”, 584-585: “lifegiving Zeus”, 592-599: “Father himself and lord, he with his own hand planted us, he the mighty fashioner of our race, he ancient in wisdom, he who deviseth all things, whose breath prospereth all things… He doth not sit upon his throne by mandate of another and hold his dominion beneath a mightier. None there is who sitteth above him whose power he holdeth in awe. He speaketh and it is done – he hasteneth to execute whatsoever his counseling mind conceiveth”; The Daughters of Helios (Heliades) 12: “Zeus is air, Zeus is earth, Zeus is heaven, yea, Zeus is all things and whatsoever transcendeth them.” (Navck (1964) 24, frg. 70). It is also worth to be noted the comparison of Zeus to the Law of Nature and the allhuman Mind, made by Euripides in Tro. 886: “Zeus, be thou Nature’s Law, or Mind of men”.

The occurrence of the Ζήν-form in association with Zeus’ epithets, which do not occur in association with the Ζεύςform, could be not accidental. It would seem that the East Ionic Greek epic diction not only created the form Ζήν of the name of Zeus on the basis of the name of the Anatolian Hittite god of the clear sky Siuna, but also borrowed certain remarkable epithets, characteristics and descriptions of that god and adjusted those to the image of Zeus, thus creating quite a new version of the latter Ζήν. 1.5. Relation of the Homeric concept of Zeus to the basic Indo-European mythological conceptions It needs to be especially examined the relation of Homeric Zeus as he appears in the aspects of a godcreator and a god-cause of all existence to the traditional Indo-European conceptions. As it has been stressed above, the Indo-European comprehension of anyone’s wisdom, including the wisdom of a god, as a quality resulting from cognitive acts, as well as the Indo-European tradition to equate the notion to know with that to see, indicates that in the original Indo-European frame of thoughts the reality in all its forms and manifestations was understood as objective, self-existent, independent, and primary in relation to a cognizing intellect. This means that the original Indo-European ideas did not and virtually could not! comprise a concept of a god who might have designed in his mind all that exists before it came into existence. The comparative evidence provided by the IndoEuropean languages and mythologies reveals that the original Indo-European collective mind associated the beginning of existence with the idea of a primary element, or the initial first-substance, which supposedly contained in itself all the potential principles of being.181 181

A remnant of this idea can be traced in the later Vedic motif of the gold embryo (hiranyagarbhά), which was 28

That substance was thought of as dual, or binary (because two is the first notion with the meaning “not one”=“many”), and ambivalent, that is, composed of two opposite elements or powers. Various related studies have shown and confirmed with certainty the “binarism in many areas of religious and mythic thought and in several aspects of the Indo-Europeans’ model of natural world”.182 Thus, on the level of linguistics, it is observed that in a number of the Indo-European languages the words meaning “even” (=“equal”, “having no irregularities”, “precise”) derive from the Indo-European root *iem(o)- < PIE *q’emo- denoting an interaction of two different, distinct from each other principles or powers:183 this points at the original Indo-European idea of the dual and ambivalent character of the initial state of the reality. The same idea is recognized on the level of mythology, in the images of originally coalescent heterogeneous cosmic units (especially in the archetypal Indo-European divine couple “sky-and-earth”)184 and bisexual first-creatures producing posterity from themselves.185 It is significant that in some Indo-European

mythologies such primordial first-creatures were designated with derivatives from the root *iemo- (as Vedic Yama, Avestic Yima, and Old Icelandic Ymir).186 One of the basic Indo-European myths - the twins myth conventionalizing the idea of interaction of two different or opposite principles - likewise goes back to the comprehension of the primordial dual first-substance and actually constitutes one of the forms of its evolution. Characteristically, in some Indo-European languages the words for twins are derived from the root *iemo-.187 The original Indo-European idea of a self-created, dualambivalent first-element of existence was essentially connected with the Indo-European comprehension of the character of the evolution of being as spontaneous and not subject to any influence, while based on its own potency and determined by a certain lawpredestination.188 In accordance with that, the IndoEuropean mind generated the ideas of putting the existence into a certain arrangement or in the appropriate order by a special physical power: these were expressed in the basic Indo-European myth about the Storm-god who fights against the personifications of the principles of chaos and regress and arranges the world after his victorious combat. For all these reasons, the Indo-European collective thought did not need an idea of a certain god, whose divine intellect would have caused and conditioned everything according to that god’s design.

believed to have emanated from the primeval waters and thereby caused the emergence of the universe (RV 10.121.1; Arora (1981) 4). This idea may also have been echoed in the Vedic, Iranian pre-Zoroastrian, and Greek Orphic cosmogony conceptions of the emergence of the world from the world egg, see Toporov (1994h). 182 Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) v.1, 679. 183 As the Gothic ibns, the Old German eban, the Old Nordic jafn and jamn, the English even, and some oth., see Pokorny (1959) v.1, 505 (iem-); Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) v.1, 680. 184 The original Indo-European divine substance “sky-andearth” was comprehended as the primordial, selfappeared, undivided (solid) divine couple, which supposedly constituted the beginning of existence. It is clearly represented in the Vedic composite being dyάvāpr(i)thivί, the “sky-and-earth”, where dyάus is the Vedic Sky-father and pr(i)thivί is the Vedic Earthmother, see Toporov (1994b). It is also echoed in the Russian formula nebo-i-zemlja (небо-и-земля), the “skyand-earth” (Ivanov and Toporov (1994f) 528). In the Greek thought, the echo of the idea about the original coalescence of the sky and the earth may be recognized in one of the concepts of Chaos, according to which it was interpreted as the “separator”, “divider” of the sky and the earth (see the fragment of Euripides’ play Kadmos in Navck (1964) 496-497, frg.448; Losev (1994) 579). 185 Note the Vedic first man-progenitor Yamo and his Avestan counterpart Yima, as well as the Old Icelandic primordial anthropomorphic being Ymir and his West German counterpart Tuisto - the earth-born bi-sexual deity, see Meletinsky (1994d). Some other mythic beings may be referred to here: the Old Indian deity Prajάpati (lit. “the lord of posterity”) – a variation of the progenitor of all the existent, who supposedly produced everything from himself; the Vedic god Asura - a primordial deity, “the first one who started to give birth [like a woman]” and “who at the same time is an ox and a cow” (RV 3.38.5a, 7a); also, the Greek bi-sexual deity Androgyn,

whom the Late Orphics interpreted as the beginning of everything. 186 Pokorny (1959) v.1, 505 (iem-). 187 Pokorny (1959) v.1, 505 (iem-). 188 In the clearest way, this comprehension is traced in the Indo-Iranian mythology in the concept of the cosmic order (a)r(i)tam, which was understood as the selfestablished, self-determined, and all-determining sacred law of the arrangement and evolution of the universe taken whether as a whole or in all its varieties (note the Sanskrit term ritam meaning “the cosmic order”, “the universal law”, “the truth”, “the reality”, “the righteousness”, Monier-Williams (1899) 223 (ritam); also RV 5.68.7). The (a)r(i)tam was supposedly incarnated in the deities Ritά (Vedic, note esp. RV 4.23.8-10) and Arta/Asa (Avestan), lit. “the cosmic law” (Toporov (1994d); Ramakrishna (1967) 154-160; Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) v.1, 710). The Vedic abstract idea of a certain principle stimulating and moving the nature, personified by the deity Savitar (RV 4.53.3c-d, 5c; Bhattacharji (1970) 213-215), too, seems to be expressive of that comprehension. In the Ancient Greek perception, this concept was likewise reflected in a number of notions, e.g., in the deity Dike “Justice” known from the time of Hesiod (Theog. 901-902) as the embodiment of the law-and-order, and in the old Greek concept of the basic principles or values of being - μήδεα analyzed above. For analogous notions identified in other IndoEuropean mythologies, see Frankih (2002). 29

It is remarkable that the perception of the self-emergence and self-evolution of the ultimate elements of the universe and the idea of the universe’s own knowledge of the appropriate order of its existence were characteristic features of the early Greek philosophy, which was especially concerned about the so-called First Principle and the ways of its evolution into the arranged world. Thus, Anaximander supposed that the first-element, which he called “ἄπειρον”, is uncreated, eternal, and endless (that is, without ἀρχή and τέλος), and that it is the “ἀρχή” of all the things, because everything comes to existence from it due to its differentiation.189 Xenophanes identified the first principle with the Universum itself and believed that it was self-conscious, eternal, constant, uncreated, and absolute.190 Herakleitos argued that the reality, or the world order, is uncreated, primary, and eternal, and that it develops out of fire, being ruled and moved by an objective, absolute, and universal law – “λόγος”, or the wise idea, “το σοφόν”.191 Parmenides stated that the universe is an uncreated, constant, and perfect being controlled by Justice, “Δίκη”.192 Empedokles believed that four initial elements - fire, air, water, and earth, had been the basic principles of everything (“πάντων ριζώματα”).193 Finally, Anaxagoras taught that the initial state of the universe was a mixture of everything and that the universe’s emergence, differentiation, and evolution are caused by an independent, self-existent intellect – “νοῦς”.194

It is commonly agreed that the mythology, precisely its cosmogony part, constituted the initial source of the Ancient Greek philosophy (as of many other ancient philosophies), especially on its early stage. Therefore, it may be argued that the ideas, which the early Greek philosophers elaborated and were based on - that of an uncreated first-element containing in itself the basic principles of everything, that of the independent and spontaneous evolution of the universe, as well as that of an objective law–predestination of the universe’s evolution – belonged to the original Greek cosmogony perception formed of or affected by traditional IndoEuropean conceptions.196 Those ideas appear to have been ignored by Homer, but still dominated the Greek thought even centuries after him. Here, it may be relevant to note the remark by Herodotos (2.53) that the gods as they occurred in the Classical Greek mythology had been introduced to Greeks by Homer and Hesiod: “...and these are they who taught the Greeks of the descent of the gods,

196

Concerning the common Indo-European idea of a certain law or order of existence, which determines the evolution of all the existent, in the original Greek religious perception it was, perhaps, personified by the goddess Artemis: her name - ’Άρτεμις, ’Αρτέμιδος (gen.), attested in the Mycenaean Greek language in the forms ate-mi-to (gen., in the PY Es 650.5) and a-ti-mi-te (dat., in the PY Un 219.5) (see Jorro and Adrados (1985) v.1, 115; Hester (1958) 30) = *Αρτεμι-τ- /*Αρτιμι-τ- = *artemi-t- /*artimi-t-, seems to have had an analogue in the name of the Minoan female deity a-re-tu-mi read in Linear A texts (Furumark (1988) 67), while both the divine names - Greek and Minoan - are seemingly direct etymological cognates of the Indo-Iranian conceptual term *(a)r(i)ta(m) “the proper order”, “the truth”, “the righteousness”, etc. (note the Sanskrit ritam “fixed or settled order”, “law”, “cosmic-divine law”, “rule”, “cosmic order”, etc. (Monier-Williams (1899) 223 (ritam); RV 5.68.7), Ritά – the Vedic goddesspersonification of the cosmic law, and the Avestan goddess Arta “law”, “the righteousness”). All these seem to derive from the original Indo-European term *(a)r(i)tam– “arrangement”, “settling” (with a remarkable list of cognate derivatives, such as Latin ars, artis (gen.) “technique” etc., Slavic riad “an ordered line”, English order, and many others) < the IndoEuropean root *(a)rt- “to arrange (by putting all the parts together)” (see Pokorny (1959), v.1, 56-57 (ar-, (a)rt-, (a)rtam-); Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) v.1, 710 (*ar(tho)- “to fit”, “to correspond”, “to unite”); also discussion by Peters (1989) 214-216). Characteristically, in the Classical Greek mythology, Artemis often appears as a punisher for wrong, improper behavior connected with violation of established customs and rules. Her original concept as that of a goddess responsible for the correct order of being may have been preserved in the religion of the historic times in the worship of her as Orthia (lit. “the proper one”) carried on in Lakonia and Arkadia (Liddell and Scott (1996) 1248 (Ὀρθεία); Paus. 3.16.9-11; Dawkins (1929) Chapter 12).

Also, the philosophic theory of Chaos elaborated from the Archaic time in the doctrines of the Stoics, Pythagoreans, and Orphics may be referred to: Chaos was generally comprehended as a basic principle of the continuous differentiation and stabilization of the originally shapeless world; without it, purportedly, not only the existence of the world, including gods and people, but the very life would have been impossible.195 189

For Anaximander, see Selingman, P. (1962) The Apeiron of Anaximander. A Study in the Origin and the Function of Metaphysical Ideas. London. 190 For Xenophanes, see Lesher, J.H. (1992) Xenophanes of Colophon. Fragments. A Text and Translation. University of Toronto Press. 191 Burkert (1985) 309: “This world order, the same for all, no one of gods or men has made, but it always was and is and shall be: an ever-living fire, kindling in measures and going out in measures.” For Helakleitos, see Kirk, G.S. (ed.) (1954) Heraclitus of Ephesus. The Cosmic Fragments. Cambridge. 192 For Parmenides, see Mourelatos, A.P. (1970) The Route of Parmenides: A Study of Word, Image, and Argument of the Fragments. New Haven and London; Popper, K.R. (1998) The World of Parmenides. London and New York. 193 For Empedokles, see Wright, M.R. (ed.) (1981) Empedocles: The Extant Fragments. New-Haven and London. 194 For Anaxagoras, see Sider, D. (ed.) (1981) The Fragments of Anaxagoras. Meisenheim am Glan. 195 Losev (1994) 580. 30

and gave to all their several names, and honours, and arts, and declared their outward forms”.

1.6. Parallels between Homeric Zeus and the NearEastern supreme gods Given certain discordances between the Homeric concept of Zeus and the traditional Indo-European mythologicalconceptual patterns, it would be useful to compare the former with the religious and mythological concepts of the supreme gods attested in non-Indo-European cultures, particularly in those, which were geographically close to Greece during the Late Bronze Age – Early Iron Age.

The evidence referred to indicates that the concept of a god-creator who creates or foreordains everything in accordance with his own design and will was absent from the common Indo-European, including original Greek, belief system.197 Therefore, it could not be an IndoEuropean archetype, which was used by Homer in the image of Zeus as that of an all-predetermining god.198

Concerning this task, close attention should be given to the specifically Near-Eastern conception of the supreme almighty god, which underlay all the Near-Eastern mythologies and religions.200 According to that concept,

Thus, Homeric Zeus as the central god of one of the IndoEuropean mythologies appears to occupy a very specific position among the other supreme Indo-European gods and, generally, in the common Indo-European mythological imagery. The concept of Homeric Zeus in whole presents a number of serious contradictions with the traditional Indo-European mythological patterns.199

Mazdah was not their initial supreme god and, more over, they virtually did not regard him as the god-progenitor: some other, possibly ambivalent, deity - either Mithra (the god of sun), either Vaiu (the god of wind), either Varuna (the old Indo-Iranian god responsible for order and justice) or Zervan (the god of infinite time) occupied the highest position in the Iranian religion and mythology before the establishment of the Zoroastrianism (Widengren (1938) 94-145; Brandon (1963) 196-197), while Ahura Mazdah was believed to have been born by Zervan (Brandon (1963) 195). Third, the intellect of Ahura Mazdah could not originally be considered the initial procreative principle, because it was designated with a derivative from the Indo-European root *mendh(Pokorny (1959) v.1, 730 (mendh-); Watkins (1969) 1529 (mendh-) ) implying only the ability to cognize the already existing reality, not that to design it by the mind. Finally, the fact that the idea of a god-creator of being did not initially have a place among the Iranian religious conceptions is also inferred from the dualistic order of the Zoroastrian system, in which the light god Ahura Mazdah is opposed to the dark demon Aji-Dachaka: this contraposition is traced back to the Indo-European twins myth in the variation brothers-antagonists and, consequently, was rooted in the primitive idea of the initial dual substance containing in itself two different principles and constituting the beginning of everything (Ivanov (1994a); Braginsky (1994) 560-565). All these features indicate that the Zoroastrian concept of Ahura Mazdah – the supposed “creator” and “sovereign” of the universe, represented not the original Iranian < IndoEuropean ideas about the supreme god, but a certain theological system invented in particular historicalcultural conditions. Therefore, despite a number of notable similarities between the Homeric concept of Zeus ὕπατος μήστωρ and the Zoroastrian concept of Ahura Mazdah, the former and the latter did not share the same origin and may not be derived from the traditional IndoEuropean comprehension of the supreme god. 200 See the special studies on this subject by Frankfort, H. (1948) Kingship and the Gods. A Study of Near Eastern Religion as the Interaction of Society and Nature. Chicago; Hooke, S. (ed.) (1958) Myth, Ritual, and Kingship. Essays on the Theory and Practice of Kingship in the Ancient Near East and Israel. Oxford, esp. pp. 26-27. Also Snell (2005) 333-336.

197

It should be noted that the original Indo-European comprehension of a deity performing certain creative acts was expressed through the roots *dheh- “to set” (> *dheh1ter = lit. “that who puts together, bounds” > Avestan datar, Old Ind. dhatar, Greek θετήρ, Lat. conditor “founder”), and *tuerk- “to cut” (> *turk-ter = lit. “cutter” > Avestan Θworθstar, Old Ind. Tvastar “artificer”, a name or an epithet of a deity-artificer of the gods), see Pokorny (1959) v.1, 237, 1102; Mallory and Adams (1977) 141 (Creator); Toporov (1994e); Arora (1981) 11-12. For the Vedic idea of Creator as a Master or Artificier, see RV 10.31.7 and RV 10.72.2. It is apparent that the original perception of the activity denoted with derivatives from those roots did not imply the actual creation of being, but the transformation or shaping of the already existent material. 198 Note the study by Classen (1962), who argued that a belief in a supreme god-creator whose “intellectual force” is thought to be “the creative and organizing power” and “origin of all life” is not traced in the early Greek religious perception. Recently, this view has been shared by Rangos (2007) 162, who has underlined that even in the cosmogony of Hesiod “the world comes into being through birth and is perfected through struggle”. 199 It should be mentioned that there was one more IndoEuropean supreme deity – the Iranian-Zoroastrian god Ahura Mazdah, who may be characterized as untypical for the traditional Indo-European conceptions. According to the official Persian ideology (6th – 4th centuries BC), Ahura Mazdah, whose name literally means “the LordAll-Wise” (Lelekov (1994) 141), was interpreted as the great, almighty, victorious king-priest and world sovereign creating the existent by the efforts of his mind, or by his thoughts (Jasna 19.1-6; 31.7.44; James (1969) 58; Brandon (1963) 198; Lelekov (1994) 141-142). However, the following circumstances must be stressed regarding this concept. First, the Zoroastrianism was not the original Iranian religion, but the product of a certain religious reform (conventionally related to Zaratustra), which had taken place in the first half of the 1st millennium BC (Brandon (1963) 193-198). Second, even in later times, the Persians remembered that Ahura 31

the god who occupied the supreme position among the other gods of his pantheon was thought of as one possessing unlimited powers and exercising the absolute authority over the world, which he supposedly had gained after his victorious combat against the initial, nondifferentiated “all”. His victory, as it was imagined, had been followed by his triumphal enthronement at the symbolic absolute center, usually on the top of the highest mountain, and by setting there a “house” for him. At last, he, supposedly, either had created the world from the beginning or had shaped (arranged) the initial, nondifferentiated “all” according to his own design and/or on the basis of his exclusive absolute wisdom and knowledge of the only appropriate order of being. This conception generated a large number of Near-Eastern myths and epic stories; in the most complete form, it was expressed at the New Year festivals,201 quite sufficiently known from the preserved ritual texts and representations related to those celebrations.

imagined as an absolute autocratic lord, who has the exclusive knowledge about the order of things, designs and organizes the reality according to his own plan and will, and seats on a throne with the symbols of his power.203 Given the belief in that the divine all-defeating strength, on which the power of the supreme gods was based, usually demonstrates itself through the phenomena of stormy character, the supreme gods were as a rule associated with the storm and were represented enthroned with the storm-symbols conventionalizing the weapon of their victory.204 The Hymn to Baal enthroned from the Ugaritic cycle of myths about the West-Semitic stormgod Baal offers, perhaps, the most remarkable literal evidence for the perception of the supreme Near-Eastern gods as enthroned on the top of a mountain, while demonstrating their stormy nature: “Baal sits like the base of a mountain; Hadd se[ttles] as the ocean, in the midst of his divine mountain, Saphon, in [the midst of] the mountain of victory. Seven lightning-flashes [ ], eight bundles of thunder, a tree-of-lightning [in his] ri[ght hand]…”205 It is very tempting to compare this passage with the description of Zeus’ enthronement on Mt. Ida with lightning in his hands (see the Il. 11.182-184).

Undoubtedly, the Near-Eastern conception of the supreme god was a direct product of the specific socialpolitical organization of the Near-Eastern states, which had existed from the Late Neolithic-Early Bronze Age until the 4th century BC, in a form of the so-called NearEastern despotic monarchy.202 The characteristic feature of that social-political organization was its constituting around one particular person - the absolute sovereign of the state, who occupied the top of the hierarchical structure and was the head of the highly centralized state mechanism; he exercised the unrestricted power over all his subjects, was considered the supreme lord of all the land of his state, and ruled in a despotic way. Naturally, the existence of such a social-political system had resulted in the emergence of the idea that the real state of all things is caused by the will of one and only person – the ruler. That person was thought of as creating the reality according to his own design based on his exclusive knowledge of how the reality has to be. The content of the concept of the supreme earthly power and its formal manifestations had been the direct prototypes for the ideas about the supposed supreme power in the realm of gods. Therefore, each supreme god was

Considering the fact that certain Near-Eastern mythologies and cult systems were composed of a number of local pantheons, it needs to be pointed out that the Near-Eastern conception of the supreme god in its main features has been attested in association not only with the most important and most powerful gods, but also with various less important deities, who appeared as the central ones on local levels. For this reason, there were many such cases when a deity, who was not necessarily the greatest one within the whole divine system of a certain religion, was worshiped as the supreme god of 203

See the study by Gadd (1948). For the Near-Eastern iconographical tradition to represent gods and rulers enthroned, see especially Kyrieleis (1969). 204 See, for example, Ward (1910) 240; Wiseman, Forman and Forman (no date) fig.118 /B.M. 85486/ (possibly of the Middle Babylonian period); Cook (1925) 764, fig.714 (from a hematite cylinder in the possession of A.B. Cook). For the Near-Eastern tradition to represent the gods with the symbols of storm, see Lorimer (1936-1937) 180-185, figs. 3-8. 205 Wyatt (1998) 388-390, esp. pp. 388-389, also p.159, and oth. Note also the worth noting passages illustrating the Near-Eastern patterns of an enthroned supreme god, which were included in the Hittite text of the Babylonian > Hurrian myths known as “Kingship in Heaven”: “…Alalu was king on heaven. Alalu is sitting on the throne, and the mighty Anu, the first of the gods, is standing in front of him… Anu is sitting on the throne, and the mighty Kumarbi is giving him to drink… Anu was king on heaven.” (Guterbock (1948) 124, L8-L10, L16-L18). For the notion of divine throne in the Old Testament, see I Chron. 28.5, 29.23, and oth.

201

See especially Frankfort (1948) 313-333 “The New Year’s Festival”; Hooke (1958) esp. pp. 41, 221; Segal (1963) 114-154 “A New Year Festival”. 202 Note the opinion of Frankfort (1948) 236: “The idea of kingship among the gods followed the pattern of its inception among men”. For Near-Eastern monarchies, see especially the studies by Rawlinson, G. (1879) Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World. 3 volumes, 4th edn. London; Moscati, S. (1960) The Face of the Ancient Orient. Near Eastern Civilizations in PreClassical Times. London; von Sodem, W. (1994) The Ancient Orient. An Introduction to the Study of the Ancient Near East. Michigan, esp. pp. 63-69; Kuhrt, A. (1995) The Ancient Near East c.3000-330 BC. 2 volumes. London and New York; Snell, D.C. (ed.) (2005) A Companion to the Ancient Near East. Malden, Oxford and Carlton, esp. pp. 34-78, 330-342. 32

some local pantheon (usually linked to the main center of his worship) and regarded there as the all-powerful lord over the other gods.

Below, the concepts of the most important supreme NearEastern gods will be briefly reviewed. 1.6.1. Enlil The East-Semitic divine system (including such important ones as the Akkadian and the Babylonian) was based on the Sumerian theology, which had been shaped towards the first half of the third millennium BC and, thus, was one of the oldest in the Near East. Probably, because of a very early origin, the Sumerian mythology had developed neither a consistent etiology of the beginning of all the things207 nor a clear idea of the godcreator of being.208 However, in their final state, the Sumerian mythology and religion seem to have been focused on the figure of the storm-god Enlil, whose original function was to separate the initially interlocked heaven-and-earth. According to the late Sumerian religious texts, Enlil was considered “the Ruling Deity of the Universe”, “the great (and) mighty lord, supreme in heaven (and) earth”, “the leader of (all) living creatures”, “who seats broadly on the holy dais, on the lofty dais,… in the mountain mist”. He was thought to be “the allknowing one, who understands the judgment, who knows the destiny of the land”, and at the same time is “a mentor (and) adviser, a skillful lord, the judge (and) the decisionmaker of the Universe. His life-giving commands (and) decisions are unalterable”, and his “noble word” was compared to the main principles of life - heaven, earth, rain, luxuriance, plants, grain, etc.. His “command”, that is, “the word that is in his heart”, was known and understood to nobody, and had been consulted with no one.209

The most important versions of the Near-Eastern perception of the supreme almighty god, which dominated the Near-Eastern religions and mythologies during the prehistoric – early historic time, were the concepts of the Sumerian god Enlil (adopted by the EastSemitic religion), the Babylonian (East-Semitic) god Marduk, and the West-Semitic gods El, Baal, and Yahweh (who combined the religious and mythological concepts of El and Baal). The following common features characterize each of these gods:  absolutely supreme power,  qualities of the designer and creator of the world,  exclusive wisdom identified with the design of existence,  unrivalled physical strength demonstrated (except for El) in the phenomena of stormy character,  enthroned appearance on the top of a highest mountain, which plays the role of the world focal point. Given that all these characteristics are identified in the Homeric concept of Zeus, but as a complex of qualities of one god do not seem to belong to the original IndoEuropean religious and mythological patterns, Homeric Zeus may be compared and associated with the above mentioned supreme Near-Eastern gods. Before that, however, it is necessary to make the following remarks. As it has already been noted in the beginning of this Chapter, there is a long-lasting discussion about formal and essential correspondences between certain Homeric passages, especially those concerned Zeus, and Near-Eastern mythological patterns. The fact is that a significant number of similarities of different kind and extent have been identified in the Homeric poems and various Near-Eastern texts, representations and archaeological material. However, this tremendous subject requires a very cautious approach, because any possible similarity traced between the mythology of the Homeric poems and the evidence related to the Oriental religions and mythologies should not always be explained by borrowing by the former from the latter or by the influence exercised by the latter on the former. To a certain degree, this may have been a result of similarity of the intellectual structures of the humankind, which causes the universality of some religious and mythological models, the so-called unversaliae.206

 the association of the supreme male deity to the idea of the absolute fatherhood and to that of the unconditioned male fertilizing power, which is clearly traced in the concepts of the Indo-European god *t’yeu(s)-phHther, the West-Semitic god El, who personified the idea of total paternity (Dussaud (1957) 241), and the old supreme Sumerian-Akkadian sky-god An-Anu, who was considered able to impregnate even male deities (Guterbock (1948) 124, L30-L34). It is tempting to compare the Homeric verse telling that Zeus gave Thetis a possibility to bear Ahilleus (Il. 18.436) with the Biblical passages related to Yahweh, according to which he “opens” and “closes” women’s wombs (Gen. 29.31 and 20.17). It may also be noted the cult of Zeus Hypsistos in Athens, to whom women dedicated representations of female breasts in the Hellenistic time (Cook (1925) 2, 877, fig.816);  the figure of a storm-god, who is always active and fights against a monster, thus fulfilling a very important function – the destruction of an anti-cosmic creature, but remains subordinated to the passive supreme god, as it is traced in the Indo-European pairs Diev(a)s – Perkuns, Sventovit – Perun, Tyr – Thor and in those of the Semitic gods El –Baal, Enki – Marduk. 207 Brandon (1963) 85-86. 208 Note Brandon (1963) 84: in Sumer “the Acts of Creation could be attributed to various deities.” 209 The characteristics of Enlil have been summarized here

206

See the argumentation on this matter by Jensen (2001). The following mythological motifs, which may be considered universal, deserve to be referred to here:  the idea of the initial coalescence of the sky and the earth: for example, the Sumerian an-ki “heaven-andearth” (Brandon (1963) 73), and the analogous IndoEuropean mythological pair (Ivanov and Toporov (1994f) 528; see above); 33

It is worth noting that the Sumerian language and Sumerian religious texts were studied in the Mesopotamian educational system until the first century BC.

related to El clearly testify to that matter:  Ugaritic “Creator of the creatures”, or “Creator of the created things”, “Father of men”, “Father of gods”, “King-Father of years”,215  Canaanite and Hittite “El, creator of the earth” (known from the Hittite version of c.720 BC of a Canaanite myth about the Storm-god),216  Old Testamentary “God Most High, maker of heaven and earth” (Gen. 14.19, 14.22).

1.6.2. Marduk During the second millennium BC, the Babylonian god Marduk played the most significant role in the EastSemitic religious system.210 According to the Babylonian cosmogony, Marduk represented the younger generation of gods, which emerged after the primordial deities who personified the initial and almost undifferentiated “all”. In order to destroy those deities, who prevented the world from being arranged, the younger gods announced Marduk “the king of the gods of heaven and earth, counsellor of the gods, their lord”, and bestowed upon him the scepter and the throne. Riding in the chariot, which was “the unrivalled and terrible storm”, and using seven winds and lightning, Marduk combated against the dragoness Tiamat, who embodied the powers of the primordial watery chaos. After his victory, he arranged the world according to the appropriate order.211 It might appear that all the universe-organizing activities of Marduk were predetermined by a certain cosmogony design revealed to him by the elder (and virtually Sumerian) god Enki, who personified the creative powers of waters and the universal values:212 it is noteworthy that Enki called Marduk “the sum-total of my commands, all of them he will observe”.213 Perhaps, Marduk’s exclusive knowledge of the pre-determined order of being caused the association of him with the absolute wisdom, which although is not concretized in the available texts.214

Remarkably, the creative activity of El as described in the Old Testament, in the beginning of the Book of Genesis, was, supposedly, caused by his own will and based on his own design (Gen. 1). It was strongly believed that El possessed the extraordinary Wisdom, or Knowledge, which was considered eternal, that is, existing from the beginning of being, and unchangeable, as well as exclusive, that is, hidden from others.217 Already in early times, the wisdom of El was especially hymned in the Ugaritic poems as a “word”, which may have been reflected in one of the preserved texts: “[a word of tree and whisper of stone,] the sighing of the heavens to [the earth], [of the deeps to the stars]. A word unknown to men, [and which the multitudes of the earth do not understand].”218 According to the earlier interpretation, El’s wisdom was understood as something that made him able to see in his mind’s eye what would be hereafter.219 The later tradition, recorded in the Old Testament, identified El’s wisdom, or his absolute knowledge of everything, with El’s own design of the universe, his own plan of the universe arrangement, which supposedly had emerged in the god’s mind before he began to create the world.220

1.6.3. El In the West-Semitic religion and mythology, the supreme position was held by the old Canaanite god El (Phoenician Ilu – ’il, ’l), whose name literally means “strong”, “mighty”. His characteristics are sufficiently known from the available Canaanite religious and mythological texts, as well as from the books of the Old Testament, where El occurs under the common noun “god”, given his complete assimilation by the Hebrew god Yahweh in the Judaic tradition. In the SyrianPalestinian religious systems, El was considered the only creator of all the existing and was also thought of as the creator or the god-progenitor of men, being associated to the idea of the absolute paternity. The following formulae

El was traditionally imagined seated on a throne (see Fig.4), usually with a scepter in his hand:221 his throne was placed either on Mt. Kasius, also called the Throne of El,222 or at the exact center of the universe, “at the source 215

Wyatt (1998) 94 n.103, and Shifman (1993) 74, 211, suggest the translation “Creator of the creatures”, or “Creator of the Created things”, for the expression bny bnwt in C17=KTU I.4. II.10, KTU I.4. III.30, and oth.; the translation “Father of men” is suggested for the expressions ‘b ‘adm, where ‘adm designates a collective of people. For some other epithets of El, see also Schloen (2001) 352. 216 Pritchard (1969) 519; Miller (1980): the Canaanite ’el quni (a)rsa = the Hittite El-kunirsha (’El-un-ni-ir-sa). 217 Dietrich and Loretz (1992) 31-38. 218 Wyatt (1998) 45. 219 Wyatt (1998) 136. 220 E.g., Job 28.20, 23-27; Proverbs 8.22-30; Wisdom of Solomon 9.1-2, 9; Wisdom of Sirach 1.4-10, 24.1-9. 221 Wyatt (1983). 222 Wyatt (1998) 44 n. 29. Note also the fragment from Is.

according to the Sumerian text “Hymn to Enlil, the AllBeneficent” published by Pritchard (1969) 573-576. 210 Note the opinion of Kirk (1990) 6: “Zeus is shown by his name to be Indo-European, but his functions have significant parallels… with those of Babylonian Marduk.” 211 Clay (1923) Appendix A “The Amorite Story of Creation Enuma Elish”, 2.118, 4.28, 4.39-63, 6.22. 212 James (1969) 22; Afanasieva (1994b, c). 213 Clay (1923) Appendix A “The Amorite Story of Creation Enuma Elish”, 7.120-121. 214 Pritchard (1969) 596, the Akkadian text “I will praise the Lord of Wisdom”. 34

of the rivers, amidst the springs of the two deeps”.223 The throne of El was an important component of the god’s concept: the divine power of El was supposedly concentrated in it (see esp. Daniel 7.9). The location of El at the exact center of the world, that is, at “the omphalos, the place of true reality, the still center of the turning world”, made him immovable in relation to all the other deities who, therefore, revolved around him.224 Moreover, this condition gave him the absolute supremacy over the others to such a degree that he appeared as the KingSovereign fully controlling the cosmos (note Ps. 46.8).225

of human interests), and completed the creation of the universe started by El (mainly, by ordering the rain seasons).229 Summarizing, it has to be pointed out that the above concepts of the supreme Near-Eastern gods, regardless of a number of differences, may be characterized as interrelated and interacting. They were formed within the conditions of and belonged to the common culturalreligious koine, which emerged in the EastMediterranean and Mesopotamia during the second millennium BC – beginning of the first millennium BC.230

According to the preserved Ugaritic texts, there was also the seven-chambered “house” of El at the symbolic absolute center; it had the honorable name “the House of Father”; divine assemblies and feasts were held there.226 It deserves to be mentioned that the detailed descriptions of the “house” of El appear remarkably similar with the Homeric descriptions of the “δῶμα Διός” in the Iliad.

On the basis of the above attempted brief review of the concepts of the most important supreme Near-Eastern gods worshiped during the Bronze Age – beginning of the historic time, it seems possible to conclude that the Homeric image of Zeus comprised certain essential elements of the religious and mythological concepts of the supreme Semitic gods. Two of such elements have to be distinguished as the most important ones: 1. the quality of a god-creator of all the existing, who arranges the universe in conformity to his own design, or the exclusive knowledge of the most appropriate order of being, and always according to his own will, and 2. the characteristic of a god-absolute sovereign of the world enthroned over it at the supposed center of the universe, while holding and demonstrating the symbols of his divine power.

1.6.4. Baal The storm-god Baal, supposedly El’s son, likewise played a significant role in the West-Semitic mythology and religion. Having inherited from El his extra-ordinary wisdom, or the knowledge of everything,227 and possessing the undefeatable physical power manifesting through his stormy activity, Baal destroyed the primordial, pre-cosmic, or anti-cosmic, monstrous figures, who obstructed the evolution of the world (the sea-god Yammu and the god of death Mot).228 After his victories, Baal performed his triumphal enthronement on the top of the mountain Kasius (see above, The Hymn to Baal enthroned) in the rank of the supreme ruler of the Ugaritic mythological micro-cosmos (that is, the sphere

To clarify, this conclusion does not mean that Homeric Zeus appears exactly adequate to any particular supreme Near-Eastern / Semitic god. However, it may not be denied that certain epithets and characteristics of Homeric Zeus, which are unparalleled in other Indo-European mythologies, allow the comparison of him with the above considered Near-Eastern gods: with El – the designer and self-willed creator of the existent, wise all-father and allsovereign, dwelling in his “house” at the absolute center of the universe, where he is also enthroned with a scepter in his hand; with Baal – the victorious storm-god and dragon-fighter, enthroned on the mountain top and holding lightning in his hands; with Marduk announced the King of the gods of heaven and earth after his exploits; with Enlil (in fact, a literature figure in the time of Homer) – the father and lord of gods and men, sovereign of the whole universe, all-knowing and allarranging according to his own word-design.231 The

14.13-14, describing the ambitious desire of a “king of Babylon” to become equal with the Most High God / θεός ‛Ύψιστος (one of El’s names in the Septuagint): “You said in your heart: ‘I will ascend to heaven, I will set my throne above the stars of God. I will sit on high mountain… I will ascend above the heights of the clouds. I will make myself like the Most High’ ”. 223 Wyatt (1998) 52. 224 Wyatt (1998) 52 n.64; also Wyatt (1985). 225 Wyatt (1998) 84-85 n. 64. For the Northwest Semitic picture of the world, see Petersen and Woodward (1977). 226 Wyatt (1998) 52, 58-59, 84-86, 404-405 (KTU 1.114 “The Myth of El’s Banquet”); also Schloen (2001) 349357 (Ch. 14 “The house of Ilu: Canaanite gods and Human society”). 227 Note the description of Baal’s wisdom, analogous with that of the wisdom of El (see above): “ a word of tree and whisper of stone, the sighing of the heavens to the earth, of the deep to the stars, I understand the thunder, which the heavens do not know, a word unknown to men, and which the multitudes of the earth do not understand” (see Wyatt (1998) 78). 228 van Selms (1970); Wyatt (1986) 371-374.

229

Wyatt (1998) 101; Wyatt (1992). See the special study on this subject by Schachermeyr, F. (1967) Agais und Orient. Die uberseeischen Kulturbeziehungen von Kreta und Mykenai mit Agupten, der Levante und Kleinasien unter besonderer Berucksichtigung des 2 Jahr. v. Chr., OAW, Phil.-Hist. Kl., Denkschriften 93. Wien; also Davies, W.V. and Schofield, L. (eds.) (1995) Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant. Interconnections in the Second Millennium BC. London. 231 It deserves to be emphasized that various parallels, exact and approximate, which give grounds for 230

35

intention of this research is to point out that a number of important aspects of the Homeric concept of Zeus, which express intellectual abilities and ruling activities of this god, show remarkable parallels with the religious and mythological concepts of the supreme Near-Eastern / Semitic gods, but not with the traditional Indo-European mythological patterns.

On the other hand, it should be pointed out the circumstance that some of the most important Homeric motifs, which seem do not go back to the traditional Indo-European mythological patterns, are linked to the Thessalian mountain Olympos. This may indicate that certain Near-Eastern elements began to occur in the epic images of Greek gods, especially in that of the Thessalian storm-god and, probably, in that of Zeus, as early as the Aeolian phase of epic (corresponding to the end of the Mycenaean period - Dark Age). That must have been caused by cultural contacts of the prehistoric Aeolian Greeks with the Near-Eastern civilizations in the context of the Aeolian expansion into Asia Minor.

1.7. Possible ways of entry of the Near-Eastern elements into the epic/mythic image of Zeus Here, it must be recalled the above made presumption regarding the Hittite variation of the Indo-European God of the clear sky - the sun-god Siuna. As it has been suggested, in some areas of Asia Minor, where the contacts between the two religions – Greek and Hittite would have been especially intensive, he may have been combined with the proper Greek god of the clear sky Ζεύς and entered the Greek East Ionic epic under the hellenized designation Ζήν. The Indo-European Anatolian religion and mythology, due to the geographical and historical conditions, were for a very long period exposed to the influence of non-Indo-European religious and mythological traditions, especially of the Semitic ones. Thus, certain Old Testamentary and Babylonian passages have been identified in the Hittite ritual religious texts,232 while the iconography of Hittite deities points to its Mesopotamian prototypes.233 The Babylonian > Hurrian succession myths were incorporated in the late Hittite mythology, and the Sun-god Siuna was included in those myths, although his position continued to be enough independent. Generally, it appears that a result of the development of the Hittite religion and mythology was Siuna’s transformation into a kind of Near-Eastern god. Therefore, it seems possible to suppose that one of the reasons of the emergence of certain characteristic features of the supreme Near-Eastern gods in the epic image of Zeus was the combination of Greek Zeus with Hittite Siuna by the East Ionic epic tradition.

The conclusion is that the adaptation of certain non-IndoEuropean, Near-Eastern elements by the epic-mythic image of Zeus was gradual and long-lasting; it should not be ascribed to the personal creative impact of one particular poet, and it may not be attributed exclusively to the specific trends of the East Ionic epic. Finally, it deserves to be noted that in the Iliad there are some mythological themes, which not only apparently discord with the analyzed principal concept of Zeus, but also in fact devaluate it. Thus, the Homeric references to the generations of gods, who existed before the Olympians and to whom Zeus himself traces his origin (Il. 14.274, 15.225), contradict with the idea about Zeus as the cause of all existence and begetter-father of all. Except for that, Homer mentioned two different cosmogony versions deriving the beginning of everything either from Okeanos, the primeval waters (Il. 14.201: “Ὠκεανόν τε, θεῶν γένεσιν” / “Oceanus, from whom the gods are sprung”), or from the personification of Night (Il. 14.259: “Νὺξ, δμήτειρα θεῶν... καὶ ἀδνρῶν” / “Night, the mother of both gods and men”* /the original text is not certain/). Moreover, according to the Il. 15.187-193, Zeus actually does not exercise the supreme autocratic authority over the world, but shares the power with Poseidon and Aides.234 What should be emphasized is that Homer did not try to arrange the imagined divine system in any logic way, as it was later attempted by Hesiod, but treated it, with all its contrarieties, as a given datum. This may mean that in the Homeric period, the common Greek consciousness did not yet realize the contradictions, which emerged in the Greek mythological system by that time, and did not yet have a necessity to explain and to correlate them. This circumstance indicates that in the time of Homer, the frame of the Greek mythological thought was still illegible, composed of controversial and compromising ideas. Correspondingly, it may be argued that a single and commonly accepted Greek mythological system did not yet exist during the Homeric period. Therefore, it would be wrong to consider the whole system of gods as presented in the Homeric poems, and particularly the Homeric concept of Zeus, definitely established and broadly shared patterns of the 8th century BC Greek religion and mythological perception.

comparing the image and the concept of Homeric Zeus with the images and the concepts of the supreme Semitic gods, seem to be countless, and each of them can form a subject of a special investigation. For more parallels identified in the Greek and the Near-Eastern literatures, see the scrupulous study by West (1997). Apart from that, there was always a strong interest in tracing similarities between the Homeric poems and the texts of the Old Testament, the so-called Homeric and Hebrew similes, see Burr, A.W. (1887) The Theophanies of Homer and the Bible. Bibliotheca Sacra 44, 522-549; Krenkel, M. (1888) Biblische Parallelen zu Homeros. Jahrbucher fur Classische Philologie 137, 15-44; Hulst, C.S. (1925) Homer and the Prophets. Chicago and London; Baumgartner, W. (1944) Israelitisch-griechische Sagenbeziehungen. Schweizerisches Archiv fur Volkskunde 41, 1-29; Gordon, C.H. (1955) Homer and the Bible. The origin and the character of East Mediterranean literature. Hebrew Union College Annual 26, 43-108. 232 Gurney (1977) 36-40. 233 Lorimer (1936-1937) 180-181 n.1, fig.3.

234

For the Babylonian origin of this idea, see Burkert (1983) 53. 36

The name of Zeus is identified in the available Linear B records in the genitive form di-wo /*Diwos/ and in the dative form di-we /*Diwei/, both pointing to the nominative form /*Diw-eu-s/ - the exact analogue of the alphabetic form Ζεύς < *ΔιF-ευ-ς < *D(i)(w)eu-s.237 The god’s name and a number of suffixed derivatives from the main theme diw- are attested in the tablets from Pylos, Knossos, Thebes, and Mycenae, in various contexts.

CHAPTER 2 The relation of the Homeric concept of Zeus to the Mycenaean religion As it has been demonstrated above, Homeric Zeus was not only a product of the continuous development of the Greek epic tradition and mythology, which was going on through the whole Bronze Age to the early historic time, but also a combination of the concepts originally expressed by a number of completely different gods. Among those, the Indo-European God of the clear skyfather, the Indo-European Storm-god, a non-IndoEuropean god-creator and supreme ruler of the universe, and a Mediterranean young god/divine child are clearly recognized. In order to establish under which circumstances did these divine concepts start to be linked one to another and appeared at the beginning of the historic time joined in the image of one god, it is necessary to trace each of these concepts on the prehistoric phase of the Greek religion. However, because of the insufficient evidence, the Greek prehistoric religion remains to be quite an obscure subject, and even its latest version - the Mycenaean religion, to which the main bulk of the available information is related, is not completely known.235 The names of gods occurring in the Linear B tablets indicate the manifold Mycenaean pantheon, but its structure is not clear, while neither the concepts nor the characteristics of the mentioned gods are certain. All these circumstances create difficulties in identifying the divine concepts, which were combined in Homeric Zeus, among the prehistoric Greek deities. Therefore, this Chapter has the following tasks: to select and to examine all the evidence, which may be related to a god of the clear sky, a god of the storm activity, a supreme male god, and a young god / divine child as those could occur in the Greek religion of the prehistoric time. The definition of the relationship of these divine concepts to each other during the Bronze Age will be pursued as well.

At Pylos  di-we (PY Tn 316.9) – the name of the god *Diweus – Ζεύς in the dative case indicating him as a recipient of offerings (which included a man and a gold bowl); in the tablet PY Tn 316, it is mentioned in the one line with the name of another recipient of offerings - e-ra, who received a woman and a gold bowl as well; the name of the god *Diweus – Ζεύς in the genitive form di-wo also occurs in the next line of the same tablet (PY Tn 316.10) in association with the male personal name in the dative form di-ri-mi-jo,238  di-wi-jo /di-u-jo (PY Tn 316.8, PY Mb 1366, PY Fr 1230) – Diwijon, the sanctuary of *Diweus (hieron or temenos), where the god must have been honoured with certain rituals and offerings,239  di-wi-je-u (An 656.2) – possibly *Diwieus > *ΔιFyεύς, which may be understood as “that who serves *Diweus”, with a more specific meaning such as “a priest in the Diwijon (*Diweus’ sanctuary)” or “that who makes sacrifices to *Diweus”,240  di-wi-ja-ta (PY Nn 228.4) – an ethnic name or a place-name possibly derived from the term Diwijon “*Diweus’ sanctuary” (see above),241  di-wo-nu-so[ (PY Xa 102, Xa 1419.1) is traditionally interpreted as a male divine name *ΔιFόνυσο- > Διόνυσος.242 However, it has been pointed out that “in neither case is the word found in any clear context, so that there is no way of establishing with certainty that the tablet in fact refers to the god”,243  di-wo (PY An 172.7) – a man’s personal name, possibly *Diwōn > *ΔίFων > Δίων, a reduced form of the compound names derived from the god’s name

2.1. The evidence for the worship of a deity of the clear sky in the Mycenaean religion The presence of a deity or deities of the clear sky in the Mycenaean religion may be indicated, first of all, by the evidence of the Mycenaean Greek language, precisely by the Mycenaean divine and theophoric names as well as by the religious terms, which may etymologically be associated with the notions of daylight, sunshine, sunny weather, and the like. Therefore, it must be examined the occurrence in the Mycenaean texts of the name of Zeus < *t’y-eu-s < *t’y-/*t’ei-/*t’iu- “to shine”, “to be shining white”,236 as well as that of other names and terms derived from the same root or from those with close meanings.

237

Heubeck (1970) 68. Jorro and Adrados (1985-1993) v.1, 180-181 (di-we); Morpurgo (1963) 67-68 (di-we, di-wo); Chadwick and Baumbach (1963) 198-199 (Ζεύς); Palmer (1963) 262264; Ventris and Chadwick (1973) 286-289. 239 Jorro and Adrados (1985-1993) v.1, 179-180 (di-u-jo); Ilievski (1963) 148-149; Chadwick and Baumbach (1963) 199. 240 Jorro and Adrados (1985-1993) v.1, 182-183 (di-wi-jeu); Muhlestein (1956) 88; Ventris and Chadwick (1973) 279. 241 Jorro and Adrados (1985-1993) v.1, 181 (di-wi-ja-ta); Muhlestein (1956) 88. 242 Jorro and Adrados (1985-1993) v.1, 183-184 (di-wonu-so[ ). 243 Baumbach (1979) 147. 238

235

This circumstance was especially emphasized by Baumbach (1979). 236 Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) v.1, 196, 692. 37

Diweus;244 it may generally be interpreted as “a man of *Diweus”,245  di-u-ja / di-wi-ja (PY Cn 1287.6, Tn 316.6, An 607.5) – the name of the female deity *ΔίFyα preserved in the alphabetic Greek as the theonym Δῖα and the adjective δῖα,246  di-u-ja-jo (PY Tn 316.4) – *ΔιFyαῖον, the sanctuary of di-u-ja / di-wi-ja (hieron or temenos),247  di-wi-ja-wo (PY Na 406.B) – a male derivative from the female divine name di-u-ja / di-wi-ja with the suffix – άFων > *ΔιFyάFων or -αρά/*αρFά > *ΔίFyαρFος; it might possibly be a man’s theophoric name or a cult title with the general meaning “that who serves di-wi-ja”.248

 di-wo-pu-ka-ta (KN Fp 363.3) – probably, a man’s name or a cult title applied to a male official of *Diweus,255 but nothing more is certain,  di-wo (KN Dv 1503.B, KN E 842.1a) – a man’s personal name, possibly *Diwōn > *ΔίFων > Δίων, as that in the PY An 172.7 (see above),256  di-we-so (KN V 60.3) – a man’s personal name, probably *ΔίFεισσος or *ΔιFείσσων, which might be a reduced form of *ΔιFείσσαFος “saved by *Diweus-Zeus” (?),257  di-wa-jo (KN V 1523.6) – a man’s personal name, possibly *Diwaios > *ΔίFαιος,258  di-wi-ja (KN Xd 97) – the name of the goddess *ΔίFyα (as in PY Cn 1287.6, Tn 316.6, An 607.5, see above) > Δῖα and δῖα,259  di-wi-ja-wo (KN Vc 293) – a male derivative from the female theonym di-wi-ja with the suffix –αFων > *ΔιFyάFων or -αρά/*αρFά > *ΔίFyαρFος, as that in the PY Na 406.B (see above); possibly, a man’s theophoric name or a cult title with the general meaning “that who serves di-wi-ja”,260  pa-di-jo / pa2-di-ja (KN Sc 224, Sc 228, C 911.6) – a man’s and a woman’s personal names261 corresponding to the Greek mythic-heroic name Πανδίων < *ΠανδιFιων (Hom. Il. 12.372), the religious term Πάνδια < *ΠανδιFια that designated the celebrations held for Zeus in Attica in the historic time, and the mythic name Πανδίη applied to the daughter of Zeus and Selene.262

At Knossos  di-we (F 51.2) – the name of the god *Diweus – Ζεύς in the dative form indicating him as a recipient of offerings, which included a large quantity of barley or wheat;249 in the tablet Fp 1.2, the designation di-ka-ta-jo di-we, which is the dative form of the god’s name combined with the epithet or adjective di-ka-ta-jo in the dative case as well (= “Diktaioi *Diwei” ?), is applied to a recipient of an oil offering (Diktaios *Diweus ?),250  di-wi-jo-jo me-no (Fp 5.1) – Diwioio mēnos, the genitive form of the name of a month devoted to *Diweus in Crete;251 in the alphabetic Greek, this adjective was preserved as δῖος (< *δῖFoς < *δίjFoς < *δίFjoς < di-wijo);252 it clearly means “of *Diweus”,  di-wi-je-ja (KN Xd 97) – probably, a female cult title derived from the designation of *Diweus’ shrine, which might be Diwijon as that attested in Pylos; it would have corresponded to the Pylian term di-wi-je-u, possibly *ΔιFyεύς, used to designate a male attendant of the sanctuary of *Diweus in Pylos (see above, PY An 656.2),253  di-wo-a-ne[ (KN Xd 216) is not certain, but it is applied to a man and, therefore, might be “ΔιFός 254 ἀνήρ”; it can be understood as a general designation of a male attendant of *Diweus,

At Thebes  di-wi-ja-wo / di-u-ja-wo (Ug 11, TH Of 26.3, TH Of 33.2) – male derivatives from the female theonym di-wija / di-u-ja as those in the PY 406.B and the KN Vc 293 (see above); possibly, men’s theophoric names or cult titles with the general meaning “that who serves di-wija”.263

Morpurgo (1963) 69 (]di-wo-a-ne[ ). 255 Jorro and Adrados (1985-1993) v.1, 184 (di-wo-pu-kata); Morpurgo (1963) 69 (di-wo-pu-ka-ta); van Leuven (1979) 113. 256 Jorro and Adrados (1985-1993) v.1, 183 (di-wo); Muhlestein (1956) 87-88; Morpurgo (1963) 68 (di-wo 1); Ruijgh (1968) 148. 257 Jorro and Adrados (1985-1993) v.1, 181 (di-we-so); Morpurgo (1963) 68 (di-we-so). 258 Jorro and Adrados (1985-1993) v.1, 180 (di-wa-jo); Muhlestein (1956) 88; Morpurgo (1963) 67 (di-wa-jo). 259 Jorro and Adrados (1985-1993) v.1, 178-179 (di-u-ja / di-wi-ja); Muhlestein (1956) 88; Morpurgo (1963) 67 (diu-ja / di-wi-ja); Gerard-Rousseau (1968) 68-69; Heubeck (1970) 69. 260 Jorro and Adrados (1985-1993) v.1, 181-182 (di-wi-jawo); Morpurgo (1963) 68 (di-wi-ja-wo). 261 Palmer (1963) 440. 262 Muhlestein (1956) 81. 263 Jorro and Adrados (1985-1993) v.1, 181-182 (di-wi-jawo); Morpurgo (1963) 68 (di-wi-ja-wo); Chadwick (1969) 120-121, 132.

244

Jorro and Adrados (1985-1993) v.1, 183 (di-wo); Muhlestein (1956) 88; Ruijgh (1968) 148. 245 Heubeck (1970) 70. 246 Jorro and Adrados (1985-1993) v.1, 178-179 (di-u-ja); Muhlestein (1956) 88; Morpurgo (1963) 67 (di-u-ja / diwi-ja); Gerard-Rousseau (1968) 68-69; Heubeck (1970) 69. 247 Jorro and Adrados (1985-1993) v.1, 179 (di-u-ja-joqe); Muhlestein (1956) 88; Heubeck (1970) 69. 248 Jorro and Adrados (1985-1993) v.1, 181-182 (di-wi-jawo). 249 Jorro and Adrados (1985-1993) v.1, 180 (di-we); Driesen (2000) 208, 213. 250 Jorro and Adrados (1985-1993) v.1, 180 (di-we); Palmer (1963) 235-236; Ventris and Chadwick (1973) 305-307. 251 Ventris and Chadwick (1973) 30. 252 Heubeck (1970) 69-70. 253 Jorro and Adrados (1985-1993) v.1, 182 (di-wi-je-ja); Muhlestein (1956) 88. 254 Jorro and Adrados (1985-1993) v.1, 183 (di-wo-a-ne[); 38

documents, which are highly formulaic bureaucratic reports about offerings, taxes, and contracts, did not suppose to contain detailed descriptions of the practiced cults. Therefore, in the available Mycenaean texts, there are no direct indications of the character and the nature of any of the mentioned cults, including that of *Diweus. Correspondingly, the actual religious concept, which underlay the cults of *Diweus in Pylos and Knossos, is not known. The scattered information of the Linear B records has no support in the archaeological material, because the sanctuaries of *Diweus at Pylos and Knossos have not been identified. The secure cult iconography of *Diweus, which could have pointed at the visual comprehension of him by the Mycenaean Greeks and revealed some of his features, is not known.265 Hence, only on the etymological grounds it may be presumed that the worship of *Diweus - Zeus during the Mycenaean time comprised the concept of the clear, shining day-sky.

At Mycenae  di-we-se-ja (MY Oe 103.2) – a woman’s personal name that might be *ΔιFείσσεια analogous with the male personal name di-we-so, a reduced form of *ΔιFείσσαFος “saved by Zeus” (?) in the KN V 60.3 (see above).264 This evidence needs to be commented. In the Chapter 1 (see 1.3.1. Zeus as a god of the clear sky. Ζεύς / Ζεύς πατήρ), it has been shown that the god’s name in the form Ζεύς as attested in the earliest historic sources traces directly back to the name of the PIE God of the clear sky *t’yeus. This circumstance in itself certainly indicates the permanent presence of the name of Zeus in the Greek language from the time of its separation from the Indo-European linguistic unity, that is, approximately from the Early Bronze Age, until the time of the composition of the Homeric poems, that is, until the beginning of the historic time. Consequently, it can be asserted that the concept of Zeus was in any form comprised by the Greek religious beliefs during the whole Bronze Age. Significantly, the name of Zeus recognized in the Linear B texts provides an important link between the PIE divinity *t’yeus and Zeus of the Homeric poems. Moreover, it might be argued that the tradition of practical worship of Zeus did not begin in the Mycenaean time, but goes as far back as the Early Bronze Age. The fact that the Mycenaean form of the god’s name di-we > *Diwe-u-s is exactly adequate to the alphabetic Greek form Ζεύς /*D(i)(w)eu-s/, while both are derived from the PIE forms *t’y-eu-s/*t’ei-w(o)-s, signifies that Zeus was being referred to by the Greek-speakers under the same name based on the stem diw- throughout the whole prehistoric period until the early historic times.

In relation to the last presumption, attention should be given to the Mycenaean man’s personal name Auge(w)as < au-ke-wa, identified in the Pylian tablets PY An 192, Jo 438, and Ta 711:266 it corresponds to the alphabetic Greek name Αὐγέας, where αὐγή is properly a ray generated from a shining body, like the sun or fire. In the historic Greek language, the word αὐγή was used with the meanings “sun-rise” and “light of the rising sun”. It is remarkable that Homer had directly connected αὐγή with Zeus in his verse “Διὸς αὐγάς” (Hom. Il. 13.837, see also Chapter 1, 1.3.1. Zeus as a god of the clear sky. Ζεύς / Ζεύς πατήρ). It has been demonstrated elsewhere that, according to the early name-making (onomastic) traditions, a power of nature implied in personal names was most probably considered as something divine by their carriers.267 Hence, it may be inferred that the notion of sunshine or that of light of the rising sun belonged to those, which had religious significance for the Mycenaean Greeks. It is quite tempting to presume that the god *Diweus, whose name literally means “the shining sky”, personified or was in any way linked to the deified notion of sun-light, especially in Pylos, given that the name Auge(w)as / Αὐγέας occurred there, but it may not be confirmed.

The references of the Pylian tablets to the shrine of *Diweus and, possibly, to his special attendants with sacral duties constitute the evidence for the practice of cult of *Diweus in Pylos. Even though no shrine of *Diweus is directly mentioned in the available tablets from Knossos, such details as the attested presence of *Diweus among the divine recipients of offerings, the reference to a month specifically dedicated to *Diweus in the calendar of Knossos, and the identified female appellative noun with a possible meaning “a priestess in the sanctuary of *Diweus” suggest an established cult of *Diweus in Knossos, during the period of its occupation by the Mycenaean Greeks, as well. The available Linear B tablets from Mycenae and Thebes do not contain references, which may indicate cults of *Diweus there during the Mycenaean period. However, the derivatives from the theme diw- identified in the texts from Mycenae and Thebes signify that the concept of *Diweus may have occurred among the religious beliefs of people of those cities during the Mycenaean time.

It is worth to be noted that in the Pylian tablet Tn 316.910 *Diweus, E-ra, and someone di-ri-mi-jo / di-wo i-je265

Some disputed representations of Zeus are believed to may be recognized in the Cretan prehistoric and Mycenaean iconography, see Tiverios (1997) 315-316 “Creto-Mycenaean Age”. Pausanias mentioned some very old, lately lost, images of Zeus, which might be of the Mycenaean Age, for instance: the xoanon of Zeus Herkeios in Zeus’ sanctuary located on the Larissa Hill at Argos (Paus. 2.24.3, 8.46.2), the aniconic representation of Zeus Kappotas at Gytheion (Paus. 3.22.1), and the xoanon of Zeus, which stood in front of the Temple of Apollo Lykeios at Argos (Paus. 2.19.7). 266 Baumbach (1971) 159. 267 See the recent study into this subject by Parker (2000).

Concerning the religious concept of Mycenaean Zeus, it needs to be pointed out that the preserved Linear B 264

Jorro and Adrados (1985-1993) v.1, 181 (di-we-se-ja); Morpurgo (1963) 68 (di-we-se-ja). 39

Ζεύς Diktaios,275 and thus appears with the epithet, under which he was widely worshiped in Crete during the historic time276 (see also below, Chapter 3, 3.1.27. Psychro (Diktaean) Cave, 3.1.31. Praisos, and 3.1.32. Palaikastro). It is worth of attention that in the Fp1, Zeus Diktaios was mentioned first among the nine listed divinities. A “priestess of the winds” was mentioned last in the same tablet (line 9), which might indicate some connection of the Knossian cult of *Diweus, or that of *Diweus Diktaios precisely, with the veneration of stormphenomena, but it is not secure.

we were mentioned, in the dative case, as a last group of the recipients of offerings, which they received in *Diweus’ shrine Diwijon.268 Di-ri-mi-jo / di-wo i-je-we is almost unanimously interpreted as the dative form of the compound designation “Drimios i-ju(s) (υιός) of *Diweus”,269 but M. Ventris and J. Chadwick suggested the understanding of i-je-we as i-je--we, that is, as the dative form of the word ἱερεύς, identifying Drimios as a “priest of *Diweus”; however, they also admitted that “this ‘priest of Zeus’ may conceivably be a hero figure rather than a living person”.270 E-ra is accepted to mean the goddess Ἥρα. Thus, according to the Tn 316.9-10, *Diweus - Zeus, Era - Hera, and Drimios-son (or priest?) of *Diweus seem to have been joined at least for one certain ceremony, which was held at Pylos in the sanctuary of *Diweus, the Diwijon. Some scholars, as, for example C. Kerenyi, based on this reference argue about the Mycenaean worship of the “divine family” presided by Zeus, which could have been the prehistoric prototype for the Homeric family of gods under Father-Zeus, the husband of Hera.271 However, this approach has certain weaknesses because the context of the particular reference is not clear enough, while the assumed “divine family” appears composed of only three members. Moreover, the divine status of Drimios is not confirmed, and even if he might be accepted as a “Mycenaean son” of *Diweus, excluded by the later mythology from Zeus’ official family, there is no mention about his exact relation to Era.

The epithet Diktaios gave grounds for associating *Diweus of the Knossian tablet Fp1 with one of the Cretan mythic localities named Dikte, of which the most plausible are Mt. Dikte, now Aphentis Christos in the Lasithian mountains, and the Diktaean Cave thought to be located above Psychro, north of Mt. Dikte, 30 km south-east of Knossos.277 The excavations in the assumed Diktaean Cave have produced remarkable evidence for the continuous cult activity inside it from the MM IA-B until the Early Archaic period (see also below, 2.5. The evidence for the association of Zeus with the concept of a “young god”, and Chapter 3, 3.1.27. Psychro (Diktaean) Cave).278 The prehistoric material is abundant: a number of bronze votive male figurines of the Minoan adorant types, a few full-sized and more numerous miniature votive bronze double axes, daggers, and knives could be related to a male war-like deity, who would have been venerated at that place; bronze pendants, pins, needles, and some other jewelry279 seem to indicate a female aspect of the cult practiced there. However, no written evidence for the identity of the divinity(-ies) worshiped in the Psychro Cave during the Bronze Age was discovered, and its linking to Mycenaean *Diweus Diktaios (?) mentioned in the Fp1 tablet, as well to Zeus Diktaios worshiped in Crete in the historic time, is only hypothetical.

Except that, it was argued that the reference to e-re-u-tere di-wi-je-we in the Pylian tablet PY 76=Cn 3.2 may be read as “Eleuther, (son) of *Diweus”.272 This reading was doubted by L.R. Palmer as well as by M. Ventris and J. Chadwick, who suggested to understand e-re-u-te-re (which also occurs in the Wa 917.2 in the compound term e-qe-ta e-re-u-te-re[), not as the dative singular form of a personal name, but as the nominative plural form of ereuter “searcher”, “inspector” (=ἐρευνητής),273 equivalent to the later Cretan terms ἐρευτάς and ἐρευτής “exactor, “collector of state-debts”, known from the epigraphic documents.274 Therefore, it seems more preferable to interpret e-re-u-te-re di-wi-je-we as a mention of official attendants of *Diweus’ cult in Pylos.

It is important that the cult of *Diweus in both Pylos and Knossos was in no way connected with the cult of the originally cognate to him goddess Diwija. Thus, it may be inferred that the initial divine couple “he-clear sky and she-clear sky” (see Chapter 1, 1.3.1. Zeus as a god of the clear sky. Zeus’ original female counterpart: her identity and evolution) had definitely been separated in the Greek religion by the Mycenaean time. The transformation of the relationship between these deities attested in the Late Bronze Age religion may reflect certain changes in their original concepts.

Concerning the worship of Mycenaean Zeus in Knossos, it is significant that in the Knossian tablet Fp1.2, the god is referred to (in the dative case) as di-ka-ta-jo di-we, which implies the nominative form *Diktaios Diweus = 268

The text and the translation of the Pylian tablet Tn 316 see in Palmer (1963) 261-268; Ventris and Chadwick (1973) 286-289. 269 Palmer (1963) 264. 270 Ventris and Chadwick (1973) 289. 271 Kerenyi (1976) 26. 272 Furumark (1954) 26; Kerenyi (1976) 24-26. 273 Palmer (1963) 174, 307, 377, 419; Ventris and Chadwick (1973) 206-207. 274 Ventris and Chadwick (1973) 207, 545; Liddell and Scott (1996) 686 (ἐρεύω); SIG 527.132, GDI 5073.18.

275

Ventris and Chadwick (1973) 305-307. Willetts (1962) 207-214, 237. 277 Ventris and Chadwick (1973) 306. 278 Boardman (1961) 3; Watrous and Widenor (1996) 4753. 279 Boardman (1961) 6-71; Watrous and Widenor (1996) 49, 51-52. 276

40

A number of the identified Mycenaean personal names formed of the name of *Diweus - Zeus280 indicate the relative importance of this god in the Mycenaean popular perception. It may be supposed that the idea about a possible personal connection with Zeus, as that reflected in the Homeric epithets δι(F)ογενής, δι(F)οτρεφής, δι(F)ίφιλος and δῖ(F)ος, all implying Zeus’ role as that of the absolute father, had its roots in the prehistoric time. However, it needs to be noted that the available Linear B references to *Diweus do not offer the Mycenaean equivalent for the basic Homeric compound designation of Zeus Ζεύς πατήρ directly inherited by the god from the supreme PIE deity *t’yeu(s) phHther. It appears that the epithet πατήρ did not have cult significance in the Mycenaean concept of Zeus and had been preserved until the time of Homer only in and due to the prehistoric epic diction and the speech tradition.

Mycenaean religion, the reflection of what might have been the Homeric concept of Zeus, were not accepted. Generally, judging by the frequency of the occurrence of the name of Zeus - *Diweus in the Mycenaean texts and especially considering the fact that in the largest available list of the deities venerated in Pylos, the tablet Tn 316, the god was mentioned at the last place, it is not possible to argue for the supreme position of *Diweus in the Mycenaean Greek pantheon. To sum up, the evidence provided by the Linear B texts points to the practice of cults of Zeus - *Diweus in Pylos and Knossos and suggests the presence of his concept among the popular beliefs in Mycenae and Thebes. The nature of the Mycenaean concept of Zeus - *Diweus and the details of his cults are not indicated, but there are some grounds to believe that the god was essentially associated to the notion of the clear sky and sunshine. The archetypal image of the Indo-European god-father of all *t’yeu(s) phHther > Greek Ζεύς πατήρ, the center and head of the family of gods in the Homeric poems, is not identified in the Linear B records. The exact position of *Diweus in the Mycenaean pantheon is not known, but it does not seem to have been supreme.

It has to be pointed out that in the available Mycenaean texts neither the name of the god *Diweus – Zeus nor any derivative from the diw- theme is attested in immediate association with the terms applied to the highest Mycenaean secular officials, as wanax, laFagetas, etc. This circumstance may be taken as an indication of that Mycenaean Zeus was not in fact associated to the Mycenaean concept of power and could not have been a prototype for Homeric Zeus - the “anax of gods and men”. Also, this would mean that, in terms of the epic language, the Homeric formula Ζεύς ἄναξ did not originate in the Mycenaean formulaic prototypes.

In addition to the references of the Linear B records related to Pylos, Knossos, Mycenae and Thebes, attention should be given to the Arkadian cult of Zeus Λυκαῖος practiced at the mountain Lykaion (see Chapter 3, 3.1.19. Mt. Lykaion). As it has been shown elsewhere, the epithet Λυκαῖος, as well as the name of the mountain Λύκαιον, had been formed on the basis of the (Proto-) Indo-European root *l(e)ukh- meaning “to shine”, “to be shining white”.284 This suggests that there must have been a special link between Mt. Lykaion and a deity with shining nature from quite early times, perhaps from the pre-Greek period in Greece. The evidence of etymology seems to be confirmed by the results of the latest reexcavation of the sanctuary at Mt. Lykaion, where certain materials, which appear to be of the Early / Late Bronze Age, have been discovered. These include EBA pottery sherds, a Minoan seal and a remarkable number of Mycenaean kylikes.285 Perhaps, a “shining” or solar male deity, most probably original Zeus, was practically worshiped on Mt. Lykaion, though in primitive forms, throughout the whole Bronze Age.286

H. Muhlestein suggested that a group of the related words pa-de-we and pa-de-we-u / pa-da-je-u identified in the Pylian tablets PY Un 219, PY Ep 613, PY An 192, PY Eb 159, and PY Eb 839, respectively, may be traced back to the stem diw-. Based on this, the scholar read the former as *Pa(n)-de-u-ei / *Παν-διFει, that is, as the dative form of the nominative *pa-de-u = *Pa(n)Deus / *Παν-Ζευς, and the latter as *Pan-diw-eus / *Παν-διF-ευς, which he interpreted as a “man (or a priest) of *Παν-Ζευς”.281 These readings have been used by him for the conclusion about practicing in Pylos the worship of Zeus as *ΠανΖευς, the “all-embracing sky-god”.282 However, Muhlestein’s interpretations of the Pylian words pa-dewe and pa-de-we-u are not supported by other scholars,283 and his arguments about the focal position of Zeus in the 280

Some other cults of Zeus, which are attested from the SubMycenaean – EIA time and were originally oriented on the clear-shining sky, appear to have had their origins in the prehistoric (Mycenaean and even earlier) religious beliefs

The list of the ancient Greek personal names with the first stem ΔιF- (Δι- < ΔιF-, Διο- < ΔιFο-, Διει- < ΔιFει-), which possibly go back to the Mycenaean onomastic, see in the studies by Fick (1874) 24-25, and Fick (1894) 9899, mentioning about 40 variants. 281 Muhlestein (1956) 79-80, 88. 282 Muhlestein (1956) 88. 283 For example, Morpurgo (1963) 225, defined these words as those with uncertain meaning. Palmer (1963) 192, 202, 440, 567, presumed that pa-de-we might be either a temple functionary or an uncertain divinity, perhaps connected with another possible divinity pa-de in the KN Fp1.7; he interpreted pa-de-we-u / pa-da-je-u as a title or an ethnic name.

284

Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) v.1, 779, v.2, 123; Zolotnikova (2005) 105-106, 110. 285 “Mt. Lykaion Excavation and Survey Project”, http://lykaionexcavation.org/. I am thankful to the Professor David Romano, the supervisor of the excavations going on Mt. Lykaion from 2003, for discussing with me some of the results of the Project. 286 See also Zolotnikova (2005) 111-112. 41

and practices. Such cults are those of Zeus Laphystios in Thessalia and Boeotia (see Chapter 3, 3.1.3/4. Halos / Mt. Laphystion)), the cult of Zeus in Olympia (see Chapter 3, 3.1.18. Olympia), and, presumably, the cult of Zeus Σημίος at Mt. Hymettos in Attica (see Chapter 3, 3.1.7. Mt. Hymettos); the Elean cult of Zeus Leukaios / Λευκαῖος (Paus. 5.5.5), too, might belong to this group, but it is known only due to a mention by Pausanias.

Are there, in fact, any indications of the worship of a storm-deity or deities in the Bronze Age Greek religion? 2.2.1. The evidence of the Linear B texts The Knossian tablets Fp1.10 and Fp13.3 contain the remarkable references to a-ne-mo i-je-re-ja agreed to mean Ἀνέμων ἱέρεια, that is, “the priestess of the winds”.288 This seems to suggest that a cult of the winds was practiced during the Mycenaean period in Crete, somewhere in the area of Knossos, but the exact location of the cult-place is not known.289

2.2. The evidence for the worship of a storm-deity in the Mycenaean religion A special problem of the prehistoric Greek religion is the identity of the original Greek storm-god, who, as it has been mentioned above (see Chapter 1, 1.3.2. Zeus as a storm-god. Zeus as a substitute for the original Greek storm-god), completely disappeared from the Greek pantheon by the time of Homer and was replaced in his main functions by Zeus, originally the god of the clear, sunny sky.

The deification of winds is attested in many individual Indo-European mythological and religious systems; it traces back to the earliest common Indo-European tradition.290 The gods of the winds were for the most part monofunctional, representing only the embodiment of the winds; they were normally connected with the stormdeities, but were always clearly distinct from them.291

In regard to this, it needs to be pointed out that the available Mycenaean linguistic material, which may be used in the study of the prehistoric religious beliefs, such as personal names, place-names, ethnic names, cult titles, and terms, as well as the language of the historic Greeks, does not contain any derivative from the Indo-European root *pherkho-(u)-(s)-/*pheru-(s) “oak”, “mountain oak forest”,287 of which most of the names of the IndoEuropean storm-gods are formed (see Chapter 1, 1.3.2. Zeus as a storm-god. Zeus as a substitute for the original Greek storm-god). Hence, the Mycenaean Greek deity, who could have represented a variation of the Indo-European Storm-god *pherkhou-n(o)-/*pherun(o)- in the Late Bronze Age Greek pantheon as known at present, can not be identified, and even his presence in it can not be attested.

By the time of Homer, the Greek mythology had personified the notions of winds in the figure of Aiolos the god-lord of the winds, and in those of Boreas - the North-wind, Zephyros - the West-wind, Notos - the South-wind, and Euros - the East-wind (Hom. Il. 2.145, 16.148-151, 16.765, 20.220-229, 23.192-208, Od. 10.175). Homer presented Aiolos as a half-divine being, “dear to the immortals gods” (Hom. Od. 10.2), the master of “the blustering winds” (Hom. Od. 10.20); he was believed to have been made “the keeper of the winds” by Zeus (Hom. Od. 10.21), who acts in the Iliad and the Odyssey as a storm-god. In the Homeric poems, the “winds” appear as a kind of divine family or company carrying common responsibility for windy weather and spending time together in common feasts (note Hom. Il. 23.199-200 – the feast of the winds in the “house of Zephyros”). Could these pictures have come from the Mycenaean imagery? In regard to this, it should be mentioned that the name Αἴολος, properly “quick moving”, “rapid”, “changeable”,292 expressing the general idea of move, is identified in the Mycenaean language, in the KN Ch 896, as an oxen-name (a3-wo-ro

However, even if the archetypal figure of the IndoEuropean Storm-god *pherkhou-n(o)-/*pheru-n(o)- is not traced among the Mycenaean Greek deities, it seems unlikely that the prehistoric Greeks did not worship such an important deity as that of storm. Besides, a prehistoric Greek deity of storm could have been a particular Greek Bronze Age creation and not necessarily a derivation from the common Indo-European Storm-god. Still, there are substantial obstacles in recognizing that potential god, since none of the Mycenaean deities known from the Linear B records may be identified with certainty as a deity of storm on the basis of his or her name, that is, etymologically, while neither the nature nor the functions of the deities mentioned in the preserved texts are specified. Correspondingly, the figure of the basic Mycenaean storm-god, whether he could have been a variation of the Indo-European Storm-god *pherkhoun(o)-/*pheru-n(o)- or a specifically Greek prehistoric storm-deity, remains to be unknown.

288

Palmer (1963) 236; Gerard-Rousseau (1968) 32; Ventris and Chadwick (1973) 305-307, 531. But Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) v.1, 584-585, translate ane-mo i-je-re-ja as “the holy wind”. 289 Gerard-Rousseau (1968) 32. The tablet Fp13 seems to associate the priestess of the winds with the locality Itanos (?) in eastern Crete (Ventris and Chadwick (1973) 307-308). For the cult of the winds in Crete, see also the study by Hampe (1967). 290 Note especially the Vedic gods of winds Vayu and Vata, of whom the latter has the name directly cognate to the name of the Iranian wind-deity Vatu and the Slavic word for wind veter, see Tporov (1994f, g); Wikander (1941). 291 Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) v.1, 584-585. 292 Liddell and Scott (1996) 40-41 (Αἴολος); Μπαμπινιώτης (1998) 91 (Αιολείς).

287

See Morpurgo (1963); Chadwick and Baumbach (1963); Baumbach (1971); Palmer (1963); Ventris and Chadwick (1973); Jorro and Adrados (1985-1993); Aravantinos, Godart and Sacconi (2002). 42

> ΑἴFολος),293 and Ζέφυρος is read in the PY Ea 56 as a man’s name (ze-pu2-ro).294 This seems to indicate that the Greeks started to apply the specific personal names to the notions of the winds and, thus, began to shape the idea about the individualized deities responsible for the wind activities only in the post-Mycenaean period, that is, most probably, during the Dark Age and the Aeolian phase in the epic diction. As far as no specific designation for the worshiped winds is attested in the Mycenaean records, it may be supposed that the winds as a deified power of nature still had impersonal character in the Mycenaean religious perception.

height), holds in the upraised right hand an almost completely preserved object interpreted by many scholars as a battle hammer or as a double axe.297 Concerning this, it deserves to be pointed out that in the Indo-European religious symbolism, the axe conventionalized the victorious weapon of the storm-gods - lightning or/and thunder.298 It may be referred to, for example, the German-Scandinavian thunder-god Thor, who was imagined as a mighty warrior, whose specific weapon – a battle hammer or a battle axe, sometimes a double axe (see Fig.7a) had the proper name Mjöllnir, which is exactly cognate to the Russian word for lightning molnija (молния).299 Similarly, the Hittite storm-god used to be represented striding with a battle axe (or a battle hammeraxe) in his raised right hand and a lightning bunch in his raised left one, as, e.g., on a Neo-Hittite relief of the 9th century BC found in Syria (Fig.7b)300 or on another relief from Sendschirli, which shows the god holding a double axe301 (Fig.7c). On these grounds, it might be possible to consider the Mycenaean deity represented in the idol, which holds a likeness of a hammer-axe, a storm-god who may have been a Mycenaean Greek variation of the Indo-European Storm-god the warrior (see Chapter 1, 1.3.2. Zeus as a storm-god. Zeus as a substitute for the original Greek storm-god). Unfortunately, this presumption may not be sufficiently supported, because the particular idol bears no other indication of the nature and functions of the represented deity, whose real identity is not established. Moreover, among the discovered idols, there is one characterized as female, holding with both hands extended forward the shaft of a probably (double?) axe, the upper part of which is missing:302 a possibility that the divine function symbolized for the Mycenaean Greeks by the axe may have been assigned to both male and female deities, might indicate that this function was not necessarily connected with the activity of a stormgod.

Nevertheless, the worship of such an integral element of storm as the winds seems to suggest that the Mycenaean Greeks comprehended the storm-activity in general as that, which has divine character and is thus caused and controlled by a certain divine power or powers. A less clearly understood appellative o-mi-ri-jo-i, that is, possibly omrioichi = ὀμ(β)ρίοι(h)ι (?) = ὀμβρίοις, the dative plural form of ὄμβρος “storm of rain”, “thunderstorm”, occurs in the Knossian tablet Fh 356 among the listed recipients of oil-offerings: it is interpreted as either a designation of the divinities – spirits or deities of rain or a cult title borne by the priests of rain.295 Although it has been very tempting to assume that the rains, similarly to the winds, were worshiped in Mycenaean Crete, it has also been noted that the whole context of the record Fh 356 is not clear and does not support the suggested reading and understanding of the term o-mi-ri-jo-i. Consequently, the practice of the cult of the rains during the Mycenaean time may not be attested with certainty. 2.2.2. The Mycenaean clay idol with a battle hammer or double axe (?) A remarkable group of anthropomorphic wheel-made clay idols, dated to the 14th –13th centuries BC and comprising 10 female figures, 7 male, and 2 of indeterminate gender, were found in the so-called Cult Center at Mycenae.296 The assemblage is believed to represent the local pantheon, but the precise identification of the deities is not possible. All the idols are standing and keep their arms in a variety of positions; their characteristics are very crude and rendered in quite a conventional way. It has been observed that the tallest idol (Fig.5), which is seemingly male and has the height about 70 cm (while the other idols are about 60cm in

Here, it needs to be mentioned that some scholars, insisting in considering the axe a symbol of the stormdeities and emphasizing such characteristics of the idol in question as its height, have proceeded to more precise interpretation of the deity represented in it and identify him with Zeus: they argue that already in the Mycenaean 297

Taylor (1983) 53, fig. 31. Hawkes (1936-1937) 143. 299 Meletinsky (1994c) 519. Note the relief on a stone from Altuna (Sweden, 11th century) representing Thor holding a double axe in his raised right hand (Fig.7a), Meletinsky (1994c) 520. 300 Amiet (1980) 399, nu.550. 301 Riemschneider (1954) pl.84a. Three more relief representations of the Hittite storm-god holding a battle axe in his upraised right hand, two from Til Barsip (Amiet (1980) 399, nus.551 and 553; http://www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/storm-godtarhunda) and one from Zinçirli (Frankfort (1954) pl.160a), dated to the 9th-8th centuries BC, are worth to be noted. 302 Taylour (1969) 92, pl.13a. 298

293

Palmer (1963) 182; Baumbach (1971) 156. Chadwick and Baumbach (1963) 199. A possible place-name formed of ze-pu2-ro > Zephyrus occurs in the Pylian tablet PY Aa 61 (ibidem). 295 Chadwick and Baumbach (1963) 226; Palmer (1963) 437; Ventris and Chadwick (1973) 564. A possible nominative singular form of ὄμβρος - o-mi-ri-jo (?) occurs in the KN C 911.9, but in uncertain context; Ventris and Chadwick (1973) 564, read this word as omi-ri-so and consider it a man's name. 296 Taylor (1983) 52-53. 294

43

time, the god would have been imagined as a victorious storm-god brandishing his terrifying weapon and appeared as the head of the Greek pantheon, that is, as the prototype of Homeric Zeus.303 This identification, even if it might have some support from the Archaic Rhodian representation of thought to be young Zeus fighting with a double axe against a Centaur (see Fig.8),304 is, however, very dubious. As for the pointed out detail that the described male idol is the tallest among the other discovered figures, taken as an indication of the supposed acknowledgment of his superiority among the other represented Mycenaean deities, it may have been unintentional and caused by some other reasons, as creation of the idols by different masters and within an extensive period of time.

2.2.3. A male axe-deity (?) in Asine (Argolis) In the sanctuary at Asine, a small clay bearded head (12cm in height), dated to the 12th century BC, was found together with a single-bladed axe made of iron ore. This gave grounds for the presumption that a male deity may have been worshiped in that place, possibly in association with the axe.308 In order to support this view, it was recalled the fact that exactly at the same place, beneath the discovered terracotta head and the iron axe, a stone axe, which, according to its appearance, was clearly intended for ceremonial use, was found in association with the Late Helladic context.309 Because of the most common symbolic role of the axe as that to conventionalize the “thunder-weapon”, it was argued that the male deity of Asine, also called the “Lord of Asine”, had certain connections with the storm-activity and could have been a predecessor of historic Zeus, who is believed to occur in the Archaic iconography with a double axe310 (see Fig.8). However, this interpretation is practically rejected by most of the scholars, and even the identification of the head as male has been seriously doubted.311 A detailed and enough convincing argumentation for the male gender of the represented in the head of Asine was attempted by J.C. van Leuven, although the scholar inclined towards the identification of the “Lord of Asine” with either Apollo or the “Master of animals”.312

In attempt to define the actual divine prototype of the Mycenaean male idol with a likeness of a hammer-axe in the upraised right hand, it might be considered a possibility that this figure was intended to imitate the Bronze Age Near-Eastern representations of a so-called menacing or smiting deity, which occurred in Greece in the Mycenaean and Post-Mycenaean time (see later, 2.2.8. Figurines of a smiting god, also Figs.9a-b-c). Remarkably, among the Bronze Age Near-Eastern figurines, the iconographical type of a menacing deity holding a weapon in the upraised right hand is attested not only in male, but also in female representations, as, e.g., in a bronze figurine of a Syrian warrior-goddess holding a double axe in her raised right hand and a sword in her left hand extended forward, dated to 1500-1250 BC (Fig.6).305 In typological terms, one would draw a close enough parallel between this representation and the discussed Mycenaean idol, which likewise seems to have originally held an object, maybe another weapon, in his extended forward left hand. However, any possible conceptual backgrounds of might be a Mycenaean version of the Near-Eastern “menacing deity” may not be securely inferred.

2.2.4. A male deity with a double axe (?) in Malthi (Messenia) One more possible appearance of a prehistoric Greek male deity with an axe is thought to may be recognized in the representation incised on a stone found in the Room 4 of the Late Bronze Age complex “Dorion VI” at Malthi: a figure, which “appears to be thin, lacking breasts, and therefore male”, seems to raise “a double axe to the left of a deer or horse”. The particular scene was probably a fragment of a larger, originally whole, narrative representation, which also included “a horse going towards the right (possibly pulling a chariot or rider)”, incised on another stone found at the same spot, as well as several symbols.313 The whole context of the Room 4, which comprised a bench (?) and, perhaps, an altar, has suggested the use of it for cult purposes, though of unclear character.314 Moreover, it has been presumed that the male personage with a raised double axe, incised on the stone, may also have been represented in a clay idol, the foot of which was found in the neighboring Room 5, and that he, therefore, might be interpreted as a god.315 That the double axe had a strong religious significance in Malthi during the LH II – III periods is indicated by the

Finally, it was also argued that the object in the hand of the particular Mycenaean idol does not exactly resemble a hammer or a double axe, while the idol itself may be compared to a personage from the scene on the LM III larnax from Armeni (Western Crete), which was represented with a similar object and in an analogous posture and appears to have had some connection with an underworld river.306 This analogy, leading to the Minoan vision of the world of the dead, might suggest the interpretation of the discussed Mycenaean idol as a representation of a Mycenaean chthonic god - the lord of the underworld.307

308

Frodin and Persson (1938) 307-308, fig.211; van Leuven (1984) 14-16. 309 Van Leuven (1984) 15. 310 Cook (1925) 614-617. 311 See the discussion in van Leuven (1984) 14. 312 Van Leuven (1984) 14-16. 313 Van Leuven (1984) 10-11. 314 Van Leuven (1984) 10-12. 315 Van Leuven (1984) 10.

303

Simon (1978) 1419. Cook (1925) 616, fig.514. 305 Amiet (1980) 391, nu.480 (Louvre, Near-Eastern Antiquities, Mus.nu. AO 20 160). 306 Andreev (1993) 26 n.40; Andreev (1989) 34, 37, fig.1; Tzedakis (1971) 218. 307 Andreev (1993) 26 n.40. 304

44

sacrifice fairly attested in the Minoan iconography.323 However, on highly hypothetical grounds, it might be conjectured that for the Mycenaean Greeks this Minoan religious symbol, besides its actual meaning, was imbued with some other ideas, as that of a powerful male deity with stormy nature. Still, any further specification is reasonless.

discovery of the specific “Sanctuary of the Double Axe” on the Acropolis of the site, located in some distance from the “Dorion VI”: in the Room B69, a large, unused bronze double axe was found in the context, which suggests practicing certain rituals focused on the veneration of the double axe as a sacred symbol and including drinking ceremonies as well as libations.316 Since no written documents, which might have offered a name for a presumed male deity with a double axe, were found in the site, any attempt to establish his identity has to remain within the limits of conjecture. However, purely on the basis of the prehistoric symbolism of the axe as stressed above, it might be considered a possibility, though very slight and so far unconfirmed by any other material evidence from the site, that the discussed male personage, whether he represents a god in a mythic scene or a mortal in a ritual act, connoted a divine male concept linked to the stormy nature.

2.2.6. Mycenaean sites located on high places In early religions, the worship of the deified powers of nature may be traced through the topography of the sacred places, given that the landscape setting of cults expressing the veneration of such powers, whether celestial, chthonic, animal or floral, normally conforms to their character.324 The Indo-European tradition connected the Storm-god with the upper part of the conventional world vertical and therefore symbolically placed him on mountaintops or tops of the highest trees. Apart from the evidence of mythology and folklore, this original perception of the Indo-European Strom-god is also inferred from the etymology of his proper name *pher(kho)u-no, which is a direct derivative from the root *pher(kho)u- meaning “oak”, “mountain oak”, and “oak forest on a mountain top”325 (see also Chapter 1, 1.3.2. Zeus as a storm-god. Zeus as a substitute for the original Greek storm-god). As regards the Greek religion, the worship of a storm-god identified with Zeus and the practice of rain-cults on mountain tops are securely attested from the Archaic time326 and became extremely common from the Classical period. It has been presumed that this tradition had its roots in the prehistoric religious practices and that the Mycenaean and especially the Minoan cults set on various high places would have been connected with the worship of storm-deities.

It also needs to be mentioned that the interpretations given by other scholars to the personage with a double axe, as well as to the functions of the Room 4 of the “Dorion VI” and of the Room B69 of the Acropolis of Malthi, do not agree with those by van Leuven.317 Nevertheless, all the three mentioned instances of possible prehistoric worship of a male god who had an axe, whether single-bladed or double, as his attribute and thus may have performed the characteristic functions of the Indo-European storm-gods should not be ignored. 2.2.5. The emblem comprising a double axe placed between the horns of a bull Given the general symbolic meaning of the axe in the sphere of the Indo-European culture as that of an object conventionalizing the victorious weapon of a storm-deity, it should be mentioned the symbol composed of a bull’s head with a double axe between the horns.318 This emblem, which is virtually Minoan, reached the mainland in the Late Bronze I period.319 In the Mycenaean context, it is traced, for example, among the finds from the Shaft Grave IV at Mycenae (7 miniature bull’s head with a double-axe between the horns and 2 separated doubleaxes made of gold foil),320 among the Mycenaean remains at the summit of Kynorthion at Epidauros,321 as well as on a Late Minoan seal with the representation of a bull’s head topped with a reversed double axe, found at the site of the Argive Heraion.322 The most common interpretation of the particular symbol is that it recalled certain cult acts involving a double axe, such as a bull

Indeed, the mountain peak cults are widely attested in the Minoan religion, especially during the MM I - MM III periods,327 although there is neither certainty nor unanimity about the identity of the deities worshiped in the Minoan peak-sanctuaries. The discovery of numerous female and some male figurines at those sanctuaries is used for the conjecture that the earliest Minoan peak cults were related to the Cretan Great Goddess, who may partly have been considered a rain-giver and a producer of lightning, while in the MM III period, probably, a 323

See especially the study by Buchholtz (1959). For the typology of the prehistoric sanctuaries in relation to natural environment, see the paper by van Leuven (1981) 13-14. 325 Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) v.1, 527-528; Ivanov and Toporov (1994 f) 530. 326 In fact, the earliest known instance, which may securely be related to the storm-orientation of the Greek mountain top cults, is a bronze statuette representing Zeus with a thunderbolt and an eagle in his hands, dated to the end of the 7th century BC, from the precinct of Zeus Lykaios on Mt. Lykaion (Lamb (1925-26) 140, nu.17; Zolotnikova (2005) 111; see Fig.62). 327 Rutkowski (1986) 73-98, Chapter 5 “Minoan peak sanctuaries”; Μαντζουράνη (2002) 103-114. 324

316

Van Leuven (1984) 2-5. The opinions of other scholars concerning the functions of the structures at Malthi are discussed in the paper by van Leuven (1984). 318 Marinatos (1993) 5. 319 Renfrew (1985) 395. 320 Hampe and Simon (1981) 198, 200, fig.315, also Athens National Archaeological Museum, nus.353-354. 321 Lambrinudakis (1981) 62. 322 Evans (1921) 434, fig.312c. 317

45

minor male divinity, too, began to be worshiped there as the Goddess’s spouse accredited with some of her functions (especially those related to the weather phenomena).328 However, clear indications that the Minoan peak-sanctuaries were specifically devoted to rain-deities are lacking.329 Except that, it has been observed that the Minoan peak-sanctuaries are not exactly paralleled among the so far known Mycenaean cult-places, which were usually located not on the tops of really high mountains, but on elevations and hills.330 This and many other features generally suggest the conclusion that “Crete and the Mainland had basically different religions.”331 Therefore, whether or not the Minoan peak sanctuaries were associated with the Cretan divinities of storm, the Minoans’ approach to the powers of nature and the way of its expression on the level of worship should not be automatically identified with those of the Mycenaean Greeks.

clay figurine of a horse-man (3.2 cm in height), as well as numerous small and large terracotta figurines of oxen, terracotta models of a chariot and one of a ship, a miniature clay throne, bronze double axes of various types, and some bronze weapons.333 These objects in their sum suggest that the main deity of the prehistoric sanctuary was female, probably concerned about nature and cattle. She seems to have been connected with a male deity or a hero, who must have appeared with some characteristics of a warrior. It might be possible that those deities formed a divine couple, but their identity is not established, while the dedication of the place particularly to Apollo Maleatas should be referred to the Dorian religious traditions. Except for the double axes, which might imply some motifs of storm in the divine concept underlying the prehistoric sanctuary, no other evidence suggests a connection of the cult practiced at the Kynorthion hill during the Mycenaean time with the notion of storm.

Still, concerning the involvement of high places in the Mycenaean religious practices, it would be useful to mention the following sites.

Some Mycenaean remains were found on the mountains Hymettos in Attica, Oros in Aegina, Agios Elias at Mycenae and Arachnaion in the Argolis (on the peak of Agios/Profitis Elias).334 The cults of Zeus are attested on Mt. Hymettos, Mt. Oros and Mt. Arachnaion from the EIA, but their initial nature is not directly indicated and even their Mycenaean roots are not confirmed (see also Chapter 3, 3.1.7. Mt. Hymettos, 3.1.12. Mt. Oros, and 3.1.16. Mt. Arachnaion). The archaeological remains of the Mycenaean period on Agios Elias at Mycenae seem to be irrelevant to cult activities.335

The Kynorthion hill at Epidauros seems to present a remarkable example of use of elevated places in cult purposes during the Mycenaean time. The site, which in the Classical time was occupied by the sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas, was inhabited from the Early Helladic time to the LH IIIB period, while during the whole Mycenaean period, according to the opinion of the excavator, it was a sacred place with an open-air altar for burnt offerings.332 The finds related to the Mycenaean time include a large number of clay female figurines, the head of a wheel-made male figurine and the body of a

In Keos, the rounded summit of the Troullos hill (about 65m above the sea level), located some 500m northwest of a significant Bronze Age site at Ayia Irini, appears to have been used for some cult activities during the Late Bronze Age. The foundations of a tetragonal enclosure measuring c.11.5m x 15m were observed in the site; at the time of the investigation, the northern part of the enclosure was paved with large irregular slabs of local marble, while elsewhere, there were remains of coarse plaster flooring. Approximately at the center of the enclosure, a drum-shaped structure, c.5 in diameter, made

328

Rutkowski (1986) 91-95. Faure (1967); Faure (1969) ; Faure (1972). Different opinions have been expressed concerning the nature of the divinity or divinities worshiped in the Minoan peaksanctuaries. Thus, Nilsson (1950) 74-75, suggested that those were dedicated to Potnia Theron. Πλάτων (1951a) argued that the peak-sanctuaries were intended for the Great Goddess, or the Mother-Earth. According to Branigan (1969) 37-38, the Snake-Goddess was worshiped in the Minoan peak-sanctuaries, especially in those dated to the MM I – MM II periods. Bloedow (1991) believes that some of the Minoan peaksanctuaries, as that at Giouhta, may have been connected with the initial stage of the worship of Zeus Kretagenes. Kyriakidis (2005), in his recent study of the religious concept underlying the Minoan peak sanctuaries, has concluded that those served “as places for multitude of activities” and emphasized “their ever-changing roles”, of which the socio-political one was especially important (pp.113-119). 330 Van Leuven (1981) 14; Rutkowski (1986) 201. 331 Hagg and Marinatos (1981) 213. 332 Lambrinoudakis (1981) 59-63; Rutkowski (1986) 202203. However, Berquist (1988) 26-28, doubts about practicing burnt sacrifice during the Mycenaean time in general and at Kynorthion in particular. 329

333

Lambrinoudakis (1981) 59, 62, 63, 65; ΠέππαΠαπαϊωάννου (1985) 25-40, pls.1-22. 334 Langdon (1976) 87. This manuscript was under its final preparation for printing, when the discovery of certain unstratified Mycenaean remains (including pottery fragments and clay female figurines) on the peak of Ag./Profitis Elias at Mt. Arachnaion was announced by Dr. O. Psychoyou at the Mycenaean Seminar (3rd meeting of the acad. year 2012-2013, 24.01.2013) organized by the University of Athens; the finds indicate moderate cult activities (consumption of food, drinking, and dedication of terracotta figurines, mostly female), which seem to have been practiced on this peak during the LH III period (http://www.archaiologia.gr/en/blog/2013/01/18/amycenaean-sanctuary-on-proph-ilias-at-mt-arachnaionin-the-argolid/). 335 Langdon (1976) 87. 46

of rough stones and filled with earth and rubble, rose from the floor; it was preserved to a height of 0.80m. Off the northwest corner of the enclosure walls, there was a separate building with one room, 2.25m x 4.75m, where accumulations of potsherds were found on the floor.336 Among the objects found in and around the buildings on Troullos, the head of a marble figurine, seemingly of an Early Cycladic type, and stone libation tables are worth to be noted; these finds have been used for defining the central tetragonal enclosure as a delimited sacred precinct (temenos).337 The pottery fragments collected in the area ranged in date from the Early Helladic time to the Late Helladic II period.338 The location of the Troullos sanctuary on a hill top, at the point commanding the view of the whole channel from Sounion to southern Euboea, gave its excavators grounds for connecting the place with “a god of storms”,339 although no particular indications of the identity of the worshiped deity and the nature of the practiced cult were discovered.

2.2.7. Dodona during the prehistoric period In search of the traces of worship of a deity or deities of storm in Greece during the Bronze Age, it should be considered the prehistoric phase on the territory of Dodona, which was occupied by a famous sanctuary of Zeus from the EIA. The etymology of the place-name, which seems to have been derived from the IndoEuropean root *dheu-dh- “to shake”, “to ruffle up”, “to muddle up”, widely used in Indo-European languages for expressing various notions of storm,343 gives grounds to presume that the earliest Indo-European inhabitants of this territory, for some reason, had connected their primitive perception of the stormy phenomena with this site. It is highly remarkable that the place-name Dodona is cognate to certain divine names, which imitated the sound of thunder and were applied to storm-gods in some Indo-European religions, as the Balkan-Slavic Dunder, the Serbian (Pomoravian) Dodol (with the female forms Dodola and dudule), and the Baltic Dundulis, Dundutis, Dudu-senis (see also Chapter 1, 1.3.2. Zeus as a stormgod. Zeus as a substitute for the original Greek stormgod). Thus, based on the etymological analysis, it appears that Dodona was originally associated with an IndoEuropean pre-Greek, perhaps, specifically Balkan, god manifesting himself in thundering and shaking the air (see also Chapter 1, 1.3.2. Zeus as a storm-god. Zeus and Dodona).

The use for cult practices of some other Mycenaean sites located on elevated places was discussed,340 but the evidence discovered there is very poor and does not contain any certain indication of worship of deities of storm.341 As it has been inferred above, the Aeolian Olymposoriented epic patterns strongly suggest that a concept of a mighty Thessalian storm-god linked to Mt. Olympos and probably called with the specific name Olympios instead of his proper name must have circulated in Northern Greece during the late Mycenaean period, with a possibility to go back to much earlier times (see Chapter 1, 1.3.2. Zeus as a storm-god. Zeus and Mt. Olympos (Thessalia) ). Concerning this, it is remarkable that the latest excavations have revealed traces of Mycenaean settlements on the slopes of Mt. Olympos, although no material evidence for a religious activity at the mountain in the prehistoric and early historic periods has been found until now.342

The earliest archaeological remains at the site are of the Early Bronze Age: those comprise traces of clay-walled dwellings, a clay hearth, which was found under the 4th century BC Sacred House, as well as some primitive stone tools and numerous sherds of hand-made vessels, which show close resemblance with the EBA pottery from Macedonia and Thessalia, but are less developed in style.344 It is very much probable that during the period, which lasted from the beginning of the Bronze Age to approximately 1700 BC, the territory of Dodona was occupied by a primitive shepherd community, whose culture may have had Macedonian roots.345 Three strata following directly one upon another were identified in that earliest settlement suggesting either continuous or consecutive inhabitation of the site by the same cultural body from approximately the end of the Early Helladic / beginning of the Middle Helladic time until, perhaps, the LH III period.346 The finds provided no material evidence of cult activities of those primitive people, but, on strictly linguistic grounds, it may be supposed that veneration of an Indo-European storm-deity, perhaps involving rituals for the convenient distribution of rains, formed a necessary part of their life.

336

Caskey (1966) 375-376; Caskey (1971) 392-395; Rutkowski (1986) 211, nu.8. 337 Caskey (1971) 395; Rutkowski (1986) 211, nu.8. 338 Caskey (1971) 394. 339 Caskey (1971) 395. 340 Van Leuven (1981) 14. Most of the Mycenaean sanctuaries are surveyed in the paper by Hagg (1968). 341 Καρδαρά (1966), using Mycenaean sealrepresentations, argued that the Mycenaean Greeks built their sanctuaries on the mountain tops in order to attract a lightning-god. This opinion was criticized by Langdon (1976) 87 n.42, who emphasized the absence of the archaeological evidence for this conclusion. 342 Πουλάκη-Παντερμαλή (1987a); Πουλάκη-Παντερμαλή (1987b); Πουλάκη-Παντερμαλή (1988a); ΠουλάκηΠαντερμαλή (1988b); Πουλάκη-Παντερμαλή (1989); Πουλάκη-Παντερμαλή (1993). The earliest sanctuary excavated at Mt. Olympos is dated from the Hellenistic time, see Κυριαζόπουλος and Λιβαδάς (1967).

The finds related to the LH III period, of which bronze swords,347 bronze daggers,348 bronze battle-axes,349 and 343

Pokorny (1959) v. 1, 264-265 (dheu-dh-). Hammond (1967b) 299-314. 345 Hammond (1967b) 307. 346 Hammond (1967b) 299, 313-314. 347 Hammond (1967b) 319. 348 Hammond (1967b) 329; Δάκαρης (1956) 140-143, 344

47

Mycenaean pottery fragments350 are of special value, seem to indicate the establishment of a Mycenaean settlement-colony at Dodona in that time. Homer mentions that the peoples dwelling about “wintry Dodona”, whom he calls Ἐνιῆνες and Περαιβοί, joined the Greeks in their war against Troy (Hom. Il. 2.748751). There is no certainty concerning those peoples’ ethnic and historic identity; neither can be established their actual relation to the Mycenaean archaeological remains in the site of Dodona. However, it has been argued that both the Ἐνιῆνες and the Περαιβοί were Thessalian tribes, and that the Περαιβοί may even have been mentioned in the Pylian tablet Ma 09.3, but it is not secure.351 In any case, as participants of the believed to have happened all-Greek campaign, they were undoubtedly close to the LBA Greeks. Perhaps, the territory around Dodona during the LH III period was inhabited by a mixed population comprising non-Greeks of Balkan origin and Mycenaean Greek colonists. Unfortunately, any possible cult activity in the site at that phase is not indicated in the finds, and the Mycenaean Greeks’ perception of the storm-deity, which would have been earlier associated with this place by its pre-Greek inhabitants, is not known.352

Syrian-Anatolian region, but others believe that the figurines are the Aegean copies of Near-Eastern prototypes.355 Archaeologists emphasize the fact that in Greece the smiting deity figurines have been found in the places with strong religious traditions and even in association with sanctuaries,356 as the two statuettes from Phylakopi (Fig.9c).357 This circumstance might indicate that the Mycenaean Greeks saw those figurines in some connection with their own cults and regarded them as an expression of a certain religious idea, which was more or less common in different parts of the LBA Greek world. In the Near-Eastern iconography, the representations of male deities in the smiting / menacing pose usually expressed the fundamental Near-Eastern religious concept of an all-defeating storm-god individualized in various similar cults, as those of Baal, Haddad, Marduk, Reshef, and Teshub.358 Of them, Reshef, the West-Semitic god of the celestial fire, lightning, winds, and war, was most frequently represented as a warrior in a short kilt, holding a shield or a spear in his left hand and brandishing a battle axe (of different types) or some other weapon by his right hand raised above his head (Fig.9b).359 His statuettes, found in quite a remarkable number in the Near-Eastern area, could have been the closest visual source for the smiting deity figurines discovered in Greece. Therefore, it may be hypothesized that in the sphere of the LBA Greek culture, the NearEastern iconographical pattern of an aggressive male deity with potential stormy nature served, through either import or imitation, for conventionalizing the Greek perception of the Indo-European Storm-god - a victorious warrior as well. In relation to this conjecture, it appears noteworthy that the silver figurine, believed to be the

2.2.8. Figurines of a smiting god In regard to the Greek concept of a storm-deity as that may have occurred in the late prehistoric time, a number of figurines representing a striding or smiting god, found in various sites around Greece in the Mycenaean and post-Mycenaean contexts, deserve to be mentioned. The iconography of those figurines, which are in majority bronze, but one is of silver, follows the Near-Eastern type of a male deity represented in an attacking or menacing pose with a weapon held in his upraised right hand353 (see Fig.9a). It is noteworthy that four of the figurines in question (one from Mycenae, one from Tiryns, and two exemplars from Phylakopi in Melos, see Fig.9c) certainly belong to the Mycenaean period, while six figurines (those from Patsos Cave in Crete, Delos, Lindos, Thermon in Aetolia, Nezero on the slopes of Mt. Olympos in Thessalia, and one from an unknown site in Attica) may be of Mycenaean or Sub-Mycenaean date.354 Many scholars consider these pieces imports from the

355

Canby (1969) pls. 38-41; Smith (1962). Note Hiller (1981) 96-98. 357 Renfrew (1985) 303-306, 424: one of the figurines was found to the east of the East Shrine, another – in the stone debris immediately overlying the Wall 661, to the south of the courtyard between the East and the Wets shrines. 358 Collon (1972) 130. Note a cylinder seal from Syria with the representation of a smiting weather-god before a goddess (Old Syrian period, c.1720-1650 BC, in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Mus.nu.1988.380.4 (http://www.metmuseum.org/collections/search-thecollections/30006068). Also, a stele from Ras Shamra, representing a weather-god (probably Baal of Ugarit), holding a weapon in his right hand raised above the head and supporting a large lightning bunch by his left hand, 14th century BC (Frankfort (1954) pl.141; Smith (1962) 178, fig.4; Louvre, Near-Eastern Antiquities, Mus.nu. AO 15775), and a basalt stele from Arslan Tash with a relief representation of the North-Syrian storm-god Haddad (Addad) striding to the right on a bull, with a thunderbolt in his raised right hand, 3rd quarter of the 8th century BC (Smith (1962) 179, fig.7; Louvre, Near-Eastern Antiquities, Mus.nu. AO 13092). 359 Simpson (1952); Shifman (1994); Cornelius (1994) 125-133. 356

Fig.9.15. 349 Hammond (1967b) 331-332. 350 Desborough (1972) 97. 351 Ventris and Chadwick (1973) 294. 352 The Bronze Age evidence related to the site of Dodona has recently been summarized by Tartaron (2004) 20-23. 353 See, e.g., Muscarella (1981) 248-250, figs.218-221 – bronze figurines of a male deity shown in the smiting posture, from Syria and the Syrian-Anatolian area, 14th13th centuries / early first millennium BC. Also: Amiet (1980) 392, nu.491 – figurine of a warrior-god from Syria, middle of the 2nd millennium BC; p. 393, nu. 499 – figurine of a warrior-god from Minet El-beida, 14th-13th cent. BC. 354 Bouzek (1972) 161; Renfrew (1985) 306-307; Boardman (1961) 76, pl.25, nu.371. Also, Collon (1972). 48

finest example of the smiting god figurines, came from the slopes of Mt. Olympos,360 to which the Thessalian storm-god Ὀλύμπιος was especially linked. An alternative interpretation of the occurrences of the oriental or oriental-like figurines of a smiting / menacing deity in the prehistoric Greek sites might be that local Mycenaean pantheons tended to adopt a certain eastern male deity, who would have personified some particular religious concept missing from the Greek gods; presumably, that concept could imply a divine male power controlling storm-activities. In support of this conjecture, it should be referred to the fact that towards the end of the 1st millennium BC, Reshef was adopted by such an elaborated pantheon as the Egyptian one, where he was worshiped in his main aspects as a god of lightning, stormy winds, and war.361

sky and storm among the other prehistoric Greek gods are not certain, but those deities were hardly supreme. 2.3. Mycenaean male deities without certain connection with the natural phenomena In order to trace the roots of the Homeric concept of a supreme, almighty god as personified in Homeric Zeus, it is necessary to establish the general role of male deities in the Greek prehistoric religion. Concerning this matter, it was always being emphasized that the religious beliefs and cults of the prehistoric Greeks seem to have been dominated by female divinities, near to which any god could have appeared only as a minor partner.362 Nevertheless, the fact that the Linear B texts contain a significant number of male divine names indicates by itself that the Mycenaean Greeks did not deprive male deities of respect, although there is no certainty about their concepts, characteristics and hierarchy. In relation to the worship of male deities during the Mycenaean time, the discovered representations believed to be those of some of the Mycenaean gods should be considered.363

To underline, it may be asserted that various notions related to the storm-activities had religious significance for the Mycenaean Greeks, but the available evidence is not precise and may suggest entirely different interpretations. The Mycenaean perception of the stormactivity may have been embodied in practicing various cults connected with the veneration of the impersonal storm-phenomena, such as winds, rains, and thunder, and even in the worship of a specific male deity, who, however, is still unknown. It is not attested whether Zeus actually began to be worshiped as a god of storm in the Mycenaean time. It does not seem impossible that already in the Mycenaean period special sanctuaries existed for worshiping the powers of storm, and that elevated places were preferred for that, but, at the present state of evidence, this conjecture may not be confirmed. Concerning the ethnic-cultural backgrounds of possibly practiced Mycenaean storm-cults, those may have been both pure Indo-European and supplemented with some Minoan and even Near-Eastern ideas about the stormdeities.

2.3.1. The evidence for the worship of male deities in Mycenaean Greece Mycenae A small plaster head of a bearded man, dated to the 15th century BC, was found in the Acropolis of Mycenae, in the Palace area: it bears traces of painting, which underlines the eyebrows, the big eyes, the mouth, the hair, and the beard (Athens National Archaeological Museum, nu.7712, see Figs.10a-b). The head has a hole at the neck suggesting that it was attached onto a wooden (?) body.364 This notable find seems to indicate that a mature and clearly important male deity, probably represented in a primitive cult statue, was worshiped in Mycenae around the Early Mycenaean time (LH IIB – LH IIIA1). However, the identity of the god and details of his cult are not known.

***

362

Andreev (1993) 25. Generally, for the prehistoric Greek iconography of male deities, see the studies by Vermeule and Karageorghis (1982); Younger (1988) esp. pp.124-129; Byrne (1991) 57-108 “The male divinity in the Aegean cult”; Laffineur and Crowley (1992). Some primitive male deity(-ies) connected with the notions of fertility and imagined mature may be recognized in the Neolithic idols from Thessalia, see Χαρμουζιάδης (1973) pls.1, 5, 6-9 (Νεολιθικά ειδώλια καθισμένων ανδρών). The Early Bronze Age Aegean male deities, possibly connected with warfare and the notion of leadership, may have been represented in the Cycladic male idols, see Preziosi (1987) pl.11, fig.1 (Early Cycladic II, from Naxos), pl.14, fig.4 (Early Cycladic I, unknown provenance), pl.18, fig.2 (Early Cycladic I, possibly from Amorgos), pl.48, fig.5 (Early Cycladic II, possibly from Amorgos). However, nothing is known about the identity of the male deities represented in the referred to Neolithic Thessalian and Bronze Age Cycladic figurines and figures. 364 Wace (1949) 83, pl.104b; http://www.greekthesaurus.gr/mycenaean-figurine-photo-gallery.html . 363

Thus, it seems possible to trace in the Mycenaean religious perception the concept of a male deity connected with the clear, shining sky and the concept or concepts of a male deity or deities personifying the notions of storm. The identification of the Mycenaean male deity of the clear sky is based on the etymological grounds, which suggest as such a deity *Diweus-Zeus. The Linear B references witness to the continuous worship of Zeus from the Bronze Age until the historic time under the same name. The identity of the basic Mycenaean storm-deity is not established; it seems that the original Greek storm-god had become obscure even before the Mycenaean time. Although the appearance of the male deities of the clear sky and of storm as one god during the Mycenaean time is not impossible, it is not indicated by the available evidence. The exact positions of the deities-carriers of the characteristics of the clear 360

Canby (1969) 143, pl. 39. Simpson (1952) 183-186.

361

49

As it has been mentioned above (2.2.2), seven of the nineteen anthropomorphic clay idols found in the Cult Center of Mycenae and dated to the 14th-13th centuries BC, seem to be male, which means that in that time about a half of the local pantheon would have been represented by male deities. Consequently, it is not impossible to assume that one of those male deities, as, e.g., that represented in the tallest idol with a likeness of a hammer-axe, could have occupied an important or even the supreme position in the local religious structure and been imagined in the role of the leader of gods. However, there is no evidence to support this conjecture: the idols were made according to a single iconography type and do not bear clear characteristics, which might suggest more precise identification of the represented deities, whose names are not known.

courtyard where a roughly circular stone identified as baetyl stood368 (Figs.11-12). The finds from the West Shrine contained a large number of female and five male terracotta figurines, numerous figurines of oxen and other animals, terracotta chariot groups and clay representations of driven oxen as well as a bronze figurine of a bird.369 The excavators believe that the West Shrine was dedicated to a goddess and a god, who both were connected with horned cattle and the fertility in general.370 Except that, the location of the sanctuary in the immediate vicinity of the Bronze Age sea shore gives certain grounds for speculating about relation of both the deities to the marine nature. On the other hand, the presence of an open-air object of worship, the baetyl, just outside the east wall of the Shrine, in the courtyard, might indicate a connection of the divine concept associated to the sanctuary with the sky. The worship of a female deity probably focused on beautiful terracotta, wheel-made statue known as the “Lady of Phylakopi”, found in situ in a small room, which may have been used as a sort of adyton.371 A possible cult of a male deity seems to have been equipped with votive figurines: all of the discovered pieces represent an ill-proportioned male image with extended arms and curled hands, and explicit genitals.372 Some of the figurines have a separately made conical cap (e.g. SF 1544, SF 2340), while in some other a hat is simply painted (e.g. SF 1550); a painted waist band, in one case with a painted dagger or sword (SF 2340), is also indicated in several exemplars.373 The position of the arms and especially the curled hands noticed in some of the Phylakopi male figurines suggest that those would have carried some specific objects, as a spear or other kind of weaponry.374 According to the assumed principle of homology implying the possibility “that votive figurines in many ways share the attributes of the deity to whom they are dedicated”,375 it may be inferred that the god of Phylakopi was imagined as a warrior or was linked to the warrior function.376 It has been supposed that the largest of the figurines - SF 1550 (Fig.13), which is about 35cm in height and seemingly the main one, may have served as a cult image and represented the venerated god.377 The identity of the deities of the West Shrine is not, and in fact may not, be established, but it seems likely that the goddess and the god worshiped at that sanctuary were thought of as a divine couple. The small number of the discovered male figurines in comparison

Tiryns At least one clay male idol, which probably resembled the idols of Mycenae, must have existed during the Mycenaean time in Tiryns: its fragment consisting of the right hand holding an erected penis was found in the unstratified deposit near the West Wall. It is established that the figure, to which the particular fragment belonged, was about half-life-size and wheel-made. It appeared likely that the Tirynthian male idol was used in some realistic fertility rituals or served as a rhython.365 Acropolis of Athens A piece of a Mycenaean male terracotta figurine was found at the Acropolis of Athens: only the lower part of the body, precisely the hips with the clearly modeled male organs, was preserved; the sides are painted with chevrons, and the buttocks - with rosettes; there are bands and festoons around the waist; the legs are separated, but the pose of the figurine is not certain.366 It may be supposed that the waist bands were to mean the warlike appearance of the represented; however, the religious connotations of the figurine are quite uncertain, while its relation to any of the cults carried on the Athenian Acropolis during the Mycenaean time is not known. Phylakopi (Melos) Significant religious activities are traced in a remarkable Bronze Age settlement or rather a city at Phylakopi in Melos during the LH IIIA2 – LH IIIC periods (approximately, from the beginning of the 14th until the beginning of the 11th century BC). As it has been noted, this quite a lengthy phase in that originally Cycladic and later Cycladic-Minoan town was marked by the considerable appearance of clearly Helladic / Mycenaean Greek cultural elements.367 An intra-urban sanctuary complex was constructed at the site in the LH IIIA-B periods; it comprised two neighboring religious buildings: the West Shrine, which was the earlier and perhaps principal one, and the East Shrine. From different sides, the two shrines were adjacent to an open-air

368

Renfrew (1985) 86, 369, 373-374. For the terracotta figurines found in the Phylakopi sanctuary, see the Chapter by E. French “The Figures and Figurines” in Renfrew (1985) 209-280; for the bronze bird see Renfrew (1985) 310-311. 370 Renfrew (1985) 373, 390. 371 Renfrew (1985) 214-216, fig.6.4; 372. 372 Renfrew (1985) 223-230. 373 Renfrew (1985) 226-227, fig.6.12, p.228, fig.6.13, pp.229-230, fig.6.14. 374 Renfrew (1985) 422-423. 375 Renfrew (1985) 373. 376 Renfrew (1985) 423. 377 Renfrew (1985) 372. 369

365

Renfrew (1985) 223-224, fig.6.10. Casson (1921) 345; French (1971) 148. 367 Renfrew (1985) 84-87, 374-383, 366

50

with the considerable amount of the female representations may be indicative of the female dominance in the cult, but the precise terms of the relationship between the goddess and the god of the West Shrine are not known. The emphasized sexual characteristic of the male deity might allow the connection of him with the reproductive function, which may have been attributed to both a mature father-god and a young god-“fertilizing hero”.

2.3.2. A deified male enthroned figure (?) in the Mycenaean iconography In addition to the above, it deserves to be mentioned an enthroned figure, which carried some divine connotations and seemingly expressed Mycenaean religious or mythological ideas, represented on the 15th century BC gold ring found in the Chamber Tomb 91 at Mycenae: an enthroned personage with the illegible gender characteristics, dressed in a long robe, seats on a throne and holds by a neck-band a big female (as it is indicated by the breasts) lion-bodied and eagle-headed griffin, seated or crouching beside him/her382 (see Fig.14).

Concerning the ethnic backgrounds of the Phylakopi cults, it must be taken into consideration that the LH III sanctuary complex was by all means separated from the earlier cult area of the site - the so-called “Pillar Crypts”, where some Minoan religious elements have been recognized.378 Moreover, it has been observed the “complete absence of any indication of horns of consecration or of the double axe symbol from the Phylakopi sanctuary” suggesting “that practices and beliefs there may have differed considerably from those in Crete”.379 These circumstances permit the assumption that the religious concepts linked to the West Shrine were of Helladic origin or were based on Helladic religious prototypes.

Some scholars consider the represented figure a goddess with a tethered griffin.383 Others, based on such features as the simplified vestment of the figure, the shape of its chest, which seems to be flat, and the absence of a hypopodion assumed to be a specific element of MinoanMycenaean female seated representations, identify the analyzed enthroned image as male.384 The type of the throne, which has high back and four legs, might also be indicative of the male gender of the personage385 (note below, the throne of a Cypriot seated male figurine, Fig.16). Despite the disputed character of the represented figure, it should not, however, be rejected a possibility of its male gender. In attempt to interpret the personage, the

Naxos A stone male bearded head adorned with a ribbon (or a diadem ?) is exposed in the Archaeological Museum of Naxos (Προσθήκη nu.20): it is dated to the Late Mycenaean period and was probably a part of an acrolithic statue of some god, although its exact provenance is unknown.380

382

Sakellariou (1964) nu.126. Note also ΞενάκηΣακελλαρίου (1985) 259, pls.124, 3181: “…η απλοποιημένη απόδοση και ο μονοκόμματος χιτώνας δεν επιτρέπουν την ταύτιση του γένους της ανθρώπινης μορφής”. The ring is exhibited in the Athens National Archaeological Museum, nu.3181. 383 Marinatos (1993) 152-153, fig.128. 384 Hampe and Simon (1981) 188, nu.277. 385 It must be noted that the Mycenaean female seated figurines, known in a great number from different archaeological sites, were usually made with a throne of certain types, mostly tripodic, see Mylonas (1956); French (1971) 167-172 “Seated Figurines and Thrones”; Tamvaki (1973) 246-253; Βλασσοπούλου-Καρύδη (1998). In relation to hypopodion, it should, however, be noted that enthroned male figures in the Bronze Age oriental iconography were usually performed on a throne with a hypopodion, see, e.g., Schaeffer (1939) pl.31: the god El seated on the throne supplemented with a hypopodion, accepts an offering from the King of Ugarit (a stele of the 14th century BC from Ugarit); Crowley (1989) 80, 439, fig.208: a god on the cherubim-throne with a hypopodion (on a sarcophagus-relief from Byblos, LB III period), and many other examples. It is also worth attention that in the earliest attested representations of enthroned Zeus, the god sits on a throne with a footstool: Zeus on the fronton of one of the Archaic temples on the Acropolis at Athens, c.550 BC (Heberdey (1919) 33, fig.17); Zeus Lykaios, c.550-530 BC (Lamb (1925-26) 143, nu.29); Zeus on an Argive-Korinthian bronze shield found at Delphi, 6th century BC (Perdrizet (1908) 123124, nu.677, pl.21).

*** To underline, in the Mycenaean cult-related material, male figurines381 in fact occur extremely rare among the prevailing representations of females. However, the very fact that the former were made for the needs of cult is quite important and clearly indicates significance of the male divine concept in the Mycenaean religion. A divine or a deified male figure, which may be recognized in the discovered Mycenaean male representations, generally appears as that concerned about fertility and associated to the warrior function; a notion of maturity seems to have also been attached to it. However, any certain judgment about the identity, status, relation to the Mycenaean divine female concept, and other probable functions of the possibly represented Mycenaean male deities is impossible to be made; neither can be established the correspondence between the discovered Mycenaean male representations and the male deities mentioned in the Linear B texts. 378

Renfrew (1985) 374-377. Renfrew (1985) 395. 380 I have not been able to find bibliographic references concerning this head. 381 Some other Mycenaean figurines possibly representing males are discussed by van Leuven (1984) 16; see also Renfrew (1985) 223. 379

51

following must be noted: his or her seated pose definitely symbolizes a dignified rank, while the presence of the demonic creature, possibly, implies a connection with the religious sphere.

a kind of high priest attached to the goddess’ divine power through his sacral duties. An unknown male mythological personage from the prehistoric circle of myths centered on some powerful goddess of Mycenae might also be supposed. However, any of possible interpretations should be consistent with the following condition: as far as the seated person was shown apparently smaller in size than the female griffin, the significance attached to the human figure would have been lesser in comparison with that carried by the female demon.

The interpretation of the symbolic meaning of the griffin in the ancient culture and precisely in the Minoan, Mycenaean and historic Greek religious perception forms a tremendous subject.386 It is basically accepted that the griffin as a religious symbol appeared in the Mycenaean civilization via the Minoans, who adopted it from Near East. Visual sources, such as seals, paintings, etc., indicate that the griffin was generally regarded as a form of manifestation of powerful female deities or as an embodiment of their vital strength, both protecting and terrifying, as well as a carrier of their divine burning radiance. Moreover, this creature was believed to play the role of a medium between female divinities and their human associates.387 Hence, an assumed male enthroned personage holding by a neck-band a big female griffin, represented on the analyzed Mycenaean ring, must be seen in association to the divine power of some important Bronze Age goddess. He may be interpreted as a highest secular person, a distinct Mycenaean ruler symbolically getting the goddess’ protection and blessings; here, it may be recalled the adornment of the “Throne Rooms” in the palaces at Pylos and Knossos with the frescoed griffins.388 Alternatively, this figure may be understood as

*** Thus, together with the observed very small number of the discovered Mycenaean figurines of male deities, it may be attested the practical absence of the secure Mycenaean representations of enthroned gods. The latter circumstance presents a serious discordance with the Homeric images of gods sitting on their thrones; it also prevents us from the recognition of the divinities described by Homer as those that were actually worshiped by the Mycenaean Greeks. 2.3.3. Some Late Bronze Age male deities in Cyprus In Cyprus, Helladic religious concepts of some kind seem to have occurred in the Late Cypriot III settlement at Enkomi (c.1220/1190 - 1075/1050 BC corresponding to the end of the Late Mycenaean – early Post-Mycenaean periods on the mainland); those were possibly mixed with indigenous Cypriot religious ideas and affected by the Minoan and Syrian-Phoenician cultures.389

386

See the main studies on this subject by Frankfort (1936-1937); Barnett (1956) 74-75; Dessenne (1957); Goldman (1960); Crowley (1989) 14, 46-53, 422-424, figs.109-128; also Porada (1948) Cat.nu.691. 387 In some Mycenaean representations of the griffin, its femininity is clearly expressed by big breasts (as if ready for breast-feeding), see Crowley (1989) 14, 405, fig.17: a female griffin (winged, eagle-headed, and lion-bodied) stands to the left, on a seal from Rutsi, LH I period; Sargnon (1987) fig.167: a female griffin (winged, eagleheaded, and lion-bodied) on a seal from MyrsinochoriRoutsi. Note also a remarkable representation on a bronze sheet of the end of the 7th century BC, exhibited in the Museum of Olympia (nu.B 104, probably facing of a metope of a Korinthian workshop): a female griffin (winged, eagle-headed, lion-bodied) suckling her offspring. For the association of the griffin with vital forces, see, e.g., Crowley (1989) 16, 406, fig.30: a couchant griffin (winged, eagle-headed, and lion-bodied) near a sacred tree (on a plaque relief from Mycenae, LH IIIA-B period); also Crowley (1989) 432, fig.172; Sargnon (1987) fig.241: two griffins face each other from the both sides of a sacred pillar (on a signet ring from the Chamber Tomb at Prosymna, LH III period). For the griffin’s protective role in warfare, see Crowley (1989) 493, fig.477: a big griffin sits towards a striding warrior (on a cylinder seal from Pylos, LH II period). Some other Mycenaean representations with the griffin see in Crowley (1989) 405-406, 432, figs.18, 22, 24, 26, 167, 170. For the original association of the griffin with the “unified solar symbolism”, see Goldman (1960) 328. 388 Blegen (1956) pl.40, fig.2; Lang (1969) 99; Evans

The “Horned God” of Enkomi The distinguishing feature of the settlement was its Main Building, also known as the Ashlar Building, which was constructed according to the Helladic architectural prototypes. At the Level IIIA (Late Cypriot IIIA1 period, 1220/10 – 1190 BC), it contained in its central part a megaron with a rectangular, centrally placed hearth, which was surrounded by four pillars.390 After some reconstructions had been made on the Level IIIB (Late Cypriot IIIA2 period, 1190 – 1125/1100 BC), two cults appear to have been introduced into the Main Building. One was that of a female deity, whose bronze figurine was found in the Room nu.11, which communicated with one of the two new megara, both comprising hearths, the Room nu.12. Another cult was that of a male deity, whose remarkable bronze statuette (55cm in height) was found in the Room nu.10, which adjoined the Room nu.11, but had no communication with it. It deserves attention that the Room nu.10 occupied the southernmost part of the old megaron, which belonged to the previous (1935) 908-913. For the function of the griffin to protect the royal throne, see Dessenne (1957) 213. 389 Dikaios (1969-1971) v.2, 513-536. For the ethniccultural conditions in Late Bronze Age Cyprus, see Iakovou (1988); Webb (1999) 6-7. 390 Dikaios (1969-1971) v.2, 514-516, pl.31A; Καραγιώργης (1991) 26-28. 52

Level IIIA of the structure.391 The circumstance that the worship of a goddess, perhaps, associated with the hearth, and that of a god were practiced in the same part of the building is noteworthy and may indicate the co-existence of the corresponding female and male divine concepts, possibly on equal grounds, in the system of the religious beliefs of the users of the Main (Ashlar) Building.

more common for the latter.397 The “Horned God” thus seems to show a connection with both Minoan and NearEastern deities. From another point of view, his presence in the Building, which emerged in the context of the Mycenaean appearance in the area, and his connection with a goddess associated with a hearth, may imply certain Helladic elements in his concept. All these observations seem to indicate that the cult of this god had virtually been a combination of ethnically and culturally different religious conceptions, which circulated at Enkomi during the Late Cypriot IIIA2 period.398

The male figurine found in the Room nu.10 (now exposed in the Cyprus Museum in Leukosia, Fig.15) was described as following: “The statuette is completely mould-made and shows the deity as a young man standing and leaning forward slightly; his left leg is a little in front of the right. He is naked except for a closefitting loin-cloth suspended from a thick belt at the waist. On his head he wears a thin cap with curly hair, from which two bull’s horns project side-ways. The left arm is bent at the elbow and laid on the breast; the right arm is outstretched, so that the palm of the hand faces downwards in a protecting gesture. The loin-cloth has a decorated hem; around the neck is a delicate necklace. Under the feet are preserved two plugs of metal, which probably served to attach the statuette to a base….The statuette was probably made by a Cypriot artist… The elaborated moulding technique suggests a long workshop tradition”.392 The identification of the deity represented in the figurine is not certain. It has been proposed that the closest parallel to the Enkomi statuette is a lead figurine of a young hornless man performed in a clear Minoan style, found in a looted tholos tomb at Kampos in Lakonia.393 Due to the Hellenistic dedication from Pyla (a village to the south-west of Enkomi, in the Larnaka district of Cyprus) to “Ἀπόλλωνι / Κεραιάτηι…”394 and the reference by Pausanias to the temple of Apollo Kereates in Arkadia, not far from Lakonian Kampos (Paus. 8.34.5), it appeared tempting to identify the “Horned God” of Enkomi with Apollo Kereates, whose cult could have been brought in the island by the Mycenaean immigrants from Arkadia.395 However, in the absence of any documentary evidence for the identity of the “Horned God” and given almost a thousand years gap between the LBA and the Hellenistic period, this definition, despite its popularity, seems to be more than far going. According to another interpretation, “le dieu au taureau” of Enkomi should been identified as Apollo Alasiotas.396

The finds from the room of the “Horned God” indicate that he was honoured with ritual libations from the rhythons in the shape of a bull’s head, as well as with offerings of oxen skulls and some other valuable objects.399 These practices, together with the “Horned God’s” appearance, certainly point at the close link of this god with the bovine or, generally, horned cattle nature. Gods provided with characteristics of a bull were normally connected with the fertility and masculine strength. On the other hand, the standing position of the “Horned God” seems to have reflected his energetic character, while his youthful appearance suggests the association of him with the concept of a young deity/hero. Given all these features, the “Horned God” of Enkomi may approximately be characterized as a Mediterranean young god responsible for the fertility of cattle and the protection of youths; he would have been considered either a divine son or a vigorous fertilizing partner of a female divinity. However, nothing can be inferred about his connection with natural phenomena. Seated male deity (or deities) of Enkomi Outside the Main Building, three small bronze statuettes representing seated males were discovered at the Batiment 18, on the Level IIIC of the site:400 1. figurine of a male with a hairless and beardless head; he wears a long vestment and sits on a high-backed throne (total height 12.5cm); his right arm is in the gesture of blessing (?), while in his left hand he keeps an uncertain object; his feet are on a hypopodion401 (Fig.16); 397

Dikaios (1962) 30-31. Dikaios (1969-1971) v.2, 529. 399 Dikaios (1969-1971) v.2, 524. 400 Schaefer (1952) 371-377, pls.69-72, 74.1-2; Kyrieleis (1969) 57, 60, pl.12.3-4. 401 Schaefer (1952) pls.69-72. The throne of the Enkomi male statuette, which in fact also fits for the two other seated figurines (the observation of Schaeffer (1952) pl.75), is a tetrapodic seat with high back, resembling the Syrian type of thrones (Kyrieleis (1969) 57, 60). Analogous clay throne-models dated to the LH IIIC period (around the 12th century BC) are known from Kition in Cyprus (h.10cm), Perati in Attica (a part of the kterismata of a child burial), and Acropolis of Mycenae, see Kyrieleis (1969) 63; Karageorghis (1967) 285, nu.D’inv.1966/XII-21/2; Ιακωβίδης (1969-1970) v.2, 270, fig.119, nu.337; Βλασσοπούλου-Καρύδη (1998) nu.15; French (1971) pl.28-c, right down. 398

Concerning the iconographical characteristics of the figurine, it may be observed the combination in it of Minoan and Asiatic-Syrian representational traditions: the straight nose and the upper part of the body with the pronounced muscles of shoulders and chest should be related to the former, while the conical headdress, the horns, the loin-cloth, and the position of the arms seem 391

Dikaios (1969-1971) v.2, 523-524, pls.34-35. Hampe and Simon (1981) 234. 393 Μαρινάτος (1963) pls.34-35. 394 Dikaios (1951). 395 See the argumentation in the paper by Dikaios (1962). 396 Dussaud (1950) 72-75. 392

53

2. figurine of a seated male in a long vestment (height 13cm); he has short curly hair and a big nose (seemingly of a Semitic type); his right hand holds a big cup, while in his left hand he keeps an uncertain object;402 3. figurine of a seated male in a long vestment (height 12.5cm); he seems to be hairless and has clear Semitic profile; his right arm is in the gesture of blessing (?), while in his left hand he keeps an uncertain object.403

2.4. The term for “throne” in the Linear B and in Homer The evidence of language witnesses, as does the archaeological material, against the comprehension of the Mycenaean male deities as enthroned and disproves their possible role as the prototypes for the enthroned Homeric gods, of whom “golden-throned” Zeus is the most remarkable (Hom. Il. 8.442).

In the discussion concerning these statuettes, it is generally accepted, firstly, that they should be dated to the end of the 12th – beginning of the 11th centuries BC,404 secondly, that, in terms of iconography, they belong to the Syrian-Phoenician group of seated / enthroned male representations,405 but were not necessarily made by an Eastern master, and, thirdly, that they are probably local Cypriot products expressing an indigenous concept.406 There is no agreement about whether the figurines represent gods, spirits or mortals (priests ?),407 but it does not seem impossible to recognize in them the images of some local deity or deities. It is worth attention that all the three images are beardless, which might indicate that the notion of male maturity was not attached to or was not especially emphasized in any of them. The identity of the seated deity (or deities) of Enkomi is not established and his (or their) possible Near-Eastern prototypes are not known. The fact that none of these statuettes came from the cult-spots identified in the Enkomi Main Building, where some cultural and religious features may be traced back to Mycenaean Argolis, Arkadia, or Lakonia, suggests the absence of any conceptual connection between the seated-enthroned god(s) and the “Horned God” worshiped in the Main Building.408

It has been established that the word used in the Mycenaean Greek language to designate a throne was toro / to-no, which would correspond to the alphabetic Greek θόρνος;409 the latter survived in the Cyprian and Lakonian dialects of the historic time as θόρναξ “hypopodion”.410 Scholars point out that the Homeric verses comprising the word θρόνος “throne” were not based on its Mycenaean equivalent to-ro / to-no = θόρνος, because that does not fit for the metrical structures of the Homeric phrases (with one probable exception).411 Concerning the designation χρυσόθρονος used in the Homeric poems with the meaning “of golden throne” in relation to goddesses (as Hera and Eos) and never to male gods, scholars argue that it had been formed of the prehistoric Greek word *θρόνον “flower” and originally meant a “colorful female vestment (peplos)”, while post-Mycenaean bards obviously misunderstood and misinterpreted this epithet.412 To emphasize, there was a discontinuity in the use of the original, prehistoric Greek word meaning “throne” since the Mycenaean language stopped to be spoken. Correspondingly, some of the Homeric expressions mentioning “throne” are modifications of the survived with a wrong meaning Mycenaean term χρυσόθρονος “she who has a colorful vestment”, while others are creations of the post-Mycenaean epic diction.413 In terms of language, this means that the Homeric lines referring to enthroned gods do not represent the Mycenaean epic formulae and may not be used as evidence for the occurrence of the analogous idea in the Mycenaean linguistic and epic tradition.

Nevertheless, the worship of an enthroned male deity attested at Enkomi at the end of the 12th – beginning of the 11th centuries BC among the ethnically mixed population, which comprised the Aegeans, indigenous Cypriots, and Syrians-Phoenicians, is significant for the problem of origins of the images of the Greek enthroned gods. Furthermore, it should be emphasized the fact that, in terms of appearance, the enthroned god (or gods) of Enkomi was (or were) obviously connected with SyrianPhoenician gods, which gives grounds for assuming the presence of Near-Eastern religious elements in his (or their) concept(s).

2.5. The evidence for the association of Zeus with the concept of a “young god” As it has been concluded above, the idea of the descent from elder gods must have been linked to the concept of Ζεύς πατήρ, essentially the god-father of all, who is born

402

Schaefer (1952) pl.74.1 (left) – 2 (left). Schaefer (1952) pl.74.1 (right) – 2 (right). 404 Schaefer (1952) 371-377; Webb (1999) 229-231. 405 See, e.g., Negbi (1976) nus.1468-1482 (the LBA II representations from Minet-el-Beida, Hazor, Byblos, Tell Hezzine, Beth Shean, Tell Sippor, and Tell el-Madrasa), also Schaefer (1929) pl.54.1 (a god seated front, in the gesture of blessing, h.0.121m), and Schaefer (1952) pl.76. 406 Schaeffer (1952) 376-377; Karageorghis (1985) 16. 407 Webb (1999) 231, suggests a connection of the seated male images from Enkomi with domestic or ancestral cults. 408 Ionas (1984) 120. 403

409

Chantraine (1968) v.1, 442-443 (θρόνος); Προμπονάς (1974) 61. 410 Pokorny (1959) v. 1, 253 (dher-, dhere-2). 411 According to Hoekstra (1965) 145, the verse of the Il. 15.150 (related to Hera): “ἕζετο δ’εἰνὶ θρόνῳ”, may have been derived from “ἕζετο (=*έσδετο?) δ’*ἐν θόρνῳ”. However, Προμπονάς (1980) 23-26, disagrees with such restoration of the phrase. 412 Janko (1992) 172 on the Il. 14.15 “Ἥρη… χρυσόθρονος”, and Προμπονάς (1974) 40, 55, 60 (“πεποικιλμένος πέπλος”, “άνθινον ιμάτιον”, “ποικιλόχρουν ένδυμα”). 413 Note the opinion of Hoekstra (1965) 145. 54

by nobody, before the formation of the Homeric poems (see Chapter 1, 1.3.1. Zeus as a god of the clear sky. Zeus-Father as a son-god). Undoubtedly, there must have been a combination of the original Greek Indo-European father-god with a young god / divine child on the level of mythology in the late prehistoric time.414 What may have caused that association? Can it be traced in the Bronze Age Greek religion? Crete, according to the most dominant opinion securely established in the Greek mythology by the time of Hesiod, was the birthplace of Zeus (Hes. Theog. 477480); it was also the territory where Zeus was worshiped during the historic time in a number of cult-places as a child or a young god (see Chapter 3, 3.1.27. Psychro (Diktaean) Cave; 3.1.28. Idaean Cave; 3.1.29. Amnisos; 3.1.30. Agia Triada; 3.1.31. Praisos; 3.1.32. Palaikastro). This suggests the origins of the idea about the birth of Zeus in the close interaction of the Greek Mycenaean and indigenous Cretan-Minoan religious concepts, which must have taken place in Crete during the Late Bronze Age due to the occupation of the island by the Mycenaean Greeks. The tradition, which was used by Hesiod and is the earliest of the recorded ones, associated the infancy of Zeus with a “remote cave beneath the secret places of the holy earth on thick-wooded Mount Aegeum”, close to the town of Lyktos in Crete: that cave was believed to be the place where new-born Zeus was hidden by the Earth from Kronos (Hes. Theog. 481-484). In the Ancient times, this highly venerated mythical locality was referred to as the Diktaean Antron, which is identified by many archaeologists with the Psychro Cave in Eastern Crete.415 The cult activity is attested in the Diktaean (Psychro) Cave from the Middle Minoan I-II periods, while it remarkably increased during the MM III – LM I time. According to the finds dated to those periods and comprising female and male clay figurines, the sanctuary would initially have been shared by a goddess and a male deity, although their exact identity is not known.416 The interior of the cave consisted of the Lower Chamber and the Upper Chamber; in the former, there was a pool, believed to have been used for mysterious purification ceremonies, but most of the cult activities, such as animal sacrifice, libations, fruit offerings and dedication of various objects (weapons, tools, jewelry, clothes pins, and figurines), took place in the latter and were focused on the altar built of roughly square stones at the rear of the chamber.417 Among the finds related to the LM I period, the bronze figurine of a naturalistic crawling baby is worth special attention: it might indicate the original orientation of the cult on childbearing and child-care. In

terms of accomplishment, this figurine is comparable with the LM I ivory babies from Palaikastro, but remains to be unique among the Cretan bronzes known to date.418 The archaeological context indicates the continuous religious activity inside the Psychro Cave until the Late Minoan II-III periods corresponding to the Mycenaean presence in Crete. The finds attributed to the LM IIIA-B periods contain the remarkable quantity of bronze weaponry (daggers, spearheads, arrowheads, knives, and votive swords), 19 bronze male and 10 female figurines,419 and seem to reflect the priority of the male aspect of the cult at that time. It is argued that the male deity of the Diktaean (Psychro ?) Cave was referred to as di-ka-ta-jo di-we, perhaps Diktaios Zeus, in the Knossian tablet Fp 1.2.420 This may signify the identification of the original Minoan god worshiped at that cave with Greek Zeus and his involvement into the system of Mycenaean state cults during the LM II-III time. The cult in the Diktaean (Psychro) Cave was continued without interruptions into the Archaic period421 (see also Chapter 3, 3.1.27). As a matter of fact, Zeus was worshiped in Crete in the historic time, widely enough, under the epithet Diktaios,422 which implied his association with the legendary Diktaean Cave, whether or not it may be identified with the Cave at Psychro. One of the most significant cases is the cult of Zeus Diktaios at Palaikastro in Eastern Crete (see also Chapter 3, 3.1.32): it was established in the EIA, on the site of an old remarkable Minoan city (EM II – LM III), where during the LM IB – LM IIIA2 a young god, conventionally referred to as “Kouros”, was worshiped. The famous Minoan chryselephantine statuette of a young male, dated to the LM I period,423 and the terracotta figurine of a young male with long hair, wearing a lion-cloth, dated to the LM IIIB period corresponding to the Mycenaean occupation of Crete (Fig.17), both from Palaikastro, seem to be directly related to his prehistoric cult.424 In the historic time, that deity, extolled in the discovered at Palaikastro Hymn of Kouretes, was honoured as the “Immortal Child” and “Megistos Kouros” of Dikte, protector of boys in their physical maturation and social growth, guarantor of the re-birth of the nature, and guardian of the universal law, as well as a god of cattle and crops.425 According to another popular version, infant Zeus was hidden in the Idaean Cave, that at Mt. Ida in Central 418

Boardman (1961) 8, pl.3, nu.2. Watrous and Widenor (1996) 52-53. 420 Jorro and Adrados (1985-1993) v.1, 180 (di-we); Palmer (1963) 235-236; Ventris and Chadwick (1973) 305-307. 421 Watrous and Widenor (1996) 53-55. 422 Willetts (1962) 207-208 (the evidence of the 3rd – 2nd century BC inscriptions from Crete). 423 MacGillivray, Driessen and Sackett (2000); Cunningham and Sackett (2009). 424 Rethemiotakis (2001) colour plate 5. 425 Murray (1908-1909) 357-358, lines 2, 6, 13, 28-31; also West (1965), esp. pp. 158-159. 419

414

Nilsson (1927) 461-513, esp. pp. 462 and 469. Boardman (1961) 2; Watrous and Widenor (1996) 1920. 416 Watrous and Widenor (1996) 31- 40, nus.20-21 - MM IB-MM II female figurines, nus.19, 22 - MM IB-MM II male figurines. 417 Watrous and Widenor (1996) 47-52. 415

55

Crete: “…when she (Rhea) had given birth to Zeus, concealed him in Ide..., and without the knowledge of Cronus, entrusted the rearing of him to the Curetes who dwelt in the neighbourhood of Mount Ide. The Curetes bore him to a certain cave where they gave him over to the Nymphs…” (Diod. 5.70.2; also Paus. 5.7.6).

and seem commonly to have been based on the primitive perception of the mystery of birth/rebirth of life: a cave was imagined as the inner part, the womb, of the Great Mother-Goddess, who periodically gives birth to the nature.431 It is not certain what function was originally ascribed to the male divine concept associated with the cave sanctuaries. However, from some indications, it may be possible to infer that a male deity worshiped in the Minoan caves was comprehended as a personification of the newly born nature, the Great Goddess’ divine child (note the bronze figurine of a baby from the Diktaean Cave),432 who, when he would have grown up, had also to become her partner and fertilize her with his fresh masculine potency,433 so that the nature could be reproduced again and again. Therefore, that male deity may have been comprehended not only as a child of the Great Goddess-mother of nature, but also as some sort of the father of nature. It was, perhaps, that feature, which may have appeared to the Mycenaean Greeks analogous with the original paternal function of Ζεύς πατήρ and had a strong impact on the assimilation of the two deities in certain cases.

The beginning of the cult activity in the Idaean Cave, used for habitation from the Late Neolithic - Early Minoan I time, is attested from the Middle Minoan IA period. The finds related to the Minoan phase of the cult, which lasted until the LM I-II, include a bronze double axe, about 40 small bronze swords or daggers, a necklace of rock crystal beads, bronze figurines of worshipers and bulls, stone table for offerings, fragments of rhython and numerous clay pottery of various types, as well as animal bones mixed with ashes.426 It may, thus, be inferred that the cult-place was originally associated with a male deity concerned about warfare and the fertility of cattle and, probably, connected with some female divinity.427 The finds dated to the period after 1400 BC comprise painted clay horns of consecration, which were put on an altar, clay wheel-made figurines of animals and humans, cult vases, a bronze earring, and seals. These seem to indicate a new phase of the cult: the excavators believe that due to the Mycenaean occupation of Crete, the original Minoan sanctuary in the Idaean Cave was transformed into an “ελληνικό λατρευτικό κέντρο”.428 However, the exact identity of the worshiped deity or deities is not known. The cult in the Idaean Cave was uninterruptedly practiced until the late historic times429 (see also Chapter 3, 3.1.28). The earliest testimonies for the association of Zeus with the cult in the Idaean Cave are of the 5th century BC: they consist of the verse of Pindar in Ol. 5.17: “...Zeus..., you who ...honour ... the sacred cave of Ida”, and Euripides’ mention of Zeus Idaios in his fragmentary preserved play The Cretans (frg.472). The name of Zeus Idaios occurs in the Cretan inscriptions of the late historic time in the forms “Τῆνα Βιδάταν” (IC 1.18.9c5), “τον Δῆνα τον Fιδάταν” (IC 2.5.35.11), “Δὶ Ἰδαί[ῳ” (IC 1.12.1).

Undoubtedly, the Cretan cave-cults varied among themselves during the Bronze Age and passed evolution towards the end of the BA – beginning of the EIA not always in similar ways.434 As result, not all the EIA cavecults continued from the BA were associated with Zeus during the historic time. There must have been some specific reasons for connecting Greek Zeus with the Minoan cult in the Diktaean (Psychro) Cave and later with that in the Idaean Cave.435 However, in the present state of evidence, these reasons remain to be unknown. Rutkowski and Nowicki (1996) 21-41; Μαντζουράνη (2002) 104. 431 Note Tyree (1975) 70-72. For the religious concept underlying Minoan cave-cults see also Yiannouli (1998) 73. 432 It should also be referred to the LM II-LM IIIA1 terracotta figurine of a female holding a child, the socalled Kourotrophos, from the “Black Cave” (Mavrospilio) at Knossos (Rethemiotakis (2001) 10-11, figs.15a, 16). 433 For the Minoan belief in the sacred marriage between the mature Great Goddess and the Young God, see the evidence presented by Marinatos (1993) 188-192. 434 Willetts (1962) 141-147; Watrous and Widenor (1996) 58-63. 435 It was also suggested that the sanctuary in the Arkalochori Cave, located in central Crete, 12 miles south of Knossos, too, could have been related to the worship of young Zeus: the cult, started there around 2000 BC and carried on until c.1450 BC or even 1100 BC, had the pronounced military character reflected in rich weaponry dedications (more than 100 double axes, of which 26 were of gold and 7 of silver, blades, swords, and knives). However, no inscription with the name of the deity worshiped in the cave was found, while the cult was definitely terminated by the end of the BA (Marinatos (1993) 125).

In order to understand the role of the Cretan religion, and especially that of the cave-cults, in the emergence of the characteristics of a child/youth in the concept of the Greek father-god - Ζεύς πατήρ at the end of the Bronze Age, the following must be pointed out. The cave sanctuaries are known in a sufficient number in Crete from the Middle Bronze Age, or the MM IA period,430 426

Σακελλαράκης (1983) 449-500 (general reports about the results of the excavations), 456-458, 484-486 – pottery finds of the MM I; Watrous and Widenor (1996) 58. 427 Σακελλαράκης (1987) 247, suggests the original association of the Idaean Cave with a Minoan god of vegetation. 428 Σακελλαράκης (1987) 247. 429 Watrous and Widenor (1996) 58-59; Willetts (1962) 243. 430 Rutkowski (1986) 47-71; Marinatos (1993) 123-126; 56

πατήρ), the original, that is, Early-Middle Bronze Age, Greek religious ideas, could hardly have provided the later Greek mythology with the image of an all-powerful god, the absolute sovereign of the world, because the concept of divine power was not sufficiently developed in the original Indo-European religious perception. The latter should be explained by low social-political complexity of the early Indo-European tribes.

Virtually, the Cretan Minoan Young God personifying the male element contributing to the periodical reproduction in nature, had several manifestations (such as the Hunter, the Master of Animals, and the Lord of Vegetation),436 and his worship was not confined to caves; not all his original aspects could have been and were eventually associated by the Greeks with their Zeus. Be that as it may, as a deity stimulating the plants’ growth, especially worshiped during the LBA under the name Velhanos at Agia Triada, 3km west of Phaistos,437 the Cretan Young God was identified with Zeus at that place around the EIA (see Chapter 3, 3.1.30); however, this may not be traced with certainty earlier, during the LBA phase.

However, even in the Mycenaean time, despite the existence of a relatively complicated pantheon supposing some kind of hierarchical order of gods, of whom male deities composed a remarkable number, none of them may certainly be identified as the supreme god occupying the top of the divine pyramid. In relation to Mycenaean Zeus - *Diweus, the original Greek supreme god and undoubted king of gods and men in the Homeric poems, it has been observed and stressed above (see 2.1) that he does not appear as a central male deity in the Mycenaean divine system.

Thus, there seems to have been some tending towards the identification of Greek Zeus with the Minoan Young God on the level of worship during the Late Bronze Age in Crete. This tendency, perhaps, may be observed in the sanctuary in the Diktaean (Psyhro) Cave and less certainly in the Idaean Cave, at Palaikastro and at Agia Triada. The identification of Greek Zeus with the Cretan Young God would have had grounds in the comprehension of both as deities who played similar roles in the creation and continuity of life in nature and in the human sphere. However, in turn, such linking must have caused the emergence of the mythological conception of Ζεύς πατήρ as a god who was born and passed the stages of infancy, childhood, and youth before he became the “father of gods and men”.

Given these circumstances and based on that in the Homeric poems Zeus and other gods were designated with the Mycenaean term for the head of state ἄναξ < wanax, it was presumed that the concept of the absolutely supreme god as personified by Homeric Zeus was not derived from a certain Mycenaean male deity, but reflected the figure of the supreme Mycenaean ruler. He, it was argued, would have been comprehended as a “living god”, the head of both human and divine realms. Thus, according to L.R. Palmer, it was “a complex and highly centralized totalitarian society” of the Mycenaean Greeks, the Mycenaean state system focused on the figure of wanax, which the Greek religious perception of the late prehistoric-early historic time used as the model for the arrangement of the pantheon as an ordered body ruled by the “ἄναξ of gods and men”.438 Earlier, M. Nilsson had argued that “the Greek State of the Gods was created after the pattern of the Mycenaean kingship”.439

2.6. The evidence for the association of the notion of divine to the concept of the supreme power in the prehistoric Greek perception As far as the ideas of the prehistoric Greeks about the scope of power of their male deities are concerned, there are certain difficulties, which impede searching among those the concept of an all-mighty god, who would have been believed to possess the authority adequate to that exercised by Zeus as presented in the Homeric poems. First of all, as it has been pointed out above (see Chapter 1, 1.3.1. Zeus as a god of the clear sky. Ζεύς / Ζεύς

However, did the head of the Mycenaean state really appear as a divine figure? If yes, what did his religious significance imply and what was the nature of his supposed godlike qualities?

436

Marinatos (1993) 166-174. The site of Agia Triada was inhabited from the end of the Neolithic period; during the BA, it developed into an important Minoan town. After a series of destructions at the LM IB period, it was rebuilt in the LM IIIA time and abandoned in the LM IIIB. From the LM IIIC, the site was re-used for the sanctuary of the deity worshiped as Zeus Velhanos in the historic time (Prent (2005) 162). Possible BA images of the god of Agia Triada see in Tiverios (1997) 315, nu.1 (painted representation of a young god standing behind a tree and a stepped altar and receiving offerings, on a stone sarcophagus dated to c.1400 BC), and Rethemiotakis (2001) 107, fig.122 (terracotta figurine of a naked male figure inside a shrine, Palatial time), p.43, fig.45 (terracotta figurine of a naked male, Post-Palatial period, Fig.18), p.79, fig.94 (terracotta figurines of males with beard and mustache, late Post-Palatial period). 437

In order to clarify this, the presence of a divine element in the concept of the supreme Mycenaean ruler ought to be verified and examined. 2.6.1. The Linear B evidence on the wanax It should be mentioned that still there is uncertainty about whether the word wanax occurring in the Linear B records implies a human or a god. According to the Linear B documents, wanax (wa-na-ka) was the term for a carrier of the supreme secular power in the Mycenaean states at Pylos, Knossos, Thebes, and Mycenae.440 It has, 438

Palmer (1981) 5. Nilsson (1950) 30. 440 Μυλωνάς (1966) 147. On the spelling and declension of the word wa-na-ka, see Luria (1964) 47, and Panagl 439

57

secular and in the cultic sphere.”450 However, the character of the religious functions of wanax may not be specified from the context of the documents, and, virtually, quite different opinions have been expressed concerning this matter. Thus, S. Marinatos and L.R. Palmer argued that the Mycenaean ruler was regarded as a living god.451 M.P. Nilsson believed that the Mycenaean king performed cults of gods “in his palace-sanctuary”.452 J.T. Hooker, using the evidence related to wanax in Pylos, has concluded “that an earthly ruler was considered to occupy a place mid-way between the world of men and the realm of gods”.453 According to J. Puhvel and C.G. Thomas, Mycenaean wanax received the divine protection and played an important role in the cult.454 K. Kilian believes that the ideological system of the Mycenaean society was centered on the person of wanax: he, according to the scholar, was the head of the social hierarchy put above the class of high priests; he established a direct connection with mythical beings and was surrounded by the symbols of the transcendental sphere.455 However, G. Mylonas stressed: “Ο Fάναξ της Πύλου είχε ωρίσμενα προνόμια καί δικαιώματα… Ουδεμία όμως ένδειξις υπάρχει υποδεικνύουσα ότι εθεωρείτο θείον πρόσωπον, ότι ήτο η προσωποποίησις επί της γής του θεού καί ότι τῷ απενέμοντο τιμαί, οἵαι απενέμοντο είς θεούς.”456 Perhaps, it should also be considered a possibility that the relationship of the head of the Mycenaean state with the religious sphere was not always the same during the Mycenaean period and could vary according to the personal ambitions and the power of particular rulers. Significantly, G. Mylonas has observed that “the texts of the Pylos tablets indicate the existence of an organized priesthood in Mycenaean times, not connected with the office of Fanax or the laFagetas.”457 Moreover, the architectural evidence, precisely the separation of the wanax’s residence and the official shrines in Mycenae and Tiryns, as well as the separation of the sanctuaries and the ruler’s megaron at Phylakopi, even if caused by the landscape reasons, does not point to the position of wanax as that of the highpriest – medium between the divine and earthly spheres.458

however, been expressed an opinion based on quite probable use of the female form wanassa in relation to goddesses,441 that in certain Linear B texts a male wanax referred to should be understood not as a human, but as a god (a “divine king”, a “masculine counterpart or colleague of Potnia”).442 Thus, it was argued that the references to a “τέμενος (of) Fάναξ”, wa-na-ka-te-ro teme-no, in the Pylian documents of the En/Eo series imply the sanctuary of a god officially called wanax by his worshipers,443 and that it is the same god who appears as a recipient of a tremendous amount of offerings in the Pylian tablet Un 2.444 Both suggestions are not, however, commonly accepted, given that in the first case not the sanctuary of a god, but a property of a human wanax-king may have been meant,445 while in the second case the great offering list intended for a wanax does not necessarily indicates his divine nature.446 Concerning the wanax mentioned (in dative) as a recipient of oil offerings in the Pylian tablets of the Fr series (1215, 1220, 1227, and 1235), in intriguing context, he might be understood as a god, but it is not secure.447 In fact, an undoubted application of the term wanax to any of the Mycenaean male deities is not attested. Furthermore, for the present subject, it is especially noteworthy that in the Knossian tablet F 51, a wanax (wa) and the god *Diweus - Ζεύς are clearly distinct from each other as two individual recipients of offerings.448 According to those texts, in which wanax is securely mentioned as the head of state, it is quite apparent that he had certain prerogatives and performed variously interpreted functions.449 The definition of wanax suggested by J.T. Hooker on the basis of the Pylian material seems to be the most acceptable: “The title wana-ka… was quite possibly applied to the king who stood at the head of the state and who had duties both in the (1971) 128, 134. 441 E.g. Bennett (1958) 50; Palmer (1963) 249. 442 Note Bennett (1958) 27, 35; Palmer (1963) 249; Hooker (1987) 258-260. In terms of linguistics, the word wanax may originally have had double meaning as a “king” and a “god”, see Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) v.1, 655. 443 Adrados (1969) 141 (“un τέμενος del anax divino”). 444 Mylonas (1966) 159. See the text and the translation of the tablet Un 2 in Palmer (1963) 258-259, who, too, considered the wanax mentioned in this document a god. 445 Hooker (1979) 103. 446 Hooker (1979) 111. 447 See Bennett (1958) 47, 51-52, 57, 61. Hooker (1987) 259, Ventris and Chadwick (1973) 480, and Baumbach (1979) 155, incline toward interpreting the word wanax in the Pylos Fr tablets as a cult title of a deity rather than the designation of a human king of Pylos; however, any interpretation is disputed, note the remark by Bennett (1958) 51. 448 Driesen (2000) 208, 213. 449 Hooker (1979) 100-111, presumed that there may have been a multiplicity of Mycenaean dignitaries designated with the title wanax.

450

Hooker (1987) 267. Marinatos (1951); Palmer (1981). 452 Nilsson (1950) 415-417. 453 Hooker (1979) 111. 454 Puhvel (1958); Thomas (1976). 455 Kilian (1988a) 294. 456 Mylonas (1966) 147. 457 Mylonas (1977) 126; also Ventris and Chadwick (1973) 128: “Whatever the religious functions of the King may have been, he was assisted by a considerable priesthood”. A contrary opinion see in Kilian (1988a) 293-294. 458 Mylonas (1981) 320. However, Wright (1994) 61-63, argues that the cult centers within the Mycenaean citadels were established later and therefore had lesser importance than the central megara of the palaces; the scholar insists on that the cult activity was concentrated not in the shrines of the cult centers, but in the megara. For the 451

58

found in Macedonia and Aegean islands as well.462 From the EH I period, the megaron plan is known in Boeotia (at Eutresis),463 while from the EH II it becomes widespread further on the mainland and is traced in buildings of the following types: 1. ordinary apsidal houses, of which the central unit can be defined as a megaron or as that of a megaroid type, 2. rectangular houses of a megaron or megaroid type, and 3. megaroid units incorporated into complex building systems, as the “corridor houses”.464 It has been argued that “the megara seem primarily to be dwellings”,465 and that even the main rectangular rooms of the corridor structures appear to have been an elaborate version of the main, living, rooms of the smaller houses.466 Central circular hearths were identified in many of the megaron and megaroid buildings, but not at all of them; the context of the related finds points mainly to the household use of the discovered hearths.467

To sum up, in fact, no direct Linear B evidence securely indicates the divine status of the supreme Mycenaean official wanax, while his religious functions, which may be inferred from the surviving Mycenaean texts, do not really suggest his especially close linking to the divine sphere. The existence of a certain Mycenaean god, who might have been designated with the epithet or cult-title wanax and would have been worshiped as the “king of gods”, being also regarded as the supposed divine analogue of the earthly king, is not attested with certainty. 2.6.2. The architectural evidence: the Mycenaean palatial megaron It may be presumed that any religious significance, which could have been given to the figure of the Mycenaean supreme secular ruler, would have been reflected in the architectural layout of the Mycenaean palaces focused on the megaron unit. The plan of the Mycenaean palatial megaron, or of the so-called “Throne Room”, appears standardized during the LH III B phase: its main elements were a central fixed, large, circular in most of the cases hearth surrounded by four columns and a throne set opposite of the hearth, at the right wall in relation to the entrance. This pattern is recognized in the Mycenaean palaces at Pylos, Tiryns, and Mycenae.459 The circumstance that the palatial megara apparently were not living areas indicates that the functions and the role of the hearth placed at the center of the megaron were not of ordinary household character. Concerning the throne, it is commonly believed that it was supposed for the head of the state, the wanax, although, in fact, there is neither written nor iconographical document to indicate with certainty whether the occupant of the throne was a secular or priestly person and of what gender in the second case.460

462

Theocharis (1973); Hiller (1986) 87; Papathanassopoulos (1996); Grammenos (1996); Gallis (1996); Kotsanis (1996); Sampson (2002). Note the Neolithic two-room Megaron A with a central circular hearth in its southern room at Dimini, and a Neolithic megaron with a tetragonal hearth, placed toward the western wall, at Sesklo, see Smith (1942) 106, figs.16 and 15 respectively. 463 At Eutresis, a number of EH I megaroid buildings have been discovered: the EH I House I, which was a detached rectangular construction with two rooms, each with a hearth placed against a wall (Werner (1993) 36, fig.26); the EH I House 9, defined by the excavators as a tetragonal room, 3.25m in width, oriented roughly to the cardinal points, and the EH I House 6, superposed on the House 9, with approximately the same size and orientation; hearths have not been identified on that level; both the Houses 6 and 9 were discovered below the Room III of the EH II House L. It is noteworthy that the EH I structures of Eutresis were associated with Neolithic deposits, which included two fragmentary female terracotta statuettes, see Caskey and Caskey (1960). 464 Werner (1993) 129. For the detailed survey of the EH – LH archaeological sites in Greece, see the paper by Rutter (1993). 465 Werner (1993) 125. 466 According to the definition by Pullen (1986) 79-84, the plan of the corridor structures includes large central rooms surrounded by corridors, some of which contain stairs to the second storey. The EH II corridor structures are represented by the House of Pythoi at Zygouries in Korinthia, the House BG and the House of Tiles at Lerna in Argolis, two buildings at Akovitika in Messenia, two buildings at Kolona in Aegina, and one building at Thebes in Boeotia. 467 For the function of each particular EH megaron and megaroid structure, with or without hearth, see Werner (1993) 30-47. For the shapes (circular, roughly circular, quadrangular, asymmetrical, and horseshoe-shape) and the types of the Early Helladic hearths discovered at Eutresis, Thebes, Askitario (Eastern Attica), Korinthos, Zygouries, Tiryns, Lerna, Berbati, Asine, Lepreon (Elis), Kynthos (Delos), Ayia Irini (Kea), also in Syros and

The megaron with a hearth is traced in Greece from the Early Neolithic time, although originally no strict architectural plan was followed.461 Such sites as Sesklo, Dimini, and Velestino in Thessalia, and Makri in Thrace present the most remarkable examples of the Greek Neolithic megaron architecture, but a number of important Neolithic megaron buildings have also been

separation of the sanctuaries and the megaron at Phylakopi, see Renfrew (1985) 401. 459 Blegen and Rawson (1966) figs.65, 70, 88; Kilian (1988b); Wace, Heurtley, Lamb, Holland and Boethius (1921-1923) 232-257; Mylonas (1966) 47, 55-56; Wright (1994) 56-60. 460 Shelmerdine (1999) 19-20, discusses possibilities of that the throne of the Mycenaean palatial megaron could be intended not for the supreme ruler, but for some other figures. 461 For the architectural characteristics of the megaron and the exhaustive survey of the megaron and megaroid buildings in the Bronze Age architecture of mainland Greece, Cyclades, Crete, and Western Asia Minor, see the detailed study by Werner (1993). 59

However, the big central circular hearths, each with a decorated rim, found in the EH II Megaron House A in Berbati,468 in the EH II House BG and the House of Tiles in Lerna469 are believed to have been ritual-sacrificial, suggesting the corresponding character and function(s) of the buildings, where they belonged to. Due to this, it is considered that the EH II monumental megaron buildings and the corridor structures were the administrative and sacral centers of the Early Helladic social-political units.470

It is believed that the megaron with a hearth was brought into Asia Minor by some early Indo-European Balkan groups, who would have arrived there from the Thessalian-Macedonian region or from Southwestern Europe.472 In Greece, during the Middle Helladic time, the symmetrical megaron was a more common model of the domestic architecture, from which it seems to have been borrowed, adapted and adjusted for the use in palace-type buildings during the Mycenaean period.473 It has been noticed that the canonical megaron in the Mycenaean ordinary dwelling architecture is in fact relatively rare.474

It must be noted that from the Early Bronze Age, the correct megaron plan comprising central circular or semicircular hearth is also identified in Western Anatolia, in monumental buildings and ordinary houses, especially at Dimircihuyuk, Troy I-II, Karatas, and Beycesultan.471

The LH IIB - LH IIIA1 buildings of the Menelaion at Sparta475 offer a remarkable example of the architectural combination of corridor structures with a megaron house and constitute the precedent of the Mycenaean megaron palaces. The so-called “Mansion 1” (about 26m x 23m) dated to the LH IIB period (3rd quarter of the 15th century BC) consisted of three parallel units (the Units A, B, and C, from east to west), separated one from another by two corridors. The central Unit B, evidently the most important one, contained a large room of a megaron type, although without traces of a hearth or a throne, a deep porch and an anteroom. At the western Unit C, within its main, large and tetragonal, room a hearth of irregular circular shape was found approximately at the center, in association with an ash deposit. The eastern Unit A contained a number of small rooms, which, perhaps, served as storerooms.

Naxos, see Lavezzi (1979) 343-344, n.9 (with the correspondent bibliographical references), pls.87-88; MacGillivray (1980) 36-39; Muhly (1984) 112, notes 4546 (with the related bibliography). The use of fixed hearths in Crete, in the palatial and domestic architecture, is traced only from the Middle Minoan period; it is assumed that fixed circular hearths appeared in Crete under the Helladic influence and were introduced from Cyclades; see Muhly (1984) 113; Demargne (1932) pl.6 – MM I house with a hearth at Mallia; Pendlebury and Pendlebury (1928-1929) 55-56, pl.11.1 - MM I House below the Central Kouloura nu.2 in Knossos. 468 The EH II Megaron House A at Berbati measured 4.80m x 4.40m; it had a central hearth, 0.93m in diameter, which was found in situ; see Saflund (1965) 96101, 128-129, figs.80-83. 469 It is argued that the big circular hearths found in the EH II House BG and the House of Tiles in Lerna were originally supposed to stand in the center of the main rooms (Wiencke (1986) 43, and Caskey (1990) 20). A central, almost circular hearth made of flat stones, and a fragment of its rim with the incised decoration were found in the Room III of the EH IIb rectangular, threeroom House A at Lepreon, in southernmost Elis (Zachos (1986) 32). Apart from Lerna, Berbati and Lepreon, the EH decorated hearth-rims were discovered at Tiryns and Korinthos (Wiencke (1970) 103; Muller (1938) pls.19.1-2 and 18.6). A simple central circular hearth was discovered in the main Room 4 (c.31m2) of the House of Pythoi at Zygouries (Pullen (1986) 80). Θέμελης (1970), reported that a huge EH II building of a megaron type at Akovitika contained “την κεντρική αίθουσα” (8m x 12.5m), “η οποία κατ’αναλογίαν προς έτερα γνωστά σύγχρονα παραδείγματα, θα έφερεν εις το μέσον εστίαν”, but it was not preserved among the archaeological remains. The EH II House L at Eutresis in Boeotia contained two hearths, each up against one of the walls in the Room II and the Room III; it is presumed that the House L served as a cult-place, but its exact religious purpose is uncertain (Rutkowski (1986) 213). 470 Pullen (1986) 81. 471 Werner (1993) 7-30; Warner (1979). Two EBA megaron buildings discovered at Troy are especially noteworthy: (1) the House 102, which belonged to the

The so-called “Mansion 2” (about 54m x 40m) of the LH IIIA1 date (the end of 15th century BC) was built on the east-west axis overlying “Mansion 1”. It was a structure of a sophisticated scheme with a building of the megaron type at its center, surrounded by courts and a line of various other buildings. In the context of the “Mansion 2”, three female terracotta statuettes have been found: two of them are of traditional Mycenaean types and one may almost certainly be identified as Minoan.476 Traces of a throne and those of a hearth were not found in the megaron of the “Mansion 2”.

Troy Ib level and seems to have been the earliest Trojan building of a megaron type; that structure (18m long) consisted of one room with a central circular hearth (c.1m in diameter) paved with small flat stones, and a porch; (2) the monumental Building IIA (29m x 10m) of the Troy IIc level, which comprised a deep front porch and probably a single large room with a circular clay hearth (c.4m in diameter) placed on the long axis, about 7m from the doorway (Blegen (1950) part 1, 94, part 2, fig.145; Werner (1993) 15, 16-17, figs.1, 8). 472 Hiller (1986) 87. 473 Whittaker (1997) 123-130; also Kilian (1987). 474 Whittaker (1997) 123-124. 475 Catling (1973-1974) 308; Catling (1975) 261-263; Werner (1993) 103-104, fig.69a-c. 476 Catling (1995). 60

It should also be mentioned the Megaron B at Eleusina, although it did not have a hearth: it is remarkable that in its initial stage, during the LH II period, that megaron was used as a dwelling of Eumolpides, but was dedicated exclusively to the goddess Demeter during the LH IIIB period,477 that is, in fact contemporarily with the final arrangements of the palatial megara at Mycenae, Tiryns, and Pylos.

Two megaron units have been identified in the L-shaped Mycenaean palace at Gla (Central Boeotia), both built approximately at the LH IIIB1/B2, but no traces of hearths were found there.484 It is presumed that a Mycenaean palace resembling those in Peloponnesos had existed on the Athenian Acropolis, but nothing of it survived except, probably, for a single limestone column base and pieces of several sandstone steps from an apparently monumental stairway.485

The earliest secure evidence for the palatial megaron with its main characteristic features comes from Tiryns and is constituted by the LH IIIA1 remains of a central rectangular hearth and of three survived bases for columns, identified in the main megaron of the palace.478 During the LH IIIB phase, the main megaron in Tiryns was rebuilt, and the rectangular hearth was transformed into circular with the reconstructed diameter 3.5m.479

A Mycenaean megaron was discovered in the Bronze Age settlement at Phylakopi, in Melos: it was constructed during the LH IIIA1/A2 period and comprised a central fixed rectangular hearth, reminding of the earliest Tirynthian megaron hearth.486 Intentionally or not, the megaron was built in the area used for child burials during the Early / Middle Cycladic time.487

The arrangement of the central unit of the palatial megaron, not including a throne, was echoed in a number of other Mycenaean buildings. Thus, a megaron building (14m x 7.5m) has been excavated in Midea (Argolis): on its earliest level corresponding to the LH IIIB period, a hearth surrounded by four bases for columns was uncovered in the center of the main room. The hearth was disturbed by the latest destruction and reconstruction of the building, and its remains were crescent-shaped480 suggesting the hearth’s originally circular form. The Mycenaean megaron B 85 in the Late Helladic town at Malthi (Messenia) consisted of one room (5.60m x 4.40m); in the center, somewhat towards the northern wall, four irregular slabs, which served as column bases, have been found; between those, there was an oval hearth, 1m long and 0.8m wide, found covered with ashes, charred wood and fragments of burnt bones of small animals (birds?).481 In the LH IIIB megaron (7.7m x 5.9m) in Mouritada (Messenia) and in the largest rectangular room “b” of the early LH III House Eb-c in Chryso (some kilometers south-west of Delphi) three and two column bases, respectively, were found in situ, and their location suggests that in each case they belonged to a group of four columns symmetrically placed around a central hearth; however, in neither of the two buildings traces of a hearth and those of other column bases were found.482

It is remarkable that the Mycenaean mainland architectural concept was reproduced in Cyprus, at Enkomi, during 1220/10-1190 BC (the Late Cypriot IIIA1 period), when the Ashlar Building centered on a large rectangular megaron with a central rectangular hearth surrounded by four columns (Level IIIA) was built by newcomers, presumably from Argolis, whose presence is attested by the Mycenaean IIIC Ib pottery.488 This scheme was also repeated later, during the Late Cypriot IIIA2 period, around 1190-1125/1100 BC, when the original Ashlar Building was reconstructed by new immigrants, perhaps by those from Argolis, Messenia, and Lakonia: two new megara were created in the southern sector of the building - one in its western part and another one in its eastern part. The Eastern Megaron (the Room nu.12) comprised a central monumental, roughly circular (apsidal?) hearth (1.7m diameter, 0.1m height), near which stone slabs, probably bases for pillars, were placed.489 (1974) 313-324, fig.5. 484 Werner (1993) 89-91. 485 Hurwit (1999) 73, figs.48, 52. 486 Atkinson (1904) 55-58, 269-270; Renfrew (1985) 401; Renfrew, Brodie, Morris and Scarre (2007) 19-50, fig.3.1. 487 Renfrew, Brodie, Morris and Scarre (2007) 49-50: eight child burials and three burials of infants in pottery vessels, stratigraphically associated with the remains of Early/Middle Cycladic houses, were found in the megaron area. 488 Dikaios (1969-1971) v.2, 514-523, v.3a, pls.31-31A. 489 Dikaios (1969-1971) v.2, 523, v.3a, pl.41.1-2. It must be noted that the Main Building at Enkomi contained a whole number of hearths discovered in different rooms, mostly in those with ordinary functions, see Dikaios (1969-1971) v.2, pls.273 and 276 (Ground Plans of the Main Building at the Levels IIIA and IIIB). For the positions and shapes of hearths in the Late Bronzed Age Cypriot architecture, see the study by Webb (1999) 80, 166-169: the Temple 5 in Kition, which comprised a large rectangular hall, the Room 58, with four circular

The Mycenaean palace at Orchomenos (Boeotia) comprised possibly three megaron units; in one of them, located more centrally in the building, a part of a circular hearth was discovered near the east rear wall of the assumed hall.483 477

Μαζαράκης-Αινιάν (2000) 190. Laffineur (1995) 84; Kilian (1987) 209, fig.7. 479 Werner (1993) 99-100. 480 Demakopoulou, Divari-Valakou, Astrom and Walberg (1996) 24-32. 481 Valmin (1938) 173-174, pls.7.4, 10.7, fig.28. 482 Μαρινάτος (1960) 201-206, fig.3; Werner (1993) 9293, fig.62a-b. 483 Σπυρόπουλος (1973) 393, 395, fig.24; Σπυρόπουλος 478

61

The identified LH IIIA1 remains of the central hearth and the bases for the surrounded it columns in the megaron at Tiryns indicate that the architectural concept of the palatial megaron was not a product of the palatial period, but an inheritance from the earlier times. In combination with the history of the megaron architecture in Greece, this means that the religious idea conveyed in the discussed architectural pattern originated in some much more primitive perception than that of the Late Bronze Age.

Thus, it would have been the traditional interior of an ordinary Helladic house, which inspired the architectural arrangement of the Mycenaean palatial megaron. Hence, the concept expressed by the plan of the Mycenaean palatial megaron should be inferred from the symbolism of a house, as that could be understood in the Bronze Age and even earlier.494 The relevant studies have sufficiently shown that in the prehistoric and primitive societies, a dwelling place replicates the supposed image of the world, while a certain spot of a dwelling, in many cases – a hearth, especially when it is located at the center of a house, symbolizes the pivotal point of the supposed world model.495 In fact, the central position of the hearth in the early domestic architecture may originally have been caused by practical reasons pursuing the most convenient arrangement of the primitive house space. However, the standardization of this architectural pattern would gradually have led to the conceptualization and sacralization of such a position of the hearth, and, consequently, to the elaboration and establishment of its symbolic significance as that of the absolute focal point.496

Special attention should be given to the spatial relationship between the throne and the hearth in the Mycenaean palatial megaron: the hearth was located at the center of the “Throne Room”, whereas the throne was placed at a wall and oriented on the hearth. Thus, the hearth in the Mycenaean palatial megaron appears to have been the focal point and symbolic center of the Mycenaean palatial sphere,490 while the throne can be seen as an element attached to that center. In terms of the spatial symbolism, the arrangement of the Mycenaean palatial megaron seems to have expressed the conceptual priority of the hearth in relation to the importance of the throne.

In the early architecture, the essence of the interior spatial symbolism was also determined by primal sacral notions originally attached to the objects constituting the inside of a dwelling. It has been pointed out that “in attempting to assess the significance of the hearth in the Neolithic dwelling it may be suggested that its centrality transcended functional necessity, and that the fireplace embodied many disparate meanings as may be expected in such a dominant symbol.”497 The religious concept of the hearth is almost universal:498 originating in the

The etymology of the ancient Greek word for hearth ἑστία, indicates that the ancient Greek-speakers directly associated the original concept of hearth with the primitive idea of a dwelling-place and a household. The word ἑστία is formed of the Indo-European root *ues( ἑσ-τί-α) comprised the notions of residence, domicile, abode (note the Tocharian A wast- “house” cognate to the Sanskrit vάstu- “dwelling”). The word ἑστία, which has the Ionian form ἱστίη, as well as the Aeolic, Boeotian, Lokrian, Doric, and Arkadian form ἱστία, is cognate to the verb ἵστημι “to place”, “to locate” etc., while the α-vocalization of the stem *ues-ti- had resulted into (F)άστυ “place of staying” > “town”. The definition of the word εστία in the Modern Greek language is also worth attention: besides its old meaning – “χώρος στο εσωτερικό σπιτιού ή άλλου κτίσματος, ο οποίος χρησιμεύει για θέρμανση ή για μαγείρεμα”, it is widely used with the sense “το σπίτι και γενικότ. ο τόπος όπου διαμένει κανείς”.492 However, it must be pointed out that the Mycenaean equivalent to the later Greek word ἑστία is not identified in the Linear B texts, and the exact Mycenaean term for the central hearth in the palatial megaron remains unknown.493

preserved in Modern Greek as σχάρα “oven rack”, had been used to mean a portable hearth or table for offerings (Palmer (1963) 342-343, 415; Πολυχρονάκου-Σγουρίτσα (1982) 29-30). 494 On the significance of the house as a Neolithic symbol, see the book by Wilson (1988). 495 See especially Eliade (1954) 12-16; Parker Pearson and Richards (1994a) 12-13; Toporov (1994c). 496 As it has been shown by Hodder (1990) 56-57, in the European domestic architecture, the clear distinction between the different areas of the house floor according to the functional importance is traced from the Neolithic period, for example, in the late 5th - 4th millennium BC settlement in the Tisza region: “…houses contain either open or domed ovens, clay-plastered grinding areas, oval or rectangular in form, and flat tables, often surrounded by querstones and stone or bone artifacts… It is clear that not all areas on the house floor were equally important. In many cases much of the floor space is empty, with activities concentrating around the hearth or oven.” 497 Parker Pearson and Richards (1994b) 41. 498 See especially Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) v.1, 605-606 “The ritual role of the fire and the hearth in ancient Indo-European traditions”. For the religious role of the hearth traced during the BA in the Minoan and the Helladic civilizations, see Muhly (1984). For the cultural significance of the hearth in the historic times in the

hearths placed on the central long axis, and the so-called “Shrine of the Ingot God” in Enkomi are especially noteworthy. 490 Wright (1994) 57. 491 Pokorny (1959) v.1, 1170-1171 (ues-1); Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) v.1, 177, 389, 645 n.4. 492 Μπαμπινιώτη (1998) 680 (εστία). 493 In the Py Ta 709.2, the word e-ka-ra = ἐσχάρα, 62

primitive idea of the dwelling-place, which contained the life-keeping fire, it comprised the notions of the basic primitive vital values – food, warmth, light, protection against the wild nature, and the like. These notions are universally associated with a female figure499 and constitute the concepts of various goddesses on the level of worship.500

goddess of the vital powers, responsible for the conceptual complex of life, that is, for the birth-lifedeath-rebirth after death.503 This, perhaps, is indicated by the fact that burials frequently occur in Neolithic and Bronze Age dwellings, under or near a hearth.504 It is remarkable that in some cases hobs or hearth-rims were shaped and decorated to resemble primitive anthropomorphic female idols.505

Indeed, the universal association of the fire of a hearth to a female divinity can be observed in both the religion and the mythology through a variety of images of different female deities, while the origins of this link should be searched in the most primitive human ideas.501 It has been argued that the formation of the concept of the “mistress of the hearth” can be traced back to as early as the Upper Paleolithic period.502 In the Neolithic and Bronze Age religious perception, the house hearth and its fire seem to have appeared as a materialized manifestation of the

Therefore, the hearth in the Mycenaean palatial megaron may be understood as a symbol of some great female divinity,506 which would have had fertile and chthonic 503

According to the observations by Gimbutas (1991) 223, the original (Paleolithic-Neolithic) goddess united in herself all the natural powers and, thus, personified the generative forces of nature, the destructive forces of nature, and the regeneration. 504 The available evidence for this practice, attested in entirely different civilizations, is abundant and may be referred to here only in brief. Thus, at the Neolithic settlement Lepenski Vir (at the border of Eastern Serbia and Romania), on the level of the Trapezoidal houses (5400-4700 BC), burials were often found by and behind hearths, beneath the floors, which is interpreted as evidence for the association of the death with the hearth itself (Hodder (1990) 21-31, esp.pp.25-29, fig.2.2, also Srejovic (1972) 118-119). In Cyprus, at the Neolithic IA site Khirokitia, on the south of the island (c.5800-5250 BC), at the Tholos 15, a young woman’s body in contracted position was found directly under the hearth (Small (1964) 17). This instance has been taken as indication of a sacrificial ritual custom, which would have been based on the association of the hearth with the femininity. At the same settlement, there was another burial, according to the excavator - a sacrifice as well, of an infant (one or two months old), found beneath the hearth in the Tholos 47 (Small (1964) 17 n.11). The custom of burying near hearths, supposedly in order to provide the graves with offerings from those, is recognized at the Middle Helladic settlement at Malthi, in Messenia (Valmin (1938) 233). It may also be noted a small hollow discovered almost in the centre of the Grave Circle A at Mycenae, between the Graves I and IV, which contained the repeatedly made up four hearths, while among its filling dated to the LH IIIB1 period “ευρέθη άνω μέρος σώματος μυκηναϊκού ειδωλίου των συνήθων” (Κεραμόπουλος (1918) 52-53; Nilsson (1950) 603). 505 Note, e.g., the hearth hob P 2000, found in Cyprus, at the Middle Bronze Age site Alonia in Marki (1835-1750 BC): its general shape, which resembles a human body with outstretched arms, and its decoration with zigzags, row of dashes, and a nose-like knob at the center recall Cypriot plank anthropomorphic idols of the same date. Similar examples were found in the Syrian-Palestinian region as well (Frankel and Webb (1994) 51-56, fig.1). 506 The ritual and possibly conceptual connection of the hearth of the palatial megaron with a female deity may also be seen in the arrangement of the Ashlar Building at Enkomi: on the Level IIIB, the Eastern Megaron (Room nu.12) containing a central hearth communicated with the

Greek, Roman, and many other societies, see Guidoni (1975) 108; also Vernan (1983) 127-175 “Hestia Hermes: the religious expression of space and movement in Ancient Greece”. See also Burney and Marshall (1971) 77-78, for the significance of the hearth beyond its practical function as attested in the Early TransCaucasian Culture (second half of the 3rd millennium BC). 499 Hodder (1990) 60-65, based on numerous cases of the spatial association of female figurines with ovens or hearths in the South-European Neolithic sites, argues for an original conceptual link connecting women with the house and the oven area. 500 See as one of the exhaustive studies regarding the original complex concept of the primal female divinity and its variations in different religious systems that by Baring and Cashford (1993). 501 The connection of the primitive chthonic and fecund female deities with the notion of the house fire deserves to be explored especially, in a detailed study based on the etymological, folklore, and mythological material. As one of the notable examples, it may be referred to the Slavic folklore personage Baba(=Old Woman)-Yaga (БабаЯга), who appears as an ugly and unpleasant old woman with certain rudimentary features: she lives in a wild forest, in a small, detached house, which has a terrifying oven, where she cooks small children, whether lost or stolen by her. Her concept can be traced back to a zoomorphic (snake-like) female demon of wild nature and fecundity. Perhaps, she was originally seen responsible for the life-and-death and human maturation, given that her symbolic oven recalls primitive Slavic rituals of initiation of children. Counterparts of this Slavic female demon are recognized among the Hittite, German, and Ancient Greek goddesses, who seem to have been of one common Indo-European origin, see Toporov (1963). In the Classical Greek house, the hearth was used in the ritual Ἀμφιδρόμια performed for a newly born child (Gaisford (1848) 8954 – 904) with the purpose to put him or her under the protection of the hearthgoddess Hestia. 502 Tokarev (1961) 12-20. 63

nature and certain maternal characteristics. The centrality of the hearth, which in fact establishes the hearth’s commanding position in the megaron space, should be interpreted as an indication of dominance of the concept of the great female divinity in the system of the Mycenaean religious ideas, as well as that of the focusing role of this concept in the system of the royal ideology. It is also important to note that, according to the traces remaining on the floors in the megara of Pylos, Tiryns, and Mycenae, the actual size of the palatial hearths apparently surpassed that of the thrones.507 The spatial symbolism of the palatial megaron, thus, suggests that the person, most probably the wanax, who sat on the throne in front of the large central hearth, was considered as inferior and subject to the supposed figure of a powerful female deity represented by the hearth.508 Accordingly, the architectural arrangement of the Mycenaean palatial megaron does not indicate that the wanax was honoured in the Mycenaean palaces as a god.509

human authority, has also been suggested.511 It is argued that in the traditional European pictorial symbolism, a column represented one of the versions of the “tree of life”, that is, the “life column”, and was seen as a symbol of the rise of the powers of earth as well as “an embodiment of the mysterious life force, the link between non-being and being”.512 Such connotations together with the clear connection of the megaron hearth with the idea of a great female divine power, allow the presumption that the columns surrounding the hearth appeared as a kind of convention for the natural forces emanating from the Great Goddess represented by the hearth.

A note should be made in relation to the columns, which surrounded the hearth. Perhaps, their basic role was architectural – to support an opening in the roof, which allowed smoke vent out from the building.510 However, an allusion to the generic symbolism and to a supernatural force, which would have supported the

The emblems of the Great Goddess – a griffin (see above, 2.3.2) and a lion, frescoed on the walls of the megaron at Pylos flanking the throne, may be another sign of subjection of the enthroned Mycenaean dignitary to the power attributed to the great female deity: “Chief of the heraldic animals at Pylos are the lion and the griffin… Both appear obviously posed in much the same fashion in the two rooms with central hearths, as if reinforcing whatever significance the hearths may have had.”515

It has also been observed that the supposed line connecting the four columns forms a correct quadrate,513 which comprises the circle of the hearth. Some additional symbolism may have been intended in this geometric scheme, but the understanding of it requires a special consideration.514

small Room nu.11, where a bronze female statuette was found (Dikaios (1969-1971) v.2, 524, pls.138.6-8, 145.12). These finds suggest that certain rituals associated with the hearth may have been observed in the Eastern Megaron in honour of a goddess. 507 Blegen and Rawson (1966) figs.65, 70, 88. 508 Note the opinion of Scully (1962) 33: “…the Mycenaean megaron-palace… celebrates… ritual of kingship under the goddess. She confirms the lord’s power, but the promise of individual security which he desires of her seems equally clear” (also ibidem, p.36). J. Wright, however, insists on considering the arrangement of the megara in the Mycenaean palaces as an expression of “the hearth-wanax ideology” and “the centralized hearth-wanax cult”, which, as he believes, had the importance of “a major cult institution of Mycenaean society”. The scholar concludes that the Mycenaean wanax would have appeared as “the guardian of the hearth”, symbolic “guardian of the family”, “protector of the household”, “father and chief” of the state. From this, J. Wright infers “the idea of a powerful male ruling figure emerging in Mycenaean times” (Wright (1994) 59-60). Concerning that, it must be emphasized that, in terms of the spatial symbolism, the throne and the hearth were not equal: the hearth occupied the center of the megaron, while the throne was set in front of it, at the wall of the Throne Room. Hence, there would hardly have been conceptual and symbolical equality of the hearth and the throne. 509 Compare the conclusion by Hampe and Simon (1981) 12. 510 Note Wace, Heurtley, Lamb, Holland and Boethius (1921-1923) 256.

It must be pointed out that the analyzed concept of the Mycenaean palatial megaron might not have been adopted from the Minoan architectural models, because the absence of a central hearth was one of the commonest features of the Cretan megara.516 2.6.3. Diadems The identification of any possible religious significance, which could have been attached to the figure of the supreme Mycenaean ruler, encounters one more serious obstacle in the fact that the Mycenaean royal iconography is not represented among the available archaeological remains.517 Perhaps, this circumstance indicates that in the Mycenaean time no practical care was made to preserve the rulers’ images in a monumental or any other form. Consequently, a question emerges concerning whether the Mycenaean kings were regarded and regarded themselves as those extra-ordinary persons, who deserved to be apotheosized visually, as, e.g., it was 511

Wright (1994) 58-59. For column as a dominant symbol, see especially Walace (1966) 71-75, and Turner (1967) 20-32. 512 Gimbutas (1989) 221-225; Toporov (1994a). 513 Vernan (1983) 160. 514 This has been attempted in my paper: Zolotnikova (2002). 515 Lang (1969) 99; McCallum (1987) 296. 516 Atkinson (1904) 270. 517 The absence of the Mycenaean ruler iconography has been emphasized in the paper by Shelmerdine (1999) 20. 64

practiced in relation to monarchs of the contemporary oriental kingdoms. Except that, nothing is really known about the official symbols, which could supplement the image of the Mycenaean ruler and indicate his supposed supernatural charismata or the godlike qualities, which he would have carried.

The diadems found in the women’s graves, especially those from the Shaft Grave III of the Mycenaean Grave Circle A, were performed as complicated crowns;523 the attempted reconstruction of their complete original form is presumptive, based on indirect iconographical evidence.524 The diadems discovered in the graves of men were made as simple headbands in the form of an elongated olive leaf. In fact, the diadems of both ladies and lords seem extremely fragile and inconvenient for regular use, which suggests that they either could have been worn on certain ceremonial occasions or were put on the head of the noble deceased only at the burial ceremony.525 Perhaps, one of the remarkable and closest parallels to the diadems from the Mycenaean and Pylian Grave Circles may be recognized in the rayed crown indicated on the head of a Minoan king (?) on a seal impression from Knossos, dated to 1900-1700 BC526 (Fig.19). This representation may strengthen the presumption that the diadems found in the Grave Circles at Mycenae and Pylos were supposed to be worn by local kings and members of their families on official ceremonies as a distinctive mark of their social position.

However, some indirect indications regarding this matter are worth to be considered. The luxurious kterismata of the buried in the Grave Circles B and A at Mycenae, dated to 1620/1610 – 1540/1530 BC (MH III – LH I) and 1580 –1500 BC (the late MH III – LH I), respectively,518 and in the LH I – LH II Grave Circle at Pylos519 comprised a number of gold diadems,520 of which some were found in the graves of men.521 The exclusivity and the richness of the graves make it possible to assume that the buried in the Grave Circles belonged to the local ruling families of the prepalatial settlements at Mycenae and Pylos.522 518

For the chronology of the Grave Circles B and A of Mycenae, see Μυλωνάς (1973) 8-18, 425, and Wace (1950) 206-207. 519 For the chronology of the Grave Circle of Pylos see Blegen, Rawson, Taylor and Donovan (1973) 154-155. 520 The description of the objects found in the Grave Circles of Mycenae and Pylos see in Karo (1930), Μυλωνάς (1973), Blegen, Rawson, Taylor and Donovan (1973) 156-176. 521 In the Mycenaean Grave Circles, the burials of men, in which gold diadems were found, were identified in: ▸ the Shaft Grave II, one of the earliest in the Grave Circle A, which comprised a single burial of a man (Karo (1930) 70-71, nu.219, pls.38, 72; Wace and oths. (1954) 247); ▸ the Shaft Grave IV, where 3 men and 2 women were buried (Karo (1930) pls.36-37, 39-41); ▸ the Tomb N in the Grave Circle B, which comprised non-contemporary burials of 2 men and 1 child, while contained 3 gold diadems; of those, two were probably offered to the earlier buried and were cut in pieces when the third deceased was buried in (Μυλωνάς (1973) 158176, esp. pp.173-174, nus.Ν 390, Ν 391, Ν 392, pls.153α, β1-2); ▸ the Tombs A, Γ, and Λ, which, according to the kterismata, comprised mixed burials of men and women (Μυλωνάς (1973) 31, nu.Α 353, pl.21β2, p.74, nu.Γ 359, pl.59α1, p.141, nu.Λ 380, pl.124α-β). In the Pylian Grave Circle, the Pit 4 dated to the LH I, comprised remains of 5 men and one gold diadem (Blegen, Rawson, Taylor and Donovan (1973) 141, 147, 166, figs.225.1 and 230.15). 522 For a possible MH settlement on the acropolis of Mycenae, see Wace, Heurtley, Lamb, Holland and Boethius (1921-1923) 173-178, 197-200, 209 (the MH pottery deposits in the acropolis area); Wace and oths. (1954) 248-253 (traces of a possible MH fortification wall north-west of the acropolis). For a MH settlement on the Englianos hill (Pylos), which developed into a town during the LH I - LH II, see Blegen, Rawson, Taylor and

The decoration of the diadems with embossed discs, circles, circular rows of dots, and rosettes, all varying in shape and size, seems to imply the radiant or solar symbolism, which is traditionally expressed in such signs.527 In this regard, it also deserves to be mentioned a fragment of a gold band, possibly of a diadem, with a unique decoration, found at Pylos, east of the Palace, in the Trench W 31, which did not have indications of burials or any building plan and contained mixed pottery of the MH, pre-palatial and palatial periods: the design of the band consists of a large circle formed by the three rows of dots with 8 spokes radiating from the central dotted circle, and a number of triple and double hemicircles and zigzags. All the elements were indicated in a Donovan (1973) 3. 523 Karo (1930) pls.11, 12-15. 524 For example, the headdress of two female figures (goddesses or priestesses?) represented on a gem of c.15th century BC from Vapheio: according to the description by Τσούντας (1889) 167, the ladies “φοροῦσι περί τήν κόμην στεφάνην ακτινωτήν” (ibidem, pl.10.33). 525 Additionally, it must be noted an old custom to bound the hands of a deceased with a gold diadem or band, see Protonotariou-Deilaki (1990) 80, fig.16: the gold diadem found twisted about the hands of the dead in the Tumulus E, grave 1(88), in Argos. 526 Demargne (1969) fig.147. There are also some earlier specimens, but their attribution is not certain: a silver band adorned with small triangles on its upper part, found in a Proto-Cycladic grave in Amorgos (Sargnon (1987) pl.III, fig.274); an Early Cycladic II/III silver band with embossed rosettes, a bird-like shape, and a male animal, discovered at Kastri in Syros (Τσούντας (1899) pl.10.1); Early Minoan II gold head-bands from Mochlos, decorated with various embossed symbols (Sargnon (1987) fig.14). 527 Roes (1933) 10-15ff, 45ff. 65

punctuated technique and as a whole have the appearance of a solar or astral symbol. The preserved end has the perforation for fastening, which helps to suggest that the diadem was actually worn.528

Mycenaean wanax of the LH III period, but there is no evidence to confirm it. 2.6.4. The Throne Room at Knossos The examination of possible notions of divine in the Mycenaean concept of the supreme secular power may be closed by considering the Throne Room of the Palace at Knossos.

On the basis of the above, it seems possible to suppose that the members of the MH III – LH I-II ruling families at Mycenae and Pylos linked themselves to some kind of solar / shining symbolism and indicated that in the decoration of their ceremonial diadems.

The Throne Room is located in the northwestern section of the Palace. It is a large and dark tetragonal room entered from the east, through the anteroom adjacent to the Eastern Court, while a small inner chamber adjoins its west wall.534 The Throne Room in its final arrangement (Fig.20) comprised gypsum benches placed along the north and west walls, an alabaster throne set at the middle of the north wall, in the interval between the benches, and a stone construction resembling a basin for containing water, at the south wall, opposite the throne. The Room was decorated with frescoes representing magnificent couchant griffins - wingless, lion-bodied and eagleheaded; those were painted on the north wall, from both the sides of the throne, and on the west wall, from both the sides of the entrance to the small adjoining room.535

Gold diadems bearing certain similarities in decoration with the diadems from the Grave Circles were found in the grave 1(88) in the Tumulus E in Argos, dated to approximately the end of the MH,529 and in the Tholos tomb 3 at Peristeria, close to Pylos, dated to the beginning of the LH.530 The gender of the buried in these graves is not clearly indicated by the burial offerings, but it may be supposed that the deceased belonged to the local ruling dynasties. Remarkably, the MH grave of a young king or prince of the so-called “9th village” at Kolona in Aegina (1800-1650 BC) contained, together with weapons, a simple gold headband (c.45 cm long) decorated with embossed lines forming triangles.531 Finally, a gold diadem made in the form of an elongated olive leaf, decorated with embossed circles, spirals, and dots, was found in Skopelos, in a grave dated to the second half of the 15th century BC and thought to be that of a ruler; both the preserved ends of the diadem have perforations for fastening.532

The architecture of the Throne Room in its final arrangement gives the impression of having been focused on the throne. The throne stands on a low tetragonal platform, has a solid-block seat and a high back of undulating leaf-shaped line; the total height of the throne is 1.06m, while the level of the seat is 0.56m.536 A relief band curving downward was carved on the front side of the seat; together with the above decorative line curving upward, carved beneath the surface of the seat, it forms a circle;537 there are carved likenesses of a simple straight strut on the right and on the left sides of the seat.538

It must be emphasized that all the discussed diadems are of a pre-Mycenaean date and therefore may not be related directly to the ideology of the Mycenaean kingswanaktes. It is not excluded that diadems as a mark of rank, perhaps in a different form, were used by the Mycenaean kings during the time of the great palaces,533 and that the solar symbolism, which could have been involved in the concept of the ruler of a pre-palatial settlement, was maintained in the concept of the

The use of the Throne Room is traced from the Middle Minoan II period, but its most active involvement in the Palace activities corresponds to the period of the establishment of a Mycenaean dynasty in Knossos, that is, the end of the 15th century – end of the first quarter of the 14th century BC.539

528

Blegen, Rawson, Taylor and Donovan (1973) 15-16, fig.108. 529 Protonotariou-Deilaki (1990) 80, fig.16 530 Μαρινάτος (1965) 116-117, pl.134. 531 Walter (2004) 146-148, fig.132. 532 Athens National Archaeological Museum, nu.6445. The kterismata of this grave include bronze weapons. 533 A diadem of glass-past was found still around the skull of the buried in the Late Mycenaean cemetery at Kladeos, 4km north from modern Olympia (Γιαλούρης (1963) 103). An analogous diadem was found on the head of a buried woman in the Late Bronze Age Tholos D in Archanes, in Crete (Sakellarakis and Sakellarakis (1997) 646-647, figs.709-710). It is noteworthy that Agamemnon represented on a steatite seal dated to c.700 BC, from Knossos (now in the Metropolitan Museum, New York, nu.42.11.1), is crowned with a rayed diadem (Ahlberg-Cornell (1992) 336, fig.139). For the ornamental use of diadems by the Greeks in the historic times, see Despini (1996) 28-31.

There is no unanimity concerning the function of the Throne Room. Some scholars suggest that it was intended for a religious use and that the throne was occupied by a high priestess, who would have played the role of a goddess in an enacted epiphany ritual.540 Others argue that the Throne Room was some sort of the ruler's Audience or Council Hall (note the benches from both the sides of the throne), and that the throne was supposed 534

Evans (1899-1900) 35-42; Evans (1935) 901-924, Niemeier (1986) 63-65; Marinatos (1993) 106-108. 535 Evans (1935) 908-913; Marinatos (1993) 108, fig.80. 536 Evans (1899-1900) 38. 537 Hopkins (1963) 417. 538 Evans (1899-1900) 38. 539 Niemeier (1986) 93-95. 540 Mirie (1979); Marinatos (1993) 108-110. 66

for a carrier of the supreme power at Knossos.541 W.-D. Niemeier, reconstructing four building phases in the history of the Throne Room, argues that it was initially supposed to be a religious area for the ceremony of manifestation (epiphany) of the main goddess of Knossos, but it was modified on the last phase and may have served as a megaron of the ruler, who would have belonged to a dynasty from the Mycenaean newcomers.542 Perhaps, the definition of the purposes of the Throne Room by B. Rutkowski is the most acceptable: “It seems possible that the Throne Room complex had a religious function, either direct or indirect… The objects discovered there provide no clear indication that the Throne Room was used for cult purposes, but there is more indirect evidence that it was put to such use… It is not known for certain whether it was a sanctuary or merely a royal chamber… Two or three rooms around the Throne Room may have been used for worshiping the gods.”543

Some special rituals focusing on the basin-like construction and involving water may have been observed in the Throne Room, but their actual forms, content, and the underlying concept are not known. It was also suggested that the basin-like construction was actually not intended for containing water, but imitated a sacred cave and was used as a kind of adyton for offerings and sacrifices.547 The supporters of this opinion believe that the supposed adyton was the only construction in the Room at the first phase of its use (MM II period) and remained to be its principal element afterwards.548 Thus, the Throne Room of the Palace at Knossos appears as an area, of which the exact role is uncertain and can be interpreted in very different ways. However, even if it was, at any of its phases, used as a royal megaron, it does not seem likely that the occupant of the throne had been that remarkable and venerated as a divinity figure, which could have provided the LBA Greek mythological perception with the image of an all-powerful god-king ruling over both men and gods.

Concerning the religious concept associated with the Throne Room, it seems possible to admit that the griffins frescoed on the walls flanking the throne and the doorway into the inner room symbolized a female divinity (see above, 2.3.2), which would have been considered directly connected with the occupant of the throne, as well as with the Throne Room activities. This feature recalls the association of a painted griffin with the throne in the megaron at Pylos. On the other hand, the absence of a central hearth points to a remarkable difference between the divine concept linked to the Mycenaean megara and that possibly meant in the Throne Room at Knossos.

Overall, quite dubious religious significance of the figure of the supreme Mycenaean ruler should prevent from considering him the prototype of the religious / mythological concept of an all-powerful enthroned god as that appeared in the Greek epics in the beginning of the historic time - in the image of Homeric Zeus. *** To sum up the evidence considered in this Chapter, it may be observed that only scattered elements, but not the direct and complete prototypes of Homeric Zeus are traced in the prehistoric Greek religion and mythology as known at present.

C. Hopkins suggested that the circle formed on the front side of the seat by the curved relief line and the curved line beneath the seat surface should be recognized as a sign of the sun disc; based on this, he argued that an occupant of the throne was a priest-king, who represented the Lord of the sky.544 In support of the opinion that a symbol of some kind may be seen on the seat of the Knossian throne, it should be noted that the Minoan ideograms conventionalizing thrones were sometimes supplemented with various signs, as a tree and a flower, pictured on the supposed front sides of seats.545 However, A. Evans from the beginning had characterized the Knossian throne as a stone version of some wooden prototype, and pointed out that the carvings on the left, front and right sides of the seat block in fact imitate strut bars originally used in wooden furniture.546 Therefore, it appears quite unsafe to relate the particular throne and its occupant to the solar and shining symbolism.

Concerning this conclusion, it must especially be emphasized the Late Cypriot worship of an unknown enthroned male deity, whose iconography recalls contemporary representations of Near-Eastern gods. This instance helps to realize that certain components of the Homeric concept of Zeus, which don’t have secure IndoEuropean parallels, as, e.g., the idea of a supreme god enthroned on a golden throne at the mountain top, would have entered the Greek perception from the Near East, via the Greek or Hellenized territories, which experienced the most intensive contacts with the eastern cultures in the end of the Bronze Age - beginning of the historic time. On the other hand, the impact of the Minoan religious concepts, especially of that of a divine child / young god, in the transformation of the original Greek Indo-European religious and mythological concepts, particularly of that of the father-god, by the end of the Mycenaean period is also very probable.

541

Evans (1899-1900) 42; Πλάτων (1951b) 392-394. Niemeier (1986); Niemeier (1987). 543 Rutkowski (1986) 127-128. 544 Hopkins (1963) 419. 545 See, e.g., Πλάτων (1951b) 409, figs.27ε and 27η. 546 Evans (1899-1900) 38. The imitation of certain details of wooden seats may be seen in some other Minoan thrones, see Πλάτων (1951b) 393, figs.22, 24. 542

547

Niemeier (1987) 163-164. Niemeier (1987) 163; Marinatos (1993) 106.

548

67

3.1. The EIA places of worship of Zeus

CHAPTER 3 The evidence for the worship and perception of Zeus during the early historic time

Summary list of the early historic places of worship of Zeus (according to the geographical principle):

It remains to establish the relation of Homeric Zeus to Greek religion as it was actually practiced in the time of the composition of the Homeric poems. In order to accomplish this, the real position of Zeus in the religious system of the EIA must be determined and the nature of his religious concept(s) as occurred in that time must be defined. This may be achieved by outlining the scope of the worship of Zeus during the EIA, as well as by inferring the perception of him by his worshipers in the beginning of the historic time. In other words, it must be established, as complete as possible, the number of the cult-places dedicated to Zeus in the period of time extending from the Dark Age (or even earlier) until the Early Archaic period, while the evidence discovered there in the EIA and later contexts should be interpreted in terms of religious beliefs.

1. Dodona (Epirus) 2. Pherai (Thessalia) 3 / 4. *Halos (Phthiotis, Thessalia) / *Mt. Laphystion (Boeotia) 5. Mt. Helikon (Southwestern Boeotia) (?) 6. Olympieion in Athens (?) 7. Mt. Hymettos (Attica) 8. Mt. Parnes (Attica) 9. Mt. Tourkovounia (Attica) (?) 10. Mt. Pani, Mt. Merenda, Mt. Keratovouni, Mt. Profitis Elias, Mt. Agrieliki (Attica) (?) 11. Sta Marmara (Megara) 12. Mt. Oros (Aegina) 13. Mt. Fokas (Phoukas)-Apesas (Korinthia) 14. Nemea 15. Tretos (Dervenakia) (Korinthia) (?) 16. Mt. Arachnaion (Argolis) 17. Larisa hill (Argos) (?) 18. Olympia (Elis) 19. Mt. Lykaion (Arkadia) 20. Mt. Ithome (Messenia) 21. Tsakona hill, Aphyssou (Lakonia) 22. Kenaion Cape (Euboea) (?) 23. Mt. Kynthos (Delos) 24. Mt. Zas (Naxos) (?) 25. Mt. Atavyros (Rhodes) 26. Mt. Mesavouno (Thera) 27. Psychro (Diktaean) Cave (Crete) 28. Idaean Cave (Crete) 29. Amnisos (Crete) 30. Agia Triada (Crete) 31. Praisos (Crete) 32. Palaikastro (Crete) 33 / 34. Troy (?) /*Gargaron, Mt. Ida (Troas, Asia Minor) 35. Heraion in Samos (?) 36 / 37. Heraion at Perachora (?) / Heraion at Argos (?)

The following, however, should be pointed out. It is generally accepted that the beginning of a religious activity at a cult-place is indicated by the earliest datable levels of an altar and/or by the presence of the earliest votives. However, it should also be realized that every cult fixed to a certain place from a certain date and provided with an altar and/or other attributes of a cult activity was always an expression of a certain religious concept or of a certain religious belief, which may have had their roots in very early ideas about the sphere of divine. These concepts and beliefs could remain immaterial for a very long time, and at present many of those are identified only on the basis of the evidence of language and lore tradition. However, the immaterial character of the ideas of this kind should not be used as evidence against their presence in the religious perception. Therefore, it should be discerned a difference between the problem of the beginning of practicing a cult at a certain place from a certain date and the problem of origin and continuity of the religious idea underlying a cult.

___________________________________

Given the absence of other written sources for the early Greek religion than the Homeric poems, the visual interpretation of gods as it was in the EIA bears special importance. Therefore, it must also be examined the appearance of Zeus in the EIA iconography.

*undetected cult-place (?) practice of the cult of Zeus during the early historic time is not certain

68

The ethnic origins and the corresponding to those cultural backgrounds of the Post-Mycenaean population of Dodona are not quite definite. In the Homeric epic diction, the god of Dodona occurs under the epithet Pelasgikos (Hom. Il. 16.233), which refers to the old preGreek population of Greece, the so-called Pelasgians (Hes. Frag. 319; Hdt. 1.56); their original presence around Dodona was strongly remembered even in later times (note Strab. 7.7.10). Hence, this epithet might be not only a reminiscence of origins of the Dodonian cult in remote pre-Greek ages, as, e.g., Strabon believed (Strab. 7.7.10), but also an indication of that this old ethnicity was still present at Dodona in the time of the composition of the Iliad. On the other hand, if the EIA residents of Dodona were newly arrived, the designation Pelasgikos applied to the god worshiped among them may point to their close enough relation to the Pelasgian stock. Some scholars argue that the post-Mycenaean inhabitants of Dodona belonged to one of the northwestern Balkan tribes cognate to the Thesprotians, the Molossians and the Illyrians,557 of whom the first and the second spoke a form of the West Greek, but not Dorian, language throughout the Dark Age.558 As for the archaeological evidence, the mentioned above Dark Age local vessels painted with primitive geometric ornament appear to resemble hand-made pottery found everywhere on the territory of Northwestern Greece in the post-12th century context,559 but nothing more specific may be inferred from that. However, those who controlled the shrine at Dodona in the Classical time were certainly speakers of the Greek language (note Hdt. 2.56), and they were considered Greeks.560

3.1.1. Dodona The territory of Dodona, inhabited from the Early Helladic time and, as it seems, originally connected with some Indo-European Balkan pre-Greek Storm-god, or a god of thunder (Δωδώνη < *dheu-dh- “to shake”, “to quiver”,549 see also Chapter 1, 1.3.2. Zeus as a stormgod. Zeus as a substitute for the original Greek stormgod), was occupied by a Mycenaean colony or an ethnically mixed settlement during the Mycenaean time550 (see Chapter 2, 2.2.7. Dodona during the prehistoric period). The invasion of the northwestern Greek and northern Balkan tribes at the end of the 12th century BC would have pressed heavily that late prehistoric settlement and probably caused serious changes at the site.551 Nevertheless, the remarkable archaeological material found out of stratified context clearly indicates habitation and a cult activity at Dodona already in the beginning of the Early Iron Age. The former appears to have been reflected in a portion of the Dark Age local wares discovered at the site.552 As concerning the cult, such noteworthy finds as over twenty small bronze axes (5 to 12cm long) dated to c.1000 BC and resembling ordinary axes used during the late 2nd millennium BC in Western Asia Minor,553 a large iron double axe,554 about 27 EIA spearheads,555 a number of Epirot fibulae engraved with Geometric designs (zigzags, parallel lines), and some Thessalian fibulae dated to the 9th century BC556 have been classified as the earliest votives. Remarkably, in both the Iliad and the Odyssey, Dodona is referred to as a broadly known sanctuary-place and the highly respected oracle attended by a special extraordinary body of priests (Hom. Il. 16.234, Od. 14.327-328). This fact suggests that Dodona must have been practically involved in cult activities comprising divination at least a century before Homer, so that it could take a secure place in the epic diction in the status of an established oracular shrine by his time. Pausanias (7.25.1-2) mentioned a legend that during the kingship of Kodros in Athens, that is, conventionally around 1050 BC, the Athenians obeyed to an oracle issued in Dodona to respect the Lakedaemonian suppliants. The legend itself could be of a late origin, but the reference to the active oracular cult in Dodona in the context associated with the period of the Dorian invasion may have been unintentional and based on the historic reality. Immediately after Homer, the oracle of Zeus at Dodona, giving “all kinds of prophesy” and visited by countless “mortal men” “bringing gifts” to the “deathless god”, was extolled by Hesiod (Hes. Catalogue of Women, 97).

The finds dated to the Late Geometric period securely point to the cult activity at the site in that time. The Late Geometric material from Dodona comprises a fragment of a LG Korinthian clay krater or cauldron,561 numerous parts of LG bronze Korinthian and Peloponnesian tripods, including a bronze horse,562 four bronze male statuettes, which probably adorned tripods,563 as well as a number of votive fibulae dated to the second half of the 8th century BC and resembling some contemporary fibulae from Olympia.564 In regard to the architecture of the EIA sanctuary, it has been assumed that the so-called kalyva, which is the elliptical house discovered underneath the 4th century BC Sacred House, may be dated to the Geometric period and that it was used until the late Classical time as either a dwelling of priests or a building for keeping

557

Δάκαρης (1986) 16; Ευαγγελίδης and Δάκαρης (1959) 151. 558 Hammond (1967b) 422-423. 559 Δάκαρης (1986) 16. 560 Hammond (1967b) 368. 561 Δάκαρης (1963) 149. 562 Ευαγγελίδης and Δάκαρης (1959) pl.14γ,ζ; Δάκαρης (1963) 150, also Δάκαρης (1986) 17, pl.26.1. 563 Δάκαρης (1986) 101, pls.24-25; Carapanos (1878) 185, pl.13.4; Casson (1922) 211-213, figs.4b, 7c. 564 Hammond (1967b) 429.

549

Pokorny (1959) v.1, 264-265. Desborough (1972) 97, 378. 551 Δάκαρης (1963) 150. 552 Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 309. 553 Hammond (1967b) 407-409. 554 Hammond (1967b) 409. 555 Hammond (1967b) 409. 556 Hammond (1967b) 410-411. 550

69

votive offerings.565 If this assumption is correct, the architectural arrangement of the 8th century BC sanctuary at Dodona might be compared with that of the sanctuary of Zeus in Olympia of the same time, where a Geometric oval house seems to have been identified as well (see below, 3.1.18. Olympia. The sanctuary in the EIA, and Fig.49). Also, the layout of another possible EIA cultplace of Zeus - that at Tourkovounia in Attica, which was certainly focused on a sacred oval building (see below, 3.1.9. Mt. Tourkovounia, and Fig.29), - deserves to be referred to here. At this point, it should be emphasized the fact that there were obviously some cultural contacts between the Dodonian and the Olympian sanctuaries in the LG period, traced, e.g., in common fibula designs observed at both places (see above). However, the actual chronology of the elliptical house at Dodona is not certain, while no other architectural remains securely dated to the Geometric period have been identified on the territory of the sanctuary.566 Generally, it is believed that the initial cult was observed in the open air, in simple forms maintained until the construction of the first temple in the beginning of the 4th century BC. Because of the attempted in the 4th century BC reproduction of the initial forms of the Dodonian cult by arranging a circular peribolos of tripods around the sacred oak, it is supposed that the EIA sanctuary was a small temenos defined by a row of tripods surrounding the sacred tree (see Fig.21). However, the material evidence for this is lacking.567

unpreserved shield in his outstretched left hand (see Fig.22c). The features of the figurine are sketchy and vague, and the whole figure is hardly more than a heavy silhouette. The figurine is dated to the Late Geometric period or the first half of the 7th century BC and is attributed to a northwestern Greek workshop.571 The fourth statuette (Athens National Archaeological Museum, nu.Kap.33), dated to the Geometric period, represents a nude, helmeted, striding warrior; his raised right hand originally held a weapon, while his left arm is bent and may have held a shield; the waist is protected with a double belt; the right leg is advanced.572 It may be observed that these figurines, together with the earlier dedicatory weaponry found in the sanctuary, express a male warlike concept, which thus seems to have been connected with the cult at Dodona during the EIA. However, nothing more certain may be stated regarding the figurines’ real implications. The evidence for the content of the Dodonian cult during the EIA is highly interesting, but rather insufficient. According to the Odyssey, there was the “god’s highcrested oak” (“θεοῖο δρῦς ὑψίκομος”) in Dodona in the time of the composition of the poem, and Zeus expressed his will (“βουλή”) from that tree (Hom. Od. 14.327-328). In the Indo-European linguistic, religious and mythological traditions, oak was specifically linked to storm-gods;573 this gives grounds to believe that the god worshiped at Dodona during the Geometric period, like the original prehistoric deity linked to this place, was connected with the storm activity. The references contained in both the Homeric poems indicate that in the early historic time the practice of divination already formed an important, if not the central, part of the cult in Dodona.574 As far as the divination in the Dodonian sanctuary was connected with the tree of a storm-god, it may be supposed that the original holder of the Dodonian oracle, whether its establishment goes back to the prehistoric time or the EIA, was a deity with stormy nature. According to the Iliad, quite the remarkable priesthood - Σελλοί or Ἑλλοί,575 “men with unwashed feet that sleep on the ground”, dwelt at Dodona serving the sanctuary of Zeus and interpreting his divine messages (Homer calls them “ὑποφῆται”/ “interpreters”, Hom. Il. 16.234-235). As Hesiod mentions, in his time (end of the 8th / beginning of the 7th century BC), the oracles were

The bronze statuettes found in the sanctuary are worthy of close attention. One of the figurines (now lost), dated to c.730 BC,568 represented a nude warrior without helmet (see Fig.22a); in his raised right hand with a holed fist, he originally held an unpreserved object, perhaps a lance, and in his left bent hand, with a holed fist as well, he seems to have had some other object, probably, a shield or the reins of a lost horse figurine. His waist was protected with a triple belt. The feet were not preserved, but it seems likely that the figurine was once attached to a tripod. The second figurine, dated to the middle of the 8th century BC,569 represents a nude, helmeted warrior (see Fig.22b); the arms are as those in the figurine described above, but the left one is preserved to a forearm; the feet are attached to a piece of metal indicating that the figurine originally belonged to a bigger object. Both the figurines are attributed to a Korinthian workshop.570

571

The third statuette (exposed in the Athens National Archaeological Museum, nu.Kap.34) represents a nude, bearded male with the left leg to the fore; he possibly held an unpreserved spear in his raised right hand and an

Casson (1922) 211-212; Tiverios (1997) 316, nu.9. Casson (1922) 213, fig.7c. 573 Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) v.1, 694-695, v.2, 127128, Pokorny (1959) v.1, 822-823 (perkuu-s). 574 The earliest documentary evidence for consulting the oracle of Zeus in Dodona dates from 550/525 BC and consists of plumb plates incised with questions addressed to the god regarding private as well as public matters; see Lhôte (2006). 575 For the form of the designation of the priests in Dodona, Σελλοί or Ἑλλοί, see Liddell and Scott (1996) 1590 (Σελλοί); Janko (1992) 349-350. 572

565

Ευαγγελίδης and Δάκαρης (1959) 24-30. Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 309 n.365. 567 Ευαγγελίδης and Δάκαρης (1959) 151. 568 Δάκαρης (1986) pl.24. 569 Δάκαρης (1986) pl.25. 570 Δάκαρης (1986) 101. 566

70

given through the doves, which lived in the stump of Zeus’ oak (Hes. Catalogue of Women, 97.8-9).

association with an Indo-European Balkan storm-god. If so, the Selloi / Helloi would have been devoted keepers of the old, pre-Greek religious customs attached to this place in the beginning of the Bronze Age (note Strab. 7.7.10: “This oracle [at Dodona]… was founded by the Pelasgoi. And the Pelasgoi are called the earliest of all the peoples who have held dominion in Greece”). On the other hand, it is also possible that the Selloi / Helloi were among those who settled at Dodona in the EIA: according to the legends presented by Strabon and reflecting movements of population in Northern Greece at the end of the prehistoric – beginning of the historic time, the Selloi / Helloi originally dwelt in Thessalian Pelasgiotis; there they allegedly had the sanctuary of Zeus Φηγωναίος (“of the oak”) on a hill near the city of Skotoussa, at the river Kalamas, but after their sacred oak was destroyed by fire, they transferred the sanctuary to Dodona (Strab. 7.7.10-12; 7.Fragments 1, 1a-c).581

Such elements as possible arrangement of the EIA sanctuary at Dodona around the sacred oak tree, the practice of divination through an oak, and the god’s extremely conservative priesthood indicate a very primitive religious tradition, which underlain the Dodonian cult. Notably, these features find parallels among the Celtic, German, Slavic, and Baltic religious customs and are especially similar with those attested in the cult of the Prussian storm-god Perkunas, whose sanctuary at Romove, too, was focused on a holy oak.576 The designation of the Dodonian priests Σελλοί or Ἑλλοί, although it does not have secure etymology,577 should be linked to some northern Greek place-names, as Ἐλλοπία – the name for the land of Dodona (Hes. Fr. 134.1), and Ἑλλάς – (a) said to have been originally the name of the region round Dodona (Arist. Mete. 352a34), (b) a city in Thessalia founded by Hellen / Ἕλλην, the son of Deukalion (Hom. Il. 2.683; Hes. Fr. 7.1), (c) a part of Thessalian Phthiotis inhabited by the Myrmidonians (Hom. Il. 9.395), and (d) before Hesiod, the general name for Northern Greece lying opposite Peloponnesos.578 It has been proposed that the designation of the Dodonian priests in the variation Σελλοί might be cognate to the name of the old Roman priesthood Salii (from salio “to jump” etc. < *sel-579), which, too, was an extremely archaic body of priests serving military / agricultural cult and especially known for their ritual dances performed on certain religious occasions.580 Remarkably, one of the preserved fragments of their sacral hymn, the Carmen Saliare, contains an address to a thundering god (Jupiter Leucesius in the particular verse, Car.Sal. 2.1: “cume tonas, Leucesie…”; also Varro, De Lingua Latina 7.26.27). On a highly hypothetical basis, it is tempting to discuss a possibility of common origins of the two priesthoods from some very old Indo-European religious tradition. However, it is not possible to answer with certainty the question whether the Dodonian priests Selloi / Helloi remained from and thus represented that original ethnic element, which had occupied Dodona in the Early Bronze Age and must have been responsible for its

The identification of Greek Zeus with the original preGreek Indo-European storm-deity may not be dated precisely, but the appeal to Ζεύς Δωδωναῖος in Homer indicates that it had happened by his time. As far as there is no evidence for the worship of Zeus, originally the god of the clear sky, in connection with the storm-phenomena during the Mycenaean period (see Chapter 2, 2.2. The evidence for the worship of a storm-deity in the Mycenaean religion), the introduction of his cult at the site by the Mycenaean colonists seems doubtful. Accordingly, the association of Zeus with the cult at Dodona may be referred to the post-Mycenaean – Dark Age historical context. It is worth of attention that the verses of the Iliad 5.693 and 7.60 contain the established, as it seems, collocation Διὸς φηγῷ / φηγῷ Διὸς, “an oak of Zeus”, unrelated to Dodona: this formula suggests that the epic diction must have linked the traditional tree of 581

Also Olalla and Priego (2003) 139-140. Probably, certain changes in the perception of the history of the Dodonian oracle, as well as those regarding the organization of Zeus’ priesthood, took place (or were deliberately made ?) at Dodona in the Archaic time. Thus, according to the account presented by Herodotos (mid 5th century BC), the founder of the oracular shrine at Dodona was a former priestess of “Zeus” (=Ammon) at Egyptian Thebes, while the oracle was believed to have been established after a black dove, which came in Dodona from Egypt, “settled on an oak tree and uttered there human speech, declaring that there must be there a place of divination from Zeus” (see more in Hdt. 2.5458). In the time of Herodotos, the sanctuary and the oracle of Zeus at Dodona were attended by priestessprophetesses (“Δωδωναίων... αἱ ἱρεῖαι”, “Δωδωναίων... αἱ προμάντιες”, Hdt. 2.55), not by priests-prophets, whereas the fact that the historian made no mention of the Selloi / Helloi, known as Zeus Dodonaios’ priests to all the Greeks from the Homeric poems, is more than surprising. However, according to the explanation by Strabon, “three old women were designated as prophets” of Zeus Dodonaios in later time, “after Dione also had been designated as temple associate of Zeus” (Strab. 7.7.12).

576

Chadwick (1900) 32; Gimbutas (1973); Ivanov and Toporov (1994g, h). 577 I am indebted to Professor N. Kazansky for the explanation of the etymological problem concerning the designation Σελλοί / Ἑλλοί; I must mention that Prof. N. Kazansky suggests avoiding precise conclusions on the etymology of these words. Chantraine (1968) 996 (Σελλοί), pointing at the obscure etymology of the terms, presumed that they might be of the Illyrian origin. 578 Liddell and Scott (1996) 535 (Ἑλλάς), p.537 (Ἐλλοπία). 579 Pokorny (1959) v.1, 899 (sel-). 580 Glare (1968-1973) v.2, 1681 (Salius). Prof. N. Kazansky has kindly informed me that the connection of Σελλοί with Salii was proposed by H. Guentert and is still discussed, although without serious support from other scholars. 71

the Indo-European Storm-god to Zeus, the god of the sunny sky, before Homer.

archaeological evidence: the appearance of the votives, which could be connected with the female aspect of the cult, as fibulae (though it is not necessary),586 is antedated by the appearance of the votives, which may more securely be related to a male deity, as axes and spearheads, given that the amount of the former at present is less than that of the latter. Besides, so far, no female figurine earlier than those of the Late Archaic period has been found at the sanctuary site.587

The well-known passage describing the prayer addressed to Zeus Dodonaios by Ahilleus (Hom. Il. 16.225-248), perhaps, indicates that ceremonies of libations of wine took place in the EIA sanctuary in honour of the god: an appealer to Zeus, after the ritual purification, poured the wine staying under the open sky and looking up to heaven, while invoking the god by his specific divine names and praying to him about that he needed.

Thus, the religious activity at Dodona is clearly traced during the EIA, with a possibility to go back, in any form, to much more remote times. According to the epic references and the later association of the cult-place with Zeus, it may be admitted that the deity worshiped at Dodona during the early historic time was Zeus who took over the functions of an Indo-European Balkan / preGreek storm-god and was probably supplemented with some warlike characteristics. A female deity may have been paired with Zeus at Dodona already in the EIA, but her precise identity on that phase of the cult is not known.

Some elements of the Dodonian cult attested from the 5th century BC suggest that a female deity, which combined in herself features of a sky-goddess and those of a chthonic divinity, was worshiped in the sanctuary of Zeus, though in an unclear association with him: DioneAphrodite not only was strongly present at the site,582 but, according to some opinions, was also responsible for the appearance of the priestesses-prophetesses of Zeus, symbolically called “Doves” / Πέλειαι, in the sanctuary,583 while the Earth-Mother was glorified in the famous Dodonian verses: “Zeus was, Zeus is, Zeus shall be; O mighty Zeus. Earth sends up the harvest, therefore sing the praise of earth as Mother” (Paus. 10.12.10). The female cult in Dodona deserves a special consideration, which is not supposed to be made here. However, it is worth to be noted that in the old Slavic folklore tradition, the Storm-god Dodol, whose name is cognate to the place-name Dodona, had a female counterpart called Dodolitza-Dodola.584 Hence, it may be supposed that the original pre-Greek storm-god of Dodona, too, was originally paired with a primitive female deity, who could have personified a female component of the primitive Indo-European concept of storm or was an earth-oriented deity playing the role of a fertilized counterpart. The dove-element as oriented towards the sky, and actually towards the clear sky, may have been brought in Dodona together with the introduction of the cult of Zeus. In any case, the dominant opinion that at Dodona the cult of a chthonic pre-Greek goddess had preceded the worship of Zeus585 may not be justified on the basis of the available

It is worth to be noted that in the time of Homer, the sanctuary of Zeus at Dodona exercised tremendous, as it seems, religious influence over the central and northern Greek territories, from Ithaka of Odysseus in the west (Hom. Od. 14.327-328) to Ahilleus’ Phthia in the east (Hom. Il. 16.233). 3.1.2. Pherai (Thessalia) At Pherai (modern Velestino), there was a suburban sanctuary shared by the great Thessalian goddess Artemis En(n)odia / Ἐν(ν)όδια with a male divinity, which in the Classical period was referred to as Zeus Thaulios / Θαύλιος.588 The area of Pherai was inhabited from the Neolithic period; it was continuously and intensively used for settlement activities from the Middle Bronze Age until the Geometric period. The Middle Bronze Age and the Mycenaean time were apparently the most prosperous periods for prehistoric Pherai identified by the later mythic tradition with the legendary realm of the powerful Thessalian king Admetos. In the beginning of the EIA, the settlement underwent certain structural changes, especially obvious in the appearance of a number of Proto-Geometric - Geometric cemeteries.589 The

582

Both Zeus and Dione were addressed by those who inquired the god’s oracle; see Lhôte (2006). Note also the averse-picture on a silver didrachm of the community of Epirotians (end of the 3rd century BC), which shows Zeus Dodonaios and Dione (Δάκαρης (1993) 10, fig.5), as well as the terracotta figurines of Aphrodite (?) from the Temple Λ (Δάκαρης (1986) pl.41). 583 Note the bronze statuette from Dodona, which is dated to the mid 5th century BC and represents a goddess or a priestess with a dove (Athens National Archaeological Museum, Kap.532); also, the representation on a bronze coin from Dodona, c.300 BC: the sacred oak with three doves, of which one is on the top of the tree and two other are on the ground from both the sides of the tree (Δάκαρης (1993) 11, fig.6). 584 Eperjessy (1967); Ivanov and Toporov (1994d). 585 See, e.g., Ευαγγελίδης and Δάκαρης (1959) 150; Olalla and Priego (2003) 139-140. Hammond (1967b) 369,

argued that Zeus’ cult in Dodona was a later addition to a pre-Hellenic cult of a mother-goddess. 586 For the provenance of the majority of the Geometric fibulae from the sanctuaries of female deities, see Hampe (1936) 3; also Kilian (1975). 587 Concerning the female representations found in Dodona, probably, the earliest of them is the bronze figurine of a running girl used as a rim decoration for a large vase, dated to the middle of the 6th century BC, now in the Archaeological Museum of Athens, Mus.nu.Kap.24. 588 Χρυσοστόμου (1998) 236. 589 Δουλγέρη-Ιντζεσίλογλου (1994) 76-78; Δουλγέρη72

Dakian tribe Δάoι, lit. “wolves”.599 The epithet Θαύλιος appears to be close to the ancient Greek word θαυλέα meaning a “tail of a beast”.600 Thus, the epithet Θαύλιος bears certain references to the wild nature and, perhaps, indicates animal rudiments in the concept of the deity designated by it. It may be presumed that the male deity referred to as Θαύλιος was originally a minor beast-like male counterpart of a prehistoric goddess of wild nature, who was later worshiped as Artemis En(n)odia.

sanctuary was founded on the place of one of them, located north of the city. Intriguingly, Sub-Mycenaean votive pins and steatite jewels were found on the territory of the sanctuary and may indicate the beginning of the cult at the site from the Sub-Mycenaean period.590 However, more securely, the activity of the sanctuary is traced from the Geometric period due to the discovered several hundred Geometric bronze votive offerings, including fibulae, figurines of animals (horses, dogs, stags) and birds, as well as female terracotta figurines.591 Two Geometric bronze figurines representing standing, nude males were found at the site, but their exact provenance is not known.592 It has been noted that the proliferating number of the female terracotta statuettes from the area of the sanctuary contrasts with the small number of the discovered male figurines.593 This fact suggests that from the beginning of practicing the cult, the female divine concept was given priority at the site. The overwhelming majority of the votive figurines representing animals in comparison with the figurines representing humans may recall the original and strong association of both the worshiped deities with nature and the animal world.594

The meaning “strangler” possibly implied in the epithet Θαύλιος might involve such connotations as a “killer” and a “murderer” appropriate for a warlike deity. On these grounds, it was suggested a relation of the epithet Θαύλιος to the concept expressed by the Macedonian god of war Θαύλος.601 The scholars, who interpret the epithet Θαύλιος as a “strangler” or a “killer”, link it to the idea of a sacrificial slaughter and argue that Zeus Θαύλιος should be considered the god of a local celebration-massacre, which would have been analogous with the Athenian festival Boufonia, “bull sacrifice”.602 However, the lack of more precise indications for the actual character of the god worshiped under the epithet Θαύλιος permits only approximate interpretation of the epithet itself. The establishment of the sanctuary on the site of an earlier cemetery, along with the character of votive dedications and the etymology of the epithet, points to the notions of death and wildness in the concept underlying the joined cult of Zeus Thaulios and Artemis En(n)odia at Pherai. This cult of Zeus should be grouped with those few cases, when the god appeared in some connection with the sphere of wild nature.

No traces of an EIA altar have been reported from the sanctuary area. The identification of the male deity worshiped at the site with Zeus Θαύλιος is attested by the inscription dated to the end of the 4th – beginning of the 3rd centuries BC.595 The interpretation of the epithet Θαύλιος is uncertain.596 It may have been derived from the Indo-European root *dhau- associated to the notions “to press”, “to choke”, “to strangle”, and thus could possibly mean a “strangler”.597 It is noteworthy that the root *dhau- in the ablaut-form produced the Greek designation for jackal θώς, θω(F)ός, also interpreted as a “strangler”,598 as well as the name of the Illyrian tribe Daunioi and that of the

The sanctuary received the first temple towards the end of the 6th century BC: that temple, built over the PG graves, was possibly dedicated to both Zeus Thaulios603 and Artemis En(n)odia.604 The Archaic temple was partly reused in the foundations of the late Classical temple built in the 4th century BC for Artemis En(n)odia.605

Ιντζεσίλογλου and Αραχωβίτη (2008) 235-239. 590 Kilian (1975) 8, 170, pl.78, nus.43-49. 591 Αρβανιτόπουλος (1915) 164-167; Bequignon (1937) 50-55, 57-72; Kilian-Dirlmeier (1985) 216-225; Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 310-311. 592 Langdon (1984) 149, 212. The figurines are in the Volos Museum: Mus.nu.756 (a standing nude male; the head is an unmarked sphere, the arms hang down and are well out from the sides, the gender is not indicated) and Mus.nu.2292 (a fragmentary preserved torso below the arms, including part of the legs; no gender is indicated; the incised pattern of short oblique strokes above the waist suggest a sort of garment; with the legs possibly uncovered, the figure might be intended as male). 593 Langdon (1984) 239-240. 594 Langdon (1984) 240. 595 Χρυσοστόμου (1998) 236-238. 596 Χρυσοστόμου (1998) 238-243; Chantraine (1968) 424 (Θαύλιος). 597 Pokorny (1959) v.1, 235 (*dhau-); this interpretation of the epithet Θαύλιος was supported by Solmsen (1911). 598 Pokorny (1959) v.1, 235 (*dhau-).

3.1.3/4. Halos (Phthiotis, Thessalia) / Mt. Laphystion (Boeotia) The area of Halos, in Southeastern Thessalia, was famous in antiquity because of the remarkable cult of Zeus Laphystios / Λαφύστιος (Hdt. 7.197). Along with the Homeric poems, which mention Halos in the Catalogue of the Greek cities engaged in the Trojan War (Hom. Il. 2.681-685), there is sufficient archaeological evidence for the Late Bronze Age – Early 599

Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) v.1, 416. Liddell and Scott (1996) 785 (θαυλέα). 601 Χρυσοστόμου (1998) 238-239. 602 E.g., v.Gaertringen (1911) 156. 603 Ostby (1994) 139; Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 310. 604 Ostby (1994) 139; Χρυσοστόμου (1998). 605 Ostby (1994) 139-142; Χρυσοστόμου (1998) 38-43, p.39 plan 3. 600

73

Iron Age activities in the Halos region (see Fig.23). It has been established that the area on the northern bank of the river Amphrysos, extending from the Kefalosi spring to the northern limits of the Voulokaliva site, was continuously inhabited from the Late Bronze Age.606 Mycenaean cist graves have been found along the national road Almyros-Sourpi.607 A significant cemetery has been excavated at Voulokaliva, 1km north-west of the Hellenistic city (New Halos): it was used from the LH IIB until the Late Geometric / Early Archaic times and in its final state comprised two large parts demonstrating different burial customs. Its southern part is filled with about 141 graves containing inhumation burials of adults and children in cists (the majority) and pits, dated from the LH IIB - LH IIIC / Sub-Mycenaean to the Geometric periods.608 Its northern part comprises about 40 burial mounds, of which 4 have been excavated; these contained mixed burials (mostly those in fire pits, but also simple tholos tombs, cist graves of children, and inhumations of adults), dated to the LPG – Early Archaic time (9th to 7th centuries BC).609 A Proto-Geometric cemetery of about 24 children burials, mostly inhumations in cists, has been discovered just outside the western walls of the Hellenistic city.610 Remains of a Late Proto-Geometric – Late Geometric settlement identified with Early Iron Age Halos (mid 9th – end of the 8th century BC), consisting of three apsidal houses, pottery, pottery ovens, storing pits, and children burials, have been found at the site of the Hellenistic city, in the place Kephalosi on the slopes of the hill Kastro.611 One more PG cemetery has been discovered at the place Agrielia, south of the Hellenistic city: it was used for burying adults and comprises 9 fire pits, 37 inhumations, and 1 votive pit.612 All this evidence clearly indicates that extant activities, apparently ordered by an organized society, were taking place in the area of Halos during the late prehistoric period and especially during the Early Iron Age.613 It appears therefore reasonable to presume the existence of an EIA sanctuary of Zeus Laphystios somewhere in close vicinity of the LPG-LG settlement, although its exact location has not been yet identified archaeologically.

on his waist, while having his arms outstretched (see Fig.24), was long time ago found by a farmer from the village Platanos, which is situated north of the Hellenistic city, as it was said, “in the remains of Halos”.614 Perhaps, the EIA sanctuary of Zeus Laphystios was situated a little north of the site of the Hellenistic city, while the particular figurine may have been part of the EIA votives dedicated to the god. On the basis of the typological characteristics, the figurine may approximately be dated to 700 BC and is believed to represent Zeus Laphystios.615 In the Archaic time, the city and the sanctuary were probably removed some km towards the north-east, to the Magoula Plataniotiki site, where noteworthy remains of the Late Archaic - Classical times have been discovered.616 In the Classical time, according to Herodotos (7.197), the sanctuary of Zeus Laphystios at Halos comprised a temple and a sacred grove, while human sacrifices were still being offered to the god (note Hdt. 7.197: “…the guides showed Xerxes how the man is sacrificed, with fillets covering him all over and a procession to lead him forth”). Explanations contained in the Thessalian legends regarding the practice of human sacrifices at Halos seem to recall purificatory and scapegoat rituals: the sacrificed person was considered a purifying offering to the god, “καθαρμός τῆς χώρας” (Hdt. 7.197). The human victims for Thessalian Zeus Laphystios were chosen from a certain clan, supposedly from that of the descendants of Kytissoros, the son of Phrixos. Herodotos was also informed by the locals that some of those who were to be sacrificed fled away in other countries (Hdt. 7.197). Hence, it may be presumed that the cruel custom of human sacrifice was eventually substituted by the practice to expel the chosen person from the city community. Probably, the Thessalian cult of Zeus Laphystios was a derivative from the old cult of Zeus Laphystios known to have been practiced in Boeotia by the Minyans of Orchomenos, an old Aeolian tribe, in association with the mountain Laphystion. Thus, the legends say that the founder of Halos was Athamas, the son of the Thessalian king Aiolos and one of the kings of the Boeotian Minyans (Strab. 9.5.8; Apollod. 1.7.2-3). According to the mythological tradition, Athamas was ordered by an oracle to found a town at the place, where wild animals would share with him their meal, and that in Northern Greece he met a pack of wolves eating lambs, but they ran away having seen him. Athamas interpreted the event as the condition required by the oracle and founded on that place a town, Halos (Apollod. 1.9.2). It seems possible to use this tradition for the assumption that the emergence of Halos was a result of the Minyan colonization of the Thessalian territories, which would actually have taken

In fact, a bronze figurine representing a standing, bearded male, who possibly wears a helmet on his head and a belt 606

Efstanthiou, Malakasioti and Reinders (1990) 35-36. Efstanthiou, Malakasioti and Reinders (1990) 35. 608 Μαλακασιώτη and Μουσιώνη (2004) 359. 609 Μαλακασιώτη and Μουσιώνη (2004) 360-363; also Μαλακασιώτη (1992); Μαλακασιώτη (1997); Wace and Thompson (1911-1912) 8-29. 610 Wace and Thompson (1911-1912) 3-18; Βερδέλη (1958) 2, 88-89; Reinders (1988) 158-159; Dyer and Haagsma (1993) 172; Μαλακασιώτη and Μουσιώνη (2004) 355. 611 Dyer and Haagsma (1993) 165, 167-169, 173; Μαλακασιώτη and Μουσιώνη (2004) 353-356. 612 Μαλακασιώτη and Μουσιώνη (2004) 356-359. 613 Μαλακασιώτη and Μουσιώνη (2004) 365. According to Homer (Il. 2.681-685), Halos belonged to the confederation under the leadership of Ahilleus. 607

614

Γιαννόπουλος (1925-1926) 183-185. Γιαννόπουλος (1925-1926) 183-185; Tiverios (1997) 316, nu.10. 616 Μαλακασιώτη and Reinders (1992) 236-237. 615

74

place during the LBA / Mycenaean period,617 and that the beginning of the worship of Zeus Laphystios at Halos may be traced back to the same time.

It is worth noting that in the most popular version of the myth related to Zeus Laphystios and shared by both Boeotia and Thessalia, a flying ram with a golden fleece was sent by Zeus to save the children of Athamas from the sacrificial death (Paus. 9.34.5). Pausanias also saw on the Acropolis at Athens a statue of Athamas’ son Phrixos carried by a ram (Paus. 1.24.2). The 4th century BC coins of Halos bear the representation of the children of Athamas escaping on the back of a ram.623 The flying golden ram appears in this myth as a symbolic manifestation of Zeus Laphystios and thus indicates the original animal form of this god as a ram.624 Significantly, the ram’s connection with the ancient notions of fertility625 and its especial linking to the generating force of the sun, largely attested in the Greek religion and mythology,626 caused the comprehension of this animal as a fertile and solar symbol.627 Therefore, the occurrence of a ram in the myths associated with the cults of Zeus Laphystios may suggest solar and fertile elements in this god’s original concept. Furthermore, it is remarkable that the Boeotian cult of Zeus Laphystios, probably the original one, was certainly associated with a mountain and the mountain top: these features point to the notions of height and, more generally, sky in the initial concept of the god.

According to the Boeotian legends used by Sophokles in his lost play “Athamas”, either Athamas himself or his children from Nephele (lit. “cloud”), Phrixos and Elle, had to be sacrificed on the altar of Zeus Laphystios in the Boeotian precinct of the god, in order to end the drought in the land of Orchomenos.618 Various versions add that Athamas was saved from the sacrifice by Herakles,619 or, alternatively, Athamas’ children were saved by Zeus, who sent a flying ram with his fleece of gold, and on the back of this ram they made good their escape (Paus. 9.34.5). The Boeotian precinct of Zeus Laphystios, too, has not been identified archaeologically.620 Based on the references by Pausanias and the epigraphic evidence, it is thought that the temenos was situated on the lower slope of Mt. Laphystion, and that a distinct altar of Zeus Λαφύστιος or Ἀκραίος was located on the top of the mountain.621 Pausanias, referring to the temenos of Zeus at Mt. Laphystion, mentioned a stone image of the god, but nothing of the architecture inside the sacred territory (Paus. 9.34.5). Perhaps, the worship of the god was practiced under the open sky.

Perhaps, in the Classical time and onward, Boeotian Zeus Laphystios was also linked to the storm-activity, which may be inferred from the interpretation of the intended human sacrifice in the Boeotian precinct of the god as an attempt to cause a rain. However, connotations of storm are not traced in the references to the Thessalian cult. Still, in the absence of any other evidence, except the myths, for the character of the cults and the cult practices in both the places of worship of Zeus Laphystios, all the aspects of this god and their actual significance in his religious concept may not be defined with certainty.

Concerning the epithet Λαφύστιος, its literal meaning, given the epithet’s direct relation to the verb λαφύσσω “swallow greedily”, may be established as “gluttonous”. Such an epithet and the legends about an attempt to sacrifice to Zeus the first-born children (either Athamas, the son of Aiolos, or Athamas’ children) point to a primitive god, who would originally have been imagined as having the right to all the first-born, as it is also attested for the earliest Semitic cults.622 The primitive and cruel nature of Thessalian-Boeotian Zeus Laphystios may be compared with that of Arkadian Zeus Lykaios, who initially may likewise have been worshiped with human sacrifices (Paus. 8.2.3, see below, 3.1.19. Mt. Lykaion).

To underline, it may be observed that the cults of Zeus Laphystios in Thessalia and Boeotia even in those forms, in which both were practiced during the Classical time, comprised certain primitive elements, as human sacrifice, first-born child offering to the god, and the custom of a human scapegoat. It may be presumed that the worship of Zeus Laphystios, with two cognate variations - in Thessalia and Boeotia, had its roots in the system of the religious beliefs of the old Aeolian population, which inhabited Boeotia and Thessalia during the Bronze Age, before the invasion of north-western Greek tribes.628 Combining this presumption with the traced solar elements in the concept of Zeus Laphystios, it may be argued that Zeus Laphystios was originally a Bronze Age

617

Παπαχατζής (1985) 55-56. Sophocles. Fragments (1996) 10-13, frgs.1 and 2; see also Olalla and Priego (2003) 183-184. 619 Sophocles. Fragments (1996) 10, frg.1. 620 For the geographical position of Mt. Laphystion, see Olalla and Priego (2003) map 27 D1. According to Schachter (1994) 108 n.3, the Boeotian temenos of Zeus Laphystios might be located at the site Pontza (Taxiarchoi), on the northern slope of the modern mountain Granitsa. For the identified ancient localities on the territory of modern Boeotia, see Fossey (1988). 621 Camp (1991) 195 n.9; Schachter (1994) 108; an inscription dated to the 4th/3rd centuries BC, found at Lebadeia, mentions the altar of Zeus at the top of Mt. Laphystion: the epithet of the god may be restored as Λαφύστιος or Ἀκραίος (SEG 23.297.6-7). 622 E.g. Exodus 13.2. 618

623

Gardner (1883) 12, nus.1-2, pls.2.6, 31.1 (silver coins of Halos, 400-344 BC). 624 Cook (1914) 430. 625 Cook (1914) 428-430. 626 Cook (1914) 429 n.3, with the reference to Schwenck (1823) 41, and de Gubernatis (1872) 400. 627 Cook (1914) 429. 628 Buck (1999) 5. 75

Greek-Aeolian form of the Indo-European God of the clear sky and all-father *t’yeu(s)-phHther (see Chapter 1, 1.3.1. Zeus as a god of the clear sky. Ζεύς / Ζεύς πατήρ). Here, it might be relevant to note that there are remarkable indications of worship of a male seated or enthroned deity with the emphasized sexual features in Thessalia during the Neolithic time.629 Without far-going conclusions, it may be pointed out that this primitive deity, apparently personifying the notion of male procreating principle and the idea of superiority, basically resembles the general image of the supreme IndoEuropean god *t’yeus-phHther > Greek Ζεύς πατήρ.630

have been dedicated to Zeus, who would have been worshiped on Mt. Helikon during the Late Geometric – Archaic / Classical time under the epithet Helikonios. However, the scholar also admitted the weakness of the available evidence to support his argumentation.633 3.1.6. Olympieion in Athens According to the ancient tradition, the sanctuary of Olympian Zeus in Athens was founded in far remote times by Deukalion (Paus. 1.18.8). This belief seems to find certain support in the archaeological evidence. The excavations in the area of the Olympieion and the discovery of a large amount of the prehistoric pottery everywhere around the Olympieion precinct have indicated that the site was continuously inhabited from the Middle Bronze Age,634 while during the Late Bronze Age it was occupied by a considerable settlement.635 Moreover, a Sub-Mycenaean – Proto-Geometric cemetery has been found to the south-east of the later peribolos of the Olympieion,636 and Geometric graves have been found near the northern wall of the later precinct.637 Τhe evidence for a religious activity in the region during the Late Bronze Age - Geometric period is lacking, but it seems possible to presume that the worship of Zeus in this highly sacred area goes back to the prehistoric or early historic time. The earlier temple of Zeus was probably built in the first half of the 6th century BC; it measured approximately 30.5m x 61m.638 The Peisistratid temple, dated to 530-515 BC, was built over its remains and almost twice surpassed it in length.639 The Peisistratid temple was left unfinished, and the worship of Olympian Zeus since that date, which is the Late Archaic period, and until the Hellenistic time was probably practiced under the open sky, on the marble altar.640 There are no definite indications of the exact nature of the early cult of Olympian Zeus at Athens. It is worth of attention that the Olympieion was an extraurban sanctuary until 479 BC.641

3.1.5. Mt. Helikon (Southwestern Boeotia) According to Hesiod, there was an altar of Zeus, “the almighty son of Kronos”, on “the great and holy mount of Helikon” in his time, that is, c.700 BC (note Hes. Theog. 4: “βωμὸν ἐρισθενέος Κρονίωνος”); the Helikonian Muses supposedly attended the god’s altar. Possible remains of this altar are believed to have been found on the mountain’s easternmost peak Zagaras: those formed a rectangular construction, which had thick walls (about 1.35m each) and measured 10m x 5m. The pottery collected at the site was dated from the 6th century BC and mainly consisted of roof tiles and fragments of blackglazed cups.631 Although certain doubts have been expressed regarding the possibility to identify this structure with the altar of Zeus mentioned by Hesiod, M. Langdon insisted in considering this site the sanctuary of Zeus referred to by the Boeotian poet. The scholar was much based on the fragmentary dedicatory inscription ---]ΕΙ ΤΟ ΕΛΙϘΟΝ[ΙΟ, made on the rim of an Archaic bronze cauldron, possibly from Zagaras, and read by its publisher A. Plassart as ---ει το (=τῷ) Ἐλιqον[ίο (=Ἐλικονίῷ).632 M. Langdon, suggesting that the inscription may have been intended to mean “εἰμὶ τõ (=τοῦ ?) Ἑλικονίο(υ) Διός”, assumed that the cauldron could 629

Notably, the great temple of Olympian Zeus designed in the first half of the 2nd century BC by the architect Kossutius to complete the old Peisistratid temple appears to have been hypaethral.642

Χαρμουζιάδης (1973), pl.1.6-9: Neolithic male seated figurines; note also pl.5: one of the earliest Neolithic figurines, which represents an old, bearded and dressed man (from Kara Mourlar). 630 In relation to solar elements traced in the religious concepts of Zeus due to a ram, it is worth of attention that the ram was associated to Zeus in another Thessalian cult, which was practiced on Mt. Pelion: approximately in the middle of summer, a procession of men clad in sheepskins ascended to the sanctuary of Zeus and made offerings (Cook (1914) 420-421; Cook (1940) 31-32). The real meaning of the ritual still remains conjectural (Langdon (1976) 83), but the symbolism of ram and the period of the celebration falling on the days around the summer solstice, may point to a connection of Pelian Zeus with the sun. In later tradition, the god of Mt. Pelion was mentioned under the designation Aktaios /’Ακταίος interpreted as “the god of the highest point” (Cook (1925) 869 n.2). Possible remains of the sanctuary of Zeus excavated on Mt. Pelion are dated from the 5th century BC (Αρβανιτόπουλος (1911); Langdon (1976) 83). 631 Langdon (1976) 109. 632 Plassart (1926) 385-386.

3.1.7. Mt. Hymettos (Attica) A remarkable EIA sanctuary of Zeus functioned on the summit of Mt. Hymettos (see Fig.25a), where during the Roman period the god received honours under the epithet ’Όμβριος, “Rainy”, and had an altar (Paus. 1.32.2). 633

Langdon (1976) 110. Vanderpool (1960) 267-268. 635 Travlos (1971) 402. 636 Amandry (1940-1941) 237-238. 637 Vanderpool (1960) 267-268, plan 3. 638 Travlos (1971) 402. 639 Travlos (1971) 402; Camp (2001) 36-37. 640 Welter (1922) 65-66; Wycherley (1964) 167. 641 Vanderpool (1960) 267-268. 642 Wycherley (1964) 169, 173. For the Olympieion, see also Spawforth (2006) 134. 634

76

The ancient sanctuary has been identified about 800m north of the highest point of the mountain, near a natural depression or hollow.643 At the time of the last archaeological investigation of the site (which is now a restricted military zone) in 1971, the architectural remains found there consisted of the crude foundations of three structures644 (see Fig.25b).

a structure with an almost 3m long porch would have been something more than a simple votive pit. For the general picture of this section of the sanctuary, it is noteworthy that the depression, or the hollow, contained a large, non-stratified mass of pottery.653 All the three structures appear to have been built in the Geometric period.654

The larger, square foundation, approximately 5.80m on a side, lay above and just to the west of the hollow. It was built of rough stones with no bonding material between them. Its northern and eastern walls were remarkably thick (2m each), while its southern and western walls were relatively narrow (c. 0.80m each). This structure was initially thought to have been the enclosure walls with a simple open-air altar within them.645 However, after the careful re-examination of the architectural context, H. Lauter has concluded that this building was originally roofed and had benches inside, along the thick northern and eastern walls; the entrance into the building possibly was at its southern side.646 It is now considered that the structure was a small shrine supposed for nonburnt offerings, as dedications of ordinary pots.647 On the other hand, interpreting the presence of ashes and a considerable amount of burned animal bones among the votive objects found in the hollow, just to the east of the structure, A. Mazarakis-Ainian has presumed that the actual altar of the sanctuary may simply have been a mound of ashes, which would have been located near this building.648

The connection of the sanctuary with Zeus is definitely established on the basis of the discovered graffito inscriptions containing his name and dated from the 7th century BC.655 It deserves to be mentioned that the site of the sanctuary was continuously involved in human activities from the Early Helladic period.656 The prehistoric finds are pottery sherds representing slightly the Early Helladic and the Middle Helladic phases (at present, only 3 pieces), and more evidently the Late Helladic time.657 Perhaps, a small settlement occupied the site during the Mycenaean period, but its relation to the attested from the EIA cult of Zeus may not be established with certainty, because the Sub-Mycenaean phase at the site at present is indicated by only one sherd.658 The concentrations of the LH III AB pottery found just west and south of the Kaisariani monastery may indicate two other Mycenaean settlements, which would have existed on the slopes of Mt. Hymettos.659 Concerning the prehistoric evidence from Mt. Hymettos, it is worth of attention the information of Herodotos (6.137) that the foot of the mountain was originally populated by the Pelasgians, who were skilful farmers and made the land to prosper.

The second, smaller, foundation, which lay 31m north of the first one, at the time of discovery consisted of only two parallel side-walls.649 Two inscriptions possibly bearing the name of Herakles were found at this structure and thus gave the excavators certain grounds for interpreting it as a small sanctuary or an altar of the hero.650

A big number of Late Proto-Geometric vessels found at the site definitely indicate intensive involvement of this place in certain activities in the latter half of the 10th century BC and suggest the establishment of the sanctuary in that date.660 The Early Geometric I phase is not represented by the discovered Geometric pottery, but the rest of the Geometric period is sufficiently covered, while the Middle Geometric II and the Late Geometric III phases are especially distinguishable.661 A notable increase of the amount of pottery in the 7th century BC and the appearance of the graffito inscriptions from the same century clearly indicate the peak of the activity of the sanctuary, which although started to decline from the 6th century BC.662 During the Late Roman period, in the

The third foundation lay inside the hollow, almost on one line with the square building (Fig.26). It was curved, 2.80m in diameter, and was entered from the west through a sort of porch, which was c. 3m long. The excavators reported that inside the circular chamber, numerous small vases piled in rows were found. This structure has been interpreted as a stone-lined storage pit for votives.651 A. Mazarakis-Ainian suggests that its circular plan may have been supposed to be a symbolic imitation of a granary.652 However, concerning the function of this remarkable building, it may be noted that

653

Langdon (1976) 11. Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 143, 315. 655 The graffito inscriptions from Mt. Hymettos are assembled and discussed by Langdon (1976) 13-41. 656 Langdon (1976) 75. 657 Langdon (1976) 53-54. 658 Langdon (1976) 74. 659 Langdon (1976) 87 n.42; Hood (1967). 660 Langdon (1976) 74. 661 Langdon (1976) 74. 662 Langdon (1976) 75-76.

643

654

Young (1940); Langdon (1976) 1-7. 644 Langdon (1976) 1, figs.1-4. 645 Langdon (1976) 1. 646 Lauter (1985) 135; Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 143-144. 647 Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 144. 648 Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 144. 649 Langdon (1976) 1. 650 Young (1940) 3; Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 144. 651 Langdon (1976) 1-3, 51; Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 119. 652 Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 119 n.757. 77

4th–5th centuries AD, the old cult-place was visited by non-Christian worshipers.663

containing the letters -ΔΙΣΗ- likewise written from right to left.670

During the EIA, the votive offerings to the sanctuary were mostly vessels. It has been pointed out the predominance of drinking and pouring small-size pottery types, as kraters, kantharoi, skyphoi, tankards, onehandled cups, kotylai, and oinochoai, but a number of oversized, possibly used in the cult, vessels, as giant skyphoid kraters, large one-handled cup, large oinochoe, and large skyphoi, have also been noted.664 Evidently, ritual drinking and libations performed by individuals constituted important part of the religious ceremonies in the sanctuary in the PG / Geometric – Early Archaic periods; at the same time, collective drinking and libations on behalf of a group of worshipers seem to have been made as well, but with much less frequency. The EIA pottery assemblage also contained a small number of aryballoi665 indicating some involvement of oil in the ritual.

The epithet Σημίος is not attested elsewhere, and its precise meaning is not established with certainty. The publisher of the graffito inscriptions suggested the relation of the epithet Σημίος to the term διοσημία, lit. “Zeus’ signs”, mistakenly arguing that it was specifically used for weather phenomena; he also emphasized the worship of Zeus as ’Όμβριος / “Rainy” on Mt. Hymettos in the Roman time (Paus. 1.32.2). On these grounds, Zeus Σημίος has been interpreted as a giver of signs of an approaching rain, or as a weather-and-rain-god.671 To this point, this interpretation is generally accepted and believed to correspond with the character of the discovered votives, which in the majority are drinking and pouring vessels, thought to be necessarily connected with the worship of a rain-god.672 It needs, however, to be noted that according to the Etymologicon Magnum 277.5, the term διοσημία did not particularly mean the approach of a rain, but “the divine signs from the air” in general, “the divine messages” sent from the sky.673 Furthermore, the sign-giving was referred to by Homer as one of Zeus’ main qualities unconnected with any particular natural phenomenon: the god sends or shows people various signs in various ways on various occasions, in order either to encourage them for or to prevent them from doing something (note Hom. Il. 2.308-309, 4.381, 8.245-249, 9.236-237). It is important that in the Homeric language, the basic term for “sign from heaven”, “omen” or “portent” is σῆμα,674 which is the closest direct cognate to the epithet Σημ-ίος, and that Homer characterized Zeus sending his divine signs as one, who is “σήματα φαίνων” (Hom. Il. 4.381, 9.236). The epithet Σημίος should therefore be interpreted in general divinatory sense, whereas Zeus Σημίος should be considered the god indicating his will or revealing the supposed to happen by menas of certain signs.675 In other words, Attic Zeus Σημίος may be understood as a god of divination, and he may be compared with Homeric Zeus πανομφαῖος, “the author of ominous voices” (Hom. Il. 8.250).

The dispersed remains of an ash altar and numerous burnt animal bones found at the site seem to indicate that visitors of the EIA sanctuary at Mt. Hymettos practiced sacrificial burning of animal offerings (burnt animal sacrifice), which was probably accompanied by ritual consumption of food.666 However, the preserved evidence is inconclusive in relation to the character of this practice, whether it was prevailingly collective or individual. The excavators did not discover firm evidence for a resident priest of Zeus in the sanctuary area.667 The graffito inscriptions found in the sanctuary at Mt. Hymettos were written on fragments of drinking / pouring vessels, some of which had deliberately been broken before they were inscribed; the graffitos range in date from the beginning of the 7th century BC to the early 6th century BC, while the earliest of them are those incised on Sub-Geometric sherds.668 One of the earliest graffitos, dated to the 7th century BC, is a complete incised inscription written from right to left: ΣΗΜΙΟΙΔΙ (Fig.28), that is, “(to) Σημιõι Δί (=Σημιῷ Διί)”.669 It indicates that Zeus was worshiped in the sanctuary at that date under the epithet Σημίος. A dedication to “Δί Σημιõι” may also be recognized in the incomplete graffito

On the whole, it is quite uncertain whether the function of a rain-god implied in the epithet ’Όμβριος, which is attested in association with Hymettian Zeus only for the Roman time,676 was assigned to Zeus from the very

663

Langdon (1976) 76, 78. Langdon (1976) 55-67, nus.190-291 – Proto-Geometric and Geometric vessels, also p.75; large vessels are nus.192-194 (PG giant skyphoid kraters), 199 (EG large one-handled cup), 224 (MG / LG large oinochoe), 238239 (LG large skyphoi). 665 E.g., Langdon (1976) 68, nu.297 (Sub-Geometric jug aryballos); 70, nu.314 (fragmentary Korinthian aryballos, early 7th century BC). 666 Langdon (1976) 77; Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 144. 667 Langdon (1976) 76. 668 Langdon (1976) 41-47; Coldstream (1977) 299; Powell (1991) 135 n.41. 669 Langdon (1976) 13-15, nu.2, fig.6.2. 664

670

Langdon (1976) 15, nu.3, fig.6.3. Langdon (1976) 15, 79-81. 672 Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 143. 673 “Τὰ ἐκ τοῦ ἀέρος σημεία”. 674 Liddell and Scott (1996) 1592 (σῆμα). 675 Note Hollmann (2005) 307 (in relation to Apollo): “The lord whose oracle is in Delphi neither speaks nor conceals, but indicates with signs (σημαίνει)”. 676 It needs to be pointed out that the epigraphical evidence for the worship of Zeus as a god of rain (that is, the mentions of Zeus Ὑήττιος and ’Όμβριος in inscriptions), presented by Langdon (1976) 84-85, notes 671

78

too, and Zeus ’Όμβριος–Ἀπήμιος, as far as each Zeus was honoured there on a different altar (Paus. 1.32.2, see below, 3.1.8).

beginning of practicing his cult on Mt. Hymettos. In objection to M. Langdon's interpretation of Zeus Σημίος as a divinity mainly giving weather signs, it may be pointed out, first of all, that, in terms of landscape, Hymettos is not really that mountain, near which top the rain-indicating clouds actually appear. In fact, when a rain approaches, the first clouds are seen in the sky of Athens far above the top of Hymettos, while a concentration of rain-clouds comes down to it together with a storm. Secondly, it should be emphasized the topographical setting of the sanctuary, which was not located exactly on the highest point of the mountain, but almost a kilometer farther from it. The god who was not practically worshiped on the mountain top would hardly have been provided with the function of sending the rainsigns from it. Except that, it has to be stressed that the nature of the pottery finds, which are in abundance small ordinal vessels, indicates that the supplications to Zeus Σημίος were predominantly made as individual and not as collective ceremonies, whereas the orientation of the cult on praying for rains677 – an important common need would have supposed masses’ involvement in rituals and thus would have been reflected in a bigger number of large vessels. As for the argument that drinking and pouring ceremonies, which were probably held in the sanctuary, were specifically connected with the worship of rain-deities, it is not sustained.678 Due to Homer, it is known that it was quite customary to accompany addressing inquiries and appeals to Zeus regarding any personal or communal matter with libations of wine (just as in the case of the collective prayer made to Zeus by the Achaeans and the Trojans, Hom. Il. 3.295-301, or in the scenes of the individual prayers to Zeus performed by Ahilleus and Priamos, Hom. Il. 16.225-248, 24.301-309, as well as in the verses describing the drink offering to Zeus made by the Trojans, Hom. Il. 7.480-481). In fact, based on Homer, it may be inferred that the rules of the EIA religious practice required that the altars of Zeus were poured with wine quite regularly in order to please the god and to have his benevolence in general (note Hom. Il. 4.47-49, and 24.68-70, in relation to Zeus’ altar in Troy). Finally, it is possible that the decline of the cult after the 6th century BC was followed by transformation of the original concept of Hymettian Zeus towards the late ancient times, which may have caused an association of the god with a number of other qualities, as the responsibility for rainfalls implied in the epithet ’Όμβριος. It should also be stressed that those who worshiped Zeus on another Attic mountain – Parnes, even in the Roman time clearly distinguished Zeus Σημάλεος, who is etymologically cognate to Zeus Σημίος of Mt. Hymettos and, perhaps, was considered the Sign-giver

Apart from the god's epithet, the basic function of Zeus Σημίος to send people his divine omens and, correspondingly, the oracular profile of the sanctuary may have been reflected in the specific term θεοφραδία / “divine saying”, “divine opinion”, “oracle”,679 a fragment of which might be read in the incomplete inscription ΡΑΔΕΙΟIΗΕΤΑ-, possibly [--θεοφ]ράδει οι hετα[ῖροι--].680 Perhaps, a group of qualified interpreters, priestsdiviners or members of a special religious association, explained to ordinal people the meaning of the “divine signs” sent them by the god. Thus, based on all the considered above, it seems possible to interpret the EIA Attic sanctuary of Zeus Σημίος on Mt. Hymettos as that, which was supposed to serve the purposes of divination. This conclusion leads to the re-estimation of the role, which would have been assigned to each of the three architectural constructions in practicing the cult aimed on receiving divine communication. Observation of the sanctuary layout as a whole produces the impression that the sacred space on Mt. Hymettos was organized around the hollow, where the circular construction with a long porch was placed681 (see Figs.25b-26). This view on the configuration of the sacred territory on Mt. Hymettos evokes the arrangement of another oracular sanctuary - that of Trophonios at Lebadeia, which may have been established no later than the Homeric time.682 According to the description by Pausanias (9.39.5-40.2), Trophonios’ oracle, too, was located on a mountain. A circular basement of white marble surrounded the oracular spot683 (see Fig.27): its circumference was “about that of the smallest threshingfloor”, while its height was just short of two cubits (c. 0.9m). “On the basement”, wrote Pausanias, “stand spikes, which, like the cross-bars holding them together, are of bronze, while through them has been made a double door [literally “doors” / “θύραι”]. Within the enclosure is a chasm in the earth, not natural, but artificially constructed after the most accurate masonry. The shape of this structure is like that of a bread-oven. Its breadth across the middle one might conjecture to be about four cubits [c. 1.8m, which is even smaller than the breadth of the circular construction on Mt. Hymettos], and its depth also could not be estimated to extend to more than eight cubits [c. 3.6m]. They have made no way 679

Liddell and Scott (1996) 792 (θεοφραδής) Langdon (1976) 25, nu.55. 681 This was especially emphasized by Scully (1962) 136. 682 Clark (1968) 63. See more for the sanctuary of Trophonios at Lebadeia in the study by Bonnechere (2003). 683 For the proposed restoration of the shape of the Trophonion - the oracular shrine at the sanctuary of Trophonios, see Turner (1994) fig.19. 680

35-37, is of the late historic time, while the earliest of the inscriptions, which is from Kos, is dated to the 3rd century BC. 677 Argued by Langdon (1976) 89. 678 For libations in the ancient cult practices, see Simon (2004); for libations as a part of religious behaviour reflected in the Homeric poems, see Hitch (2009) 144148, also p.228 (libations). 79

of descent to the bottom, but when a man comes to Trophonios, they bring him a narrow, light ladder. After going down he finds a hole between the floor and the structure… The descender lies with his back on the ground, holding barley-cakes kneaded with honey, thrusts his feet into the hole and himself follows, trying hard to get his knees into the hole. After his knees, the rest of his body is at once swiftly drawn in… After this those who have entered the shrine learn the future, not in one and the same way in all cases, but by sight sometimes and at other times by hearing” (Paus. 9.39.9-11). Based on this parallel, it seems possible to give the circular structure with a porch of the sanctuary on Mt. Hymettos, significantly placed in a hollow, a new interpretation and to consider it a kind of a specifically arranged spot for the communication with the god, the place where his divine signs, “σήματα”, would have been received.

certain building for an appointed number of days for the purification (Paus. 9.39.5). It may be supposed that the square roofed building in the sanctuary at Mt. Hymettos was similarly used for the purifying isolation of the inquirers, or as a sort of preparation chamber for those, who intended to encounter the divinity. Probably, before a descent into the circular construction or/and after a return from it, burnt sacrifices were offered to the god on the ash altar located near this building. Among the fragmentary mentions of the readable graffito inscriptions, there are also those, which tend to suggest a practice of some virile rituals in the sanctuary686 (note the representation of a man with sword and a shield-like object on a sherd of a LG II cup, and that of a shield on a fragment of a LG IIB kantharos)687 as well as special training of the worshipers / inquirers of Zeus Σημίος.688 Certain ceremonies involving stringed musical instruments, perhaps, were also held.689

Concerning the possible ritual, which would have been observed in the sanctuary in order to provide the contact with the divinity, it should be referred to the enigmatic mention of “two gates” –ΔΥΟΠΥΛΟ- / “δύο πυλõ[ν…”] in the inscription, which was incised on an upper-body fragment dated to the late 7th century BC and found in the depression.684 Perhaps, certain mysterious rituals supposing the symbolic passage through the conventional bound separating the world of humans from the divine sphere were performed by the inquirers. Those “two gates”, therefore, could have been the doors of the circular construction: the external one for entering the porch and the internal one for entering the round chamber – the cella of the probable shrine. Alternatively, something similar to the double door of the oracular enclosure of Trophonios might be presumed. Divine messages would have been revealed in the firmly closed cella, after the observance of some other required ritual acts. A drink offering to the god (libation of wine) and breaking of a vessel dedicated to him may have been some of such rituals. Many of those, who presumably used the cervices of the oracle, expressed their gratitude by incising the pots or pieces of the deliberately broken pots, from which they made libations. It is not established whether the circular construction was roofed or not; however, in the second case, it might be supposed that an inquirer, waiting for a divine sign, looked up to heaven, which in fact magnificently covers the hollow as a great cupola.685 On the other hand, the position of the circular construction inside the hollow makes possible the conjecture that the oracle of Zeus Σημίος, like that of Trophonios, was a form of earth-oracle. Unfortunately, the exact way of the revelation by Zeus Σημίος will remain unknown.

The inscription already mentioned above, read as [-θεοφ]ράδει οι hετα[ῖροι---], probably refers to a special body of priests-interpreters or an association of initiated worshipers, who would have been united around the cult of Zeus Σημίος and called themselves “comrades (ἑταῖροι) speaking from the god”. The fact that the particular inscription was found in the construction nu.2 might indicate the function (or one of the functions) of this building, which may have been something like a “common room” of Zeus Σημίος’ attendants. In relation to those natural aspects, in which Zeus Σημίος may have appeared to his worshipers in the early historic time, it should be noted that solar symbols, as cross, swastika, and wheel, but also horses and birds, often occur in the decoration of the dedicated to him vessels.690 With the function of Zeus Σημίος to order human lives and guide the people in their activities by showing them the signs of what is supposed to happen, may be connected the epithet ἄναξ applied to Zeus in one of the graffito dated to c.600 BC: “…Δὶ τ’ἄναχτι…”.691 The name of the Earth-goddess, possibly read in one of the graffitos (nu.10 in the Catalogue by M. Langdon) in the form “Γάες”, and probable occurrences of the name of Herakles in two other inscriptions (nus.9 and 173) 686

Langdon (1976) 23, nu.51 and 25, nu.52: letters ΒΛΟ-, which may have been a part of the word βλο[συρός---]. 687 Langdon (1976) 66, nu.288, and 67, nu.291; pl.24. 688 Langdon (1976) 25, nu. 54: ΧΣΥΝΑΣϘΟ-, which is suggested to be “ξυνασκέω” / “train”, “exercise”. 689 Langdon (1976) 25, nu. 53: ΧΟΡΔ.-, which may be restored as χορδ[έ] / “string of a lyre”. 690 E.g. Langdon (1976) nus.236 (birds), 238 (birds) 239 (swastika), 241 (horses), 244 (swastika), 247 (a bird and a wheel), 270 (multiple swastika), 275 (swastika), 274 (birds), 277 (big cross and birds), 278 (birds). For the solar symbolism of these signs in the Geometric art see Roes (1933) 13-27, 73-74. 691 Langdon (1976) 13, nu.1, line 2.

As regards the square building located above the hollow, almost on one line with the circular construction, its function might be inferred, again, by analogy with the sanctuary of Trophonios: there, a man, who had made his mind to descent to the oracle, first had to lodge in a 684

Langdon (1976) 25, nu.56. See the description of the hollow by Scully (1962) 136.

685

80

might indicate the worship of these two divinities at Mt. Hymettos, in some association with Zeus Σημίος, during the early historic time.692

was no any documentary evidence, as inscription or graffito, which might suggest the precise identity of the deity worshiped at the peak Ozea, but it is believed that the discovered ash altar was that of Zeus ’ΌμβριοςἈπήμιος.695

Thus, Zeus Σημίος worshiped on the summit of Mt. Hymettos in the beginning of the historic time may be regarded as quite an old Attic god concerned about the order of things in human sphere, knowing the course of future events and revealing it to the people through certain signs, “σήματα”. It is possible that there were some solar elements in his initial cult, but his connection with the rain-activity at that date seems doubtful.693

In terms of worship, it may be noted that the significant quantity of weaponry dedications among the discovered material strongly points at the warlike character of the honoured god, while the location of the sacred place inside a cave suggests an involvement of some notions of mystery in the cult. Therefore, it seems possible to presume that the sanctuary at Ozea was a place of the initiation rituals for young men (“ephebes”) entering the category of adults-warriors, and that the god venerated there was considered their specific patron. In that case, a parallel might be drawn between the religious concept associated with the Attic sanctuary of Zeus at Ozea and that linked to the Cretan sanctuaries of Diktaean Zeus as expressed in the Hymn of Kouretes from Palaikastro (see bellow, 3.1.32).696 Concerning the ritual part of the EIA cult at Ozea, the remains of the remarkable ash altar and the pottery assemblage, perhaps, indicate that in this sanctuary the groups of initiates celebrated their successful transition into the class of full-rights citizenswarriors with burnt animal sacrifices and communal meals, which may have been accompanied by ritual libations in honour of Zeus. Oil was quite probably used in the rituals as well. Perhaps, at the end of the celebrations, the ephebic weapons, daggers, used by youths in the period of their military training and in the ceremonies of initiation, had to be left at the altar as a thanks-offering to the god.697

There could have been many reasons of the decline of the original sanctuary of Zeus on Mt. Hymettos and the oblivion of this unique Attic oracle. Political disturbances in Athens in the 6th century BC, Peisistratides’ attempt to create a centralized and controlled cult of Zeus closer to the city by starting the construction of the magnificent temple of Zeus Olympios (see above, 3.1.6) may have been some of those. The oracle’s own failure in giving successful responses and its overshadowing by the great oracles at Delphi and Dodona would also have been among the circumstances, which dramatically affected the worship of Zeus Σημίος on Mt. Hymettos at the end of the Archaic time. 3.1.8. Mt. Parnes (Attica) According to Pausanias (1.32.2), in his time, there were two altars of Zeus on Mt. Parnes: that of Zeus Σημάλεος, and that of Zeus “sometimes called ’Όμβριος, sometimes Ἀπήμιος (“Averter of Ills”)”. The Athenian tradition recorded in the Chronicon Parium ascribed the establishment of the cult of Zeus ’Όμβριος-Ἀπήμιος to Deukalion: “…Δευκαλίων… τοῦ Δι[ὸς το]ῦ Ὀ[μβρίου Ἀπη]μ[ί]ου τὸ ἱρὸν ἱδ[ρύσατ]ο” (CIG 2. 2374. 6-7).

The place of another altar of Zeus on Mt. Parnes, mentioned by Pausanias, is not identified with certainty.698

The place of one of the altars of Zeus on Mt. Parnes has been identified a few meters below and to the south of the mountain highest peak Ozea (Karabola), in a small cave, inside which there was an extensive ash deposit measuring 100m2 and extending to 2.20m in depth. The deposit contained burnt animal bones, pottery ranging from the Early Geometric to the Archaic times and including a large number of Korinthian aryballoi, around 3000 iron daggers estimated as the principal votives, 5 bronze knives, some bronze shields and pins.694 There

It must be emphasized that the epithets of Zeus worshiped on Mt. Parnes - ’Όμβριος, Ἀπήμιος and Σημάλεος are known due to Pausanias and may be securely related only to the Roman time. 3.1.9. Mt. Tourkovounia (Attica) The hill Tourkovounia (+302.1m) situated to the northeast of Akropolis, behind the Strephi hill, is believed to have been referred to by Pausanias as Mount Anchesmos “of no great size, with an image of Zeus Anchesmios” (Paus. 1.32.1): a sanctuary of Zeus is known to have existed on the top of the hill from the Classical until the Roman times.699 The same site, however, also contained

692

Langdon (1976) 15, nus.9, 10, p. 41, nu.173, pp. 97-98. Based on annual observations, it might be made a presumption concerning the period of holding the main (or some of the main) religious ceremonies in the sanctuary on Mt. Hymettos: remarkably, in the days of the full moon in May and June, the moon is seen very close to the mountain summit, and it even seems that the great shining disc is “sitting” magnificently on the mountain top during the early night hours. It is not difficult to imagine how much full of symbolic significance such a position of the moon would have appeared to the ancient inhabitants of Attica. 694 Vanderpool (1960) 269; Langdon (1976) 100; 693

Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 315 (n.429 with the related bibliography). 695 Langdon (1976) 100-101. 696 Murray (1908-1909). 697 See more for the practices of initiation of ephebes in Attica in the study by Vidal-Naquet (1968). 698 Langdon (1976) 101. 699 Langdon (1976) 101; Lauter (1985) 139-154; Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 89. 81

remains of an EIA sanctuary: an oval building, the socalled “Sacred House”, constructed in the last years of the 8th century BC at the eastern extremity of the summit, and a tumulus lying immediately to the west of this structure.700 The oval building (see Fig.29) measured 11.5m x 7.6m and had remarkably thick walls, 0.6-0.7m wide; perhaps, a solid bench, 0.8-0.9m wide, was attached to the inner side of the walls; the doorway was located in the middle of the long western side. Judging by the discovered pottery, the building was intensively used throughout the 7th century BC and fell in disuse around 600 BC.701 As regards the tumulus, its exact role is not certain. The tumulus was c.14m in diameter; its interior contained some EH I-III sherds, which seem to indicate the occupation of the site in the 3rd millennium BC; notably, a concentration of ashes with burnt bones was found below the lowest course of stones of the tumulus foundation.702 It has been suggested that the ash deposit remained from a foundation sacrifice, which would have been performed before the construction of the tumulus.703 It may, however, be conjectured that the ashes and burnt bones represent an earlier ash altar, which for some reasons was replaced by the mound. Nevertheless, the arrangement of the EIA sanctuary at Tourkovounia may be compared with that at Olympia of the same date (see below, 3.1.18. Olympia. The sanctuary in the EIA), given that both sanctuaries appear to have comprised an oval cultic building and a mound.

circumstance gives certain grounds for connecting the cult practiced at Tourkovounia during the Late Geometric – Early Archaic periods with Zeus. The fact that the place was certainly dedicated to Zeus from the Classical time seems to reinforce this presumption. Nevertheless, in the present state of evidence, a caution is required concerning the identity of the divinity worshiped in the sanctuary at Tourkovounia during the EIA.707 3.1.10. Other sites in Attica M. Langdon suggested the connection with the worship of Zeus of a series of other Attic mountain tops, where some Geometric / Sub-Geometric cult activities have been traced: Mt. Pani and Mt. Merenda in Central Attica, Mt. Keratovouni and Mt. Profitis Elias in Southern Attica, and a lower eastern slope of Mt. Agrieliki in Northern Attica. According to the scholar, “the occurrence, in large numbers, of the same types of cups and skyphoi, pieces of burned animal bones, and deposits of ash are features common to these sites. The implication is that we are dealing with local sanctuaries of Zeus”.708 Unfortunately, there is neither any literary reference to sanctuaries at those sites nor any documentary evidence to identify the divinities worshiped in those sanctuaries during the early historic time with Zeus.709 3.1.11. Sta Marmara (Megara) Pausanias (1.44.9) mentions that in the mid-way between Megara and the rocks Skeironides Petrai, “on the top of a mountain is a temple of Zeus surnamed Aphesios”. The sanctuary of Zeus Aphesios/Ἀφέσιος has been identified with the remains of a temple, an altar, and some other constructions discovered on the hillock Sta Marmara, south-west of Megara.710 The earliest votives and the earliest securely dated pottery fragments found at the site of the sanctuary are dated to the Archaic period, but one of the collected sherds, painted with concentric circles, might be of the Proto-Geometric or Geometric date.711 This gave grounds to argue for that the beginning of the cult activity at Sta Marmara may be dated to the Geometric period,712 although the initial forms of the cult are not traceable.

The EIA finds from the site include fragments of drinking vessels, miniature vases and normal household pots, as well as a few late 7th century BC figurines representing men, horses, and a centaur. Perhaps, liquid offerings, ritual drinking and dining took place in the sanctuary in honour of the worshiped divinity. Based on some indications, it has been concluded that the divinity venerated at this place in the EIA had chthonian character and was concerned about vegetation,704 but there were no signs of the deity’s connection with weather phenomena. The identification of that early deity with Zeus is questionable, since there was an interruption of the activities at the site in the 6th century BC, and the hill was re-involved in cult only in the 5th century BC.705 However, commenting the dedication of a figurine of a centaur to the EIA sanctuary at Tourkovounia, it would be relevant to note that in the EIA, the centaur theme probably occurred in the mythology of the sanctuary of Zeus in Olympia and is attested in association with the representations of Zeus in vase-painting.706 This

Olympia), and the representation on the body of a Korinthian aryballos, dated to c.680 BC, which shows Zeus fighting against a centaur, Tiverios (1997) 317, nu.16 (Fig.91). 707 It deserves to be mentioned that some scholars interpreted the 8th century BC cult at Tourkovounia in terms of hero worship, which intensively rose in Attica during the Late Geometric – Early Archaic time, see, e.g., Lauter (1985) 155-157, and Osborne (1989) 316. 708 Langdon (1976) 102-106; also Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 316. 709 Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 421, nus. 70, 71, 72, 74, 75. 710 Φιλίος (1890); Lolling (1890); Highbarger (1927) 4142; Σακελλαρίου and Φαρακλάς (1972) 17, map 14β. 711 Φιλίος (1890) 45. 712 Camp II (1979) 408 n.49; Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 318 n. 475; Morgan (1999a) 479, nu.61.

700

Lauter (1985) appendix 1. Lauter (1985) 122-134; Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 8788. 702 Lauter (1985) 48-49; Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 87-88, figs. 133-134. 703 Lauter (1985) 41-45; objection by Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 284. 704 Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 89. 705 Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 89. 706 Note the bronze composition “a Man and a Centaur”, Ahlberg-Cornell (1992) 25-26, fig.26 (possibly from 701

82

The original meaning of the epithet Aphesios / Ἀφέσιος is not quite certain,713 but it may have had some connection with that implied in the epithet Apesantios / Ἀπεσάντιος (the Ionic form of *Ἀφεσάντιος), applied to Zeus at not so far located Mt. Apesas (Paus. 2.15.3, see below, 3.1.13. Mt.Fokas (Phoukas)-Apesas), given that both the epithets were formed on the basis of the verb ἀφίημι expressing the notions of sending away, letting go away, release, forgiveness, and the like.714 Associated with a god, such notions seem to indicate the perception of him as one who wards off evil or cleanses from all the impurity and guilt. The later mythological and etiological traditions considered Zeus Ἀφέσιος either a “releaser of rain” (Paus. 1.44.9) or a “savior (from flood)”.715 On the 5th century BC Peloponnesian coins, Zeus Aphesios was represented standing and enthroned as well, with an eagle and a scepter as his attributes.716

IIIB until the Geometric period does not permit the immediate connection of the worship of Zeus traced from the 8th century BC with the cult(s) of the previous Mycenaean settlement. It should be pointed out that the nature of the initial cult of Zeus on Mt. Oros is not determined, while the myth about Aeakos’ sacrifice, which treats Zeus as a rain-god, may have been of much later origin. In the Classical time, this remote sanctuary was bipartite, consisting of the upper part and the lower one. The former, located at the very peak of Mt. Oros, comprised a monumental marble altar, which replaced the original ash altar. The latter occupied the large platform built on the northern slope of the mountain, a little below the summit, at the place now called “Sphyrihtres” (Figs.32a-b); this area was used by visitors of the sanctuary for ritual dining and rest. A monumental ceremonial road connected the two parts of the sanctuary. There were also two wells to provide visitors of the sanctuary with water.720

3.1.12. Mt. Oros (Aegina) Ancient authors (Isoc. 9.14-15; Paus. 1.44.9) refer to a legend saying that on the occasion of the drought that once severely exhausted Greece, Aeakos sacrificed in Aegina to Zeus “God of all the Greeks / Πανελλήνιος” in obedience to an oracular utterance, and “Zeus rained and ended the drought…”. According to the ancients, that supposed sacrifice took place atop the island’s highest peak, Mt. Oros (about +530m, see Fig.30), where quite the famous sanctuary of Zeus Hellanios / Ἑλλάνιος actually existed in the historic time. It was believed that the cult of Zeus Hellanios was introduced in Aegina and set on Mt. Oros by the Myrmidonians, who came from Thessalian Phthia.717 In relation to this, it is really significant that a Mycenaean settlement occupied the territory close to the very peak of the mountain during approximately the 13th century BC (see Fig.31). Moreover, a sort of cult activity connected with the worship of a female deity is attested to have been practiced by the Mycenaean inhabitants of the place due to the discovered LH III A2-B complete female terracotta figure, 17.7cm height (now in the New Museum of Aegina Town).718 However, the available archaeological material seems to point to a discontinuity of the activities at the site from the LH IIIB period until the early historic time. According to the pottery evidence, the foundation of the sanctuary of Zeus on the summit of Mt. Oros may be dated to the Geometric period; that sanctuary seems to have originally been focused on quite an extensive ash altar set almost exactly on the mountain top.719 Possible interruption of the use of the site from the end of the LH

The designation of Zeus worshiped at Mt. Oros with the cultic epithet Hellanios is attested with certainty from about 470 BC, due to a discovered bronze hydria, which was inscribed on its rim with the dedication to “… ΗΕΛΛΑΝΙΟΙ ΔΙΙ”.721 It should be emphasized that the epithet itself does not imply any connection of the god with the rain activity. 3.1.13. Mt.Fokas (Phoukas)-Apesas (Korinthia) Pausanias mentions that Perseus established sacrifices to Zeus Apesantios / Ἀπεσάντιος on Mount Apesas lying “above Nemea” (Paus. 2.15.3). This place has been identified with the modern mountain Fokas (also referred to as Phoukas, +873m) situated about 5km to the north of Ancient Nemea (see Fig.33). The limited surface survey conducted by the NVAP on quite the spacious, flat top of the mountain (Fig.34) revealed a remarkable open-air sanctuary, which would have been focused on an extremely large ash altar located at the north-eastern part of the summit,722 in the upper plateau (Figs.34-35). The size of the ashy area, which at present reaches to 80m x 70m, suggests that the altar, eventually washed by rains, was actually a huge mound or cone made of ashes and burnt earth. Most of the pottery fragments discovered at the site (see Figs.36a-b) belonged to small Late Geometric and Early Archaic Korinthian vessels of both closed and open shapes (as aryballoi, oinochoai, and kotylai, see Fig.37), but at least one piece, which is a jar fragment, might be of the Middle Geometric date.723 It is

713

Highbarger (1927) 42; Langdon (1976) 82. Liddell and Scott (1996) 187 (ἄπες), 289-290 (ἀφίημι). 715 Gaisford (1848) 17632-38. 716 Gardner (1887) 169-173, pl.31, nu.10 (standing), pl.31, nus.11-24, pl.32, nus.1-9 (enthroned). 717 Furtwangler (1906) 473-474. 718 Welter (1938b) 14, fig.7; Pilafidis-Williams (1995). Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 318, presumes that there may have been a Mycenaean sanctuary on the top of Mt. Oros. 719 Furtwangler (1906) 473-474; Welter (1938b) 14; Rupp (1983) 102; Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 318. 714

720

Welter (1938a) 91; Welter (1938b); Langdon (1976) 81; Rupp (1983) 102 n.16; Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 318; Blackman (1999) 19-20; Blackman (2001) 18-19; Goette (2001); Βλαχόπουλος (2005) 186. It is also discussed a possibility of presence of a small “oikos” of the god near his altar on the top of the mountain. 721 Welter (1938b) 8-10, figs.3-4. 722 Wright and oths. (1990) 607, fig.7. 723 Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 320; Wright and oths. (1990) 647-648, fig.22d (fragment of the wall of a Geometric 83

worth to be noted that all the pottery found on the summit until now is represented by very small fragments of vessels, which seem to have been intentionally broken by their users. The present pottery evidence indicates the intensive use of the ash altar throughout the Geometric period until the Late Archaic time.724 The rituals observed in the sanctuary appear to have been burnt animal sacrifices, libations, symbolic drinking, and oil offerings. The sanctuary probably attracted masses of worshipers, who participated in certain collective ceremonies or periodical local feasts. The nature of the worship of Zeus on Mt. Fokas is not exactly known, but there are some indications, especially the god’s epithet Apesantios / Ἀπεσάντιος (< *Ἀφεσάντιος < ἀφίημι “to send away” etc.), suggesting that this cult may have had apotropaic or purificatory character.725

height, performed in a common Mycenaean style, was discovered on the hill. However, at present, there is no evidence for a built religious center at Tsoungiza.727 Significant concentrations of Mycenaean pottery related to the pottery assemblage from Tsoungiza have been found to the east and north-east of the temple of Zeus, as well as outside the south-western corner of the temple.728 It has even been suggested that a Mycenaean cult-place had existed in the site of the later sanctuary, but the available finds by themselves do not indicate a religious activity in the particular area during the late prehistoric time.729 Except that, there was a strong break of activities in Nemea at the end of the Bronze Age, while the present evidence for the initial phase of the EIA, that is, the Proto-Geometric and the Early-Middle Geometric periods, in the region is very poor.730

Scattered ancient traditions connected this mountain with the death of a number of local heroes and involved it in the myths about the Nemean Lion, who “destroyed the tribes of human beings and lorded over Tretus in Nemea and Apesas” (Hes. Theog. 327-331). It might be hypothesized that these traditions echoed some old customs of human sacrifice, which could have been linked to the mountain in remote prehistoric times; Mt. Apesas would therefore have played an important role in the old, perhaps even pre-Mycenaean, religious system of Northeastern Peloponnesos. However, the available archaeological evidence may not sufficiently support this conjecture.

Generally, the early historic layers of the cult area were crudely disturbed during the construction of the Archaic temple and, lately, by post-Roman farming activities. However, it has been possible to trace the 8th century BC phase at the sanctuary site. Precisely, fragments of Late Geometric pottery, clearly indicating LG activities on the territory of the sanctuary, have been discovered at the south-western corner of the temple of Zeus, as well as to the north and northeast of it.731 The excavators especially distinguish the northern section of the area lying to the east of the temple, which comprises the northern part of the monumental marble Altar of Zeus (see Fig.39): “traces of burning and plentiful fragments of burnt bone, increasing in number closer to the altar” have been observed there and are interpreted as “testimony to sacrificial ritual at an early period”.732 Together with the mentioned above fragments of a Late Geometric krater found in this area (Fig.40a), though in unstratified fills, this evidence seems to indicate that a cult, most likely that of Zeus, would have been practiced in the particular spot already in the late 8th century BC, that is, much before the construction of the northern part of the marble

3.1.14. Nemea The territory of the sanctuary of Zeus at Nemea (see Fig.38) has yielded evidence for the involvement of the site in some activities already in the end of the Bronze Age; those were apparently associated with the remarkable prehistoric settlement on Tsoungiza hill located a little west of the sanctuary. Tsoungiza was occupied from the Early Neolithic time, and, after a substantial interval, throughout the Bronze Age: from the EH I until the EH III, and then from the late MH until the late LH III.726 It has been possible to establish that during the Mycenaean time, the religious life of the settlement comprised certain regional feasts and the worship of a female divinity, whose fragmentary clay figure, 45cm

727

Dabney, Halstead and Thomas (2004) 91-94. Miller (1979) 82; Cherry, Davis and Mantzourani (2000); Dabney, Halstead and Thomas (2004) 77-79. Also Shelton (2012) 13, mentions “the recovery of Mycenaean domestic fineware and kitchenware vessels in association with a possible tool-making context” under the later Heroon, at the south-western part of the sanctuary territory, which he interprets as “evidence of Bronze Age occupation” in that area of the sanctuary. 729 Cherry, Davis and Mantzourani (2000). 730 Cherry, Davis and Mantzourani (2000). 731 Miller (1979) 82 (for the LG pottery found at the south-western corner of the temple of Zeus); Miller (1976) 178-180, pl.31, d = Birge, Kraynak and Miller (1992) 21-22, fig.29 (fragments of a decorated Late Geometric krater, possibly of Argive manufacture, found north-east of the temple of Zeus, Fig.40a); Miller (1982) 23, pl.9, h (a LG skyphos found north of the temple of Zeus, Fig.40b), e, g (Geometric pottery fragments found north of the temple of Zeus). 732 Birge, Kraynak and Miller (1992) 22. 728

closed shape vessel), e (fragment of a jar neck, probably Middle Geometric). 724 Wright (1985) 96; Morgan (1990) 28; Eder (1998) 105-106. 725 The sanctuary and the cult of Zeus at Mt. Fokas have especially been considered in my paper “The Cult-places of Zeus in North-East Peloponnesos in the EIA – Archaic Period”, presented on the International Conference “Corinthia and Northeast Peloponnesos. Topography and History from the Prehistoric years until the end of Antiquity”, held at Loutraki, in March 2009; the publication is forthcoming in the Proceedings of the Conference. 726 Rutter (1990); Wright and oths. (1990) 584, 586, fig.2; Dabney, Halstead and Thomas (2004) 77-79. 84

Altar dated approximately to the middle of the 6th century BC.733 Probably, the early Nemean cult was focused on a small and simple ash altar, on which moderate burnt animal sacrifices would have been offered to Zeus, as it was practiced in greater scale in later times - on the magnificent marble Altar (note Paus. 2.15.3, for burnt sacrifices made to Zeus in Nemea). It has been presumed that a small settlement occupied the western part of the site of the later sanctuary during the 8th century BC.734 In that case, the cult of Nemean Zeus may have developed out of the worship of the settlement main deity-guardian and thus would have had mostly Dorian roots.

Zeus: they were held during the second and the fourth years of the Olympic cycle, probably in wintertime and in summer (July or August) alternately.738 In general religious terms, it might be presumed that the Nemean festival - “πανηγύρις” organized in wintertime (Paus. 2.15.3) had some connection with the winter solstice and increase of the daytime after it. On the contrary, the celebrations, which took place during the summer, may have been supposed to mark the beginning of the sun’s decline after the summer solstice. The earliest temple of Nemean Zeus was constructed in the beginning of the 6th century BC, probably by the time of the inauguration of the Nemean games.739 It was reconstructed about 330 BC. Remarkably, the cella of the new temple contained an underground chamber (the crypt) at the western side: it measures 4m x 3.5m and 2m in depth and was approached by stone stairs. The function of this room is not established with certainty, but a conjecture was made that it may have been a kind of local manteion of Zeus.740

A confusing circumstance is the discovery of a LG small bronze votive figurine of a horse (Fig.42) at the Hellenistic Stadium, where it seems to have been washed down from the adjacent hill Evaggelistria.735 This figurine might indicate the existence of some other EIA cult-spot somewhere on the summit of the hill, that is, about a half-kilometer to the south-east of the Nemean sanctuary of Zeus; however, no other material, which might point to that, has been found so far.

In the time of Pausanias, the temple of Zeus was surrounded by a grove of cypress trees (Paus. 2.15.2).

Perhaps, the cult-place at Nemea gained the official status of a sanctuary in the early 7th century BC, when a massive, 0.55m width, wall of poros stones was built in the site; its remains have been identified near the southwestern corner of the temple of Zeus. This wall has appeared to the excavators as a peribolos,736 which may have been intended to delimit and separate the area chosen for practicing the cult on a regular basis. However, the precinct of Zeus seems to have been provided with no architectural construction until the beginning of the 6th century BC, while the main ceremonies performed by worshipers would have consisted of ritual drinking and burnt sacrifices. Two Early Archaic Korinthian aryballoi found in the section comprising the northern part of the Altar737 (Fig.41) suggest that the early ritual at Nemea, like that on Mt. Fokas, involved oil.

3.1.15. Tretos The Dervenakia Pass, located about 3km to the south-east of Ancient Nemea, has been identified with the ancient Tretos Pass, where, according to the mythic tradition, once was the cave of the Nemean Lion. In the course of conducting the NVAP, it has been established that the top of one of the bluffs (+324m, NVAP site nu.204, see Fig.43), which was occupied by a settlement during the Early Helladic I-II, in the early historic time became the place of a small rural shrine, which functioned approximately from the Late Geometric period through the Classical time.741 The material discovered there includes miniature Korinthian votive cups, Attic blackand red-figured vessels and black-glazed wares as well as pithoi with impressed decoration bands. Special attention should be given to the found at the site Late Classic mold clay mask (5.1cm) representing the face of a mature bearded man742 (Fig.44, the mask is now in the Museum of Nemea, but it is not exhibited). The recipient of the cult at Tretos thus seems to have been male, while the features of the face represented in the discovered mask suggest a possibility that he may well have been Zeus. It may therefore be presumed that the cult practiced at Tretos in the EIA - Classical time was supposed to serve the needs of worshiping Zeus in the area around Nemea

In the present state of evidence, it is not possible to make definitive conclusion about the nature of the early cult of Zeus at Nemea. Perhaps, the location of the sanctuary in countryside, in the area of agricultural activities, may indicate the initial concept of Nemean Zeus as that of a rustic god responsible for harvest, flocks and the prosperity of the relying on him farming community. It is tempting, though unsafe, to trace it back to the religious beliefs of the prehistoric settlement at Tsoungiza. It is known that from 573 BC, the panhellenic Nemean games took place every two years in honour of Nemean

738

Paus. 2.15.3, mentions “…the winter celebration of the Nemean games”/“…Νεμείων πανηγύρει τῶν χειμερινῶν”; Miller (1990) 7-8, believes that the games were held after the first or the second full moon after the summer solstice. 739 Miller (1979) 82. 740 Hill (1966) pl.23. 741 Wright and oths. (1990) 598, fig.4 (the site nu.204), p.605, fig.5, p.611. 742 Wright and oths. (1990) 611.

733

Birge, Kraynak and Miller (1992) 22, 26-27. Miller (1979) 82-83; Morgan (1990) 215. 735 Miller (1990) 51-52, fig.16; the Musem of Nemea, nu.BR 20. 736 Miller (1980) 178, 180-181; Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 320. 737 Miller (1976) 178, pl. 31, c. 734

85

before the official establishment of the Nemean sanctuary and even after. The cult apparently included ritual drinking and, judging by pithoi, supposed collective ceremonies. No altar has been traced.

architectural structures at the plateau of the Agios/Profitis Elias peak, but their date is not established.748 Concerning the nature of the cult practiced on the Agios/Profitis Elias peak, during the prehistoric time it seems to have been, at least partly, connected with a female deity, but a clear picture of her character and functions is not available at the present state of evidence; nor may be confirmed her survival towards the historic period as Hera. Zeus’ association with the summit may be dated to around the beginning of the historic time; however, the nature of his cult as it was practiced on Mt. Arachnaion during the EIA is not indicated in the finds discovered in the sanctuary.

3.1.16. Mt. Arachnaion in the Argolis was connected with the worship of Zeus and Hera during the ancient times: the deities had there separated altars, on which in the time of Pausanias sacrifices were made in order to induce rain (Paus. 2.25.10). The mountain forms a crescent on the eastern border of the Argolis and is divided into two main peaks: the eastern one (+1139m), which is called Arna or Mavrovouni, and the western, higher and pointed, peak (+1199m), which is called Agios or Profitis Elias. Remains of what may have been a small Bronze Age village or farming settlement (c.EH-1100 BC) were found at the saddle of the mountain, located between the two peaks, but no indications of cult activities, as an altar of any type or sacrificial debris, were observed at that place.743

More evidence for the cult at Mt. Arachnaion is expected to be found in the course of the current re-excavation of the site by the Greek archaeological service. 3.1.17. Larisa hill (Argos) According to the ancient tradition, Zeus was worshiped in Argos, on the top of the hill Larisa, which he shared with Athena: the temple of Zeus, roofless in the time of Pausanias (Paus. 2.24.3), stood in the north-eastern part of the acropolis on Larisa, while the temple of Athena, perhaps of the Archaic date, was located to the west of it.749 Remarkably, Pausanias tells about “a wooden image / ἄγαλμα ξύλου of Zeus, which has two eyes in the natural place and a third on its forehead. This Zeus… [allegedly] was a paternal god of Priamos, the son of Laomedon, set up in the uncovered part of his court”, and it was believed to have been brought in Argos from Troy as a trophy (Paus. 2.24.3).750 Perhaps, the wooden statue of Zeus seen by Pausanias in the sanctuary on Larisa was, in fact, an example of the Archaic cult images known as ξόανα and may be accepted as the representation of Zeus Larisaean himself, recalling his original supposed appearance.

The settlement’s sanctuary may have been located on the top of the Agios/Profitis Elias peak, where quite recently noteworthy Mycenaean remains were discovered out of stratified context, at the eastern part of the plateau on the peak’s top: the finds include fragments of Mycenaean clay female and animal figurines, and LH III pottery fragments, which belonged to kylikes and cooking pots. The latest of the prehistoric objects seem to be of the LH IIIC period.744 Significantly, on the same peak, three concentrations of pottery fragments, which also contained burnt animal bones, were discovered during the previous excavation of the site (see Fig.45): the earliest of those, nu.2, contained numerous Late Geometric Argive sherds (c.750-690 BC) as well as some Proto-Korinthian (c.700640 BC) and Early Archaic (690-650 BC) pottery fragments; the concentration nu.1 contained pottery of c.700-480 BC, and the concentration nu.3 contained mostly Archaic and some Classical sherds.745 Each of those deposits may be a likely candidate for the ash altars of Zeus and Hera mentioned by Pausanias, but the secure determination is impossible.746 In fact, the pottery evidence from the deposits does not indicate the continuity of the cult on Agios/Profitis Elias from the prehistoric time until the EIA. However, the summit appears to have been used quite continuously from the second half of the 8th century BC through the 7th century BC and until the 6th - possibly 5th centuries BC; the site seems to have been sporadically re-used during the Roman time as well.747 There are also remains of some

The main archaeological evidence related to the EIA is formed by pottery from a significant votive deposit discovered on the territory of the sanctuary. A small number of sherds have been dated in the Proto-Geometric - Early Geometric periods and thus indicate religious activities on the top of the hill already in that time. However, the bulk of the deposit, constituted by more than 300 small pots, was dated by the excavators from the middle of the 8th to the middle of the 7th centuries BC. 751 Generally, it has been noticed that drinking vessels of small size, as simple pots, skyphoi and Proto-Korinthian kotylai, predominated among the pottery contained in the deposit, but there were also plates, a jug, a large decorated LG krater, and Proto-Korinthian aryballoi.752 The decoration of the discovered fragments shows certain

743

Rupp (1976) 264. http://www.archaiologia.gr/en/blog/2013/01/18/amycenaean-sanctuary-on-proph-ilias-at-mt-arachnaionin-the-argolid/ 745 Rupp (1976) 264-265. 746 Rupp (1976) 267. 747 Rupp (1976) 264. 744

748

Rupp (1976) 265-267. Hagg (1992) 11, pl.3, fig.3. 750 Also Tiverios (1997) 315, nu.5. 751 Courbin (1955) 314; Roes (1953) 90; Hagg (1992) 11. 752 Roes (1953) 101 fig.6 (for the decorated plates); Hagg (1992) 11. 749

86

remarkable motifs and scenes, such as charioteers, horses, group dances performed by women with branches and by men as well;753 it was especially noted the abundance of solar symbols.754 The same deposit also comprised two miniature double axes, one of bone and the other of bronze, terracotta pomegranates, hundreds of fingerrings, iron weapons, and some other objects.755 Traces of an altar have not been reported.

Olympia, at the northern wall of the Stadium, which adjoins the southern slope of the Kronion hill.760 Fragments of EH II pottery have been found in some other Elean sites.761 It has been observed that the archaeological context of the EH II burials excavated at Strephi and in the ancient town of Elis shares certain common characteristics with the contemporary material culture of the northern Balkan territories.762 This circumstance, perhaps, implies a close relationship between Elis and the Balkans during the Early Bronze Age and gives some grounds for connecting the population element, which occupied Elis during the EH II period, with the so-called “Pre-Greek substratum”, that is, the pre-Greek population of Greece considered to have been of the Indo-European Paleo-Balkan origin.763 The pre-Greek occupation of the territory of Olympia is confirmed by the very place-name Ὀλυμπία, which belongs to the stratum of the pre-Greek toponymy.764

The available evidence thus suggests that the cult practiced on the Larisa hill in the beginning of the historic time comprised both individual and collective drinking ceremonies, ritual eating and dancing; perhaps, some moderate communal feasts, which involved worshipers of both genders, took place on the summit of Larisa in that date. The EIA Larisaean cult appears to have especially been connected with the solar nature, vernal energy (as representations of dances with branches may imply), and fertility in general, as well as with military skills. According to the dominant opinion, the Larisaean sanctuary was initially dedicated to Athena solely.756 It may, however, be argued that Zeus, too, was worshiped in Argos from the beginning of the historic time, if not from the Late Bronze Age: this possibility is suggested, firstly, by the primitive appearance of Zeus Larisaean as a deity with three eyes, secondly, by the mythic tradition mentioning the sanctuary of Zeus on Larisa in association with the period of the Trojan War, and, especially, by the name of the Argive mythic king Diomedes (Hom. Il. 2.559-568), which is formed on the basis of the name of Zeus > Διός, etc., and implies certain direct links of the local Mycenaean ruling family with this god.

The arrival in Elis of the newcomers, most probably of the early Greeks, at the end of the EH II – beginning of the EH III was marked by the appearance of tumuli and apsidal houses. Thus, an EH II/III tumulus and five EH III apsidal houses (identified as the Houses 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) have been excavated on the territory of Altis.765 The tumulus seems to have been built earlier than the houses;766 it was surrounded by a circular stone peribolos and contained three burials in pithoi.767 Towards the end of the EH III phase, it was disturbed by the construction of the House 5, the apse of which has been identified above the border of the tumulus.768 Another Early Helladic tumulus possibly dated to the EH III phase was discovered at the eastern court of the former New Museum: a row of stones forming a circle, 5m in diameter, surrounded the inner part of the structure - the elliptical nucleus, which consisted of two or three layers of river stones; the whole structure was evidently covered with a mound of soil; signs of a pithos burial have also been observed there.769 Immediately to the west of this tumulus, traces of one more similar

3.1.18. Olympia (Elis). The early cult of Zeus. The prehistory of the sanctuary In relation to the origins of such a tremendously significant cult as that of Zeus at Olympia, it would be quite useful to survey the evidence for the prehistoric phase on and around the territory of the sanctuary, as well as for that in Elis in general. The Bronze Age in Elis is traced from the EH II period. Remains of an EH II settlement comprising a few houses and EH II burials have been discovered at the site of Strephi.757 EH II tombs have been found at the ancient town of Elis.758 An EH II settlement has been excavated at the site of Lepreon (Agios Dimitrios) in Triphylia,759 where one of the identified houses was megaroid in plan and had a central hearth with the rim, which parallels the EH II hearth rims from Berbati, Lerna, and Korinthos. Several non-stratified EH II sherds have been found in

760

Koumouzelis (1990) 98-100. Koumouzelis (1990) 240, 256 (at the site of Kostoureika in Southwestern Elis and at the site of Agios Georgios / Yannitsochori in Southern Elis, at the northwestern end of Neda). 762 Koumouzelis (1990) 60, 62. 763 For the pre-Greek population of Greece termed as the “Pre-Greek substratum”, and its Paleo-Balkan origins, see especially the study by Otkupshchikov (1987). 764 Μπαμπινιώτης (1998) 1262 (Όλυμπος. Ολυμπία). 765 Koumouzelis (1990) 136; Kyrieleis (1990) 186; Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 73-74. Kyrieleis (1990) 187, and Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 74, argue that the small apsidal building inside Altis, the House 4, initially dated to the Geometric period, is in fact of the EH III. 766 Kyrieleis (1990) 184, fig.10; Kyrieleis (1992) 23. 767 Πρωτονοταρίου-Δεϊλάκη (1980) v.3, 224-225 “Ηλεία”. 768 Kyrieleis (1990) 184, fig.10; Kyrieleis (2006) pl.5.2. 769 Koumouzelis (1990) 139. 761

753

Roes (1953) pl.24. Roes (1953) 98-99, 102, pl.25. 755 Roes (1953) 101 fig.5; Hagg (1992) 11. 756 Hagg (1992) 11; Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 421 (nu. 115). 757 Koumouzelis (1990) 27-55. 758 Koumouzelis (1990) 55-63. 759 Zachos (1986); Werner (1993) 45-46. 754

87

structure have been found.770 Remains of the EH III (or MH ?) apsidal houses have been traced below the Central Room of the former New Museum and in the eastern courtyard.771

However, the analysis of the MH pottery from Altis has indicated that soon after c.1900 BC, approximately at the end of the MH I, the site was abandoned and its settlement ceased to exist.779 This may have been caused by a tremendous flood of Alpheios, what in fact was a usual event in Elis in prehistoric and historic times, attested archaeologically780 and mentioned in literary sources (e.g. Paus. 5.5.7): it has been observed that the later remains in Altis lie on the undisturbed level of river sand.781

It deserves to be mentioned that the EH III tumuli contemporary with those from the area of Olympia have also been discovered in Lerna (above the House of Tiles), and at Dendra.772 In the archaeology, the tumulus-like circular sacred structures are acknowledged as a characteristic feature of the Indo-European civilization: they were highly widespread in the areas of different Indo-European cultures.773 It is argued that the Indo-European sacred mounds commonly expressed specifically Indo-European religious conceptions and should generally be regarded as a reflection of the primitive Indo-European perception of the world as a mountain.774 The earliest tumuli on the Greek territory are dated to the beginning of the EH II period;775 they present the evidence for the infiltration in Greece of certain Indo-European pre-Greek tribes, perhaps from the Northern Balkans. The arrival of the early Greeks at the end of the EH II – beginning of the EH III was associated with the construction of new tumuli, which marked or overlaid some particular spots, probably believed to have been of a special (sacred ?) significance for their predecessors. Circular constructions were especially favoured by the Greeks in their religious architecture from the EH III until and throughout the EIA.776 Thus, the archaeological context suggests that the religious beliefs, which would have been brought on the territory of Elis, including Olympia with Altis and the site of the former New Museum, at the EH III period, were based on the traditional Indo-European ideas.

The desertion of Altis in the beginning of the MH should be considered a local episode of the MH phase on the territory of Elis, and it does not testify to abrupt changes in the history of the whole region. It may be presumed that the MH I population of abandoned Altis removed to more secure places, as the site of the former New Museum, which seems to have been continuously and more or less intensively inhabited from the EH III period until the Late Bronze Age.782 The site of Pisa, located only 1.5km to the east of Altis, on a steep hill, might also be considered a possible place of the resettlement of the removed inhabitants of MH I Altis783: the excavation of the site has produced the evidence for a MH II-III settlement with rectilinear buildings, in several of which cist graves have been found under the house walls.784 According to the latest reports, the MH sites identified on the territory of Elis are about 30.785 Of those, the sites with tumuli are worth of special attention: (1) a tumulus at Kato Samikon, situated south-west of Olympia, on the coastal plain: it was surrounded by a circular retaining stone wall (peribolos), 5.50m in diameter, and contained about 14 pit burials dated to the late MH III – LH III;786

Concerning the EH III settlement in Altis, the archaeological evidence indicates its transition from the Early Helladic to the Middle Helladic phase without breaks and violence.777 Such a situation suggests that the population element, which had occupied Altis during the EH III period, continued to inhabit this place. It is not clear whether the EH II/III tumulus, earlier disturbed by the House 5, had any religious significance. Nevertheless, it appears that the MH I settlers of Altis not only occupied the same apsidal houses, which were built in the EH III, but also increased their settlement with analogous structures (identified as the House 1 and the House 7).778

(2) a MH – early LH cemetery at Kleidi, located 180m to the south of the Tumulus at Kato Samikon: it comprised 5 tumuli, of which the Tumuli 1 and 3 each had a surrounding peribolos built of stones;787 (3) a tumulus at Makrysia, situated on the hill Profitis Elis, about 700m west of the modern village Makrysia, south of Alpheios river and opposite of Altis: it, too, was surrounded by a circular retaining stone wall (peribolos), 779

Koumouzelis (1990) 207. Koumouzelis (1990) 31-32, 34-35 (the flood levels at the site of Strephi). 781 Sokolov (1980) 23. 782 Koumouzelis (1990) 125-135. Γιαλούρης (1965b) 209, reports the discovery of some MH sherds in the site of the former New Museum. 783 Koumouzelis (1990) 200. 784 Koumouzelis (1990) 194, 248-249. 785 Koumouzelis (1990) 214, map 8. 786 Γιαλούρης (1965a); Παπακωνσταντίνου (1981); Παπακωνσταντίνου (1982); Koumouzelis (1990) 195. 787 Papadimitriou (2001) 43-45. 780

770

Koumouzelis (1990) 139-140. Koumouzelis (1990) 129-131, 247-248. 772 Blackburn (1997) 18; Astrom (1986) 93-94. 773 This subject is especially examined in the study by Gimbutas (1997); see also Hammond (1967a), and Branigan (1975). 774 Rybakov (1981) 234. 775 Gimbutas (1997) 169-170. 776 See the study by Pelon (1976). 777 Koumouzelis (1990) 228. 778 Koumouzelis (1990) 192-207; Whitley (2003) 36. 771

88

bank of the river Kladeos.798 A large Mycenaean cemetery has been discovered on the northwestern slope of the Kronion hill, nearby the site of the former New Museum: 13 chamber tombs excavated there contained LH IIIB vases, jewelry, and metal objects.799 Mycenaean chamber tombs have been found on the Kalosaka hill, which marks the northern boundary of the former New Museum site.800 The handle of a Mycenaean bronze sword has been found north-west of the Philippeion,801 that is, to the south-west of the hill of Kronos. Two fragmentary Mycenaean female terracotta statuettes and unstratified LH I, LH IIA, LH IIIA, LH IIIB sherds have been found at the northern wall of the Stadium,802 adjacent to the southern slope of the Kronion hill. All this evidence seems to point to a significant Late Bronze Age settlement on the Kronion hill. Moreover, it appears likely that from as early as the Mycenaean period some activities took place on the territory of the later sanctuary.803 A number of other important sites seem to have been associated with Mycenaean Olympia. Thus, there may have been a LH III settlement to the west of the Old Museum, on the place of the present church of Agios Georgios at the modern village Drouva, on a hilltop c.80m above the Kladeos valley; traces of tholos tombs have been observed on the plateau lying c.500m to the west of the village.804 Some LH III pottery fragments were found at the site of Pisa (Oinomaos), located 1.5km east of Altis.805 It should also be mentioned a rich Late Mycenaean cemetery excavated at the modern village Kladeos (4km north of Olympia), where well-preserved examples of pottery and a beautiful diadem of glass-past, which was still in place around the skull of the buried, were found.806

4.70m in diameter, and contained pit burials dated to the late MH III – LH I;788 (4) a large tumulus, presumably of the prehistoric period, found at Laodikon, in the district of Olympia, south-west of it;789 (5) a MH tumulus at Mageiras in the Kladeos valley (2.5km north-west of Olympia);790 (6) a MH - LH tumulus (seriously damaged) at EpitalionAgiorgitika (west of Olympia, 5km south-east of Pyrgos), which had a stone nucleus made of layers of stones, resembling the EH III tumulus at the former New Museum site, and contained MH pithos burials.791 The successively represented MH III – LH I pottery from Kato Samikon, Makrysia and Epitalion points to the organic and natural transition of Elis from the late MH to the LH period.792 The Late Bronze Age on the territory of Elis is well represented by a big number of sites.793 In regard to this, it is noteworthy the observation that “Elis formed a homogeneous cultural unit with Messenia” in the Mycenaean time, but similar process took place in both the areas already at the end of the Middle Bronze Age.794 The exploration of the lower Alpheios valley has revealed that this area was heavily populated during the whole Late Bronze Age and especially during the Mycenaean time.795 As for Olympia in particular, although until now no LH or Sub-Mycenaean archaeological levels have been discovered on the territory of the sanctuary, in Altis,796 Mycenaean activities in the area are sufficiently indicated and appear to have been accumulated on and around the Kronion hill. Thus, a considerable quantity of LH pottery, including Mycenaean vessels (kraters), came from the lower southern slope of the Kronion hill,797 which was the northern boundary of the later sanctuary. Late Helladic sherds were found at the site of the former New Museum, occupying the Kronion hill, and farther up along the right

All the above indicate that during the Mycenaean period the territory of the later sanctuary of Zeus in Olympia was an integral part of an intensively inhabited territory and was apparently involved in human activities. However, secure evidence for a cult activity in the 798

McDonald and Simpson (1969) 128-129; Koumouzelis (1990) 127. 799 McDonald and Simpson (1969) 129. 800 Koumouzelis (1990) 133. 801 Volling (1994). 802 Heilmeyer (1972) 8-9, pl.2.1-2; Herrmann (1962) 3-34, pl.4; Kyreileis (2006) 189-192. 803 Morgan (1999a) 379, presumes the existence of a Mycenaean settlement in Altis. It is tempting to associate this presumption with the local Elean tradition about the so-called “House of Oenomaos”, which once stood in Altis, but was destroyed by a thunderbolt; one of its supposed columns was still visible in the time of Pausanias (Paus. 5.14.7, 5.20.6). It was also believed that Oenomaos himself founded the Altar of Zeus Herkeios (Paus. 5.14.7). 804 McDonald and Simpson (1961) 226. 805 McDonald and Simpson (1961) 226-227. 806 Γιαλούρης (1963) 103. For the latest excavation of the cemetery at Kladeos, consisting of chamber tombs and cist graves, see Whitley (2005) 33.

788

Θεμέλης (1968a); Koumouzelis (1990) 196. Γιαλούρης (1961-1962) 107. 790 McDonald and Simpson (1969) 128; Koumouzelis (1990) 245. 791 Θεμέλης (1968b) 170; Koumouzelis (1990) 194-195. 792 Koumouzelis (1990) 208. 793 McDonald and Simpson (1961) 226-227; McDonald and Simpson (1964) 230-231; McDonald and Simpson (1969) 128-130. 794 Papadimitriou (2001) 45. 795 McDonald and Simpson (1961) 226-227; Παπακωνσταντίνου (1992) 58-64. 796 Morgan (1999a) 379. 797 Morgan (1999a) 379; Blackman (2002) 46. For the typology of the Mycenaean pottery found in Olympia, see Schilbach (1984) 227 and fig.2. 789

89

sanctuary area during the Mycenaean period is still lacking.

Olympia. On the other hand, the Mycenaean material from the area of Olympia displays the same features as seen elsewhere in Elis during the LH III. Moreover, due to the Geometric sherds found on the territory of the Olympian sanctuary (see below), it has been possible to establish a complete stylistic sequence of some large part of the Elean pottery, extending from the LBA / SM into the 8th century BC and beyond.813 All these seem to indicate that from the late EH II / EH III until the EIA, there were no essential cultural breaks and appreciable local differentiations in Elis. Therefore, the religious traditions and the belief system, which would have been associated to Olympia during the Mycenaean period (in the context of the LBA activities attested on and around the Kronion hill) and especially in the LH IIIC/SubMycenaean time, in their general features must have had much in common with the religious traditions and beliefs, which would have been practiced throughout Elis from the EH II/III onward, that is, from the beginning of its occupation by the Greeks and during the whole prehistoric period. This conclusion must be borne in mind.

Recent archaeological researches in the Alpheios valley have revealed LH IIIC / Sub-Mycenaean settlement activities in quite the close vicinity of the later sanctuary at the sites of Platanos, Trypes, Kafkania, and Salmone807 (see Fig.46). The territory of the sanctuary has yielded important LH IIIC / SM materials: in the “Black level” of the Pelopion (see Fig.47), fragments of two exceptionally large, possibly ritual, Sub-Mycenaean kylikes, as well as an amount of pottery mainly representing drinking vessels dated to the second half of the 11th century BC, have been found.808 Moreover, a small number of Late Mycenaean fibulae and Sub-Mycenaean pins, seemingly votives, have been identified among the non-stratified finds.809 In sum, all this evidence tends to indicate that the Olympian sanctuary was established around the Late Helladic IIIC / Sub-Mycenaean period,810 and that originally it was a kind of central cult-place for the LH IIIC / Sub-Mycenaean settlements surrounding Olympia.811 Perhaps, the initial cult practice at Olympia mainly consisted of ritual drinking and libations of wine,812 as well as of dedication of small objects.

Some information about the ethnic, cultural, and religious situation on the territory of prehistoric Elis may be found in the mythic/epic tradition and literary sources.

Concerning the prehistoric archaeological context of Elis and the information that it might provide regarding the religious beliefs, it should be emphasized the continuity of the Elean tumulus building tradition attested from the EH II/III – MH I (the tumuli in Altis and at the site of the former New Museum) until the MH III – LH I-III (the tumuli at Kato Samikon, Makrysia, Laodikon, Mageiras, and Epitalion). It is especially noteworthy the maintenance for a number of centuries of such characteristic elements of that practice as a built stone peribolos for encircling a tumulus and a nucleus made of layers of stones inside a tumulus. This in itself suggests that the cultural and religious traditions, which were current in Elis during the late prehistoric time, basically, would not have differed too much from those of the EH II/III – MH I periods as traced in the EBA settlement at

Pausanias mentioned that the Lepreans of Triphylia, in Southeastern Elis, practiced the old cult of Zeus Leukaios / Λευκαῖος (Paus. 5.5.5). The epithet Λευκαῖος is directly derived from the Indo-European root *leukh- “to shine”, “to be shining white”,814 which had produced a group of Greek words expressing the notion of λευκός “white”. Thus, Elean Zeus Λευκαῖος may be interpreted as essentially “White Zeus”, or “Zeus the god of whiteness”. Etymologically, the Elean compound theonym Ζεύς Λευκαῖος “White Zeus” is adequate to the Arkadian divine name Ζεύς Λυκαῖος < I-E *l(e)ukh- (see below, 3.1.19. Mt. Lykaion) and to the Latin divine name Jupiter Lucetius (with the vocative form Leucetie < *leukh- / *l(e)ukh-), literally meaning “Shining-white Jupiter”. Furthermore, all the three compound divine names etymologically coincide with the Russian idiom “white day” (beliy den’), the daylight, given that Ζεύς, Jupiter and den’ are cognates derived from the designation of the Indo-European god of the clear, shining sky *t’y-eu-s / *t’ei-w(o)-s / *t’iu(n)-815 (see Chapter 1, 1.3.1. Zeus as a god of the clear sky. Ζεύς / Ζεύς πατήρ). Therefore, in linguistic terms, it may be argued that the divine names Zeus Leukaios, Zeus Lykaios, and Jupiter Lucetius, as well as the Russian popular expression “white day”, all developed out of a single Indo-European proto-term. This conclusion signifies by itself a very early origin of the Elean Triphylian theonym Ζεύς Λευκαῖος.

807

Eder (2001a); Eder (2001b) 4 (map), 43-44. Kyrieleis (1990) 187, fig.5; Kyrieleis (1992) 22; Kyreileis (2006) 215, nus. 1-4, pl. 52; Eder (2001c) 206. 809 Philipp (1981) 261-262 (nus.984-985: Late Mycenaean fibulae), 9-10, 34, 36 (nus.1-2: Sub-Mycenaean pins); also Morgan (1990a) 380; Eder (2001c) 206; Whitley (2001) 146. 810 Herrmann (1962) esp. p.34; however, the scholar argued for the original dedication of the sanctuary to local Elean, mainly female, deities and connected the establishment of Zeus’ cult with the Post-Mycenaean epoch. See also Mallwitz (1988) 86-93; Morgan (1999a) 380; Eder (2001b) 103-104. 811 Eder (2001b) 119. B. Eder (2001c) 205, concludes that “the sanctuary starts as rural cult place of regional importance”, and presumes that “the early center of the cult was probably the EH mound of the Pelopion, the top of which was still visible in the Early Iron Age”. 812 Eder (2001c) 206-208. 808

Perhaps, a connection of the Leprean divine name Ζεύς Λευκαῖος with the earliest Indo-European lexicon might be seen in the context of the pre-Greek archaeological 813

Eder (2001a) 233-243; Eder (2001c) 204. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) v.1, 779, v.2, 123. 815 Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) v.1, 196. 814

90

remains at the site of Lepreon (the EH II settlement, see above). It is noteworthy that prehistoric Lepreon may have been mentioned in the Pylian tablet PY Eq146 as repi-ri-jo.816 Thus, the concept of Leprean Zeus Leukaios tends to trace back to the pre-Greek or early Greek religious ideas, while those may have been associated with and preserved at the particular place from the EBA.

710 mentions a competition “(τὰ) ἄεθλα”, which comprised a chariot-race among contestants from various parts of Greece and was allegedly held in Elis during the reign of Augeas (contemporary with the last years of kingship of Neleus, Nestor’s father, in Pylos), though on an unspecified occasion and at a not indicated place.817 It should also be taken into account the old local Elean myth, which was eventually shared by all the Greeks, about the chariot-races organized by Oenomaos, the king of Elean Pisa, in order to test the suitors of his daughter Hippodamia (Paus. 6.21.9). In anthropological terms, the value of all these different myths related to possible origins of the Olympian games consists in the indications that the prehistoric inhabitants of Elis, the so-called Epeans, like many other ancient Greek and non-Greek peoples, practiced athletic contests and competitive games as a form of collective behaviour818 and used to incorporate those in such events of social and sacral character as initiation ceremonies for boys and/or ephebes, public choice of the king’s heir and that of the husband of a king’s daughter, as well as religious celebrations in honour of gods. Using the comparative evidence, it may be supposed that a demonstration of physical abilities and military skills by a king and his elite, a commemoration of victory over common enemy, a funeral of a distinguished local hero, and simply joyful communal gatherings may well have been among the occasions, on which athletic contests could also be held. As it seems, the cult-related competitions would eventually have prevailed in Elis, while towards the end of the prehistoric time, the tradition could have been attached to a certain place – Olympia, given the centralizing role of its early sanctuary for the surrounding it small settlements (see above).

It was believed that Elis had participated together with all the Achaean Greeks in the Trojan War (Hom. Il. 2.615624). The mythic/epic and the literary traditions agree in that the old (prehistoric) inhabitants of Elis were the Epeans / Ἐπειοί (Hom. Il. 2.619, 11.694), named after Epeios, who became a king of Elis after having won the contest in running organized by his father Endymion, the grandson of Zeus (Paus. 5.1.4). Two other mythic Elean kings – Oenomaos and Augeas were especially prominent in later panhellenic myths and legends: the former for his role in the widely liked myth about Pelops, and the latter, placed by Homer three generations before the Trojan War (Hom. Il. 2.624), because of his involvement in the circle of myths about Herakles (the hero supposedly cleansed his famous stables, Paus. 5.1.9-2.1). It is not impossible to presume that the so-called “Ἐπειοί” were descendants of those early Greeks, who settled in Elis in c.EH II/III periods and continued the occupation of this territory until the post-Mycenaean time. The later Elean tradition apparently tried to derive the Olympian games from the remote past of Elis. Thus, according to the official narrative told in the Olympian sanctuary and recorded by Pausanias, the first who held the games (“ἀγῶνας”) at Olympia was Herakles from Cretan Ida: supposedly, Rhea invited him and his four brothers-Kouretes from Crete, when Zeus was born, and entrusted them to guard her son, as the context of Pausanias’ text suggests, in Olympia. Herakles, “being the eldest, matched his brothers, as a game, in a runningrace, and crowned the winner with a branch of wild olive” (Paus. 5.7.6-7, 9). Later, as it was said, Zeus himself wrestled in Olympia with Kronos for the kingship and after held the games in honour of his victory; Apollo, Hermes and Ares were believed to have participated in those games, in which the events were running and boxing (Paus. 5.7.10). The Eleans claimed that after the time of Deukalion, the games had been held at Olympia in honour of Zeus (“…τὸν ἀγῶνα τῷ Ὀλυμπίῳ Διὶ...” Paus. 5.8.2) several times by a number of mythic personalities – by someone Klymenos from Crete, who was descended from Idaean Herakles, by Endymion, who set his children to run a race at Olympia for the throne (“ἔθηκε…ἐν Ὀλυμπίᾳ δρόμου τοῖς παισὶν ἀγῶνα Ἐνδυμίον ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀρχῆς...”, Paus. 5.1.4, see above), as well as by Pelops, Augeas and Herakles, the son of Zeus (Paus. 5.8.1-4). It is important that a reference to a kind of a prehistoric precursor or proto-type of the Olympian games is contained in the earliest of the available historic literary sources – the Iliad: the passage of the Il. 11.698-

During the Dark Age, simultaneously with the Dorian invasion, Elis was occupied by the Aetolians (Strab. 8.3.30), who originally belonged to the Aeolian Greeks, but mixed with Northwestern Greek tribes towards the beginning of the historic time.819 It was considered that the Aetolians not only absorbed the Epeans, but also adopted and preserved some of their cults, especially the worship of Augeas as a hero (Paus. 5.4.2-3). The pottery evidence (see above) also seems to be indicative of that the Aetolian occupation of Elis did not cause radical breaks in the pre-Aetolian cultural traditions. Strabon argued that the institution of the historic Olympian games had to be ascribed to the Aetolians (Strab. 8.3.30), who renewed the festival after a period of its discontinuity (Paus. 5.8.5). It should be noted that Elis, but not Olympia in particular, occurred in the Aeolian epic diction connected approximately with the 11th – 10th centuries BC, and it is the songs of Aeolian bards, from which the verses related to Elis were taken by Homer: Homeric ‛Ήλις < Aeolic Fάλις.820 This may mean that at 817

See also the commentary on these lines by Hainsforth (1993) 301. 818 See Gardiner (1930); also Miller (2004) 20-30. 819 Buck (1999) 5-6. 820 Hoekstra (1965) 46-47, 63.

816

Ventris and Chadwick (1973) 579; Zachos (1984) 328329. 91

the end of the prehistoric – beginning of the historic times, the early sanctuary of Zeus at Olympia was not yet so important and famous as the sanctuary of Zeus at Dodona (see above, 3.1.1. Dodona).

activities, it might be supposed that the Great Ash Altar was not only the most sacred, but also the most ancient element of the Olympian cult. Hence, the concentration of ashes at the north-western edge of the Pelopion might bear some other interpretation. On the other hand, it should not be ignoured a possibility that the mound-like Great Ash Altar of Zeus was a monumental replica of some primitive mound of ashes, which may originally have been used as an altar in the earliest cult of Zeus in Altis.

The sanctuary in the EIA (Proto-Geometric – Geometric – Early Archaic periods) The secure evidence for the cult activity in Altis dates from the Proto-Geometric - Geometric periods. The available evidence consists of:  votive terracotta figurines representing males, females, and animals (bulls, horses, dogs, rams),  bronze tripods and cauldrons,  bronze figured attachments of tripods / cauldrons, representing animals and humans, mainly males,  small bronze objects classified as jewelry,  some quantity of Proto-Geometric and Geometric pottery.

Until recently, it was considered that there are no architectural remains of the Geometric phase inside Altis. The architectural arrangements of the sanctuary place are securely traced from the 7th century BC, when the precinct of Pelops was set up over the remains of the prehistoric settlement, and a special space for the Stadium was organized - originally at the south-eastern part of the sacred grove and subsequently to the east of it, at the southeastern slope of the Kronion hill (the successive Stadia IIII).823 Around 600 BC, the temple of Hera was built.

All these finds came from the unstratified context disturbed by the extensive building activity in Altis, which started from the Archaic period. The attribution of the figurines to the Proto-Geometric - Geometric periods is based on the stylistic features ranging from very primitive to more elaborate.

The available evidence should be considered precisely. The re-examination of the spoils from the early excavations of the Pelopion has yielded a considerable amount of pottery of the Early Iron Age.824 Some Geometric sherds of local manufacture, dated to the last quarter of the 8th century BC, have been found beneath the terrace of the Sikyonian treasury (at the southern slope of the Kronion hill, north-east of the Heraion).825 The total amount of the EIA pottery discovered at Olympia so far is small and seems to be indicative of that already at the beginning of the historic time, the character of occupation of this territory was not connected with ordinary human activities.

In the light of the evidence provided by the latest scrupulous re-excavation of the Pelopion by the German archaeologists, it is now considered that the original area of the cult activities in the sanctuary was that coinciding with the so-called “Black level”, which is the intensive concentration of ashes lying below the level of c.600 BC and extending from the western side of the Pelopion to the Metroon (see Fig.47). The especially thick accumulation of ashes at the northwestern edge of the Pelopion is interpreted as the traces of the original, “old”, altar of Zeus, which could have been used until c.600 BC and then would have been replaced by the Great Ash Altar.821 The latter was “about equally distant from the Pelopion and the sanctuary of Hera” (Paus. 5.13.8). Unfortunately, the available archaeological records are inadequate to confirm or disprove the above presumption of the German archaeologists, especially because neither the actual date of the foundation of the Great Ash Altar of Zeus nor its exact location may be established, since no trace of it is left. It is, however, certain that as long as it existed, the Great Ash Altar of Zeus accumulated on itself the religious activities of the Olympian sanctuary and played the role of the sanctuary “kultmittelpunkt”. From the description by Pausanias, it is known that the Great Altar was “made of the ash of the thighs of the victims sacrificed to Zeus” and had the shape of a mound (5.13.8-10)822 (see Fig.48). Given this primitive shape persistently maintained through centuries and the Great Ash Altar’s tremendous significance for the sanctuary

The latest re-excavation of the structure known as the apsidal House 7 located north-east of the Temple of Zeus, conducted by the German archaeologists, has revealed that there are actually the remains of two foundations on the same spot: those of the building, which appears as an oval house, c.7m wide, while its length is undetermined (Fig.49); it overlies the remains of another, apsidal, building dated to the 3rd millennium BC (the House 7 of the prehistoric village).826 Based on this, the excavators argue that the later structure827 is dated to the Early Iron Age and that it “is, in fact, the oldest cult building (in 823

Whitley (2001) 154-155. Morgan (1999a) 379; Kyrieleis (2006) 215-246, nus.5109 – EIA pottery, nu.110 – LG/ Early Archaic pottery. 825 Schilbach (1984) 225-229; Morgan (1990) 244-246, figs.22-23. 826 Rambach (2002) 127, 130-131, figs.6, 7; Whitley (2003) 36; Whitley (2004) 31. 827 Since no changes in the official designation of the buildings identified in Altis have been made after this discovery, it would be convenient to term here the discussed prehistoric structure as House 7 and the EIA as House 7’. 824

821

Kyrieleis (2006) 49, 51. For possible shapes of Zeus’ altar in Olympia and its closest analogies, see Schleif (1934) and Yavis (1949) 210-213. 822

92

Altis), i.e. the oldest temple of Zeus in Olympia”.828 This extremely interesting conclusion, overturning all the previous views concerning the beginning of the cult in Olympia, has not yet been widely discussed and accepted by other specialists and, until then, should be taken as a probability. It is, however, tempting to trace some possible similarity in the arrangement of the early cultplaces of Zeus at Olympia, Dodona (see above, 3.1.1) and Tourkovounia in Attica (see above, 3.1.9): the first and the second ones presumably and the third one actually comprised an oval religious structure.829

are big; the legs are open and very short. A belt is indicated on the waist in some of the statuettes,835 possibly implying a baldric for a supposed weapon, which could also protect the abdomen. The personage represented with a belt may thereby be connected with a military function. The figurines attributed to the Late Geometric period, too, represent a nude, standing male, but display some advance in rendering of the human body and face (Fig.51). The head is noticeably raised upward, but its size is more proportionate; a simple headgear, perhaps a helmet, covers the head, more apparently indicating the warlike character of the represented. The details of the face are still crude, but are clearer (the eyes are indicated by impressed circles, the mouth is indicated by an incised line, and the nose is notably outstanding). The outlines of the body are more correct: the shoulders are widened, the waist is narrow; the nipples and umbilicus are indicated by impressed circles. The arms are outstretched; the genitals are very big; the legs are open.

Among the discovered terracotta and bronze figurines representing humans, those of males are the most plentiful. This circumstance clearly signifies the priority of the male concept in the Olympian cult from its EIA phase. The terracotta figurines were found at various spots on the territory of the sanctuary,830 but the majority of them came from the conventional arc around the Great Altar of Zeus, comprising the Pelopion, the Heraion, and the Metroon.831

All the figurines are practically deprived of individual characteristics. However, the male gender and attributes of a warrior are quite explicit. At present, the number of the found male terracotta figurines overwhelms that of the discovered female terracotta statuettes. According to the available evidence, the appearance of the male terracotta figurines in the EIA Olympian sanctuary antedates the appearance of the female votive representations. The terracotta figurines were dedicated to the worshiped god and therefore may have had certain relation to his supposed appearance.836 Here, it may be appropriate to refer to the crude Archaic image of standing Zeus “with a helmet on his head”, seen by Pausanias in the Temple of Hera (Paus. 5.17.1): the EIA votive figurines of helmeted males may have been its prototypes.

W.-D. Heilmeyer, the publisher of the figurines, has distinguished three main types among them: the type “Zeus”, the “Kouros” type, and the “Charioteers”. The so-called Zeus-figurines have been distributed, according to the level of accomplishment, among the Proto-Geometric group, the Early Geometric group, and the Late Geometric group with possible evolution into the Sub-Geometric - Early Archaic style; the Middle Geometric phase, as the publisher believes, at present is not exemplified.832 The earliest figurines, tentatively related to the 10th–9th centuries BC, represent a nude, standing male with the approximately defined physical forms (see Fig.50). The head is small and slightly raised upwards; the details of the face (eyes, mouth, nose) are very crude and often illegible. The long curly hair was painted on one of the figurines,833 and probable traces of the painted beard are visible on another specimen.834 The upper parts of the body of these figurines are disproportionate (the neck is long and fat; the shoulders are small, female-like). The arms are not preserved completely, but were apparently outstretched. The genitals are emphasized; the buttocks

The terracotta male figurines identified by the publisher as “Charioteers”837 have been classified according to the technique of representation from the Proto-Geometric to the Late Geometric and Sub-Geometric periods.838 They can be recognized due to the preserved details of a supposed chariot (Figs.52a-b). The type “Kouros” is distinguished by the publisher because of the emphasized sexual features and the absence of any attributes, as a belt and a helmet (Fig.53); it is mainly referred to the Late Geometric and the Sub-Geometric styles.839 The concept(s) really implied in these two types of the Olympian figurines is/are not known and its/their relation to the type “Zeus” is quite uncertain. Presumably, figurines of these types might represent different sides of the central divine male concept associated with the sanctuary. A connection of the type “Charioteer” with

828

Whitley (2003) 36. For the EIA oval buildings with religious and domestic functions, see Mazrakais-Ainian (1997) 86-93, 97-113. 830 Heilmeyer (1972) 127-129. 831 Heilmeyer (1972) 127-128. 832 Heilmeyer (1972) 65-77, 123; Cat.nus.172-177, pls. 28-29 – Proto- and Early Geometric; Cat.nus.178-191, 193, pls.30-32 – Late Geometric; Cat.nus.192, 194-204, pls.33-34 – are defined as Sub-Geometric and Early Archaic. 833 Heilmeyer (1972) nu.174. 834 Heilmeyer (1972) nu.176; Alroth (1989) 38. 829

835

Heilmeyer (1972) nus.172 and 174. Alroth (1989) 15. 837 Heilmeyer (1972) nus.117, 133-162. 838 Heilmeyer (1972) 41-59. 839 Heilmeyer (1972) nus.163-171. 836

93

the Roman Oktogon,844 where they had probably been dispersed together with the removed soil during the continuous architectural re-arrangements in Altis.

Zeus seems especially likely, as far as the god appeared in the epic diction flying in his chariot (Hom. Il. 8.43-46). It is tempting to conjecture that the votive figurines of a charioteer discovered in the Olympian sanctuary recalled the original solar nature of early Olympian Zeus - the deity, which would have been supposed to ride, similarly with the sun-gods, in a chariot across the sky. The type “Kouros” in fact does not explicitly express the features of youth because of the still crude manner of accomplishment, and it might represent just a general male principle.

The earliest bronze figurines845 are very small in size and represent a crude standing, nude male figure with the illrendered physical forms (Fig.55): the head is incorrect, practically without facial features; in some cases it is covered with a shapeless helmet; the body is either very small or disproportionately long; the genitals are big; the arms are very long and raised or outstretched; the legs are long and open.

The number of the discovered EIA terracotta female figurines at present is small;840 they are dated from the Late Geometric – Sub-Geometric periods.841 Their stylistic characteristics are as those seen in the LG terracotta male figurines: the images are nude and standing; the head is upraised; the body is flat and has nipples and an umbilicus indicated by impressed circles, but the breasts are not prominent; the arms are outstretched; the legs are open. The gender is pointed by a big cut between the legs symbolizing female genitals. A diadem or a crown with an incised zig-zag line was indicated on the head of one figurine842 (Fig.54). This detail may have recalled the notion of a “queenly goddess”, implied in the standard epic formulae “πότνια θεά” and “δῖα θεάων”. It is quite tempting to connect the intention to represent a diadem on the head of a female figurine with the actual use of diadems in the Late Bronze Age (see Chapter 2, 2.6.3. Diadems) and precisely with the case of the diadem found on the skull of a buried, possibly a female, in the Mycenaean cemetery in Kladeos (see above). It might be presumed that some elements of the EIA Olympian cult were derived from the religious practices, which were current in Olympia in the Mycenaean time. It may be argued that the clay female figurines in some way represented the female deity worshiped in pair with the main god of the territory, that is, Zeus’ spouse and sister Hera.

The latest figurines846 are much bigger in size and exhibit remarkable progress in the technique of representation (Fig.56). They apparently show a standing, nude, helmeted warrior. The details of the face (big eyes, nose, and mouth with lips) are indicated in more correct way. It may be observed an attempt to represent the exercised body: the shoulders are strong and broad, while the waist is narrow. The arms are shown in action: the right arm with a non-preserved weapon (a sword or a lance) is raised in the gesture of attack; the left arm with the holed fist is usually bent and possibly held some object, perhaps the rein of a horse.847 The legs appear rather elongated, but strong and more proportionate. The Olympian bronze male figurines attributed to the Geometric period normally do not have a belt, but in one of the figurines, perhaps of an Argive workshop, a triple belt is shown on the waist.848 The precise designation of the Olympian tripods adorned with the figurines of warriors is not known, but it is quite probable that they had been the prizes in the earliest Olympic competitions and/or a kind of monuments put by the champions in memory of their victories. One of the tripods dated to the end of the 8th century BC, found in the Stadium, bears the relief representation of a duel between two helmeted warriors for a tripod (the scene is usually called “The struggle between Apollo and Herakles over the Delphic tripod”, Fig.57).849 This representation may have been inspired by the real contests, in which the winners were honoured with a tripod, while the particular tripod may actually have been someone’s award. Notably, Homer referring to the legendary Elean chariot contest mentioned that a tripod

The bronze EIA material from Olympia mainly consists of tripods and cauldrons of various sizes. It seems possible to assume that some of the found large cauldrons were used for ritual preparation of meal for quite a lot of people. Hence, it may be supposed that the EIA Olympian cult practice involved communal dining. Many of the tripods and cauldrons were adorned with bronze figurines of animals and humans.843 The bronze human statuettes-tripod attachments represent in majority warriors, as well as charioteers, and are tentatively dated from the Early Geometric to the Late Geometric periods. They were found in the extensive area farther from the center of the sanctuary, mainly between the Stadium and

844

Kunze (1940-1941) pls.32, 34-36, 38-50; Kunze (1961a) 138-163; Kunze (1967) 213-236. 845 Kunze (1940-1941) pl.32; Kunze (1967) pls.106-107. 846 Kunze (1940-1941) pl.38-46; Kunze (1967) pls.108113. 847 Kunze (1940-1941) pl.36; Kunze (1967) pls.108-109; Γιαλούρη and Γιαλούρης (1999) 47, fig.4: bronze figurines of a warrior and his horse, Mus.nus. B24, Β22. 848 Kunze (1961a) pls.60-61. 849 Willemsen (1957) pl.63; Ahlberg-Cornell (1992) 26, fig.28. The preserved fragment of this tripod, attributed to a Korinthian workshop, is exhibited in the Museum of Olympia, Mus.nu. B 1730.

840

Heilmeyer (1972) nus.205-208. Heilmeyer (1972) 123. 842 Heilmeyer (1972) nu.205. 843 Willemsen (1957) pls.1-93; Maass (1978); Heilmeyer (1979). 841

94

was established as the prize for the victory in it (Hom. Il. 11.700).

defeating warrior (see Chapter 1, 1.3.2. Zeus as a stormgod. Zeus as a substitute for the original Greek stormgod). Therefore, it may be hypothesized that in certain cases, as in that of Olympia, and to a certain degree, the representations of a hero-warrior attached to tripods also connoted the idea of a victorious storm-god. Correspondingly, it might be presumed that some elements of the storm-god’s concept were being adapted to the cult of Zeus in Olympia already during the Geometric period. It is noteworthy that in the late 8th century BC the Olympian sanctuary established close contacts with the sanctuary of Zeus at Dodona,855 where the god was quite early associated with the concept of an Indo-European storm-god (see above, 3.1.1. Dodona). Furthermore, it may be observed that the lightning motif occurs in the Olympian sanctuary during the Early Archaic period, on pottery of local Elean manufacture856 (see Fig.58). However, more evidential support is still needed for the conclusion that Zeus indeed appeared in Olympia as a storm-god already in the EIA.

The sacred character of the territory, where these tripods were put, also suggests that some of them may have been used in the early cult practice of the Olympian sanctuary and thus may have been involved, in any way, in the worship of local divinities. Dedication of tripods / cauldrons adorned with representations of warriors or warlike males was not a unique Olympian feature: it was practiced all-around EIA Greece, in many sanctuaries associated with various deities (e.g., at Dodona, the Athenian Akropolis, Delphi, Korinthos, and other places).850 This circumstance, perhaps, indicates that the Olympian bronze male figurines made to adorn tripods did not represent any specific male deity. Therefore, such precise interpretations as “Zeus in epiphany” or “Zeus the warrior” given to the Olympian bronze statuettes-tripod parts851 seem enough doubtful. If the Olympian bronze male figurines are considered together with the analogous male figurines-tripod attachments from other cult centers of EIA Greece, it may be argued that they rather conveyed the general idea of a warlike hero or that of a glorified heroic mortal warrior, which were the central themes of those times.

The bronze figurines of charioteers seem to parallel the terracotta figurines of the same type: they represent a naked male figure, which has a belt on the waist and in some cases a pointed helmet on the head, and rides in a chariot857 (Fig.59). It seems quite probable that the bronze charioteer figurines, which were supposed to be attached to tripods, echoed the earliest Olympic chariot races, but their relation to the deity worshiped in the sanctuary is not certain.

Nevertheless, the dedication of tripods adorned with the figurines of warriors to the Olympian sanctuary points to a close association of the god worshiped there with military functions.852

Some other bronze figurines, which have been associated with the Olympian sanctuary and are dated in the Geometric period, should be considered.

It may also be examined a possibility that connotations of some other, additional ideas were borne by the early Olympian bronze figurines of warriors. Thus, the successively represented iconography of the Olympian bronze male figurines displays the direct evolution from the impersonal Geometric image of a warrior attached to a tripod to the Archaic image of Zeus fighting by a sword or a lance (mostly non-preserved),853 and, subsequently, to the Late Archaic / Early Classical type of Zeus striding with a thunderbolt.854 In regard to this, it may be recalled the representation of a warrior wearing a Korinthian helmet and holding a likeness of a thunderbolt (?) in his upraised right hand, partly preserved on a fragment of a votive shield of the end of the 8th century BC found in the Samian Heraion (see 3.1.35, Fig.87): this picture might be taken as an illustration of the concept of the IndoEuropean Storm-god traditionally imagined as an all-

The provenance from Olympia is ascribed to a small bronze group called “a Lord and a Lady”, exhibited in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts (Fig.60); it consists of two figures: a male, nude and standing, wears a long pointed cap or helmet, which curves backward; a heavy triple belt is at his waist; the part below the belt is rendered in one piece without indication of sex; his left arm is extended sideways; with his right arm he crosses the left arm of a female figure, which is likewise standing and nude and has pellet breasts; she wears a polos and embraces her companion with her left arm.858 The group appears to have originally been an adornment-part of a bigger object – perhaps of a tripod or a cauldron. It came in the 855

Hammond (1967b) 429. Morgan (1990) 247, fig.23: fragments K 1324 and K 1426. 857 Kunze (1940-1941) 109, fig.90, pl.34 (Early Geometric Charioteer); p.111, fig.91, pl.35 (Late Geometric Charioteer); p.129, figs.99-100, pls.47-50 (Late Geometric Charioteer with long hair, naked, without belt and helmet, the chariot is not preserved); Kunze (1961a) 142-145, fig.84, pl.58 (Charioteer, Olympia Museum, Mus.nu. B 3005). 858 Palmer (1958); Fittschen (1969) 133, GP 1; Tiverios (1997) 317, nu.18.

850

856

Casson (1922) 213-214, figs.7-8; Langdon (1984) 362376; de Rider (1896) 239-248 ; Perdrizet (1908) 33, figs.111-114. 851 For the typology and the suggested interpretations of the EIA bronze figurines from Olympia and other areas see Tiverios (1997) 316, nus.17-18. 852 Alroth (1989) 39. 853 For example, the bronze figurines B 4240 and B 3010 dated to the 6th century BC, in the Museum of Olympia, Kunze (1961a) pls.72-73, 78. 854 Scwabacher (1961) figs.2a, b, d, e. 95

Museum from a private collection and is tentatively dated in the 8th century BC.859 One of the most welcomed interpretations of the represented is “Zeus and Hera”,860 although it may not be verified. Together with the votive clay female figurines, this bronze group might indicate an association of the main male deity of the early Olympian sanctuary with a female one. Moreover, it seems possible that the early Olympian cult comprised the hieros gamos element.861

rendering of the supposed theme and the typical for the Geometric art static pose of both the man and the centaur do not allow certain definition of the attitude of the represented to each other as friendly or as hostile. For this reason, it actually remains unclear whether the composition refers to friends or adversaries. Because of the lack of precise indications, this composition may be accepted as an evidence for circulation in Peloponnesos during the 8th century BC of mythic or epic stories involving a warlike god or a hero and a centaur, but its relation to the mythology of Zeus and especially to his cult in Olympia is not certain.

A common Peloponnesian type of a female riding on a horse is recognized in a small, crude bronze figurine, possibly a votive, representing a woman on a horseback.862 Similar bronze and terracotta figurines were found in a number of other Geometric and Early Archaic sites (e.g., at Tegea, Lousoi, and Perachora).863 Given a probability of the votive character of the discussed Olympian figurine, it seems possible to associate the image with the female deity worshiped in the early sanctuary. This presumption gives grounds to suppose the energetic and, perhaps, warlike nature of the early Olympian female deity. However, it is also possible that the figurine was meant to recall an ordinary motif of those heroic times.

The terracotta and bronze animal figurines form quite a large group of the Olympian votives and tripod parts. The animal terracotta figurines represent in an overwhelming number bulls/oxen and horses, but also rams and dogs.868 They appear in the Proto-Geometric period and continue into the Sub-Geometric – Early Archaic periods. The animal bronze figurines were normally attached to the tripod/cauldron handles869 and represent in majority horses and bulls, some rams, stags, and birds.870 The EIA animal bronze figurines found in Olympia belong to the 9th-8th centuries BC and exemplify not only the local Olympian manufacture, but also Argive, Korinthian, and Lakonian workshops.871 Dedications of animal figurines were commonly practiced in the Greek sanctuaries from the earliest times, perhaps being rooted in the belief in the gods’ concern about cattle, nature, and fertility in general.

Debatable interpretations have been proposed for the famous bronze group “a Man and a Centaur” exposed in the Metropolitan Museum (nu.17.190.2072). It presumably comes from Olympia, but appears to have been made in a Lakonian workshop and is dated to c.750725 BC: a nude, tall male wearing a helmet and a belt fights with (?) or embraces (?) a centaur, who is also helmeted; the fragmentary preserved right arm of the centaur was originally raised, and he probably carried a non-preserved object (a brunch ?).864 The male is shown much taller than the centaur, what may have been an intentional indication of his superiority, physical or any other, over the creature. Some scholars believe that traces of a spearhead or those of a sword tip may be recognized on the centaur’s left flank suggesting that the male is adverse to the centaur and pierces him with the weapon, which he could hold in his right hand.865 It has appeared very tempting to connect this composition with various mythic themes, as Zeus and Typhon,866 Zeus and Kronos, Herakles and the centaur Nessos, Herakles and the centaur Pholos, Peleus and the centaur Cheiron, a Lapith and a Centaur.867 However, the highly conventional

The small bronze objects from Olympia dated to the Proto-Geometric – Geometric periods include pins, fibulae, finger-rings, bracelets, and miniature double axes, all found in various spots of the sanctuary.872 These seem to have been dedicated to the early Olympian divinities as especially valuable gifts. The recent study of the EIA pottery fragments found in the sanctuary has shown that they mainly belonged to drinking vessels, as flat cups and kantharoi, while other shapes, as kraters and pouring vessels, are represented by a far smaller number. However, one possible ProtoGeometric large-sized, seemingly ritual, krater has been reconstructed from the available pottery fragments. It has been concluded that especially drinking, but also pouring ceremonies were held in the Olympian sanctuary during the 10th – 8th centuries BC, as it was practiced earlier, in the Sub-Mycenaean time, and, perhaps, later, in the Early Archaic period.873

859

Palmer (1958) 64. Palmer (1958) 66. 861 Zolotnikova (2004) 65. 862 Kunze (1940-1941) 107-108, pl.31.1; Γιαλούρη and Γιαλούρης (1999) 44, 48, Mus.nu. B 1750. 863 Kunze (1940-1941) 107 n. 2. 864 Hampe (1936) 32-33, pl.30.1; Richter (1953) 22; Fittschen (1969) 111, SB 1; Tiverios (1997) 317, nu.14; Ahlberg-Cornell (1992) 25-26, fig.26. 865 Tiverios (1997) 317, nu.14. 866 Buschor (1934) 130. 867 Tiverios (1997) 317, nu.14; Ahlberg-Cornell (1992) 25-26. 860

868

Heilmeyer (1972) nus.3-7, 9-13, 16, 19-20, 25-37, 4350 (bulls/oxen), pp.20-31, nus.53-111 (horses), nus.8, 1418, 22-24, 38-42, 51-52 (rams), nus.210-219 (dogs). 869 Willemsen (1957) pl.58; Heilmeyer (1979) pls.8-11. 870 Heilmeyer (1979) pls.1-120. 871 Heilmeyer (1979) pls.12-119. 872 Philipp (1981) 34-36, 38-43, 44-46, 114-115, 139-142, 196-202, 261-265, 345. 873 Eder (2001c) 204; Kyrieleis (2006) 215-246, nus.5-109 (EIA kylikes, kraters, skyphoi). 96

The consideration of the EIA material from Olympia may be summarized as the following. The worship of a male deity on the territory of Altis may be attested from the Proto-Geometric / beginning of the Early Geometric period due to the significant number of the discovered votive terracotta figurines representing males. Moreover, there is some scattered evidence permitting tracing the beginning of the cult activity in Altis back to the LH IIIC / Sub-Mycenaean periods. It may be argued that the early Olympian votive terracotta male figurines were intended to recall the supposed image of the central male deity of the sanctuary. The total amount of the found votive male terracotta figurines and their earlier appearance in comparison with the number and the date of the EIA votive female terracotta representations suggest the original primacy of the male deity in the Olympian cult. The earliest available epigraphic documents dated from the 6th century BC make possible the secure identification of the male deity worshiped in the Olympian sanctuary during the Proto-Geometric – Geometric periods with Zeus.874 Furthermore, it should be stressed that the earliest epigraphic documents from Olympia refer to Zeus as the main deity of the sanctuary.

Except that, it is probable that the remains of the prehistoric settlement, especially those enclosed in the precinct of Pelops in the 7th century BC, were still visible and appeared in form of a mound, which must have had a special significance for the early sanctuary. However, the exact cultic role of the prehistoric remains and the way of their possible involvement in the Olympian ritual practice during the EIA are not known. The earliest Stadium was laid out in the sanctuary around the late 8th or the early 7th century BC: it originally extended from the central part of Altis, which is the area between the Great Ash Altar and the later Temple of Zeus, towards the south-eastern foot of the Kronion hill.876 Male sexuality visually pronounced in the votive terracotta male figurines gives grounds to presume that early Olympian Zeus personified for his worshipers the notion of male fertilizing power. Possible traces of a beard seen in one of the earliest votive figurines may indicate that Zeus was from the beginning worshiped in Olympia as a mature god. These characteristics seem to correspond to the idea of fatherhood underlying the worship of the Indo-European God of the clear sky and reflected in the basic Homeric designation of Zeus as Ζεύς πατήρ.

The absence of the secure Geometric architectural remains, perhaps, points to the hypaethral (open-air) character of the initial cult, or to the natural association of the worshiped god with the sky. This feature corresponds to the nature of the original concept of Zeus, the god of the clear sky. Zeus’ ash altar was almost undoubtedly the focus of the Olympian sanctuary and its activities from the time of the sanctuary’s establishment. However, it is still uncertain whether the beginning of the cult was connected with the foundation of the Great Ash Altar at the approximate center of Altis or with the dedication to the god of an earlier and more moderate ash altar at the north-western edge of the later Pelopion. Judging by the analogy with the cult of Zeus in Dodona, where the earliest sacred territory was possibly delimited by tripods composed in a circle (see above, 3.1.1. Dodona), it may be hypothesized that some of the numerous Olympian tripods had served the purposes of the hypaethral cult, presumably surrounding the god’s altar. If the recent conclusion of the German archaeologists regarding the EIA date for the House 7’ is not acceptable, hence the EIA Olympian sanctuary should be identified as an openair temenos, probably without strict boundaries, which comprised the territory lying between the southern slope of the Kronion hill, the Temple of Hera, the Pelopion, and the west side of the Metroon.875 Otherwise, it should be noted such a possible common feature in the architectural arrangement of the EIA sanctuaries of Zeus at Olympia, Tourkovounia, and Dodona as oval building.

Perhaps, early Zeus of Olympia was regarded as a god deeply concerned about wealth and prosperity of farming communities, which were much dependent on health and reproduction of cattle. This may be inferred from a great number of the EIA clay and bronze figurines of domesticated animals found in the sanctuary. There are plausible indications that early Olympian Zeus was worshiped as a warlike god and as such would have resembled some other Indo-European gods of the clear sky, who had prominent warlike characteristics, as German T(e)iwaz, English Tiu and Norse Tyr, as well as Homeric Zeus. The specific for the early Greek epic diction association of Zeus-god of the clear sky with a victorious storm-god, too, could have stimulated the appearance of military characteristics in the early religious concept of Zeus in general. However, secure indications of the association of the storm-god’s concept with the cult of Zeus in Olympia during the EIA are lacking. Numerous tripods and cauldrons dedicated to the sanctuary suggest that already in the beginning of the EIA, athletic contests constituted important part of the sanctuary activities and thus played a remarkable role in the cult of Zeus, the sanctuary’s main deity. If the Great Ash Altar of Zeus had already been set by the end of the 8th century BC, the first Stadium would have had its starting point only some meters to the south from the Altar (see above), which, too, may indicate the original involvement of the Olympian competitions in the worship of Zeus (note Paus. 5.8.2). In fact, certain references of the ancient tradition related to Olympia (Hom. Il. 11.698-

874

The earliest Elean inscriptions containing the name of Olympian Zeus, in the forms of the dative “Ζὶ Ὀλυνπίοι” and “Δὶ Ὀλυνπίοι”, belong to the beginning of the 6th century BC, see Dittenberger and Purgold (1896) nu.1, lines 7 and 8; nu.2, line 5; nu.3, line 4; nu.5, line 4; also Buck (1999) 259-262. 875 Bergquist (1967) 39-40.

876

Whitley (2001) 154-155.

97

701; Strab. 8.3.30; Paus. 5.7.6-8.5) tend to imply that the Olympian athletic festival started to be held as a local event aimed at honouring Zeus centuries before the year 776 BC. Perhaps, around the last quarter of the 8th century BC, according to the tripods’ provenance, the Olympian contest began to be seen prestigious outside Elis and started to attract more and more participants from various areas of Greece.877

word αὐγή, “sun-rise”, indicates that the deified notion of sun-shine, which is directly related to the concept of the Indo-European God of the clear sky, occurred in Elis during the Mycenaean time. One of the Elean kings supposedly associated with the Post-Mycenaean context was mentioned by Pausanias under the name Δῖος (Paus. 5.4.1), which clearly reflects a tradition of the veneration of Zeus in Elis. Remarkably, the passage of the Iliad 11.726-727, which was probably borrowed by Homer from the Aeolian epic, while seems to represent local Elean pre-Aetolian sagas, refers to a sacrifice performed to Διὶ . Ὑπερμενεῖ at the stream of Alpheios at a midday / “ἔνδιοι” (Hom. Il. 11.726-727). This epic event may have recalled the association of Zeus in Elis during the prehistoric (pre-Aetolian) and even in the EIA (Aetolian) periods with the concept of daylight, as it is actually supposed for a god derived from and having the qualities of the Indo-European God of the clear sky.

It may be accepted that Zeus was worshiped in the early Olympian sanctuary in pair with the goddess Hera, whose identity is established on the basis of the later evidence.878 The traditional opinion that the cult of Zeus in Olympia had been preceded by a cult of a female deity879 may not be sufficiently confirmed by the present archaeological evidence. As for the fact that the temple of Hera antedates all the other historical cult buildings securely identified on the territory of the sanctuary, this may be explained by the essence of the concept of this goddess, who was mainly worshiped as a protectress of family and femininity and thus was associated with the house, especially with its interior: the goddess of family should be worshiped inside a “house”, that is, in a temple, while the god of the sky would mainly need the sky, that is, the open air, and, perhaps, did not especially require a temple.

The day of the vernal equinox, falling on the Elean month

Ἐλάφιος, was especially significant for the sanctuary of

Zeus in Olympia: on that day, the priests called Βασίλαι performed sacrifices on the Kronion hill, remarkably referred to in poetry as “the sunny hill of Kronos” / “εὐδείελον Κρόνιον” (Pind. Ol. 1.112), though Pausanias believed that those sacrifices were supposed for Kronos (Paus. 6.20.1). The Kronion hill, which marks the northern boundary of the sanctuary, was quite probably occupied by a settlement during the Late Mycenaean period; hence, the celebration of the vernal equinox observed on it in the historic time may have had prehistoric roots.

Concerning the forms of the religious practice, the pottery finds suggest that ritual drinking, libations of wine, and, possibly, common meals in honour of the worshiped god (or the divine couple) were especially favoured in the Olympian sanctuary during the EIA, as in various other contemporary sanctuaries. Burnt sacrifices must have been offered to Zeus whether on the ash altar, which gradually became the Great one, or on its predecessor - a small ash altar, which may have been located at the north-western part of the later Pelopion.

In the historic time, the sacrifices performed at the vernal equinox on the Kronion hill were followed by a ritual renovation of the Great Ash Altar of Zeus on the 19th day of the same month (Paus. 5.13.11). This celebration, thoroughly described by Pausanias, may be considered one of the oldest and most conservative elements of the cult: it would have originated in the initial religious practice of the sanctuary and therefore must have been based on the original perception of the god. According to the ancient tradition, the ashes used for the renovation of the Altar had to be mixed with the water of Alpheios only, because that river was thought of as the dearest one to Olympian Zeus (Paus. 5.13.11). It is significant that, from the etymological point of view, the name of the river Ἀλφειός literally means “white”, since it is derived from the Indo-European root *al(e)-bh- expressing the notion of whiteness (note also the old Latin river-name Albula).880 Another essential element of the ceremony was the use of the wood of λεύκη (white poplar) alone (Paus. 5.14.2). These two necessary details of the renovation of the Great Ash Altar of Zeus in Olympia – the wood of “white tree” and the water of the “white river” - in combination with the time of the observance of the ritual were, perhaps, supposed to emphasize that the

Further important indications of the nature and approximate forms of the early Olympian cult may be drawn from the consideration and cross-interpretation of some other relevant evidence. Thus, as it has been mentioned above, the old Leprean cult of Zeus Leukaios / Λευκαῖος (Paus. 5.5.5), that is, of Zeus the god of whiteness, was most probably based on the idea of daylight and may have had its origin in the Indo-European pre-Greek or early Greek religious beliefs. This might suggest that the Indo-European God of the clear sky in any of his forms was venerated on the Elean territory from the prehistoric time onward. Characteristically, the name of the mythic Elean king Augeas / Αὐγέας, which is formed on the basis of the 877

Morgan (1990) 47-48. For the ancient tradition regarding the history of the Olympian festival, see the study by Mahaffy (1881). 878 For the significance of the cult of Hera in the Olympian sanctuary, see Serwint (1993) 404-406, 419422. 879 Parke (1967) 181.

880

Chantraine (1968) 67 (ἀλφός).

98

ceremony was virtually held in honour of the god of the daylight or sun-shine and was meant to celebrate the advance of the day over the night after the vernal equinox. Thus, it may be inferred that the concept underlying the cult of Zeus in Olympia was originally and insistently based on the idea of daylight.

1.24.2, 9.34.5, see above, 3.1.3/4), and in the cult of Zeus Aktaios at Mt. Pelion.887 On a hypothetical basis, it may be supposed that the Olympian votive figurines representing a “Charioteer” recalled the traditional Indo-European image of a solar deity crossing the sky in his chariot. This could also testify to the original solar nature of early Olympian Zeus and to his prime functions as those of a sun-god.

The precise origin of the Olympian games and their initial conceptual basis still require a special consideration. In general, it is assumed that the Olympian contest, likewise a number of other important athletic festivals, developed from the worship of a Mycenaean hero and that it started as a form of the cult of Pelops.881 It may, however, be objected that the athletic festival at Olympia was specifically held in honour of Zeus (Paus. 5.8.2). Furthermore, it should be pointed out that in Greece, the traditional time, during which the Olympian games took place – at the first or the second full moon after the summer solstice,882 is, in fact, highly inconvenient for open-air athletic competitions because of the midsummer heat. Hence, the choice of this time would have been subject to that special significance, which the given phase of summer had for the Olympian sanctuary of Zeus. Concerning this, it deserves to be noted that in many Indo-European and non-IndoEuropean cultures, the days following the summer solstice after some interval (the second half of July - the first half of August) are attested as universally symbolical: in the conditions of a notable decrease of the daytime, various celebrations are known to have been practiced in quite different religious systems, in the prehistoric, historic, and even modern times, in order to mark the decline of the sun from the highest point.883 The Olympian festival seems related to that tradition. Finally, it appears to have been the sun’s cycle, which was symbolized in the custom to hold the Olympian celebration in four years intervals, given that the number “four”, according to the old Greek religious ideas, had a connection with the nature of the sun.884 All these details seem to indicate the solar and daylight orientation of the basic concept, which had initially underlain the athletic festival held in the sanctuary of Zeus in Olympia.

Finally, it may be pointed out the circumstance that some of the statues of Zeus in Olympia, according to the description by Pausanias, were oriented on the positions of the sun – the sun-rise and the sun-set (Paus. 5.22.5, 5.24.3, 5.24.8), which actually mark the day phases. An intentional allusion to the idea of daylight might be seen in the actions of those, who installed Zeus’ statues in such ways. To summarize the presented evidence, it appears that some basic and, perhaps, the most ancient elements in the cult of Zeus in Olympia, deliberately preserved through more than a thousand years, expressed the notions of the clear sky, daylight, and sun. It may, hence, be argued that the establishment of the cult of Zeus in Olympia at the end of the LBA – beginning of the EIA was based on the god’s original concept, according to which he was perceived as a deity of the clear, shining sky and represented the Greek version of the Indo-European God of the clear sky *t’y-eu-s/*t’ei-w(o)-s/*t’iu(n)- (see Chapter 1, 1.3.1. Zeus as a god of the clear sky. Ζεύς / Ζεύς πατήρ). In relation to this conclusion, attention should be given to the formulaic Homeric expression “Ἥλις δῖα” (Hom. Il. 2.615, 11.686, 698). Given that it developed out of the Aeolian formula “Fάλις δῖα”, the epithet δῖα must have been associated with Elis before Homer, during the Aeolian phase of the epic diction, perhaps by the settled there Aetolians. This circumstance makes it possible to assume that, having conquered Elis, the Aetolians faced and recognized a special attitude of its indigenous population towards the old Indo-European Goddess of the clear sky, who was venerated among the prehistoric Greeks as *Diwija / Myc. di-u-ja > ΔιFια > δῖα (see Chapter 1, 1.3.1. Zeus as a god of the clear sky. Zeus’ original female counterpart: her identity and evolution).

The original connotations of the sun in the cult of Zeus in Olympia might also be implied in the votive figurines of a ram, given that in the Greek religion this animal was commonly associated to the solar nature.885 Notably, Olympia was not the single case exemplifying cultic links between Zeus and the ram: the ram-element may clearly be recognized in the cult of Zeus Μηλώσιος (“of sheep skin”) practiced at Mt. Ζas in Naxos,886 in both the cults of Zeus Laphystios, in Boeotia and Thessalia (Paus.

At the end of the 7th – beginning of the 6th centuries BC, the Archaic temple of Hera in Olympia was adorned with the terracotta akroterion, which was made as a large disc (2.45m in diameter) decorated with relief and painted concentric circles (Museum of Olympia, nu.Π 2969);888 it seemed to resemble the shining sun. The decoration of the temple of Hera with such an akroterion889 may have

881

Protonotariou-Deilaki (1990) 82-83. Miller (1975) 231. 883 Langdon (1935) 123-126; Toporov and Ivanov (1994). 884 Roes (1933) 36. 885 Cook (1914) 429 n.3. 886 Κουμιώτου-Παπαδοπούλου (1994) 156-157. 882

887

Cook (1914) 420-421; Cook (1940) 31-32. Yalouris (1972). 889 For the origins of akroteria and their possible symbolic significance in the Archaic architecture, see Mallwitz 888

99

been a reflection of solar and shining characteristics in the concept of early Olympian Hera. Accordingly, the discussed akroterion of the temple of Hera could symbolize for worshipers the original shining nature of the goddess. This presumption gives certain grounds for considering the initial cult of Hera at Olympia that final form, which the veneration of the old Greek IndoEuropean goddess of the clear, shining sky took in Elis by the end of the Bronze Age – beginning of the Early Iron Age.

“the oracle on the summit of the altar of Zeus”, believed to have been established by Iamos, the son of Apollo, approximately after the institution of the Olympian games by Herakles (Pind. Ol. 6.64-70), that is, tentatively in the second half of the 8th century BC or even later.891 However, there is no actual evidence to date the beginning of functioning of the oracle in Olympia with certainty. According to Pausanias, the oracle of Earth also functioned in Altis “in more ancient days”, in Earth’s sanctuary Gaeum (Paus. 5.14.10), but the context of Pausanias’ phrase (“τὰ δὲ ἔτι ἀρχαιότερα καὶ μαντεῖον τῆς Γῆς αὐτόθι εἶναι λέγουσιν”) does not really indicate that Olympian Zeus inherited the oracle from Earth. Moreover, the ability to know the predestined, attributed to Olympian Zeus, would have supposed the recognition of his omniscience, which was a characteristic feature of Zeus in general, explained in mythological terms by his position as that of the eldest god (Hom. Il. 13.355). The Olympian oracle of Zeus was attended by two prophetic families – the Iamidai and the Klytidai (Paus. 6.17.6). The will of the god was revealed on the top of Zeus’ Great Ash Altar through the behavior of the sacrifice itself.892 The oracle of Zeus in Olympia did not play so important historic and religious role as that in Dodona or the oracle of Apollo in Delphi;893 it was mainly requested by athletes regarding the possibility of their success in the Olympian games (Pind. Ol. 8.1-7).

Thus, based on all the above made observations, it seems possible to argue that Zeus and Hera were worshiped at Olympia as the divine couple, which was essentially a later Greek variation of the traditional Indo-European supreme pair of the divinities of the clear sky - a brother and a sister / a husband and a wife. As it has been shown, Zeus and Diwija represented those supreme IndoEuropean divinities in the original Greek pantheon (see Chapter 1, 1.3.1. Zeus as a god of the clear sky. Zeus’ original female counterpart: her identity and evolution).890 These two old Greek deities would have been venerated in Elis, in any form and in any association to each other, from the Early Helladic II-III periods, and their concepts must have been maintained in the Elean system of religious beliefs until the end of the Bronze Age, not necessarily linked to a particular place. The emergence of the sanctuary of Zeus and Hera at Olympia in the LH IIIC / Sub-Mycenaean – Proto-Geometric periods may, therefore, be regarded as a result of the lengthy development of the old Elean belief in the original supreme Greek divinities of the clear, shining sky - Zeus and Diwija.

3.1.19. Mt. Lykaion (Arkadia)894 The mountain Lykaion in Western Arkadia was the place of worship of Zeus Lykaios / Λυκαῖος. There were always disagreements in the interpretation of the epithet Λυκαῖος, because it gives the impression of having been formed of either the word λύκος “wolf” or the word λύκη “morning twilight”; significantly, the latter has a sufficient number of cognates in the Greek and other Indo-European languages, all derived from the Indo-European root *leukh- (the strong form of the root) / *lukh- (the zerograde form) “to shine”, “to be shining white”.895 The ancient tradition, without providing a decisive explanation of the epithet Λυκαῖος, ascribed to the sanctuary on Mt. Lykaion mysterious events (see below). Thus, on the basis of the available evidence, Zeus Lykaios has been interpreted as a god of light, a god of rain, an agricultural god, and a wolf-god.896 However, the nature of Zeus Lykaios is still discussed.

The epithet Olympios / Ὀλύμπιος applied to Zeus in Olympia, attested in the inscriptions and in the literal sources (e.g., Paus. 5.13.8), must be interpreted as the local, place-name based designation of the god worshiped at this particular territory of Elis. It has to be distinguished from the Thessalian epithet Ὀλύμπιος applied to a northern Greek storm-god, Homeric “Ὀλύμπιος ἀστεροπητής”, who was originally linked to the Thessalian mountain Olympos and was identified with Zeus in the epic diction. However, it might be the influence of the Aetolian-Aeolian ethnic and cultural traditions focused on the worship of that powerful northern Greek storm-god, which gradually caused certain transformations of the original concept of Elean Zeus Olympios, the god of the clear sky, and his eventual association with the stormy phenomena. Analogous results may have had the contacts of the early Olympian sanctuary with Dodona.

891

Parke (1967) 183. Parke (1967) 184. 893 Parke (1967) 164-193. 894 This is a significantly supplemented version of my paper “The cult of Zeus Lykaios”, which was announced at the Third International Seminar on Ancient Arcadia held at the Norwegian Institute at Athens, 7-10 May, 2002, and is published in Ostby (2005) 105-119, see Bibliography: Zolotnikova (2005). 895 Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) v.1, 148-154, 188, 591, 779, v.2, 123; Pokorny (1959) v.1, 687-690 (leuk-); see the list of the IE derivatives from the root *l(e)ukh- in Zolotnikova (2005) 106-107 n.1. 896 Farnell (1896-1909) v.1, 41-42; Cook (1914) 63-89; 892

The later tradition preserved references to the oracle activity in Olympia (Strab. 8.3.30). Pindar mentioned (1968); Lauter-Bufe (1974); Goldberg (1982) esp. pp.202-203, 206 (akroteria in the form of a disc); Stibbe (1996) 123-125. 890 Zolotnikova (2004) 60-61. 100

Pausanias presents the most detailed description of the sanctuary of Zeus Lykaios as it appeared at his days: “…Some Arkadians call it [Mt. Lykaion] Olympos, and others Sacred Peak / “Ἱεράν κορυφήν”. On it, they say, Zeus was reared… The nymphs, by whom they say that Zeus was reared, they call Theisoa, Neda and Agno… Among the marvels of Mount Lykaion the most wonderful is this. On it is a precinct / “τέμενος” of Lykaean Zeus, into which people are not allowed to enter. If anyone takes no notice of the rule and enters, he must inevitably live no longer than a year. A legend… was current that everything alike within the precinct, whether beast or man, cast no shadow. For this reason when a beast takes refuge in the precinct, the hunter will not rush in after it, but remains outside, and though he sees, the beast can behold no shadow. ...The precinct on Mount Lykaion affects shadows in the same way always and at every season.

performance of simple rites (for fertility, purification, etc.) or primitive initiation ceremonies, as well as ritual dancing, so characteristic of the Greek collective behavior in general, could possibly have been among those. To point out, the flat spacious area beneath the very top, later transformed into the temenos, is perfectly suitable for such activities. The Arkadians connected the beginning of the regular worship of Zeus on Mt. Lykaion with the son of Pelasgos, Lykaon: he supposedly founded the sanctuary, “τὸ τοῦ Λυκαῖον Διὸς ἱερὸν… ἐν Παρρασίᾳ” (Schol. at Eur., Or. 1647), and introduced the epithet Lykaios for Zeus (“…Δία ὠνόμασε Λύκαιον…” Paus. 8.2.1), who, as the context of the phrase suggests, seems to have been venerated in association with the mountain even before him. The earliest mention of the altar of Zeus Lykaios in the available sources is by Pindar, Ol. 13.108-109: “…Ἀρκάσιν ἀνάσσων… Λυκαίου βωμὸς ἄναξ”. Some of the mythic and legendary traditions connected the altar on Mt. Lykaion with the terrifying practice of human sacrifice and with the belief that men were changed into wolves at the sacrifices to Zeus Lykaios (Pl. Resp. 565d-e; Paus. 8.2.3, 6).

On the highest point of the mountain is a mound of earth / “γῆς χῶμα”, forming an altar of Zeus Lykaios, and from it the most of the Peloponnesus can be seen. Before the altar towards the rising sun / “ἐπὶ ἀνίσχοντα…ἥλιον” stand two pillars, on which there were of old gilded eagles. On this altar, they sacrifice in secret to Lykaean Zeus…

The altar of Zeus Lykaios was discovered, more than a century ago, on the crest Agios Elias (see Fig.61): it was circular in shape with no architectural character, measured c.3m in diameter, and consisted of ashes and burnt bones (mainly of small animals – goats, sheep, and pigs, but also of oxen, as well as of birds); no human bones have been identified so far.897 It appears likely that the altar had actually been a mound of ashes and earth.898 The earliest dedications found at the altar of Zeus Lykaios during the first excavations (in beginning of the 20th century) were dated tentatively to the Geometric period and more securely to the 6th century BC: they included miniature tripods made of bronze foil and closely resembling little Geometric tripods from Olympia,899 iron knives, a terracotta figurine of a shapeless bird, and 6th century BC Aiginetan coins.900 Remarkably, new important evidence regarding the history of the activity of the altar at Mt. Lykaion has been provided by the latest scientific exploration of the sanctuary (“Mt. Lykaion Excavation and Survey Project”): the excavators report that “numerous examples of Early and Middle Helladic pottery as well as Final Neolithic sherds were uncovered… in nearly all layers of the altar”.901 However, despite these highly remarkable discoveries indicating human activity at the summit of Mt. Lykaion in the Late Neolithic, Early and Middle Helladic periods, the altar itself does not seem to present a clear stratigraphic record, which would indicate with certainty the date of its foundation. Probably, the

Should a drought persist for a long time, and the seeds in the earth and the trees wither, then the priest of Lykaean Zeus praying towards the water and making the usual sacrifices, lowers an oak branch to the surface of the spring, not letting it sink deep. When the water has been stirred up there rises a vapor, like mist; after a time the mist becomes cloud, gathers to itself other clouds, and makes rain fall on the land of the Arkadians… ” (Paus. 8.38.2-7). Pausanias’ report testifies to that the sanctuary of Zeus Lykaios on Mt. Lykaion consisted of an open-air moundlike altar set on the top of the mountain and a precinct lying in some distance from the altar; two columns crowned with eagles were placed in the direction of the rising sun from the altar. It deserves to be noted that the tradition preserves no myth about the foundation of the altar of Zeus on Mt. Lykaion. This circumstance may indicate that the earliest period of the religious activity at the mountain top was obscure for the Arkadian Greeks themselves, possibly because it was connected with their predecessors, the Pelasgians, who were believed to have been the first inhabitants of Arkadia (Paus. 8.1.4). On the other hand, this may mean that the religious use of the summit of Mt. Lykaion did not have a formal start, such as foundation of altar, but had begun spontaneously and was going on for quite a long time, maybe sporadically, in some non-strict forms. Festive gathering, whether regular or occasional, visiting for prayers to higher powers or to a certain deity,

897

Κουρουνιώτης (1904) 162-178. For a new topographical and architectural survey of the sanctuary, see Romano (2005). 898 Κουρουνιώτης (1904) 165; Mylonas (1943) 122. 899 Maass (1978) 215, nus.352, 355, 356. 900 Κουρουνιώτης (1904) 163-170, figs.2-4, 5.4; Morgan (1999b) 407. 901 Romano and Voyatzis (2010) 14.

Piccaluga (1968); Jost (1985) 249-269; Zolotnikova (2005). 101

presence of mixed prehistoric pottery in the altar should be explained by the use of soil, which contained sherds of chronologically different periods, from various areas of the summit for creating at some phase of the cult that “mound of earth”, which was seen and described by Pausanias. Among the unstratified finds coming from the altar, the following should be noted: a number of pottery fragments seemingly of the Late Helladic date, a rock crystal lens-shaped seal bearing the image of a bull with frontal face, likely of the Late Minoan I-II date (15001400 BC), and a small bronze hand holding a silver lightning bolt (approximately 2cm), which apparently remained from some representation of Zeus and might be dated to c.500 BC.902 Significantly, in the Trench Z opened to the south of the altar, over fifty Mycenaean kylikes, “large quantities of Mycenaean sherds from kylikes, stemmed bowls, cups and deep bowls as well as animal figurines, and at least one human figurine” were found.903 According to the excavators, the prehistoric pottery from this trench may be dated from the LH II to the LH IIIC. It has been observed that in the same trench, above the prehistoric level, “the stratigraphy continues to include Dark Age material, as well as Geometric, Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic sherds and objects, in what appears to be a continuous sequence.”904 The detailed analysis of the new finds from the top of Mt. Lykaion is forthcoming, but it is already obvious that such activities of cultic character as collective drinking and offering of votive terracotta figurines, both animal and human, took place close enough to the area of the altar in the Mycenaean period. Based on all the available indications, it seems possible to assume that the ash altar was set at the top of Mt. Lykaion somewhere in the Late Helladic II-III period in order to ritualize the sacral behavior in a certain way, perhaps after centuries of using the summit for informal cult practices. Thus, it may be confirmed the presumption, made ages ago by G. Mylonas, that the sanctuary on Mt. Lykaion developed out of a primitive shrine existing on that peak in prehistoric times.905

above, 3.1.13). The shape of the early Greek altars as a mound may have originated from and continued the commonest Indo-European practice of marking sacred places with mounds, known on the Greek territory from the beginning of the EH II period.907 The available archaeological evidence does not support the legends about human sacrifices on the altar of Zeus Lykaios.908 However, the idea of human sacrifices was persistently associated with the worship of this god and, by itself, may indicate a very primitive concept underlying this cult, as well as its very early origin. The mysterious character of the sacrifices made on the altar of Zeus Lykaios, noted by Pausanias, may have been connected with the fact that the priests of this god formed a specific closed religious group, members of which continued and carefully preserved the initial traditions of the practiced cult. Totally four non-similar marble column bases909 set in a row have been found about 30m below the altar, southeast of it, and about 10m east of the temenos; their position clearly indicates that they were in fact oriented on the rising sun. The chronology of the column bases has not yet been established with certainty.910 The exact architectural function of the columns is not clear: it has been suggested that they may have formed a sort of porch once flanking the access, the “sacred way”, to the altar,911 but the present-day topography of the site does not support this presumption. Perhaps, it may be assumed that the columns were intended to indicate the direction towards the rising sun from the altar and thus to establish the conventional line connecting the altar with the rising sun. The presence of two gilded eagles atop the columns placed in the direction of the rising sun from the altar gives an important indication for the character of the deity worshiped on the summit of Mt. Lykaion: due to their apparent association with the altar, the eagles, most probably, symbolized the god venerated on it. The specific connection of Zeus Lykaios with the eagle is confirmed by the figurines discovered in the temenos912 and seems to have been reflected in the representations on the Arkadian coins.913 Perhaps, an eagle was intended in the terracotta figurine of a bird found in the area of the

Typologically, the altar at Mt. Lykaion belongs to the group of simple, open-air ash altars, which were widely used in the early Greek cult practice.906 Specifically, the mound-like earth-and-ash altar of Zeus Lykaios may be compared with the Great Ash Altar of Zeus at Olympia, which resembled a mound (Paus. 5.13.11) and was the focal element of the Olympian sanctuary (see above, 3.1.18. Olympia. The sanctuary in the EIA). The EIA altar of Zeus at Mt. Fokas (Phoukas-Apesas) in Korinthia may, likewise, have been made as a magnificent mound of ashes, burnt earth and ritually broken pottery (see

907

Pelon (1976); Gimbutas (1997) 169-170. This problem was especially discussed by Hughes (1991) 96-107. 909 Paus. 4.22.7, and Polyb. 4.33, mention that two of the columns - those bearing the gilded eagles - were dedicated to the sanctuary by the Arkadians and the Messenians. 910 Κουρουνιώτης (1904) 171-176. 911 Jost (1994) 224. 912 Κουρουνιώτης (1904) figs.8-10 (see Fig.64), 18-19. 913 Gardner (1887) pls.31.10 – 32.9 – coins of Arkadia (480-417 BC), with the image of Zeus and a flying eagle. 908

902

See for the 2004-2009 field seasons reports the website “Mt. Lykaion Excavation and Survey Project”, http://lykaionexcavation.org/. 903 Romano and Voyatzis (2010) 13-14; Romano (2011) 11. 904 Romano and Voyatzis (2010) 14; Romano (2011) 11. 905 Mylonas (1943) 132. 906 E.g. Hom. Il. 8.238-240, and especially Rupp 1983. 102

altar during the early excavations.914 The eagle may be considered the most common form of the supposed manifestations of Zeus in the Classical Greek mythology (e.g. Hom. Il. 8.247, 12.200-210, Od. 2.146-147; Aesch. Ag. 110-138, 136) and probably was one of the god’s initial imaginary shapes in the early Greek religion.915 In the Indo-European, including Greek, religious and mythological symbolism, the eagle was naturally linked to the sky, as well as to the solar nature.916 Thus, the universal symbolic meaning of the eagle, the presence of the eagle in the cult of Zeus Lykaios, and the position of the eagle-bearing columns in the sanctuary on Mt. Lykaion towards the rising sun - all indicate a sort of celestial / solar nature in the concept underlying the cult of this god.

that on Mt. Lykaion, did not have an entrance (Paus. 8.30.2) and, accordingly, was not supposed to be entered, too. The belief that the person who had entered the temenos of Zeus Lykaios would inevitably die one year after is not commented in the available sources, but it might point to a connection between the cult and the annual course of the sun. Plutarch mentioned that the Arkadians stoned those who voluntarily entered the temenos of Zeus Lykaios (Plut. Quest. Graec. 39): this remark may mean that violators of the abaton of Zeus Lykaios were ritually executed on behalf of the god. Plutarch also mentioned that anyone who had entered the temenos of Zeus Lykaios by ignorance was called “ἔλαφος” / a “deer” (Plut. Quest. Graec. 39). In many Indo-European religions and mythologies, including those of the Greeks, a deer, a stag, and an elk were animals with the cultic significance directly connected with the sky and the sun; they were also considered the animals of celestial and solar deities.923 The solarcelestial symbolism of the deer goes back to the earliest religious traditions and has been sufficiently attested.924 It is assumed that the animal usually sacrificed to a deity may indicate his/her previous animal shape.925 It is remarkable that in the Iliad Zeus himself sent from the sky a young deer to be sacrificed to him (Hom. Il. 8.247249). Except that, it may be noted that the Late Geometric bronze figured attachments of tripods representing stags were found in the sanctuary of Zeus in Olympia.926 Since the person who had entered the precinct of Zeus Lykaios was probably considered to have been dedicated to the god, the designation of such a person as a “deer” might recall local ideas about the original appearance of Zeus Lykaios. The celestial semantics connected with the deer linked this animal to the eagle.927 Therefore, the eagles on the columns in the god’s sanctuary and the reference to a deer in association with his temenos may have been related to the same idea.

The temenos of Zeus Lykaios has been identified some 20m below the summit, on the level now called “Taverna”; at the time of the early excavations, it was defined by a line of unworked stones and measured approximately 55m x 120m917 (Fig.62). The votives discovered here (notably, a number of bronze figurines) were deposited within the holes in the bedrock; they date back to the 7th century BC, the earliest being the products of a local workshop.918 No traces of any architectural construction have been found inside the precinct.919 The hypaethral character of the sanctuary atop Mt. Lykaion indicates that Zeus Lykaios was worshiped under the open sky, in very simple forms, throughout the whole Antiquity. Perhaps, the nature of his basic concept required the direct connection of his cult with the open sky. The total area occupied by the sanctuary at the top of Mt. Lykaion, including the altar and the temenos, is about 0.5 square kilometers.920 The character of the temenos of Zeus Lykaios as that of an abaton is not quite clear. However, the status of abaton is normally applied to the holy of holies of a sacred place and is intended to protect the most venerable spots. This interpretation, as well as the absence of the settlement evidence from the site and its closest environs,921 suggests that the southern slope of Mt. Lykaion was never supposed for ordinary human activities and was always approached with extreme piety.922 It is noteworthy that the temenos of Zeus Lykaios in Megalopolis, probably secondary in relation to

923

Roes (1933) 107, 109-110; Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) v.1, 408. Note also the ancient Greek months Ἐλάφιος in Elis and Ἐλαφιβολιών in Attica, which included the day of the vernal equinox. 924 Golan (1991) 49-62, figs.62-63. It originates from the symbolic function of the deer in the primitive imagery of the world structure: it was believed that the magnificent antlers of this animal reach the conventional upper sphere, so that he carries on them the sun throughout a year. It also deserves to be noted a recently discovered at Tiryns clay figurine of a deer (c.600 BC), which has an astral or a solar symbol on its forehead, Arch.Anz. (2000) 574-575, fig.3. 925 Cook (1894) 160. 926 Heilmeyer (1979) pl.87, figs.721-723. 927 Note a bronze figurine from Asia Minor, c.2000 BC.: an eagle sitting upon the sprouting horns of a stag (Louvre, inv.AM.410), Roes (1933) 113-114, fig.96; Golan (1991) 52, fig.62.4.

914

Κουρουνιώτης (1904) 166. However, Mylonas (1945-1946) 203-207, argued against a close link between Zeus and the eagle at the initial phase of the Greek religion. 916 Ivanov and Toporov (1994e). 917 Κουρουνιώτης (1904) 161-162,179-214. 918 Morgan (1999b) 407. 919 Κουρουνιώτης (1904) 178-179; Jost (1985) 181. 920 Romano (2006) 11. 921 Morgan (1999b) 407. 922 This opinion was expressed by Κουρουνιώτης (1904) 179. 915

103

The connection of Zeus Lykaios with the deer gives more grounds for recognizing solar motives in his concept.

nude standing Zeus brandishing a thunderbolt in his raised right hand and supporting an eagle on his outstretched left one; the figurine was originally attached to a bigger object, perhaps to a tripod or a cauldron932 (Fig.64). To date, it is the earliest known votive representation of Zeus with a preserved attribute of a storm-deity.933 Therefore, it may be attested that from as early as the late seventh century BC Zeus Lykaios was worshiped as also a storm-god. The rain-magic performed by the priests of Zeus Lykaios, too, might be related to the concept of a storm-deity, but it must be stressed that prayers for rain were addressed to the water of the spring Hagno (Paus. 8.38.4), not to Zeus.934

The stories about the loss of shadow inside the temenos of Zeus Lykaios were variously interpreted and even doubted already in ancient times (Plut. Quest. Graec. 39). However, there were also attempts to explain those legends on the basis of the phenomena of sun and light: thus, the historian Theopompos from Chios (4th century BC) argued that those who enter the abaton of Zeus in Arkadia “are placed in light” / “ἐν φωτὶ τεθέμενα” (FgrH, Theopomp. 115, F 343). In relation to this interpretation, it should be noted that because of the location on the southern slope of the mountain, the temenos of Zeus Lykaios is actually exposed to the sun throughout the whole daytime.

Among the dedications found in the precinct, a remarkable number of figurines of Hermes have been noted.935 The function of Hermes as that of the god’s messenger gives grounds to presume that some sort of divination took place in the sanctuary of Zeus Lykaios.

All the above indications of the solar elements in the cult of Zeus Lykaios justify the derivation of the epithet Λυκαῖος from the Indo-European root *leukh-/*lukh- “to shine”, “to be shining white”. On the etymological grounds, Arkadian Zeus Λυκαῖος may directly be related to Zeus Λευκαῖος “White Zeus” worshiped in Triphylia (Paus. 5.5.6), to the Roman god Jupiter Lucetius / (vocative) Leucesie “Shining-white Jupiter”,928 and to the Russian term “white day” (belyj den’, the day-time or daylight), while Ζεύς, Jupiter and den’ (day) are cognate forms derived from the designation of the Indo-European god of the clear sky *t’yeu-s / *teiw(o)-s / *t’iu(n-) < *t’y-/*t’ei-/*t’iu- “to shine”929 (see also above, 3.1.18. Olympia. The prehistory of the sanctuary). As a rule, the direct etymological relation established between compound divine names and religious terms, which are identified in different Indo-European languages, points to a single proto-name or a proto-term as their common source and thus permits tracing them back to the ProtoIndo-European religious lexicon. Apart from this, a very early, perhaps even pre-Greek, origin of the epithet Lykaios, as that of the name of the mountain Lykaion, may correspond to the pre-Greek origin of the name Παρρασίη / Παρρασία applied to the territory, where Mt. Lykaion is located.930 In relation to this, the claim of the Arkadians that Zeus was born and reared on Mt. Lykaion (Paus. 8.28.2, 8.36.3, 8.38.2) deserves attention: the idea of the local origin of Zeus must have been based on the continuous worship of him in any association with the mountain from a very remote date. This presumption might find certain support in the belief about the foundation of the sanctuary by a son of Pelasgos (Paus. 8.2.1).

A bronze κνημίς found on the territory of the sanctuary bears a fragmentary inscription dated to the 5th century BC: it contains the names of Zeus Lykaios and Athena.936 At present, it is the sole indication of the association of Zeus Lykaios with a female deity. Until now, no material evidence (as figurines, attributes supplementing the discovered representations of the god, inscriptions, or representations of Zeus Lykaios on the Arkadian coins) has been found to indicate a wolfelement in the cult of Zeus Lykaios as it was actually practiced. The cult of Zeus Lykaios as the major cult at Mt. Lykaion must have been connected with the periodic competitive festival- ἀγών Λύκαια, which, according to the tradition, was instituted by Lykaon following the foundation of the Olympian games by Herakles, but earlier than the Panathenaean celebration started to be observed at Athens (Paus. 8.2.1). Some legends told that human sacrifices were offered to Zeus Lykaios at the Lykaean festival (Porph. Abst. 2.27; Euseb. Praep. evang. 4.16.10). Pindar, providing the earliest known reference to the Lykaean games, connected them with the cult of Zeus Lykaios: “…Lykaion [mountain] set beside the racecourse of Zeus for men to win with strength of feet and hands” (Pind. Nem. 10.48-49). In the Classical and later times, the athletic competitions took place at a remarkable distance from the sanctuary of Zeus, at the northern foot of Mt. Lykaion, near the grove surrounding the sanctuary of Pan (Paus. 8.38.5),937 while priests of

Four bronze figurines (including a fragmentary one) of Zeus Lykaios and a bronze statue of the god enthroned (Fig.63) have been found on the territory of the temenos.931 The earliest of the figurines, dated to the end of the 7th – beginning of the 6th century BC, represents

932

Lamb (1925-1926) 140, nu.17; Tiverios (1997) 319 nu.27. 933 According to the evidence presented by Tiverios (1997) 315-319. 934 This circumstance had been emphasized by Morgan (1901) 95. 935 Kourouniotis (1904) figs. 20-23, pls. 9-10. 936 Κουρουνιώτης (1904) 210-211, fig.26; IG 5.2.551. 937 For the early excavation of the Stadium, the

928

Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) v.1, 698. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) v.1, 196. 930 Haley (1928) 144-145. 931 Κουρουνιώτης (1904) figs.8-10, 11, 15, 16, and 12-14. 929

104

Lykaean Pan were the eponyms of the games.938 The festival was presumably held in April or beginning of May939 and thus possibly had a seasonal significance celebrating the flowering of nature. However, in fact, it is not known when the Lykaean games were really held, what the religious details of the festival were and how precisely this celebration was connected with Zeus Lykaios. The Romans compared the Arkadian Λύκαια with their very ancient festival Lupercalia (Ov. Fast. 2.423-24), which was held on the 15th day of February and was basically a purification festival for the protection of flocks and herds, as well as for the promotion of fertility in men, beasts, and crops.940

belief that a supposed transformation of a man to a wolf was connected with the execution of certain sacral duties to Zeus Lykaios (as offering a human sacrifice to the god, consumption of a sacrificed human victim, and, perhaps, performance of ordinary sacrifices)942 might be explained by the specific character of Lykaean Zeus’ priesthood, which may have represented the primitive religious tradition of priests-werewolves.943 It is also very much possible that some of the early Greek tribes, which settled in the territory around Mt. Lykaion in the prehistoric time, worshiped a totemic wolf-deity and regularly dedicated to it one of them in a symbolic way, by excommunicating a person chosen by lot for a certain period of time. According to ancient authors, this tradition survived in Arkadia until the late ancient time (note Plin. HN 8.81-82).944 A possibility to interpret the old, perhaps, pre-Greek epithet of the god in a wolfsense, in terms of the later Greek language, must have given more grounds for confusing Zeus Λυκαῖος with a wolf-deity.

All the reviewed evidence leads to the conclusion that the god worshiped as Zeus Λυκαῖος was originally and essentially a deity of the clear sky and sun. The solarshining nature of Zeus Lykaios had virtually been expressed in his epithet formed on the basis of the IndoEuropean root *l(e)ukh- “to shine”. This conclusion allows us to consider Arkadian Zeus Lykaios a direct continuation of the Proto-Indo-European God of the clear sky *t’yues941 (see Chapter 1, 1.3.1. Zeus as a god of the clear sky. Ζεύς / Ζεύς πατήρ). It may be argued that a male divine concept related to the shining, day sky and to the sun had been linked, in some way, to Mt. Lykaion in the pre-Greek period, perhaps at the beginning of the Indo-European presence in Arkadia, which may approximately be dated from the Late Neolithic - Early Bronze Age. Those early Greeks who settled in Arkadia towards the end of the Early Bronze Age must have completely recognized the religious significance of the mountain, identified its original divine master with Zeus and continuously worshiped him as a god with the shining-solar nature on the summit of Mt. Lykaion. Initially, that worship would have been observed in the conditions of natural environment appropriate for a primitive god of the clear sky, and eventually - in the sanctuary comprising the mound-like ash altar and the inaccessible temenos. The association of Zeus Lykaios with the concept of a storm-god is securely traced only from the late 7th century BC due to the discovered statuette of the god with a thunderbolt. In fact, this statuette is the earliest material evidence for the worship of Zeus as a storm-god in the Greek religion. There are no material indications of the wolf-nature of Zeus Lykaios.

3.1.20. Mt. Ithome (Messenia) In Messenia, there was the important sanctuary of Zeus Ithomatas / Ἰθωμάτας, located on the top of Mt. Ithome (+802m, see Fig.65a): “Διὸς τὸ ἐπὶ τῇ κορυφῇ τῆς Ἰθώμης τέμενος” (Paus. 4.3.9). According to the Messenian tradition, new-born Zeus, “after he was stolen by the Kouretes owing to the danger that threatened from his father [Kronos]”, was bathed in the spring Klepsydra running at the southern foot of Mt. Ithome, by two nymphs – Ithome and Neda, who were also said to have nursed him at the mountain (Paus. 4.33.1). The sanctuary of Zeus on the summit of Mt. Ithome was believed to have been established by the mythic first Messenian king Polykaon and his wife Messene (Paus. 4.1.2; 4.3.9). In regard to this tradition, it should be noted that human activities at the southern foot of Mt. Ithome, at the site of of Ancient Messene (near the modern Mavromati village), are traced back to the Late Neolithic time - Early Bronze Age, and that there are also indications of the Mycenaean occupation of the territory. In the ProtoGeometric – Gemetric periods, a settlement, indicated by non-stratified pottery finds, must have existed at the site of the ancient city.945 According to the Messenian tradition, the Dorian king of Messenia Glaukos (approximately end of the 9th – beginning of the 8th centuries BC) made the Dorians, who settled among the old Messenian population after the “return of Heraklides”, to honour the precinct of Zeus on the summit of Ithome (Paus. 4.3.9). The referred to local beliefs, associated with the established historical chronology, may indicate that the summit of Mt. Ithome had religious significance for the population of Messenia

The rejection of the wolf-etymology of the epithet Λυκαῖος causes the question of the relation of the legends about the lycanthropy to the cult of Zeus Lykaios. The Hippodrome and the adjacent buildings, see Κουρουνιώτης (1909); for the recent investigation of the lower territory of the sanctuary at Mt. Lykaion, see Romano (2006) 11, 26, also “Mt. Lykaion Excavation and Survey Project”, http://lykaionexcavation.org/ . 938 Βρέττος (1999) 465-469 (τα Λύκαια). 939 Cook (1914) 76 n.2; Jost (1985) 268. 940 James (1961) 177-180. 941 Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) v.1, 196, 692-700.

942

Note Pl. Resp. 565d-e; Paus. 6.8.2, 8.2.3, 6. The connection of the cult of Zeus Lykaios with the legends about werewolves is discussed in my paper, Zolotnikova (2005) 113-115. 944 For the Indo-European totemic cult of a wolf, see Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) v.1, 414-417. 945 Θέμελης (1987) 87-89, pl.69α; Θέμελης (2010) 30. 943

105

from quite remote time, and that a certain cult-place of Zeus would have been organized at the top of Mt. Ithome by as early as the 9th century BC, before the First Messenian War, probably as part of the religious activities of the Proto-Geometric / Geometric settlement traced at the southern foot of the mountain.

feast in honour of Zeus Ithomatas, an earlier version of the festival Ἰθωμαῖα annually observed by the Messenians for Zeus in the late ancient time (Paus. 4.33.2), was held in the EIA and would naturally have comprised certain forms of collective cultic behavior, as sacrifices on behalf of all the participants and symposia appropriate for such an event. However, it is not known whether the festival used to take place on the summit or at the southern foot of the mountain, near the early historic settlement. The tradition must have been interrupted for centuries until Messenia’s liberation from Sparta in the first half of the 4th century BC, therefore the forms, in which the celebration was renewed, may not be directly related to the EIA cult.

The summit of Mt. Ithome is a rocky and hardly approachable, but spacious, elongated area consisting of two separate plateaus – the larger western one, extending to approximately 80m at its east-west axis, and the smaller eastern one extending to about 50m from east to west. The summit has not been systematically excavated yet and its ancient layout is not established in all the details.946 In the Middle Byzantine period, the Monastery of Voulkano was built in the western part of the summit, as it appears, exactly in the place of the ancient sanctuary - over the remains of the temple of Zeus Ithomatas (see Fig.65b), which caused heaviest damages of the ancient constructions: numerous, seemingly ancient, large marble blocks and even a large marble platform for a tripod are seen incorporated in the walls and buildings of the Monastery, while the foundations of the ancient temple, which may be dated to the late 4th century BC, are observed inside the Monastery, under some of its buildings and in the courtyard. Fragments of a bronze votive tripod dated to the 8th century BC were found on the surface near the Monastery947 and are taken as the material, although the only available until now, evidence for practice of the cult of Zeus on the mountain top in the Geometric period. However, it is not known how far back the cult activity on the summit may be traced and what the organization of the cult-place in the EIA was. At the north-eastern corner of the Monastery, approximately at the center of the western plateau, there is a huge natural rock with holes from statues, which were apparently placed on it in ancient time (see Fig.65c). S. Müth presumes that in the Late Classical – Hellenistic phases of the cult, this rock may have played the role of the altar of Zeus Ithomatas.948 If really so, the same rock could have been used as Zeus Ithomatas’ altar during the EIA as well, but the only EIA sanctuary of Zeus, which might present a parallel to this case, would be that at the Idaean Cave in Crete, provided, in addition to the interior ash altar, with an external altar cut of a large natural rock located at the entrance into the Cave949 (see below, 3.1.28). It is more or less certain that in the 8th century BC, the worship of Zeus at Mt. Ithome involved a musical (lyric) contest, as the survived lines of the 8th century BC poet Eumelos testify: “For he of Ithome takes delight in a Muse that has a pure lyre and wears the sandals of freedom”.950 Perhaps, some kind of religious

Nothing precise is known about the initial nature of Zeus Ithomatas. P. Themelis, based on some indirect indications, believes that Zeus was originally worshiped at Mt. Ithome as “Zeus-child” or “young Zeus”,951 but this opinion seems doubtful. It is worth of attention that the ornament of the mentioned fragments of a bronze tripod found on the summit of Mt. Ithome closely resembles that of the Geometric bronze tripods from Olympia;952 this may indicate some contacts between the two sanctuaries during the EIA. In addition to the festival Ἰθωμαῖα, Pausanias mentioned some other details of the cult of Zeus Ithomatas as it was practiced in his days: thus, the priest of the god was chosen annually and kept the god’s image in his house (Paus. 4.33.2).953 A notable feature is that the cult of Zeus Ithomatas, as did that of Zeus Lykaios, involved rituals, not specified in sources, with spring water, which was every day carried to the sanctuary from the spring Klepsydra (Paus. 4.33.1). Given the mythic tradition regarding this spring and Zeus, as well as the fact that some Geometric sherds have been found at the place of Klepsydra,954 it seems possible to trace the particular custom back to the initial phases of the cult. It is noteworthy that the nymph Neda involved in the Messenian version of Zeus’ nourishment at Mt. Ithome against Sparta and is dated to c.725 BC, Lyra Greaca by Edmonds (1958) “Eumelus”, p.15 n.2. 951 Themelis (2004) 143-152. The scholar points out that in the Late Classical-Hellenistic time, a sanctuary of might be Eileithyia and a thought to be “Chamber of Kouretes” were located on the southern slope of Mt. Ithome, approximately on the mid-way to its summit (Θέμελης (2010) 272-273). Generally, he argues that the concept of Zeus Ithomatas as that of a divine child / youth had not Cretan, but old Peloponnesian origins. 952 Maass (1978) 33, pl.67, nu.19bis. 953 According to P. Themelis, Zeus Ithomatas’ priests, by keeping the god’s cult statue in their houses, represented the Kouretes, mythic guardians of young Zeus, on the level of worship (on the basis of the reports by Θερμού, Μ. Τα απόκρυφα μυστήρια της Ιθώμης. Το Βήμα, 14.09.2003. Το Βήμα online). 954 Θέμελης (1988) 44-45; Θέμελης (2010) 266.

946

See, e.g., Themelis (1998); Themelis (2003); Müth (2007) 218-225. 947 Maass (1978) 33, pl.67, nu.760 – parts of the legs of a bronze Geometric tripod (Museum Benaki, Kalamata, inv.nu.760). 948 Müth (2007) 218-225, esp. p.223, fig.114. 949 Prent (2005) 315, pl.13. 950 The fragment is connected with Messenia’s struggle 106

also occurs in the Arkadian tradition regarding the birth of Zeus on Mt. Lykaion (Paus. 8.38.3, see above, 3.1.19). Two common elements shared by the cults of Zeus Ithomatas and Lykaios - the nymph Neda and the cultic significance of spring water – seem to point at some common, old Central / Southwestern Peloponnesian religious tradition, from which both the cults would have derived. Significantly, the summit of Mt. Ithome has a perfect direct optical contact with the mountains of Southwestern Arkadia and with Mt. Lykaion in particular. Because of all these circumstances, it might be argued that the nature and the religious concept of the initial cult of Zeus Ithomatas must have been to a certain degree similar with the original nature and the underlying religious concept of the cult of Zeus Lykaios, essentially the god of sunlight (see above, 3.1.19).

procreating principle. The connection of the worshiped deity with natural phenomena is not clear. According to Pausanias, there was also another sanctuary / a temenos of Zeus Μessapeus in Lakonia, located somewhere at the foot of Taygetus, on the western side of the Spartan plain (Paus. 3.20.3). It is likely to be placed at Anthochori, south of Xerokambos.960 The exact meaning of the epithet Μεσσαπεύς is not clear. On the one hand, Μεσσ-άπιοι occurs as an ethnic name among the Illyrians and the Lokrians;961 on the other, the stem Μεσσαπ-/Μεταπ- was quite frequent in Peloponnesos from the prehistoric time962 and might be related to the old (pre-Greek ?) name of Peloponnesos Ἀπία (note Aesch. Supp. 260) derived from the ancient Indo-European root *ap- designating river and water in general.963 Thus, it is possible to interpret the designation Μεσσαπεύς as either “located between the rivers or waters” (?) or “located at the middle of Peloponnesos (Ἀπία)” (?). Two possible origins of the cult of Zeus Messapeus may be conjectured: a pre-Dorian or even preGreek Peloponnesian deity originally associated with some locality in the middle of the peninsula, or, alternatively, a deity originally worshiped among northwestern Greek tribes cognate to the Illyrians, and brought in Lakonia by the Dorians.

However, in the Late Classical time, Zeus Ithomatas was imagined as a vigorous, but not young (that is, mature and bearded) storm-god - Κεραύνιος955 (see Fig.66). 3.1.21. Tsakona, Aphyssou (Lakonia) A small sanctuary of Zeus Messapeus has been discovered at the hill-top site at Tsakona, situated a few kilometers north-east of Sparta, in the Aphyssou area. According to the pottery evidence, the site was occupied from the Late Geometric period, while the discovery of a fragmentary Geometric bronze dress pin, possibly a votive, has permitted the presumption that the cult may have started at the site during the 8th century BC.956 It is quite probable that at that early stage the cult was hypaethral. From the 7th century BC and until the Roman time, the sanctuary appears to have been provided with two buildings designated by the excavators as the “small shrine” and the “large shrine”.957 The nature of the cult on its initial phase is not certain, but numerous Late Archaic - Classical terracotta statuettes representing ithyphallic men and a small number of figurines of pregnant women discovered in the sanctuary have been interpreted as indications of a cult preoccupied with human reproduction; it is thought likely that the main deity worshiped in the sanctuary had been male.958 The early 6th century BC graffito containing the vocative form “… ΜΕΣΑΠΕΥ”, inscribed on a fragment of a Lakonian cup, was found on the surface, 250-300m south-west of the sanctuary, and thus has led to the conclusion that the sanctuary at Tsakona was always dedicated to the same deity - Zeus Messapeus.959 It is tempting to draw a correspondence between the concept underlying the cult of Zeus Messapeus and that of Ζεύς πατήρ, which was, in fact, based on the primitive comprehension of the male

3.1.22. Kenaion Cape (Euboea) The Kenaion range at the northwestern extremity of Euboea was dedicated to Zeus Kenaios (Strab. 10.1.9). His sanctuary / hieron had become famous by the time of Aeschylus (note Strab. 10.1.9) and was attended with great respect by the neighbouring cities. Remarkably, it is mentioned in a treaty between Eretria and Hestiaea, dated to 410-390 BC: “ἐπὶ Κηναίωι ἐν τõι ἱερõι” (IG 12.9.188, lines 18-19). The remains of the hieron of Zeus Kenaios have been identified at the site of the church of Agios Konstantinos at Lithada (Fig.67): those include a peribolos wall and an amount of pottery, mainly Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman, but some pieces might be of the Archaic date and “some coarse sherds may be prehistoric”. In fact, no EIA remains of any kind were discovered, but the conducted excavation was not sufficient, while it has been observed that “the site seems a likely place for prehistoric occupation”.964 A special religious significance of the land of Kenaion and the engagement of its territory in some kind of cult activity from quite an old date may have been reflected in the myth about the intention of Herakles to perform there

955

Gardner (1887) 109, nu.1, p.110, nus.10-12, p.111, nus.24-35, pl.22, nus.1, 5-7, 10-11; Elderkin (1940) 233; Robinson (1945). 956 Catling (1990) 21, 34; Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 325; Hansen and Nielsen (2004) 575. 957 Catling (1990) 23-29. 958 Catling (1990) 21. 959 Catling (1990) 21-22, 33; SEG 39 (1989) 132, nu.376.

960

Catling (1990) 22, 33; Hansen (2004) 575; SEG 26, nu.460 / SEG 39, nu.373 (2nd century BC). 961 Hamp (1957) 73-89; Wilkes (1992) 68. 962 See SEG 39 (1989) 32, comment to nu.376. 963 Pokorny (1959) v.1, 51 (ap-). 964 Sackett, Hankey, Howell, Jacobsen and Popham (1966) 37, 111. 107

a sacrifice to Zeus (note Bacch. 11 [Herakles].15-18: “…the adventurous bold son of Amphitryon… came to the wave-washed shore where he was to offer of his spoil nine bellowing bulls unto wide-clouded Zeus Kenaios / “εὐρυνεφεῖ Κηναίῳ Ζηνὶ…”; also Diod. 4.38.1). Ancient tradition derived the veneration of Zeus Kenaios from the religious traditions of the old population of Euboea, the Abantes (Hom. Il. 2.536). That the northwestern edge of Euboea was in any way sacred to Zeus at least from the Early Iron Age is indicated by the name of the city Dion, which was situated somewhere there and was already known to Homer as “Δίου αἰπὺ πτολίεθρον”/ lit. “a city of Zeus on rocky heights” (Hom. Il. 2.538).965 As one having the god’s name, the city would have had a specifically organized place for worshiping its deitypatron. The site of ancient Dion may be identified with the remains of a remarkable settlement discovered on a low coast hill (c.60m above the sea) at Kastri, located about 4km west of the modern village Likhas and a few km to the north of the Kenaion Cape (see Fig.67): the place was fairly continuously inhabited from the EH time onwards; the pottery ranging in date from the EH to the Geometric times was found on its higher slopes, while its lower slopes contained plentiful fragments of vessels of the Archaic / Classical to Roman times.966

carried out almost a century ago by French archaeologists, brought to light a small amount of unstratified Geometric pottery fragments and much more sherds of the 7th century BC bearing ornament of the Orientalizing style (Fig.70). Of the former, some have been identified as representing the “Geometrique insulair” style dated, according to the publisher, to the 11th century BC,970 while some other fragments were of the “Geometrique argivo-cycladic” style, possibly dated to the 9th century BC, but most probably to the end of the 8th century BC.971 The discovered Geometric fragments belonged to drinking vessels – skyphoi, a krater, and an amphora. Remarkably, some of the 7th century BC pottery fragments were inscribed with graffito dedications to Zeus, following the standard formula: “ΑΝΕΘΕΚΕ ΘΕΟ | ΔΙΟΣ [εἶναι or εἰμί]” (see Fig.71).972 This evidence securely indicates the practice of the cult of Zeus on the top of Mt. Kynthos from the 7th century BC, but it may have started in a moderate form earlier, in the 8th or even in the 11th-9th centuries BC. It was attempted to derive the cult practiced on the summit of Mt. Kynthos from Minoan religious traditions,973 however, the actual original nature of Zeus Kynthios is quite uncertain. His independent presence in the island dedicated to a kind of Aegean “young god” Apollo, his dearest son according to all the survived mythic accounts, might suggest that Zeus was always regarded in Delos as a father-god.

Therefore, all the evidence seems to suggest that Zeus may have been associated with Northwestern Euboea as its major deity even from the prehistoric time, while during the EIA the god may have been worshiped in a sort of sanctuary at the city Dion, named after him. Perhaps, towards the Archaic time, the veneration of Zeus in the area acquired greater importance, and a new sanctuary of the god was established at the magnificent spot, at the Cape Kenaion, probably in order to serve wider regional needs. Unfortunately, nothing is known regarding the original nature of Zeus Kenaios and the character of his cult.

Of the initial forms of the cult of Zeus at Mt. Kynthos, wine-drinking ceremonies appear to have been practiced in honour of him, as it is suggested by the pottery finds. Nothing more precise is known to this point. It should be emphasized that from the beginning, the worship of Zeus Kynthios was in no way connected with the Delian cult of Hera, whose sanctuary, established in the EIA, was situated on the northwestern slope of the mountain, in a sufficient distance from the summit.974

3.1.23. Mt. Kynthos (Delos) The summit of Mt. Kynthos (+112.6m) in Delos (Fig.68), which was occupied by a settlement during the Early Cycladic time,967 is known to have been especially sacred to Zeus in ancient times: it was believed that Zeus himself watched the birth of his children – Apollo and Artemis - from its top.968 The sanctuary of Zeus Kynthios, shared by the god with Athena Kynthia, occupied the highest terrace of the summit: remains of a magnificent precinct surrounded by a wall and containing a number of religious structures dated to the HellenisticRoman times were preserved on the small plateau topping the mountain969 (Fig.69). Significantly, the archaeological investigation of the area of the sanctuary,

3.1.24. Mt. Zas (Naxos) The mountain Zas (+1003m), in fact the highest mountain in the Cycladian islands, located approximately in the middle of Naxos (Fig.72), was especially connected with Zeus in ancient times: according to local beliefs, Zeus was nurtured on this mountain, which received the god’s name (Ζας is a survived Cycladic form of Δία, the ancient accusative form of Ζεύς). Due to the inscription “ΟΡΟΣ ΔΙΟΣ ΜΗΛΩΣΙΟΥ” found written on a rough rock upon the northern slope of the mountain, at the place Levgasa / Λεβγάσα, exactly at the path leading to the summit,975 it 970

Plassart (1928) 52, 54 n.4; fig.44 (the upper fragment on the left). 971 Plassart (1928) 53-55, fig.44. 972 Plassart (1928) 57-58, fig.48. 973 Cook (1925) 920. 974 Plassart (1928) pl.2; Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 182183. 975 Cook (1914) 164; Κουμιώτου-Παπαδοπούλου (1994)

965

Hansen and Nielsen (2004) 650-651. 966 Sackett, Hankey, Howell, Jacobsen and Popham (1966) 37, 111. 967 Plassart (1928) 11-45, pl.3; MacGillivray (1980). 968 Plassart (1928) 64; Scully (1962) 135. 969 See the description of the remains and the sanctuary plan in Cook (1925) 918-922. 108

is known that in the historic time Zeus was venerated in association with Mt. Zas under the epithet Μηλώσιος, which refers to a ram skin.976 No specifically organized sanctuary of Zeus Μηλώσιος on the mountain has been reported so far. However, a deposit of blackened soil containing a large amount of burned bones and potsherds, of which some might be dated to the 7th – 6th centuries BC, was discovered on a flat area located 35m north of the summit; M. Langdon suggested to consider this deposit an altar of Zeus, which would have existed on the mountain.977

early as the time of the composition of the Homeric poems (note Hom. Il. 2.667-670). Late Ancient tradition, probably combining vague memories about successive Minoan, Mycenaean and Dorian expansional movements towards the Southeastern Aegean from and through Crete, connected the foundation of the sanctuary (or, particularly, of the altar of Zeus) at the top of Mt. Atavyros with the arrival of Cretan colonists, supposedly led to Rhodes by a son or a grandson of Minos (Diod. 5.59.1-2; Apollod. 3.2.1). In regard to the mythic traditions, it should be noted that the Minoan presence in Rhodes is attested from the Middle Minoan period, while the Mycenaeans appeared in the island in the LM I – LH IIIA1, at the northwestern coast, and expanded deeper in the island’s interiors during the LH IIIA2.980 Mycenaean settlements, indicated by cemeteries of the Mycenaean date, must have existed on the southeastern slope of Mt. Atavyros, as well as at its southwestern and northern feet.981 The territories located farther to the north / northwest of Mt. Atavyros were quite intensively occupied during the Mycenaean period; there, a significant LBA settlement, probably founded by the Karians and subsequently occupied by the Mycenaean Greeks, have existed on the place of the later important Dorian city Kameiros,982 which was already known to Homer (Hom. Il. 2.656).

At the southwestern side of the mountain, there is a remarkable cave, which had played an important role in the development of the Cycladic civilization: it started to be used for habitation from the Late Neolithic I period, and already in the Proto-Cycladic I period, according to certain finds, its occupants formed a socially organized group.978 Human presence in the cave is also traced during the Middle Cycladic and the Mycenaean times, but after that, there seems to have been an interruption of activities, given that the earliest evidence of the historic time, which is pottery comprising a significant number of skyphoi, is dated from the Early Archaic period.979 The excavators did not interpret any of the finds as material indication of cultic usage of the cave in any of the periods. However, it is tempting to assume that the religious ideas of the early inhabitants of this cave, especially the traditional Aegean concept of a divine child born by the Mother-Earth goddess, provided grounds for the later myths linked to the mountain. On the other hand, so deep connection of Zeus with this mountain as reflected in the myth about the god’s nourishment at it and in the fact that the mountain was identified with the god himself through the same name as his own seems to point to quite an old, local Naxian tradition of veneration of Zeus at the island, in association with the particular locality. Not irrelevant to this observation may be that Zeus’ original female counterpart, the goddess Diwija, too, was closely connected with Naxos in the prehistoric time, as the name Dia / Δία < Diwija, under which the island occurs in the mythic and epic traditions, suggests (note Hom. Od. 11.325).

The surface survey and the limited excavation conducted at the summit of the mountain in 1927 resulted in the identification of the remains of the ancient sanctuary: those consisted of the foundations of the peribolos walls, oriented almost exactly according to the four points of the compass, and parts of a building, which might be propylaeum; the sanctuary appears to have been monumental. Unfortunately, the ancient buildings were almost completely destroyed during the Byzantine time, when the site was used for the church of Ioannis Prodromos.983 Numerous votive bronze figurines of bulls were found at the site of the sanctuary and on the mountain slopes, all out of stratified context (Fig.73a); some of them due to their characteristics may be attributed to the late 8th century BC technique984 and thus indicate worshiping activities at Mt. Atavyros in the Late Geometric period. The initial forms of the cult have not been established; nor has been identified the original altar

It is worth noting that the presence of the ram-element in the concept of Zeus at Mt. Zas may suggest solar orientation of the god’s original cult.

980

Mee (1982) 79-80 (for the MBA in Rhodes), 81-89 (for the LBA in Rhodes). 981 Mee (1982) 60, 84 (Mycenaean cemeteries at Agios Isidoros, on the southeastern slope of Mt. Atavyros, and at Siana-Kymisala, to the south-west of Mt. Atavyros), p.59 (Mycenaean cemetery at Embonas, at the northern foot of Mt. Atavyros), also “Maps and Plans 1”. 982 Zervos (1920) 26-73; Jacopi (1932-1941); Mee (1982) “Maps and Plans 1”. 983 Tozer (1890) 220-221; Jacopich and Maiuri (1928) 8891, figs.69-70; Herbig (1928) 633-634, fig.26; Sorensen and Pentz (1992) 137-141; Barber (1997) 112. 984 Jacopich and Maiuri (1928) fig.71; Herbig (1928) 633, Heilmeyer (1979) 32-33; Sorensen and Pentz (1992) 55, 141, fig. H.2.

3.1.25. Mt. Atavyros (Rhodes) In Rhodes, the lofty peak of the island’s highest mountain Atavyros was the place of the venerable sanctuary of Atabyrian Zeus (Diod. 5.59.2; Strab. 14.2.12). Zeus’ connection with Rhodes and his role as that of the island’s hospitable master are traced in sources from as 156. 976 Κουμιώτου-Παπαδοπούλου (1994) 156-157. 977 Langdon (1976) 111. 978 Βλαχόπουλος (2005) 272-274. 979 Ζάχος (1994) 99-102. 109

believed to have been set by the colonists from Crete. Significantly, from the late 7th century BC, dedications of inscribed pots and other objects are attested as part of the cultic behaviour of those, who worshiped Zeus at Mt. Atavyros in the Early Archaic period.985 Probably, by that time, the sacred place at the top of the mountain officially became a sanctuary of Zeus. Its pan-Hellenic fame is traced from as early as the first half of the 5th century BC, when Pindar, in one of his poems, appealed to Zeus Atabyrian: “Father Zeus, you who rule Atabyrion’s slopes” (Pind. Ol. 7.87).

Cretan religious traditions, whereas the epithet was thought to have been a Greek reproduction of some Semitic word.990 Perhaps, the establishment of the organized cult-place of Zeus on the summit of Mt. Atavyros may be attributed to the religious activities of the EIA settlers in the territories around the mountain, possibly to the early Kameirians, but the association of some, originally sun-oriented, divine male concept with the particular peak might go back to the prehistoric period. It deserves to be mentioned that a special religious association named “Ἀταβυριασταί” served Atabyrian Zeus in the historic time (IG 12.1.31, line 1, and 12.1. 161, line 5).

For the nature of the cult of Atabyrian Zeus, it is noteworthy that the legends associated with Mt. Atavyros and the sanctuary located at its top told about the “bronze cattle of Zeus”, which reputedly pastured on the mountain slopes and bellowed when any evil was about to befall the island. A.B. Cook, tracing the Rhodian theme of the cattle of Zeus back to the traditional Greek mythological motif of the sun-god’s cattle, argued for solar backgrounds of the cult of Zeus Atabyrios; the scholar insisted in considering Zeus the island’s original god-protector, later substituted by Helios.986

3.1.26. Mt. Mesavouno (Thera) The worship place of Apollo Karneios at Mt. Mesavouno in Thera produced a remarkable number of graffito dedications inscribed on rock outcroppings, dated presumably to the early 7th or even the late 8th century BC.991 According to the publishers of those inscriptions and the specialists in the Greek epigraphy, four of the Theran graffitos, which are written in early Cycladic letters of the local Archaic system, contain the name of Zeus, i.e. “ΖΕΥΣ” (IG 12.3, nus.350-353)992 (Fig.74). Based on this, it may be argued that the worship of Zeus was actually practiced at that place during the Late Geometric - Early Archaic time, perhaps in association with Dorian Apollo. However, at present, there is no any other, more secure evidence, which might indicate the cult of Zeus at Mt. Mesavouno in the early historic time.

Another motif, which may have been associated with the mythology of Zeus at Rhodes, appears to be that of a duel between the god and a centaur-like creature. Depictions of such a combat occur on the Archaic Rhodian pottery, e.g., on the already mentioned Archaic Rhodian sherd (see Chapter 2, 2.2.2. The Mycenaean clay idol with a battle hammer or double axe (?), Fig. 8), and on a relief Archaic sherd from Kameiros: a nude, standing male with short hair, holding a double axe in his raised left hand and some other weapon (a sword?) in his right one, fights against a centaur armed with a branch of tree and an indistinct weapon.987 Although the exact context of the scene is unknown and the identity of the male with a double axe is not certain, a parallel may be traced between these Rhodian reliefs and the LG bronze group “a Man and a Centaur” possibly coming from the sanctuary of Zeus at Olympia988 (see above, 3.1.18 Olympia. The sanctuary in the EIA) as well as the early seventh century BC representation on the body of a Proto-Korinthian aryballos, showing a duel between Zeus and a centaur989 (see later, 3.2; Fig.91). Still, there is no certainty regarding the origins of the worship of Zeus on Mt. Atavyros, while the etymology of the epithet Atabyrios remains obscure. Various scholars derived the cult from Phoenician, Hittite, Karian, and

3.1.27. Psychro (Diktaean) Cave (Crete) The cultic use of the cave at Psychro, which is believed to be the Diktaean Cave, had begun in the Middle Minoan III periods and most probably comprised the joined worship of some goddess and a male deity (see Chapter 2, 2.5. The evidence for the association of Zeus with the concept of a “young god”). The cult activities uninterruptedly continued into the Early Iron Age and were accumulated in the cave Upper Chamber (20m x 25m), which contained a Bronze Age stone-built altar in the northwestern part and a temenos with a paved floor in the northeastern recess.993 It has been observed that, in comparison with the prehistoric time, the amount of the finds related to the Proto-Geometric and Geometric periods is relatively small: there are possibly three crude bronze figurines representing a nude, standing female,994 two crude bronze figurines of a standing male,995 one clay

985

990

Maiuri (1932) 236-255, nus.144-217; note p.236, nu.144 – the earliest graffito inscription dated to the end of the 7th century BC, incised on a cup: it comprises the name of the dedicator and the verb “ἀ]νήθηκην” (Fig.73b). 986 Cook (1914) 643. 987 Zervos (1920) 73, fig.152. 988 Ahlberg-Cornell (1992) 25-26, fig.26; Tiverios (1997) 317, nu.14. 989 Tiverios (1997) 317, nu.16.

Cook (1914) 643 notes 1, 2, 3; Jacopich and Maiuri (1928) 88; Morelli (1959) 138-141. 991 Powell (1991) 129. 992 Powell (1991) 130-131, nu.15; Guarducci (2008) 108. 993 Boardman (1961) 3; Watrous and Widenor (1996) 53, Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 334-335; Prent (2005) 339. 994 Boardman (1961) 9, pl.5, nu.32, pl.6, nu.33 (Heraklion 2287). 995 Boardman (1961) 7 and 118, pl.6 (Heraklion 2286), p.8, fig.1 (Heraklion 2002). 110

and nine bronze bull figurines (1 PG and 8 Geometric),996 three bronze ram figurines (1 PG and 2 Geometric),997 one Proto-Geometric bronze figurine of a goat, one Geometric bronze figurine of a horse,998 two Geometric bronze bird figurines,999 a number of fibulae,1000 as well as some pottery comprising a cup, two aryballoi, and a miniature kalathos.1001 It is worth to be noted a LG small bronze model of a chariot carried by a ram and a bull.1002 Bronze votive weaponry (shields, arrow- and spearheads) dated to the Geometric – Early Archaic periods and some Early Archaic jewelry have also been reported.1003 Except that, some materials of the Geometric period, such as pottery, a bronze figurine, possibly female, bronze knives and pins, were found between the boulders in the mouth of the cave.1004 All these finds seem to indicate that during the EIA, as previously, in the prehistoric time, the Cave sanctuary was shared by a pair of deities – a goddess and her male associate; both were evidently concerned about health and reproduction of cattle, but also about warriors and women; however, their identity is not documented and the character of their relationship is not certain.1005 Although the EIA cult ceremonies are not clearly indicated in the finds, the discovered aryballoi may suggest observance of some rituals involving oil; it has also been presumed that ceremonial drinking may have been practiced in the Upper Chamber of the Cave, while ritual meals may have taken place in front of it.1006

3.1.28. Idaean Cave (Crete) According to the secure archaeological context, the cult activity in the Idaean Cave, which is traced back to the Middle Minoan III period (see Chapter 2, 2.5), was uninterruptedly continued from the prehistoric time, through the Sub-Minoan phase, into the EIA.1010 As a characteristic feature of the position of the Idaean sanctuary in relation to the areas inhabited during the late prehistoric – early historic time, it has been pointed out the absence of LM IIIC / Sub-Minoan - EIA settlements in the immediate vicinity of the Idaean Cave. This circumstance suggests the role of the Idaean sanctuary during the EIA as that of an interregional cult-place for a number of different communities, which occupied the surrounding territories.1011 The Geometric phase of the cult is remarkably represented by various finds, which include: a big number of votive bronze tripod cauldrons adorned with figurines of animals and birds attached to handles; a miniature votive gold tripod; a gold plaque with a representation of two helmeted warriors placed back-toback, and another one with a representation of a row of warriors; two gold roundels with a depiction of a row of warriors; bronze votive shields, probably of local manufacture, with relief representations of a young vigorous god or hero fighting against bulls and lions; fragments of a necklace composed of gold beads and pomegranates; seals; pottery, and some other objects.1012 An unparalleled Late Geometric anthropomorphic, malelike, vase with a faience eye is worth to be noted among the terracotta dedications.1013 Clay figurines include those of horses, bulls, and one of goat.1014 The Geometric levels identified inside the Cave contained an amount of animal and bird bones mixed with ashes, which seem to indicate the use of an internal ash altar for animal and bird sacrifices on the Geometric phase of the cult.1015 The restored types of the discovered pottery permit the conclusion that the offerings to the deity included solid products, liquids, and fruits.1016 Certain EIA cult activities, perhaps burnt animal and bird sacrifices, took place outside the Cave as well, around the large rock-cut altar.1017

There are certain objections to the identification of the Psychro Cave with the legendary Diktaean Antron, sacred cave of Zeus Diktaios, where Zeus, according to the mythic tradition, was hidden by Rhea and spent his infancy1007 (see also Chapter 2, 2.5). However, still dominant opinion is that the Psychro Cave is the one implied by Hesiod in his version of the myth about the birth of Zeus in Crete (Hes. Theog. 477-484).1008 After the 7th century BC, there was a decline in the offerings in the Psychro Cave;1009 this may indicate that the original cult lost its importance towards the Late Archaic period.

996

The identity of the deity worshiped in the Idaean Cave during the prehistoric – early historic time, as in almost all the early cult-places, is not documented. The finds by themselves suggest that the deity worshiped in the Idaean Cave during the Early Iron Age was male; he seems to

Boardman (1961) 9, pl.8, nu.42; Prent (2005) 339-340. Prent (2005) 339-340. 998 Prent (2005) 339-340. 999 Prent (2005) 340. 1000 Boardman (1961) 5. 1001 Prent (2005) 339-340. 1002 Prent (2005) 340. 1003 Watrous and Widenor (1996) 54; Prent (2005) 341. 1004 Prent (2005) 341. 1005 Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 424, nu.265, suggests a possibility that during the Geometric period the cult in the Diktaean (Psychro) Cave was dedicated to a female divinity and her male consort. 1006 Watrous and Widenor (1996) 54; Prent (2005) 341342. 1007 Willetts (1962) 215-216; Prent (2005) 339 1008 Boardman (1961); Watrous and Widenor (1996) 19. 1009 Boardman (1961) 5; Watrous and Widenor (1996) 55. 997

1010

Σακελλαράκης (1987) 247-248; Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 337; Watrous and Widenor (1996) 58; Prent (2005) 158-159, 314. 1011 Prent (2005) 314. 1012 Boardman (1961) 79-87; Coldstream (1977) 287-288, Sakellarakis (1988); Matthaus (2000). 1013 Prent (2005) 317. 1014 Prent (2005) 317-318. 1015 Sakellarakis (1988) 191-193. 1016 Sakellarakis (1988) 189-191. 1017 Prent (2005) 315, pl.13. 111

have been regarded as a god especially close to warriors and generally concerned about cattle and nature. If the mentioned above relief scenes represented on the votive bronze shields commemorated local myths1018 or had any relation to the character of the recipient of those dedications, it may be assumed that the main deity of the Idaean sanctuary during the EIA was a young victorious god. The deity worshiped in the Idaean Cave in later periods, Classical to Roman times, was called Zeus Idaios (Pind. Ol. 5.18, Eur. Cret. fr. 472), who was virtually an indigenous Cretan young god gradually identified with Greek Zeus,1019 as the latter started to be comprehended as a son of Rhea and Kronos. Remarkably, the mysterious rituals, which commemorated the birth of Zeus, were observed in the Idaean sanctuary in the historic times.1020

and thrown into the altar (as was it practiced in the sanctuary of Zeus on the summit of Mt. Fokas, see above, 3.1.13). The earliest dedications comprise ProtoGeometric bronze tripods, two PG / EG bronze male figurines, Geometric bronze vessels, and small miscellaneous metal units.1028 The figurines were made in accordance with the traditional Cretan types: one figurine represents a naked man in a semi-sitting position, or with the bent knees,1029 while another follows one the Minoan adorant types.1030 It appears that the cult practiced at Amnisos during the Proto-Geometric and Geometric periods was connected with a male deity, but it seems doubtful to consider the discovered figurines the representations of the god worshiped there. Perhaps, some ritual acts characteristic of Cretan religious practices in general have been reflected in the figurines as those two found at Amnisos.

The discovered votive necklace comprising pomegranates – an accessory of a female divinity, suggests a possible connection of the young god of the Idaean Cave with some goddess, though in unclear way, on the Geometric phase of the cult.1021

Concerning the origins of the cult at Amnisos, the lack of evidence for the cult activity at the site during the transitional period from the late prehistoric to the early historic period1031 does not really indicate a direct connection between the EIA sanctuary and the Late Minoan occupation of the place. However, the late mythic and literary traditions involved the cult at Amnisos in the circle of the myths about Zeus’ childhood in Crete: the epithet Θενάτας was linked to the Cretan locality Θέναι believed to have been one of the places, where baby-Zeus was being hidden from Kronos; the socalled Ὀμφάλιον πέδον, where Zeus was said to have lost his navel strings (Callim. Hymn 1.42-44), was situated not far from it.1032 Therefore, it may be assumed that the religious idea linked to this place originated in the indigenous Cretan concept of a divine child / young god, but the practiced cult was from the very beginning subject to the Greek-Dorian influence.1033 It is noteworthy that the sanctuary of Zeus Thenatas was located near the sanctuary of Eileithyia in the Amnisos Cave, where the beginning of the cult is attested from the Late Minoan III period.1034 This circumstance may also contain some indications of the presence of natal elements in the original underlying concept of the cult of Zeus Thenatas. Thus, it seems quite probable that the male deity of the sanctuary at Amnisos was from the beginning comprehended as a divine child,1035 who had eventually been identified with Zeus in the context of the Greek presence in the area.1036

3.1.29. Amnisos (Crete) The sanctuary of Zeus Thenatas / Θενάτας at Amnisos was set over the remains of a Minoan building, the function of which is not certain.1022 According to some scholars, there was a Bronze Age sanctuary at Amnisos, possibly associated with the Late Minoan settlement, but the site was abandoned in the LM IIIC period.1023 Pottery fragments dated to c. 900 BC and the EIA votive dedications found in the area of a big hypaethral ash altar indicate the cult activity at the site from the ProtoGeometric period.1024 The ash altar was set to the northwest of the remaining Minoan wall; it contained animal bones suggesting its use for burnt animal sacrifices; no architectural remains of the Geometric period have been identified in the sanctuary.1025 Perhaps, the early cultplace was organized as an open-air precinct (temenos) focused on the ash altar.1026 The fragments of pottery discovered in the layers of the altar represent drinking and pouring vessels, as skyphoi, amphorai, and kraters, all of which were broken.1027 These seem to indicate that the observance of the cult at Amnisos in the EIA supposed ritual libations and drinking, which would have been performed in association with the altar of the worshiped deity. The vessels used in the rituals, probably, had to be smashed

1028

Prent (2005) 528. Schafer (1992) 228, pl.73.1-3. For the typology of this figurine, see Naumann (1976) 67-68, pl.28.1; also Verlinden (1984) 170, 221, nu.234. 1030 Schafer (1992) 228, pl.73.4. 1031 Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 335. 1032 Schafer (1992) 88-96; Willets (1962) 249-250. 1033 Schafer (1992) 353-354. 1034 Schafer (1992) 84-87; Betancourt and Marinatos (1994) 306; Watrous and Widenor (1996) 61. 1035 Schafer (1992) 94. 1036 Various opinions regarding the identity of the divinity worshiped at Amnisos in the EIA are presented by Prent

1018

1029

Coldstream (1977) 287-288. 1019 Willetts (1962) 239-243; Prent (2005) 158, 314. 1020 Prent (2005) 158. 1021 Sakellarakis (1988) 193. 1022 Sturmer (1988-1989) 54; Schafer (1992) 182, 226228, 243-244; Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 335-336. 1023 Prent (2005) 332-336, 528-529. 1024 Sturmer (1988-1989) 55. 1025 Μαρινάτος (1933) 96-97; Μαρινάτος (1938) 133-134; Prent (2005) 528. 1026 Μαρινάτος (1933) 96-97. 1027 Prent (2005) 335. 112

It is also worth to be mentioned that in the historic period, no permanent occupation of the territory around the sanctuary at Amnisos for agricultural purposes is traced before the 7th century BC.1037

The excavators argue for an interruption of the cult activities after the LM IIIC – SM periods and consider the EIA phase the most important stage in the history of the sanctuary.1043 It has been observed that among the EIA votive dedications, bronze animal figurines and terracotta human figurines predominate. The bronze animal figurines include about 66 bovines, 6 rams, 1 horse, and a sphinx; bronze anthropomorphic figurines comprise 6 representations of males, 6 statuettes of indefinite gender, and one representation of a female covering her pubic area with her hands. The terracotta materials consist of about 22 anthropomorphic heads, 19 male and 8 female figurines, 29 representations with indefinite gender, 6 hollow bovine figures, 44 small animal figurines (30 bovines, 4 horses, 3 rams, and 7 birds), as well as of some other objects.1044 In fact, it may be noted that the votive dedications of the EIA phase basically show the same orientation towards the representation of bovines, horses, rams, and humans of both gender, as seen in the dedications of the LM IIIC / SM period.

3.1.30. Agia Triada (Crete) In the sanctuary at Agia Triada, 3km west of Phaistos, Zeus Velhanos is attested to have been worshiped from the Late Classical time onward.1038 In regard to the religious traditions of the place (see also Chapter 2, 2.5), it deserves to be noted the representation on a stone sarcophagus from Agia Triada (which is now in the Heraklion Museum), dated to c.1400 BC: it shows a procession of three priests, who hold offerings and advance towards a young god standing near a tree, which grows from a stepped altar. Based on this representation, some scholars believe that a Cretan-Minoan god of vegetation, possibly called Velhanos, was worshiped in the area of Agia Triada in the Late Bronze Age.1039 Cult activities at the site are traced from the LM IIIC period, in the paved court known as “Piazzale dei Sacelli”, located south of the BA architectural remains1040 (Fig.75). The excavators distinguish three phases of the use of the sanctuary place, which was going on with interruptions: (1) the LM IIIC – Sub-Minoan periods, (2) the Proto-Geometric – Early Archaic periods, and (3) the Late Classical - Hellenistic time.1041

In the EIA, the cult seems to have been extended a little north / north-east, towards the remains of the BA Stoa. Given the absence of traces of an ash altar in the area of the EIA sanctuary, the cult at the “Piazzale”, probably following the forms of the LM IIIC / SM worshiping practice, seems to have continued to be hypaethral and fireless.1045 A pit with animal bones and fragments of kernoi have been found east of the BA Stoa, further to the north-east of the “Piazzale”, and are thought to have been connected with the EIA phase of the sanctuary.1046 Perhaps, ritual collective consumption of food, deliberately prepared outside the sacred area, had been

The LM IIIC - SM phase of the use of the “Piazzale” is represented by 141 terracotta and 3 bronze votive objects: the latter are bovine figurines, while among the former hollow, wheel-made bull figurines predominate (about 37 specimens), but there are also figurines composed of the bovine body and the human head (about 30 examples), small figurines of bovines (14 specimens), horses (12 specimens), and rams (2 specimens), as well as a few possible fragments of anthropomorphic figurines and terracotta “Horns of Consecration”. Reportedly, none of the discovered LM IIIC / SM votives bore signs of burning; no traces of an ash altar or sacrificial deposits containing animal bones have been noticed, while at that phase the sanctuary appears to have been an open-air one.1042

sacelli by the excavators a curious and important discovery was made. Almost in front of the landing of the great stair-case east of this wing of the palace there is a curious rectangular construction (No.39), which has the appearance of an altar, being formed of large slabs set up vertically with a small cavity in the middle. A paved way of great slabs resembling that in the west court of Phaestus, but only in part preserved, comes from the more northerly, unexplored part of the court and abuts on this construction. Around it a series of terracotta and bronze votive figurines was found, and a few metres further westwards on a lower plane deposits of carbonized stuff with fragments of bones occurred. The sign of the double axe was incised in several places of the pavement slabs of this court. Numerous bases of the form on which double axes were commonly set up were found in the ruins below this place. Here we really seem to have a place of sacrificial cult.” 1043 D'Agata (1998) 19-22, 24; Prent (2005) 321; Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 337. 1044 Prent (2005) 321-322; Verlinden (1984) 167, nu.214 (PG bronze male ? figurine from Agia Triada), p.168, nu.225 (Geometric bronze male figurine). 1045 Prent (2005) 321. 1046 Prent (2005) 321.

(2005) 335-336. 1037 Prent (2005) 527. 1038 Willetts (1962) 250-251; Prent (2005) 164. 1039 Tiverios (1997) 315 nu.1. 1040 Prent (2005) 162-163. 1041 D'Agata (1998) 19; Prent (2005) 163. 1042 Prent (2005) 163-164. Certain confusion regarding the practice of the cult at the “Piazzalle” during the latest part of the Minoan age or the transitional period rises, if the information presented by D'Agata (1998) and Prent (2005) 163-164, is compared with that contained in the study by Nilsson (1927) 89. The scholar, based on the results of earlier excavations at Agia Triada, wrote: “To the east of the court in front of the northern side of the west wing of the palace, on an area called piazzale dei 113

part of the religious activities at that time. However, burnt animal sacrifices appear to have been excluded, for some reasons, from the religious practice of the worshiping group of the sanctuary at Agia Triada. Some architectural remains of the Geometric period have been discovered north of the “Piazzale”, east of the Stoa,1047 and may indicate certain building activities around the early sanctuary space.

traced from the PG / Geometric periods due to the pottery found in some of the tholos tombs discovered in the area.1054 The principal cult-place of the city was that on the Altar Hill, where the sanctuary of Zeus Diktaean, mentioned by Strabon, is believed to have been located.1055 The cult activity on the Altar Hill is indicated from the late 8th century BC until the Hellenistic period.1056 Approximately in the middle of the summit, there could have been an ash altar for burnt sacrifices suggested by the presence of burnt bones of oxen and rams.1057 The dedications dated to the EIA include partly preserved bronze tripods or cauldrons, small bronze discs, which may have been intended as miniature shields, two terracotta shield imitations, six miniature bronze helmets and a large Korinthian one, a lance, arrowheads, a bronze fibula, and a bronze hammer head; the fragments of at least two sphyrelaton bronze statues, smaller in size than that of the Kouros from Dreros, are especially noteworthy.1058 R.C. Bosanquet interpreted the EIA finds from the Altar Hill as evidence for an ecstatic military cult, which would have involved ritual dances with shields or cymbals and may have been dedicated to a young male god, possibly of Minoan origin; that god must have appeared as Zeus Diktaean in the historic time. The scholar also suggested “that Rhea may have been worshiped along with her son in this sanctuary”.1059 However, the real identity of the deity venerated in the sanctuary on the Third Acropolis of Praisos during the early historic time is not documented,1060 and his actual identification with Zeus may not be dated with certainty.

There are some doubts regarding whether the male deity worshiped at Agia Triada during the late prehistoric / early historic times may be identified with Zeus.1048 However, considering the later attested cult of Zeus in this sanctuary and the other EIA Cretan cults of Zeus, in which he appeared in the aspect of a young god, it seems reasonable to believe that there was a tendency to associate the god Velhanos of Agia Triada with Zeus already in the early historic time. Concerning the interpretation of the epithet Velhanos Fέλχανος (or Fελχανός) / Γέλχανος (or Γελχάνος), the obscure etymology of the word does not permit the establishment of its precise meaning. However, similar or even cognate to it divine names and cultic terms are noted in the Cretan-Etruscan religious sphere of the historic time, such as the designation of the festival Fελχάνια at Lyttos, the month name Fελχάνιος / Ἐλχάνιος at Gortyna, Lato and Knossos, the name of the Etruscan god Velcha and its Latin equivalent Vulcanus, etc.1049 These have given certain grounds for tracing the epithet Fέλχανος (or Fελχανός) back to the inferred name of the old Balkan deity *Welhanos.1050 That god, given the representation on the prehistoric sarcophagus from Agia Triada and the 4th century BC image of Zeus Velhanos as a nude youth sitting on tree branches, while holding a rooster in his right hand,1051 would have personified the vernal energy of the earth feeding the fertile powers of vegetation.

3.1.32. Palaikastro (Crete) The site of a Minoan settlement at Palaikastro, in Eastern Crete,1061 abandoned towards the end of the LM IIIB period, was re-used during the EIA for a sanctuary, where Zeus Diktaean is attested to have been worshiped from the Late Archaic time.1062 The EIA cult was set on the eastern slope of the settlement hill, in the area of the Bronze Age ashlar construction - the Block Chi, and was focused on an open-air ash altar1063 (Fig.77). The cult activities may be traced from the Proto-Geometric period and are more evident from the Geometric period – the early 7th century BC.1064 At the time of the beginning of

3.1.31. Praisos (Crete) Ancient tradition knew the sanctuary of Zeus Diktaean at Praisos, in Eastern Crete (Strab. 10.4.6). The extant remains of the ancient town have been discovered north of the modern village of Nea Praisos, in the district of Siteia; those lie scattered over the three hills, called correspondingly the First Acropolis, the Second Acropolis, and the Third Acropolis, or the Altar Hill1052 (Fig.76). The site was occupied by a considerable Minoan settlement in the Late Bronze Age,1053 but the transitional period from the prehistoric time to the EIA at this place is unclear. The re-occupation of the site is

1054

Whitley, O’Conor and Mason (1995) 406-407. Bosanquet (1939-1940) 64-65. 1056 Whitley, O’Conor and Mason (1995) 407; MazarakisAinian (1997) 333. 1057 Prent (2005) 304. 1058 Prent (2005) 304-305. 1059 Bosanquet (1939-1940) 65-66; Prent (2005) 306. 1060 Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 333, identifies him as an “unknown divinity” 1061 For the Minoan settlement at Palaikastro, see Dawkins and Bosanquet (1928); Bernini (1995); MacGillivray, Driessen and Sackett (2000). 1062 Prent (2005) 350-353, 532-550; Murray (1908-1909). 1063 Prent (2005) 533. 1064 Prent (2005) 350. 1055

1047

Blackman (1997) 103. Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 424, nu.289 (unknown divinity). 1049 Chantraine (1968) 343 (Fέλχανος); Λαμπρινουδάκης (2006) 286-287. 1050 Chantraine (1968) 343. 1051 Λαμπρινουδάκης (2006) 286-287. 1052 Whitley, O’Conor and Mason (1995) 407-409, p.410 fig.2. 1053 Whitley, O’Conor and Mason (1995) 406, 409-414. 1048

114

the cult, the location of the sanctuary was extra-urban.1065 The EIA dedications include: fragmentary preserved 8-10 bronze tripods, in majority dated to the 8th century BC, but one of them might be of the PG date; fragments of at least five 7th century BC bronze shields, of which some were decorated with animal friezes, one bore the representation of a nude female figure identified as Potnia Theron, and two had the lion protomes; bronze helmets of the 7th century BC - one of life-size and one miniature; 13 miniature bronze shields of approximately the same date; the torso of a bronze sphyrelaton male statuette comparable to the analogous one from Dreros; a number of bronze bull figurines; a bronze and a lead lion figurines; several bronze pins and fibulae.1066 Among the pottery discovered within the area of the EIA sanctuary, Geometric cups, pyxides, and pythoi were especially notable in number.1067 The finds, in themselves, clearly indicate the military character of the EIA cult at Palaikastro, whereas the lord of the sanctuary already at that date seems to have been a young (?) male deity linked to the animal world and in some way associated with a female divinity of wild nature. It is noteworthy that the EIA dedications to the Palaikastro sanctuary share such a remarkable common feature with those from the sanctuaries at Praisos, Idaean Cave and Psychro Cave as bronze weaponry, especially shields and helmets, performed in life-size and in miniature form as well. Perhaps, it is possible to speculate about similar religious concepts, which originally underlay the cults practiced in these sanctuaries. It also deserves to be pointed out the use of ash altars in the Cretan sanctuaries at Palaikastro, Praisos, Amnisos, and in the Idaean Cave during the early historic time.

of adults-warriors and to obtain the right to become the full-rights members of a civil collective. Concerning the origins of the worship of Zeus Diktaean, scholars believe that it had its roots in Central Crete, where it may have emerged during the LM III period as a result of the syncretism of the Minoan young god / divine child with Hellenic Zeus, in the context of the Achaean Greeks’ presence in the island.1071 As it has already been mentioned, the name of Zeus Diktaean occurs in the Knossian Linear B tablet Fp 1.2 (in the dative di-ka-ta-jo di-we)1072 (see Chapter 2, 2.1 and 2.5). The spread of the worship of Zeus Diktaean towards Eastern Crete during the EIA, reflected in the introduction of his cults in such sites as Palaikastro and Praisos, may be explained by the movement of the island’s Minoan-Mycenaean population to the east at the end of the BA under the pressure of newly arrived Greek tribes. 3.1.33 / 34. Troy / Gargaron, Mt. Ida (Troas) Intriguing information about possible worship of Zeus in Troas during the late prehistoric (?) - early historic time is furnished by the ancient tradition, mainly by Homer. Thus, according to the poet, the Trojans worshiped Zeus in their city, on an altar (βωμός), which “never lacked in the equal banquet, the drink offering, and the savor of burnt sacrifice” (“δαιτὸς ἐΐσης, λοιβῆς τε κνίσης τε”, Hom. Il. 4.48-49). The first prince of Troy, Hector, was personally responsible for keeping Zeus’ altar loaded with offerings (Hom. Il. 24.66-70). This Zeus may be seen as a kind of communal god, an official divine συνδαιτυμόνας (a participant in a common banquet) of the Trojans, although his relation to the powers of nature is not exactly indicated in the poems.

The identity of the deity worshiped in the sanctuary at Palaikastro is more or less certain from the 6th century BC because of a highly important religious document - the Hymn of Kouretes discovered in the ancient city. The document itself may be dated to c.300 BC, but the text of the Hymn appears to have been composed in the 6th – 4th centuries BC. The Hymn is addressed to the Megistos Kouros of Dikte, “son of Kronos” and “immortal child of Rhea”,1068 that is, to Diktaean Zeus. The god was believed to care about harvest and flocks and to protect the young members of the city community (“ν[έους πολ]είτας”), as well as the common law.1069 According to the Hymn, in the historic time, the cult of Zeus Diktaean at Palaikastro involved ritual dancing with shields, singing, and jumping around the god’s altar, which supposedly stimulated the fertile powers of life and supported the established order of things.1070 It seems possible to suggest that grown up boys of the surrounding communities passed certain initiation ceremonies in the sanctuary of Zeus Diktaean in order to enter the category

Furthermore, Homer connects Zeus with Ida, the mountain in the south-east of Troas: the god “rules from Ida” (“Ἴδηθεν μεδέων”, Hom. Il. 3.276, 3.320, 7.202, 24.308), and bears the epithet Idaios / Ἰδαῖος (Hom. Il. 16. 604-605, 24.290-291). Homer mentions Zeus Idaios / Ἰδαῖος’ “temenos and altar for burnt sacrifices (or offerings) / τέμενος βωμός τε θυήεις” on Gargaron, “the topmost peak of many-fountained Ida” (Hom. Il. 8.48); that sanctuary was supposedly attended by a special priest – “Διός ἱερεύς Ἰδαίου”, who was honoured by the people of the legendary city “even as a god” / “θεὸς δ’ὣς τίετο δήμῳ” (Hom. Il. 16.604-605). Zeus uses to seat on the top of Gargaron, “looking down upon all the land of Troy” (Hom. Il. 14.157-158, 24.290-291), and a cloud created by smoke of a burnt sacrifice (“θυόεν1073 νέφος”) may crown him as a wreath (Hom. Il. 15.152-153). Zeus Idaios clearly appears in the Homeric poems as a mighty storm-god “wrapped in dark clouds”/ κελαινεφής (Hom. Il. 24. 290-291) and holding a thunderbolt in his hands (Hom. Il. 11.182-184). According to Homer, appeals to Zeus Idaios, like those to Zeus Dodonaios, had to be

1065

Prent (2005) 537. Prent (2005) 351-352. 1067 Prent (2005) 352. 1068 Murray (1908-1909) 356-357, lines 2, 3, 6-7, 13-16. 1069 Murray (1908-1909) lines 28-36. 1070 Murray (1908-1909) lines 7, 10-11, 28-36. 1066

1071

Prent (2005) 541. Ventris and Chadwick (1973) 305-307. 1073 Liddell and Scott (1996) 811: θύος, -εος, το “burnt sacrifice”; also Janko (1992) 244. 1072

115

the late 8th century BC.1076 Cult activities of the EIA Trojans are obviously traced from the Middle ProtoGeometric period, when a sacred place, reflected in a significant MPG votive deposit and in a large, thick concentration of ashes - possibly an altar, was organized approximately in the middle of the area; a number of pits containing burnt bones and specialized vessels dated to the end of the 9th / beginning of the 8th centuries BC were found in front of that ashy spot and behind it.1077 In the early 8th century BC, this place was provided with a crude, long and narrow, apsidal structure, which contained benches at its interior, as well as outside its southern wall; the finds associated with that structure comprised burnt material (ash and animal bones), bronze fibulae, some bronze rings, an arrowhead and a spearhead both of bronze.1078 Towards the Late Geometric period, the place was given a roofed building with a clear cultic character: besides a statue base identified at the centre of the rear wall, the level of this construction has yielded a small number of other notable finds, as bronze bracelets, fibulae, rings, and a knife, as well as a miniature stone axe.1079 Apart from this building, on the territory to the south-west of the BA citadel archaeologists distinguish several other areas with Geometric remains clearly related to cult activities, precisely: one more possible 8th century BC cult building - the House 850 located about 16m to the north-east of the main EIA structure; a series of hearths and floors, which were discovered directly under the later Archaic temples in the northern part of the territory; 28 stone circular platforms, seemingly used for feasting rituals, found next to the BA citadel wall; finally, the Altar A of the “Upper Sanctuary” might be of the Geometric date as well.1080 To this point, it is not known which deities were associated with the identified EIA cult spots; nevertheless, it is quite tempting to presume that at least one of those is that, which was extolled by Homer as the place of the public worship of Zeus supposedly carried on by the Trojans.

accompanied by libations of wine performed under the open sky (Hom. Il. 24.301-309). It is worth noting that both the cult-places of Zeus in Troas meant by Homer – the urban, seemingly public one, used for common sacrifices to the god, communal feasting and drinking, and the extra-urban one, or a special sanctuary located on the mountain Ida - seem to have been imagined as focused on altars for burnt sacrifices. Attention should be given to the language used for the descriptions of the two Trojan cult-places and the activities associated with them: it is full of old, standard epic and some Aeolian forms, which might reflect conservative religious formulae of the prehistoric-early historic cult practices, including those connected with the worship of Zeus in particular (note Zeus’ sanctuary with a number of activities and attendants in Mycenaean Pylos, see Chapter 2, 2.1). Do the Homeric references to the worship of Zeus in Troy have any correspondence with the available archaeological evidence? The religious life of the LBA cities at Troy – those now identified as Troia 6 (in its final phases) and Troia 7a, was undoubtedly rich and may have been reflected, to a certain degree, in the Homeric poems. However, the identity of the deities worshiped by the LBA Trojans is not established, on the one hand, while, on the other, as the ethnicity of the inhabitants of LBA Troy suggests, those deities must have been of Northeast Balkan / Western Asia Minor origin.1074 Therefore, it seems quite impossible that the Greek gods connected with legendary Troy by Homer, such as Zeus, Apollo, Poseidon and Athena, were really worshiped at Troy in the period before its destruction at the end of the LBA. Perhaps, it would be more correct to connect the introduction of cults of Greek deities in Troas with the arrival and settling in it of Greek Aeolian immigrants in the postMycenaean period.1075 Furthermore, it should also be taken into account a possibility that the Aeolian newcomers could have identified some of the most powerful local deities with their own ones and gradually vested Greek gods with certain characteristics of their Asian counterparts.

Concerning the possible sanctuary of Zeus Idaios on Gargaron, modern Dikeli-Dagh (+1774m),1081 no systematic search for it was made. However, there is a possibility that it may have been located on a small plateau lying above the modern Turkish village Adatepe, at the southwestern slopes of Mt. Ida (see Fig.78b): this place is called by the locals “the Altar of Zeus”, and even a piece of what may have been an altar was found on the

Based on the systematic excavations and scrupulous reexamination of the previously obtained material, it has been possible to establish that a small settlement, culturally close to the Thessalo-Euboean region, occupied the site of Troy in the Sub-Mycenaean (?) / ProtoGeometric – Sub-Proto-Geometric periods; its nucleus seems to have been in the area conventionally called Sanctuary, located to the south-west of the BA citadel walls (Fig.78a); this settlement notably increased towards

1076

Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 332; Korfmann (1997) 11; Catling (1998); Lenz, Ruppenstein, Baumann and Catling (1998); Lemos (2002) 211, 240. 1077 Basedow (2007) 51. 1078 Basedow (2007) 52, pl.6. 1079 Basedow (2007) 52, pl.7. 1080 Basedow (2007) 52; Aslan (2009) 38-39, fig.7; Blegen, Boulter, Caskey and Rawson (1958) 259-262. Rose (1997) 73, mentions a Late Geometric votive deposit discovered in the area of the Sanctuary. 1081 Note Elderkin (1937) 430: “In Homeric days Zeus had a precinct and altar on Gargaron, the peak of Mt. Ida”.

1074

Note the bronze figurine, most probably representing a male deity and resembling Hittite bronze figurines, recently found at the level Troia 7a (Mellink and Strahan (1998) figs.1-7). 1075 Spawforth (2006) 189. 116

spot.1082 Perhaps, the occurrence of the sanctuary of Zeus Idaios in the Homeric epos, in association with legendary Troy, should be related to the context of the religious life of the Aeolian colonists, who settled in the territory of the deserted city in the Sub-Mycenaean / Proto-Geometric time. It is also possible that the Aeolian Greeks in the course of the colonization of Western Asia Minor during the LH IIIC – Dark Age, identified Zeus with some NearEastern storm-god, who would originally have been linked to Mt. Ida.

Temple, although no traces of a Mycenaean settlement have been observed in the area of the Heraion.1087 The beginning of the cult activity on the territory of the sanctuary may be traced from the LH IIIB-C period, when it probably focused on a small stone altar, the conventional Altar 8.1088 It seems possible to assume that the place was sacred to a female deity already in the Mycenaean period. A very small amount of ProtoGeometric pottery found on the territory of the Heraion causes doubts regarding the uninterrupted continuity of the cult from the Late Mycenaean time into the Early Iron Age,1089 given also that the main bulk of the Samian Geometric pottery is of the Middle Geometric - Late Geometric date.1090 However, two of the earliest fragmentary female terracotta figurines found at the site may be dated to the Proto-Geometric period, and some other fragments may be related to the Early Geometric II phase.1091 During the 10th – 7th centuries BC, the cult continued to be focused on the tetragonal open-air stone altar oriented approximately north-west / south-east and re-built seven consecutive times (the sequential Altars 71).1092 Pausanias mentioned that in his time the altar of Samian Hera was “an ashen altar” / “τέφρας… βωμός” (Paus. 5.13.8), probably implying burnt animal sacrifices offered to the goddess. It may be supposed that this type of sacrifice was practiced in the Samian Heraion from the beginning of the cult. The first temple of Hera (the Hekatompedon) was built to the west of the altar, around 700 BC (no earlier than 800-750 BC and no later than 650 BC).1093

If the sanctuary of Zeus Idaios really existed on Gargaron from the EIA, in the Archaic and later times its attendance may have been taken over by Gargara, the city founded by the Aeolians near the mountain top around the 6th century BC, according to the archaeological evidence.1083 Finally, Pausanias mentions that Priamos worshiped as his paternal god Zeus, who was imagined as having three eyes; the altar and the wooden image of this god were believed to have stood in the uncovered part of Priamos’ court (Paus. 2.24.3). Perhaps, such a cult, whether really practiced by the kings of Bronze Age Troy or not, may be compared with the old Greek tradition to worship Zeus Herkeios – the protector of household and property – by setting altars to him in house courts (note Hom. Od. 22.334-336 – the altar of Zeus Herkeios in the court of Odysseus’ house). 3.1.35. Heraion in Samos Among the early historic sanctuaries specifically dedicated to Hera, the official consort of Zeus according to the Classical mythology, the Samian Heraion shows the clearest signs of Zeus’ possible involvement in this goddess’ cult during the EIA.

It is notable that many of the Geometric female terracotta statuettes found in the Samian Heraion follow the primitive iconography of the early bird-goddess: they represent females with a bird-like head and attempted wings1094 (see Figs.79a-b). It seems possible to relate those figurines to the initial concept of Samian Hera and thus to consider her originally and virtually a skyoriented divinity. It may be hypothesized that the early cult of Samian Hera in some way continued the primitive Indo-European worship of the Goddess of the clear sky, who was initially paired with the God of the clear sky *t’yeus > Greek Ζεύς (see Chapter 1, 1.3.1. Zeus as a god of the clear sky. Zeus’ original female counterpart: her identity and evolution). This presumption may be associated with the fact that painted solar symbols, especially a swastika, quite frequently

Human activities in the area of the sanctuary are attested from the Early Bronze Age: during c.2200 BC beginning of the Middle Bronze Age, the site was occupied by a settlement culturally related to the Early Bronze Age civilization of Western Asia Minor.1084 It is noteworthy that the Great Temple of Hera (538-532 BC) was built over the remains of the foundations of the Early / Middle Bronze Age tetragonal houses of a megaron type.1085 The re-occupation of the site is indicated by pottery from the Late Helladic IIIA-B period.1086 A Mycenaean tumulus dated to the 13th century BC has been discovered close to the northern part of the Great

1087

Kyrieleis (1983) 13. Milojcic (1961) 67; Kyrieleis (1983) 85. 1089 Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 202. 1090 Walter (1968) 11-13 (Proto-Geometric pottery), 14-46 (Middle and Late Geometric pottery). 1091 Jarosch (1994) pl.34, nus.950-951 (PG), nus.485, 952 (EG II). 1092 Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) fig.384; Kyrieleis (1983) 8488. 1093 Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 199-202, 331. 1094 Jarosch (1994) pl.34, nu.706, pl.35, nu.712, pl.36, nus.489, 496, 512, 954.

1082

1088

http://www.bravotur.com.tr/undiscovered.htm (“Undiscovered Places of Aegean Region”, 2003). 1083 Hansen and Nielsen (2004) 1007. Reportedly, “the mountain-top site was defended by fortification walls of the Archaic period... and included a walled acropolis area with foundations of a temple’’. 1084 Kyrieleis (1983) 10-12; Milojcic (1961) pls.22-24, 2634 – Early and Middle Bronze Age pottery from the area of the Samian Heraion. 1085 Kyrieleis (1983) 10-12. 1086 Milojcic (1961) 66. 117

occur on the Samian Geometric vessels.1095 In regard to this, one of the Geometric plates found to the east of the Hekatompedon should be mentioned: its inside was marvelously painted with numerous concentric circles and circular zigzag lines radiating from the central flower or rosette.1096 The decoration of this plate may be compared to the Archaic akroterion of the Temple of Hera at Olympia composed of multiple concentric circles giving the impression of a great solar-astral symbol (see above, 3.1.18. Olympia. The sanctuary in the EIA).

emphasized. The facial features of the figurines were not pointed out with enough accuracy, but it may be seen an attempt to indicate and even to paint a beard (see, e.g., Fig.80b). Perhaps, the represented male associate of the goddess was imagined mature. A likeness of a helmet recognizable on the head of one of the figurines1102 might imply the warlike character of the early Samian male deity. The EIA finds from the Samian Heraion comprise a terracotta relief dated to the end of the 8th - third quarter of the 7th century BC,1103 and a wood carving dated to c.620/610 BC:1104 the former represents a naked lady touched by a naked male personage (Fig.81), and the latter represents a lady dressed in a chiton and embraced by a male, who wears only a short cloth (Fig.82). It is agreed to interpret both the compositions as the hieros gamos and to identify the represented with Hera and Zeus. Thus, there are certain grounds for arguing that these two deities were actually worshiped in the Late Geometric – Early Archaic Samian sanctuary as a divine couple.1105 In regard to this, it is noteworthy that the later tradition knew a myth, which was linked to the Samian Heraion and told about a secret love affair between young Hera and Zeus (Varro from Lactant. Div. inst. 1.17.8).1106 However, as far as there is no secure evidence for Zeus’ own cult in the Samian Heraion in later times,1107 it has to be admitted that the worship of him in this sanctuary during the Geometric – Early Archaic periods was inferior and subject to the worship of Hera; for this reason, it could not develop into a sufficient cult.

The Geometric material from the Heraion includes a remarkable clay model of an apsidal building, dated to c.725 BC, which probably represents the real dwelling of its dedicator.1097 The dedication of a house-model to the Samian sanctuary of Hera may have reflected the belief that she was especially concerned about “oikos”, that is, the household and the family. Homer had emphasized this feature, characteristic of Classical Hera, in the image of Zeus’ wife jealously worrying about her marriage. Among the Geometric votive offerings to the sanctuary, a number of miniature votive terracotta and bronze shields may especially be noted.1098 A strong possibility that these shields were directly offered to the mistress of the sanctuary suggests some connection of early Samian Hera with warfare. About 17 Late Geometric II and 13 Sub-Geometric or Early Archaic (c.690-680 BC) male terracotta figurines, whole and in fragments, have been found in the area of the sanctuary.1099 The LG II male figurines in majority are very crude,1100 but some of them were accomplished in quite an artistic way and demonstrate an attempt for correct rendering of physical forms1101 (see Figs.80a-b). The votive character of the figurines seems to indicate the presence in the EIA Heraion of a male deity, who would have been paired with the main goddess of the sanctuary. Those Samian male terracotta figurines, which belong to the group of more elaborate specimens, represent a standing, nude male with the head raised upward; the arms are not always preserved, but in some cases they are along the body, as in the later kouros-type, and in one case the right arm is bent and the left arm is upraised; the legs are usually not preserved; the genitals are clearly indicated, without, however, being especially

Nevertheless, evaluating the available indications regarding the possible worship of Zeus in the Samian Heraion during the Geometric - Early Archaic periods, it may be agreed that the god would have appeared there as more or less a mature male able for reproductive activity. Therefore, he may have had certain features of a fathergod resembling Homeric Ζεύς πατήρ. It seems likely that Samian Zeus of the early historic time was provided with some qualities of a warrior. As a partner of the skyoriented goddess, he, too, would have been connected with the sky. It is certain that in the EIA Zeus was not the main deity of the Samian sanctuary, but the consort of dominating there Hera. Thus, Zeus’ position in the EIA Samian Heraion seems to correspond to the designation “ἐρίγδουπος πόσις Ἥρης” applied to the god by Homer (Hom. Il. 7.411, 10.329, 16.88).

1095

Walter (1968) 29, fig.15, p.30, fig.16, p.42, fig.25, p.70, fig.44, p.75, fig.45, p.77, fig.47, p.79, fig.50, and others. 1096 Walter (1968) 19-20, fig.7. 1097 Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 86; this item should be associated with a number of Archaic elliptical building models found in the sanctuary, see Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 90, fig.508. 1098 Brize (1997) 133-134, figs.16-19. 1099 Jarosch (1994) 157-160, nus.540, 860-875 (LG II), nus.876-888 (Early Archaic). 1100 Jarosch (1994) pl.42, nu.869, pl.43, nus.540, 870. 1101 Jarosch (1994) pl.42, nus.860, 861, 863, 868, pl.43, nu.866.

1102

Jarosch (1994) pl.43, nu.866. Ohly (1941) pl.33, nu.392; Kossatz-Deismann (1988) 683, nu.201; Jarosch (1994) 179, pl.33, nu.1177. 1104 Kossatz-Deismann (1988) 683-684, nu.202. 1105 Zolotnikova (2004) 64. 1106 Zolotnikova (2004) 60. 1107 In later periods, the sanctuary comprised a number of temples: the so-called Korinthian temple and the Temples A-E, but the identity of the deities worshiped in those is still uncertain, see Kyrieleis (1983) 101-102, 108-115. 1103

118

In addition to the above, it deserves to be mentioned a fragment of the late 8th century BC Samian votive shield with the remarkable representation of a helmeted warrior, who holds in his upraised right hand a half-preserved object, which, according to some scholars, might be a thunderbolt1108 (Fig.87). If this object was really meant to be a thunderbolt and not an ordinal lance, in that case, it may be attested the earliest known appearance of a stormgod in the Greek iconography.1109 Consequently, it becomes quite tempting to recognize in this image Homeric Zeus hurling a thunderbolt (see also below, 3.2). However, the identification of the represented warrior with a storm-god is highly insecure, while his precise relation to the Samian divine couple may not be established with certainty.

right hand.1113 These representations seem to reflect the idea of the sacred marriage between Hera and Zeus and thus permit the presumption that in the Early Archaic time Hera worshiped at Perachora and at Argos was imagined in association with a divine male partner, most probably Zeus. Such a connection of the two deities may have started even earlier than the middle of the 7th century BC. It is important that according to later sources, the sacred marriage of Hera and Zeus was possibly celebrated in the Argive Heraion, in agreement with the local myth about the love of virgin Hera and young Zeus (Paus. 2.17.4).1114 However, even if really involved in the cults of Hera in any of those Heraia during the EIA, Zeus certainly did not have his own right there in that time.

Finally, attention should be given to the presence among the votive dedications to the sanctuary of the Oriental bronze figurines dated to the 8th –7th centuries BC: one of those, which is from Urartu, represents a god, and another one, which is from Babylon, shows a male, a god or a mortal prayer, with a dog.1110 These finds indicate that during the EIA, worshipers of Samian Hera and her partner were aware of and paid tribute to Oriental male deities. Hence, it may be conjectured that some elements of cults of Near-Eastern gods could have been adapted to the local Samian male divine concept.

3.2. Zeus in the EIA iconography In order to complete the consideration of the evidence related to the position of Zeus in religion and mythology of the EIA, it is necessary to examine more closely the representation-based perception of the god during the early historic time. The evidence, which will be surveyed below, consists of images of both religious (cultic) and decorative character. Furthermore, it will be pursued the comparison between the epic (that is, verbal) portraits of Zeus as attested in the Homeric poems and the depiction of the god by means of the EIA pictorial and sculptural forms.

To sum up, the EIA Samian cult seems to present a kind of actual analogue of the epic divine couple - Zeus and Hera. It also points to the religions of the Near East as to a possible source of certain elements in the mythological concept(s) of Zeus, which lack accordance with the traditional Indo-European conceptions.

As it has been pointed out before, it is not certain whether Zeus may be recognized among the available prehistoric anthropomorphic representations of any character1115 (see Chapter 2, 2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.3). However, the detailed descriptions of Zeus occurring in the Homeric poems indicate that by the beginning of the historic time, the Greek epic diction had already created colorful verbal images of Zeus as those of an absolutely human-looking god with the developed and distinct personality: Homeric/epic Zeus is a mature god; he has beautiful hair and dark brows (Hom. Il. 1.528-529); he sits on a golden throne among the other gods (Hom. Il. 8.442-443); he appears holding a lightning in his hands (Hom. Il. 11.182184) or strikes with a thunderbolt (Hom. Il. 8.75-76); he rides in a chariot (Hom. Il. 8.41-46) or has an erotic meeting with his divine wife, the goddess Hera (Hom. Il. 14.346-351), etc. Understandably, countless attempts to identify these and many other Homeric images of Zeus in the iconography of the early historic time have been made. However, the conventionality of the EIA anthropomorphic representations and the absence of literal indications of their actual identity generally make such efforts quite difficult and often groundless.

3.1.36/37. Heraion at Perachora / Heraion at Argos The material from two other greatest sanctuaries of Hera – the Heraion at Perachora, founded probably in the 9th century BC,1111 and the Heraion at Argos, built around 700 BC,1112 does not offer secure evidence for the association of Hera with a male partner on the EIA phase of her cult practiced there. However, attention should be given to three small lead reliefs dated approximately to the middle of the 7th century BC, of which two came from the sanctuaries of Hera (Heraia) at Perachora and Argos, and one was found at the site of Profitis Ilias in Argolis: a male, right, and a female, left, face each other; a male, dressed in a chiton and a himation, draws one edge of his himation with one hand; a female, wearing a peplos (?) and a polos (?), holds a pomegranate branch (?) in her 1108

Walter (1971) 86, 391, fig.71. Walter (1971) 86, suggests the identification of this personage with Zeus. 1110 Kyrieleis (1983) 33, fig.20, p.34, fig.21. 1111 Payne (1940) 21-30. See for the sanctuary at Perachora the research by Menadier (1996). 1112 Hagg (1992) 14. See for the Heraion in Argos the study by Waldstein (1902-1905). Recently, the EIA evidence for the Argive Heraion has been reviewed by Strøm (2009). 1109

Furthermore, because no cult representations (statues) of Zeus have been found in his EIA cult-places,1116 there is 1113

Tiverios (1997) 318, nu.21. Zolotnikova (2004) 60, 63-64. 1115 Tiverios (1997) 315-316. 1116 In fact, to this point, cult statues of Zeus earlier than those of the 6th century BC are not known, see Romano 1114

119

64, 80a-b). The most striking observation, which may be made on the basis of the votive statuettes, is that the idea about Zeus’ sitting on a throne does not seem to have occurred or to have been important enough in the actual worship of him during the EIA.1120 The rich EIA votive material from Zeus’ sanctuary at Olympia also contains clay figurines identified as “kouroi”1121 (Fig.53) and those classified as “charioteers”, made of terracotta and

no evidence for the religious iconography (=visual concept) of the god during the early historic time.1117 It is argued that the EIA votive figurines found in the mainland sanctuaries of Zeus (at Dodona, Pherai, Halos, and Olympia, see above, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3/4, 3.1.18) and in the Samian Heraion (see above, 3.1.35) were intended to represent this god as he would have been imagined by his worshipers in that time:1118 these figurines, as do those discovered in the cult-places sacred to various other male and female deities, follow the standardized image of a standing warlike male, in majority of the cases with the pronounced sexual characteristics and without specified personal features1119 (see Figs. 22a-c, 24, 50, 51, 55, 56,

(1963) fig.8). The bronze seated figurine in the Athens Archaeological Museum, performed with a helmet-like (?) head-gear and an apparently flat chest, may be put in the category of male representations, but its crude facial features seem to have had North-Syrian prototypes, and therefore the image may not be securely defined as a Greek one. S. Langdon classifies as male seated representations a number of bronze decorative figurines or amulets (c.15 at present, in majority from Peloponnesos) showing seated, nude half-men / half-apes, the “apemen”, ithyphallic in some cases, but prevalently without sexual features. Figurines of this type are divided into two groups: those that are preformed seated on a stump or stool, and those that are cast as seated simply in the squatting position (Langdon (1984) 135-147). M. Flashar has published a Sub-Geometric, as he believes, bronze figurine of a seated man (“Sitzender Bronzemann”), preserved without a seat (Fig.85): the represented is naked, wears a conical helmet on his head and holds his hands in the position appropriate for a charioteer; it is not certain whether the figurine represents a mortal or a god/hero; the provenance of the figurine is unknown (Flashar (2002) 30, 41, 290, figs.70a-b). 1120 The earliest secure seated/enthroned representations of Zeus are known from the beginning of the 6th century BC, when those had occurred in vase painting and reliefs – mostly in the scene of the birth of Athena (Cassimatis (1984) nus.334-369), and in a scene with uncertain context, comprising seated Zeus and a flying eagle, depicted on a number of Archaic Lakonian cups (Pipili (1987) 46-47; Tiverios (1997) 321, nus.43-45). Perhaps, the earliest known cult or votive statue of enthroned Zeus is that of bronze, found in the precinct of Zeus Lykaios on Mt. Lykaion (Arkadia), dated to c.550-520 BC (Lamb (1925-1926) 143, nu.29; Fig.63). The poros representation of enthroned Zeus in the “Introduction Pediment”, which adorned one of the Archaic temples at the Acropolis in Athens and is dated to c.550 BC (Kossatz-Deismann (1988) nu.458; Fig.92), is another of the earliest survived examples of this type. The fragmentary preserved marble statue of enthroned Zeus from Delos, dated to the end of the 6th century BC, possibly made for the Delian Temple of All the Olympic gods (Marcade (1996) 43, 54, fig.19), and the terracotta statue of enthroned Zeus (?) from the temple of Hera in Paestum, dated to the late 6th century BC (Langlotz (1963) pls.3-4) are also worth to be noted. For the establishment of the type of enthroned Zeus in the Classical iconography, see the studies by Aebli (1971), Arafat (1990), Vlizos (1999). 1121 Heilmeyer (1972) nus.163-171.

(1985) 348; Tiverios (1997) 318-321. 1117 Generally, it has been presumed that “the early cult images of the 8th and 7th centuries (perhaps even earlier) were probably nondescript, simple pieces distinguished by their dress and the jewelry,” Alroth (1989) 17-18. 1118 Alroth (1989) 15. 1119 Tiverios (1997) 316, nus.7-9 (clay and bronze male figurines from various Geometric workshops, found in the sanctuaries of Zeus); also de Rider (1896) 239-248; Langdon (1984); Byrne (1991); Bol (2002b); Flashar (2002). Concerning the posture of the EIA votive male figurines, it has been observed that almost all of them are standing. Only a few Geometric votive statuettes representing seated figures, all without clear indications of gender, have been suggested to be identified as male: 1. an enthroned terracotta figurine of unknown provenance, dated to the 3rd quarter of the 8th century BC, in the Metropolitan Museum of New York, mus.nu.31.11.8 (Muller (1934-1936) 166, fig.10; Kranz (1972) pl.2, nus.1-2; Fig.83); 2. a very fragmentary enthroned terracotta figurine found in the Geometric Grave XII in the Athenian Agora, dated to the end of the 8th beginning of the 7th century BC, now in the Agora Museum, mus.nu.T 762 (Kranz (1972) pl.2, nus.3-4; Young (1939) 55, 64-65, fig.41; Fig.84); 3. a bronze statuette, perhaps from Aegean islands, representing a figure in a long robe, seated on a stool, wearing what might be a helmet on the head and a wide belt on the waist, and holding a vessel in the hands extended forward, now in the Athens Archaeological Museum, mus.nu.15069 (Langdon (1984) 205-206, nu.C 168). Both the terracotta figurines have been identified by Kranz (1972) 10-11, as representations of enthroned males (“Thronender” in each case), mainly because of the rendering of the legs, which are separated; except that, the statuette of the Metropolitan Museum has a flat chest, but the body of the figurine from the Agora is not preserved. However, the Metropolitan statuette was originally described as a representation of a “goddess seated on a rich throne” (Alexander (1944 - 1945) 239240). The statuette T 762 from the Agora is exhibited in the Agora Museum as a representation of a goddess, whom some scholars connect with the cult of the dead (Young (1939) 64-65); this statuette is compared with an undoubtedly female enthroned terracotta figurine found in a Geometric tomb in Kalithea (Callipolitis-Feytmans 120

of bronze as well (Figs. 52a-b, 59),1122 however, the relation of these types of male representations to Zeus is not certain. A specifically EIA Cretan type of votive representations is recognized in the bronze ProtoGeometric and Geometric figurines from the Cretan cultplaces associated with Zeus in the late historic time Agia Triada and Amnisos: those show males in the position with the bent knees (a half-sitting position),1123 but the scholars hesitate in identifying them with the divinities worshiped in those sanctuaries.1124 Generally, the possibility to accept the EIA votive figurines as a kind of cult iconography is questionable, and their actual role in the expression of the visual concepts of the EIA divinities should be estimated with many cautions.

Among the EIA anthropomorphic representations, which did not have direct connection with cult, the following ones have been suggested to be related to Zeus. Two groups of bronze figurines known as “a Lord and a Lady”1128 (Fig.60) and “a Man and a Centaur”,1129 both possibly coming from Olympia and dated in the 8th century BC (see above, 3.1.18. Olympia. The sanctuary in the EIA), are thought to represent certain episodes of some early, later forgotten, myths about Zeus, but it may not be confirmed. H. Walter suggested to recognize Zeus in two Late Geometric painted figures, both dated to the end of the 8th century BC: 1. that of a warrior wearing a Korinthian helmet and holding in his upraised right hand a partly preserved object, identified by the scholar as a thunderbolt, represented on a fragmentary terracotta votive shield from the Samian Heraion (see above 3.1.35, Fig.87),1130 and 2. that of a bearded male in a long chiton, holding a scepter by both hands and treading right, depicted on the neck of an Attic LG amphora1131 (Fig.88). However, the Zeus-based interpretation of both the figures is not persuasive: the weapon of the warrior on the Samian shield, even if it might be a thunderbolt, is preserved to less than a half, which makes the identification of the represented with “Zeus striking with a thunderbolt” very insecure; the representation of the man with a scepter on the Attic amphora does not exhibit any specific signs of a deity and might feature a mortal or heroic ruler.

Thus, it should be admitted that the image of Zeus as described in the epic poems is not recognized in the preserved cult-related representational material. In addition to the votive figurines, it deserves to be mentioned a remarkable votive bronze shield or tympanum from the Idaean Cave, dated to the 8th century BC (Fig.86): it has two wings and two human hands, each holding similar, though uncertain, objects, which look, according to Γ.Σ. Κορρές, like thunderbolts; the scholar has suggested to interpret this shield as a “πτερωτός μετά ζεύγος κεραυνών δαίμονος” (“a winged demon with a pair of thunderbolts”)1125 and to consider it a symbolic representation of Idaean Zeus. Moreover, the scholar believes that, to this point, this shield is the earliest known Hellenic forerunner of the Archaic and Classical iconographical types of Zeus holding thunderbolts in both hands (the so-called Δίπαλτος).1126 However, in fact, there are no grounds for supposing that the particular Idaean shield, called by Γ.Σ. Κορρές as “Δαίμων έξ ἀσπίδος”, represents Zeus worshiped in the Idaean Cave during the EIA. Besides, there are other interpretations of this shield, and, for example, A.B. Cook believed that the hands of the shield-demon hold not thunderbolts, but flowers.1127

An example of the EIA Cretan art - the remarkable painted representation on a pithos lid from Knossos, dated to c.700 BC, shows a beardless, nude male proceeding right, holding a bird in his left hand and a thunderbolt in his right one; before him, there is a tripod, below which projects the upper part of a seemingly female figure; two other birds are placed above and beside the tripod.1132 The male figure, due to the thunderbolt in his hand, is suggested to be identified with Zeus, probably young and specifically Cretan, but it is not certain; nothing is known about the mythic backgrounds of the scene.

1122

Heilmeyer (1972) nus.117, 133-162; Kunze (1940-41) 109, fig.90, pl.34 (an Early Geometric Charioteer); p.111, fig.91, pl.35 (a Late Geometric Charioteer); p.129, figs.99-100, pls.47-50 (a Late Geometric Charioteer with long hair, naked, without a belt and a helmet; the chariot is not preserved); Kunze (1961a) 142-145, fig.84, pl.58 (a Charioteer, Olympia Museum, Mus.nu.B 3005). 1123 Verlinden (1984) pls.82-93, esp.p.167, nu.214 – Proto-Geometric bronze male (?) figurine from Agia Triada, p.168, nu.225 – Geometric bronze male figurine from Agia Triada, p.170, nu.234 – Proto-Geometric bronze male figurine from Amnisos. 1124 Naumann (1976) 67-68, 76, identifies the figurines of this type as representations of men. 1125 Κορρές (1972) 219, fig.7. 1126 Κορρές (1972) 219. For the origins of the image of Zeus holding thunderbolts in both hands, see also Lorimer (1936-1937). 1127 Cook (1925) 770 n.3.

Another painted Cretan representation, performed on a metope of a tripod pithos, dated to 700-675 BC, has to be mentioned: it comprises a nude, helmeted male turned to the right and a female in a girdled chiton and a polos, turned to the left; the male turns with outstretched arms towards the female, who looks towards her companion, 1128

Palmer (1958); Fittschen (1969) 133, GP 1; Tiverios (1997) 317, nu.18. 1129 Hampe (1936) 32-33, pl.30.1; Richter (1953) 22; Fittschen (1969) 111, SB 1; Ahlberg-Cornell (1992) 2526, fig.26; Tiverios (1997) 317, nu.14. 1130 Walter (1971) 85, 391, fig.71. 1131 Walter (1971) 85, 391, fig.72. 1132 Tiverios (1997) 316-317, nu.12; Levi (1945) pl.28, fig.3. 121

while her arms are raised1133 (Fig.89). The obviously close relationship between the two figures seems to suggest their identification with young Zeus and Hera, who would have been involved in the sacred marriage. An analogous episode with young Zeus and Hera might be represented on relief metopes of Cretan pithoi from Arkades, dated to the second quarter of the 7th century BC (exhibited in the Heraklion Museum and in the Louvre): a male with long hair, but perhaps beardless and naked, embraces by his left hand for the neck a female, while touching by his right hand her abdomen; the female figure wears a polos and a long chiton with a belt; both the figures look front1134 (Fig.90). It appears tempting to trace a link between the two representations and to connect them both with the same cult, which would have been practiced somewhere in the area in the early historic time. Thus, later sources (e.g., Diod. 5.72.4) mention that the “hieros gamos” between Zeus and Hera was annually celebrated near Knossos, at a sacred place by the river Therenos (Θήρηνος).1135 Unfortunately, the exact place of that sanctuary has not been discovered yet, and, therefore, the EIA roots of the cult practiced there may not be confirmed.

features of birds. Still, the identification of Tinos’ deity with Zeus is not unanimously accepted.1139 According to some scholars, one more early representation of Zeus might be that on the neck of a Melian amphora, dated to 650-640 BC: a winged male figure, young and beardless, runs towards the right; he is clad in a short chiton and wears endromides, while holds a thunderbolt in each of his hands.1140 However, the identification of this figure particularly with Zeus is not verified. Moreover, it has been pointed out some similarity of the Melian personage with Boreades, the divine children of the Northern Wind, as they used to be depicted in the Archaic Korinthian vase painting.1141 H. Pane suggested the interpretation of this remarkable figure as a representation of an abstract “storm-spirit”.1142 On the whole, all the above cases seem to indicate that the earliest possible representations of the mythological episodes with Zeus as a protagonist appear in art at the end of the 8th century BC and during the first half of the 7th century BC. It may be observed that at first no single, widely accepted type of the god was established1143 and that not all the possible images of Zeus in the early historic iconography show the agreement with his appearance in the Homeric poems.1144

Special attention should be given to the representation on the body of a Proto-Korinthian aryballos dated to c.680 BC: a bearded male figure with a big sword raises a thunderbolt in his left hand against a Centaur, while supports a scepter by his right hand (Fig.91); scholars almost unanimously believe that the represented male may securely be identified with Zeus.1136 The scene obviously recalls some myth about Zeus, which was wellknown in the early historic time, but later disappeared from the mythic tradition.

Finally, the following needs to be stressed. Trying to identify the images of the Homeric gods among the EIA anthropomorphic representations of any kind (whether votive and decorative statuettes of terracotta and bronze or pictured-incised figures), it should not be ignored the fact that those do not really dominate in the EIA iconography, which is mainly represented by various symbols and signs, as well as by zoomorphic representations.1145 Furthermore, it has been argued that solar motifs, variously conventionalized in swastikas, rosettes, birds, horses, and deer, prevail in the Greek art of the early historic time, and that the predominance of the solar symbolism generally indicates the importance of

A noteworthy relief on a pithos from Tinos, dated to the second quarter of the 7th century BC, refers to another myth, which may have been associated with Zeus and occurred in the Aegean area in the post-Homeric period: a winged, bearded male figure, dressed in a short chiton, sits on a luxurious throne; his arms are raised and his head is turned towards the beholder; a full-armed small figure emerges from his head; the scene, which also comprises some other figures, appears to represent the birth of Athena, therefore the enthroned male winged figure is proposed to be identified with Zeus.1137 In fact, a winged appearance is not attested among the secure representations of Zeus. However, it might be admitted that, in terms of early iconography, wings may have been used as a convention for the idea about the god’s connection with the sky,1138 as it may be observed, e.g., in the prehistoric female figurines performed with certain

1139

Σημαντώνη-Μπουρνιά (2001) 83-84, supports the interpretation of this representation as the birth of Athena from the head of Zeus, but also discusses such possible interpretations of it as the birth of Zeus from the head of Rhea, the birth of Athena from the head of Metis, and even the birth of Dionysos from a thigh of seated Zeus, pp.69 notes 1-4. 1140 Fittschen (1969) 121, nu.593; Ζαφιεροπούλου (1985) 31, nu.1(63), fig.59; Tiverios (1997) 317, nu.13. 1141 Ζαφιεροπούλου (1985) 64. 1142 Payne (1931) 78. 1143 Tiverios (1997) 319. 1144 Ahlberg-Cornell (1992) 186. 1145 Coldstream (1968); Birchler (1990); Kunisch (1998). The figured representations in the Geometric painting are attested from the MG II period, c.780-760 BC (very few scenes), and securely appear in the LG period, c.760-700 BC, see Rombos (1988); Ahlberg Cornell (1992) 18. For anthropomorphic representations incised on Geometric fibulae, see the study by Hampe (1936).

1133

Tiverios (1997) 317-318, nu.19. Kossatz-Deismann (1988) 683, nu.199. 1135 Zolotnikova (2004) 63. 1136 Tiverios (1997) 317, nu.16. 1137 Tiverios (1997) 317, nu.17. 1138 It may be relevant to note the comparison of the Akkadian sky-god Anu to a bird: “Anu, as a bird, flew toward heaven…”, Guterbock (1948) 124 (L 22). 1134

122

a solar / celestial god in the religion of that period.1146 It has also been noticed that in some rare cases, solar symbols, as, e.g., a swastika, and symbols with connotations of storm, e.g., a double axe, appear combined in one sign.1147 Such a combination of symbols of sun and of storm might be considered as a kind of reflection of the combination of deities with solar and stormy nature in one. It is very tempting to relate this observation to the trend, which was actually taking place in the Greek mythology and religion during the early historic time – the transformation of Zeus, the original Greek god of the clear, shining sky, into a god of storm (see Chapter 1).

the present date, the recorded Early Iron Age cultplaces are over 300, while most of them were connected with the worship of Apollo, Athena, and Artemis.1149  in geographical terms: the geographical distribution of the EIA cult-places of Zeus demonstrates that in the beginning of the historic period the god was mainly worshiped in Peloponnesos (10 sites, counting also Mt. Oros in Aegina) and Attica including Megaris (5 known and 5 possible sites). Only five EIA cult-places related to Zeus are identified or expected to be found in the extensive area of Northern and Central Greece (Dodona in Epirus, Halos and Pherai in Thessalia, Mt. Laphystion and Mt. Helikon in Boeotia). Outside the mainland, Zeus seems to have received limited worship in the Aegean islands (in Delos, Naxos (?), Rhodes, and Thera), possibly in Euboea (correspondingly 1 site in each named territory), as well as in Western Asia Minor - in Troas (two possible cult-places). Six EIA Cretan cult-places probably connected with Zeus indicate the relative importance of the god in the largest of the Greek islands during the early historic time.

3.3. Evaluation of the evidence presented in the Chapter 3 The attempted above presentation and consideration of the available archaeological and other evidence for the worship and perception of Zeus in the end of the prehistoric – beginning of the historic time lead to the following conclusions:1148  in statistical terms: to date, the number of the identified and possible cult-places, which were or may have been dedicated to Zeus during the late prehistoric / early historic time, including the beginning of the Archaic period, seems to consist of 25 (+ 5?) sites in the mainland Greek territory and in the islands except Crete. This number comprises the Olympieion at Athens, Kenaion Cape (Euboea), Mt. Kynthos (Delos), and Mt. Atavyros (Rhodes), where the traces of the EIA cult activities are not quite sufficient, as well as both the undetected sanctuaries of Zeus Laphystios (one in Boeotia and one Thessalia) and the possible sanctuary of Zeus on Mt. Helikon (Boeotia) mentioned by Hesiod. Five EIA cult-places in Attica dedicated to unknown deities have been associated with Zeus by M.K. Langdon, without, however, support from other scholars. The small, but active, sanctuary at Tretos (Korinthia), although the identity of the divinity worshiped in it is not established, seems very likely to have been connected with Zeus. A sanctuary of Zeus may have existed near the summit of Mt. Zas in Naxos from the Early Archaic period, but it is not confirmed. Six Cretan cult-places may have been related to Zeus in that time. In Asia Minor, in Troas, there may have been two sanctuaries of Zeus during the early historic time – one at the EIA settlement in the place of Troy and another one, supposedly dedicated to Zeus Idaios, on the peak Gargaron of Mt. Ida, but both are still known only due to the epic tradition. The presence of Zeus as a minor partner of Hera might be suspected in two mainland’s Heraia (those in Perachora and Argos) and in the sanctuary of Hera in Samos, in the Late Geometric – Early Archaic time. Concerning this number, it should be noted that, to

 in relation to the prehistoric period: the territories of most of the EIA sanctuaries of Zeus or their closest vicinities, both in the mainland and in the islands except Crete, were in any way involved in human activities during the prehistoric time, mainly for settlements; such cult-places are those at: Dodona, Halos, Pherai, Olympieion at Athens, Mt. Hymettos, Mt. Tourkovounia, Mt. Oros, Nemea, Tretos, Mt. Arachnaion, Larisa hill, Olympia, Mt. Ithome, possibly Kenaion Cape (Euboea), Mt. Kynthos (Delos), Mt. Zas (Naxos), Mt. Atavyros (Rhodes); the same might apply to the possible cultplace of Zeus at EIA Toy. The emergence of the sanctuaries of Zeus in those places in the EIA may have been a result of the development of the religious beliefs and worship practices of the previously existed there or nearby LBA settlements. At Mt. Lykaion (Arkadia), the continuous cultactivity seems to date as far back as the Late Helladic period, while there is evidence for the religious use of the mountain’s summit during the whole Bronze Age. Mycenaean cult activities are traced at Mt. Arachnaion (Argolis), on the same peak, where Zeus and Hera began to be worshiped in the EIA, but prehistoric roots of their cult may not be confirmed. Mt. Ida in Troas may originally have been associated with some Anatolian storm-god, who would have been identified with Zeus by the Aeolian Greeks in the beginning of the EIA. In Crete, the Middle Minoan origins of the cult activities are traced in the Idaean and the Diktaean (Psychro) Caves, but the

1146

Roes (1933) 13-27, 73-74. Roes (1933) 73-74, fig.60 – an example on a Geometric vase from Thera. 1148 See also my paper Zolotnikova (2011). 1147

1149

See the most complete list of the recorded Early Iron Age Greek sanctuaries in Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 420424.

123

question remains whether the EIA cults at these sanctuaries continued or had replaced the Bronze Age cults originally practiced there. The sites of Amnisos, Agia Triada, Praisos, and Palaikastro, which were used for Minoan settlements and abandoned towards the end of the Bronze Age, seem to have ritually been re-used for the worship of Zeus from the EIA.

- the EIA sacred architecture appears to have been represented by so-called “oval houses”, but their exact function has not yet been determined. Nevertheless, at Olympia, it was the hypaethral ash altar of Zeus, which constantly appeared as the focus of the god’s cult, and not his “sacred house”, the temple. In addition to a religious building, the EIA sanctuary at Tourkovounia also comprised, as possibly did that in Olympia, a mound, though its role in the cult at that date is uncertain. The sacred buildings in the sanctuary of Zeus Messapeus at Tsakona are dated from the Early Archaic period. In relation to this evidence, it may be observed that many male and female divinities (as Poseidon, Apollo, Dionysos, Athena, Hera, and some other) received their earliest temples during 1100-750 BC,1151 while the actual building of the temples of Zeus in the Greek world started only in the first half of the 6th century BC.1152 Perhaps, a sort of purposeful persistence to venerate Zeus under the open sky should be recognized in this situation. The arrangement of Zeus’ inside-cave cult-places and the practice of worship of the god in those were necessarily conformed to the interior conditions in each particular cave: characteristically, limited architectural adjustments were made in the Upper Chamber of the Diktaean (Psyhro) Cave for its use in the EIA cult, while in the Idaean Cave, the EIA cult was carried on not only inside the cave, but also outside it, at the entrance to it.

 in relation to the early historic urban and socio-political systems: almost all the known EIA cult-places of Zeus were extra-urban;1150 possible exceptions are the joined sanctuary of Athena and Zeus at the acropolis on the Larisa hill in Argos and the possible sacred place of Zeus in EIA Troy, placed by Homer inside the legendary city.  in terms of landscape setting: during the early historic period, the worship of Zeus in the mainland and in the islands except Crete was prevalently practiced on high places – mountain tops (Hymettos, Parnes, Oros, Fokas-Phoukas, Arachnaion, Ithome, Kynthos, Atavyros, Mesavouno, Lykaion, possibly Laphystion, Helikon, Zas, and Gargaron) and hills (Tourkovounia, Sta Marmara, Tsakona, possibly Tretos, Larisa, and Kenaion); the Cretan sanctuary of Zeus Diktaios at Praisos, too, was set on the top of a hill. It is noteworthy that some of the sacred places of Zeus located on the mountain tops are quite difficult for approaching. This suggests that the choice of them for the religious activity would have been deliberate and, perhaps, conceptually subject to a special link of the god with the notion of height. However, considering this situation in terms of the Greek religious practice in general, it needs to be emphasized that the mountain tops were not specifically connected with the worship of Zeus, and neither was Zeus exclusively worshiped on the mountain tops. A number of important cults of Zeus were constantly practiced in valley conditions (as those at Dodona, Halos, Pherai, Nemea, and Olympia). Three early historic cults of Zeus may have been placed within caves: that in the cave on Mt. Parnes in Attica and those in the Idaean and the Diktaean (Psychro) Caves in Crete.

 concerning sanctuary activities: 1. sanctuary focal point: it may be attested that in the EIA open-air sanctuaries of Zeus at Mt. Oros, Mt. Fokas-Phoukas, Nemea, Mt. Arachnaion, Olympia, Mt. Lykaion, Amnisos, Praisos, and Palaikastro, the religious activities were in each case concentrated on an ash altar. This observation would also apply to the possible sanctuaries of Zeus at EIA Troy, Mt. Gargaron, and Mt. Helikon, all mentioned in the early historic poetry, and, presumably, to the cultplace on Mt. Zas, if that was really connected with Zeus. In the sanctuary on Mt. Hymettos, provided with an open-air ash altar, a circular construction with a porch placed in a hollow appears to have played one of the central roles in the cult: it may have been used in the mysterious rituals of receiving “divine messages” from Zeus. The sacred space of the small inside-cave sanctuary on Mt. Parnes was dominated by a large interior ash altar. The sacred oak, presumably, surrounded by tripods, was referred

 in terms of the architectural arrangement of the sanctuaries (cult’s contacts with the environment): most of the identified EIA cult-places of Zeus, including those at Amnisos, Praisos, Palaikastro, and Agia Triada in Crete, were simple, completely or basically open-air sanctuaries. Architectural remains of the early historic time have been identified in the sanctuaries of Zeus at Mt. Hymettos and Tourkovounia in Attica and are possible at Olympia and Dodona; in three of these sanctuaries - at Tourkovounia, Olympia, and Dodona

1151

Mazarakis-Ainian (1997) 425, map 4 “Distribution of early temples and cult buildings before c.750 BC”. 1152 After the first Olympieion at Athens (see above, 3.1.6) and the Archaic temple at Nemea (see above, 3.1.14), both dated to the 1st half of the 6th century BC, the temples of Zeus were built at Syracuse (560-550 BC), Akragas (during c.480-440 BC), and Olympia (465-460 BC), see Scully (1962) 133-141; Grinnell (1974) 22-24; Beve and Gruben (no date) 419.

1150

The trend of the development of extra-urban sanctuaries in the Geometric - Early Archaic time is discussed by de Polignac (1995) 21-25. 124

to as the center of Zeus’ sanctuary in Dodona. The worship of the god(s) inside the Diktaean (Psychro) Cave was probably accumulated on an interior stonebuilt altar used from the Bronze Age. The EIA sanctuary in the Idaean Cave seems to have had two focuses of worship: one represented by an ash altar inside the cave, and another one identified with an open-air altar cut out of a rock near it. The identification of the pivotal points in the EIA sanctuaries at Pherai, Tourkovounia, Larisa, and in the “Piazzale” of Agia Triada in Crete is not certain. The organization of the EIA cult-places of Zeus at Halos, Olympieion, Sta Marmara, Tretos, Mt. Ithome, Tsakona, Kenaion, Mt. Kynthos, Mt. Atavyros, and Mt. Mesavouno is not known, though at the summit of Mt. Ithome, the huge natural rock might be originally used as an altar of Zeus. 2. sacrifices and offerings: the ash altars identified in the sanctuaries of Zeus indicate the practice, an extremely common one during the EIA, of honouring the god with burnt sacrifices of animals.1153 Birds were probably sacrificed together with animals to the god(s) of the Idaean Cave, on the interior ash altar; similar sacrifices appear to have been practiced at Mt. Lykaion, on the mountain-top ash altar. Ritual drinking, ritual libations and ritual meals in honour of Zeus, as a rule, are inferred from the shapes of vessels discovered in association with his altars or within the sanctuary areas. In particular, ritual drinking represented by a high percentage of the discovered kantharoi and kylikes appears to have formed an important part of the religious festivities at Olympia on the Sub-Mycenaean – Early Iron Age phases of the cult, with the secure extension into the Early Archaic time. The same situation is clearly observed in the sanctuary on Mt. Hymettos from the PG time and in that at Tourkovounia from the LG period, while in the sanctuary on Mt. Lykaion, communal ritual drinking was practiced from as early as the Mycenaean time. Ritual drinking in association with pouring wine (libations) may also be traced in the EIA sanctuaries on Mt. FokasPhoukas, Larisa hill, Mt. Kynthos, in the Diktaean (Psychro) Cave, and at Amnisos. The ceremony of libation of wine for Zeus is known from Homer, who described it in the same way in relation to Zeus Dodonaios and Zeus Idaios of Troas (Hom. Il. 16.225-248, 24.301-309). Tradition of common ritual meals perhaps was being followed in the sanctuaries at Tourkovounia, Mt. Parnes, Mt. Oros, Olympia,

and Larisa. The practice of oil offerings, probably indicated by sufficient finds of aryballoi, may be inferred in the cave sanctuary on Mt. Parnes and in the Diktaean (Psychro) Cave, as well as possibly on Mt. Fokas-Phoukas and at Nemea. Fist fruit offerings to Zeus are traced in the Idaean Cave. Various votive offerings, as clay and bronze figurines, tripods, symbolic weaponry, jewelry, etc., are widely attested in almost all the sanctuaries of Zeus, as well as in those of other gods in that time. Significant dedications of weapons to the sanctuaries of Zeus have been observed at Dodona, Mt. Parnes, Diktaean (Psychro) Cave, Idaean Cave, Praisos, and Palaikastro. From the late 8th century BC / SubGeometric period and until the early 6th century BC, the worshipers of Zeus Σημίος at Mt. Hymettos dedicated to the god graffito inscriptions incised on fragments of drinking vessels, which were mostly one-handled cups and skyphoi, while some of those were deliberately broken. Graffito dedications were also offered to Zeus at Mt. Kynthos (Delos) from the 7th century BC and at Mt. Atavyros (Rhodes) from the late 7th century BC. Breaking of vessels seems to have been essential part of the ritual not only on Mt. Hymettos, but also on Mt. Fokas-Phoukas and at Amnisos. Human sacrifices, due to the later tradition, were practiced at Mt. Lykaion, on the altar of Zeus Lykaios, and in both the sanctuaries of Zeus Laphystios, in that at Halos even in the time of Herodotos, but material evidence for these is lacking. 3. sanctuary main ceremony(-ies): is (are) hardly traceable on the initial phases of the cult. However, based on later tradition, it may be assumed that in the EIA sanctuary of Zeus at Olympia, the main ceremony was that formally resembling the Annual Renewal of the Great Ash Altar of Zeus performed some days after the spring equinox. Essentially analogous ceremonies, which would have been intended to revive the divine power of the god’s altars, must have been observed in another ash altar focused sanctuaries of Zeus. The periodic sacred marriage of Zeus and Hera was possibly celebrated in the sanctuary of Zeus at Olympia, as well as in the Heraia in Samos, Argos, and Perachora, in the EIA. 4. ritual athletic competition in honour of the god: is a widely attested practice of the historic times, known in association with the sanctuaries of Zeus at Olympia, Nemea, Mt. Lykaion, and Mt. Ithome. This practice by itself may go back to the prehistoric religious customs (note Paus. 5.8.1-4). There is a possibility, suggested by the epic/mythic traditions, as well as by the discovered votive terracotta figurines and bronze figured attachments of tripods representing charioteers, to connect the official beginning of the Olympian games with the Dark Age: the festival, perhaps, initially comprised chariot-races and foot-races. However, the organization of the special space for regular competitions (the Hippodromos and the Stadium) should be referred to the late 8th / the early 7th centuries BC. The Lykaean games may have started in the early historic time, but it is not documented.

1153

Ash altars and burnt sacrifices were not exclusively used for the worship of Zeus during the EIA and are widely attested for totally different EIA cults. For the use and the shapes of altars in the early Greek cult practice, see the studies by Rupp (1983), and Yavis (1949) 54-139. It, however, deserves attention that in many sanctuaries, initial ash altars were eventually replaced by built altars, while in most of the cult-places of Zeus, his ash altars continued to be used until the last days of the religious activities at the sites. 125

association of Atabyriastai during the historic time, but there is no certain evidence for dating their origin.

The Nemean games instituted, according to the tradition, in 573 BC, may have had an unofficial EIA precursor. The Messenian festival Ithomaia may have been instituted as a reminiscence of the old local celebration, which comprised a musical contest and was held in honour of Zeus Ithomatas in the 8th century BC. 5. prophecy: the epic tradition, in combination with the literary and archaeological evidence, gives grounds for dating the establishment of the oracle of Zeus in Dodona in the Dark Age - Proto-Geometric period, that is, apparently before the time of the composition of the Homeric poems. Zeus’ oracle at Olympia may have been instituted in the Late Geometric - Early Archaic time. The divine decisions were delivered in Dodona from the sacred oak of Zeus, while at Olympia the will of the god was revealed on the top of his altar. Despite the traditional view, there is no actual evidence that the oracles of Zeus at these sites originally belonged to female chthonic deities. The practice of divination, though in unknown forms, may have taken place in the sanctuaries of Zeus Lykaios (Mt. Lykaion, Arkadia) and Zeus Σημίος (Mt. Hymettos, Attica): in the former case it might be indicated by the remarkable presence of the figurines of Hermes, the god’s messenger, among the votives, and in the latter one it is implied in Zeus’ epithet < σῆμα “sign”, as well as by the word θεοφραδία “divine saying”, possibly incised on a discovered pottery fragment. Presumably, the territory of the sanctuary of Zeus at Nemea was associated with some form of signgiving from quite an early period, while a specific oracular shrine may have existed inside the Classical temple of Nemean Zeus. 6. priesthood: there is no much evidence for the attendance of the early sanctuaries of Zeus. However, from Homer it is known that a special group of priests called Selloi or Helloi served Zeus in Dodona: they represented one of the most primitive categories of the Indo-European priests completely devoted to the worshiped god and denying any normal human way of life. The priests of Lykaean Zeus in Arkadia likewise formed a very old religious association going back to the specific Indo-European category of priests-werewolves and rain-charmers. At Olympia, two priestly families, the Iamidai and the Klytidai, were known as those who took care of the oracle of Zeus from the Archaic time, while the priests called Basilai performed sacrifices at the Kronion hill on the day of the spring equinox. Attendants of the sanctuary of Zeus Σημίος on Mt. Hymettos, who may also have been interpreters of the god’s omens, possibly appeared as a close religious group designated as “comrades speaking from the god”. According to Homer, the people of epic Ilion, or most probably of the EIA Aeolian Greek settlement in the area of legendary Troy, appointed a special priest, who served Zeus Idaios on Gargaron (Mt. Ida) and enjoyed a highly respected position in the social collective. Zeus Atabyrios in Rhodes was attended by a special religious

 concerning the religious concepts underlying the cults: 1. the god’s epithets: the references of Homer indicate that already in his time Zeus was worshiped under the epithet Dodonaios in Dodona and was referred to as Idaios in association with Mt. Ida in Troas. Furthermore, on the basis of the later evidence, it seems probable that as early as the EIA, Zeus may have been designated as Thaulios at Pherai, Laphystios at Halos and at Mt. Laphystion, Helikonios at Mt. Helikon, Olympios at Olympia and presumably in the area of the Olympieion in Athens, Σημίος at Mt. Hymettos, Ἀπήμιος at Mt. Parnes, Ἀφέσιος at Sta Marmara, Hellanios at Mt. Oros (Aegina), Ἀπεσάντιος at Mt. Apesas (FokasPhoukas), Nemeios at Nemea, Larisaios in Argos (at the Larisa hill), Lykaios at Mt. Lykaion (with a strong possibility of prehistoric origin of the epithet), Ithomatas at Mt. Ithome, Messapeus at Tsakona, Kenaios at Kenaion Cape (Euboea), Kynthios at Mt. Kynthos (Delos), Μηλώσιος at Mt. Zas (Naxos), Atabyrios at Mt. Atavyros (Rhodes), Diktaean in the Diktaean (Psychro) Cave, at Praisos and Palaikastro (Crete), Idaean / Idaios in the Idaean Cave in Crete, Thenatas at Amnisos, and Velhanos at Agia Triada (Crete). These epithets are clearly divided between the two groups: that of the epithets expressing the god’s functions / nature and that of the epithets formed on the basis of a placename. 2. the god’s nature: the principal for the early Greek religion question whether in the EIA Zeus was worshiped as a god of the clear, shining sky or as a god of storm, should be answered specifically for each particular cult-place. Such indications as the character of setting and arrangement of a cult, the symbols represented on the objects discovered in a sanctuary, certain basic elements of a cult, even if they are attested at later time, as well as the most primitive motifs in the myths associated to a sacred place, must be taken into consideration. Thus, it appears highly likely that the worship of Zeus at Olympia and on Mt. Lykaion was not only originally, but also durably based on the concept linked to the clear sky and the sun. There are grounds to presume that the initial cults of Zeus at Halos, Mt. Hymettos, Nemea, Mt. Zas, Mt. Atavyros, as well as his possible EIA cult in the Samian Heraion, were likewise oriented towards the clear sky and the sun. Solar elements may be recognized in the cult of Zeus Laphystios in Boeotia, which was probably very old, but has not yet been identified archaeologically. The concept of a storm-god in the EIA cults of Zeus may be attested with a degree of certainty only in Dodona, which was initially associated with some Indo-European Balkan storm-deity. The references of the Homeric

126

the god was seen responsible for the passage of youths into the category of adult men-warriors;  relation to the territories where his cults were located: it is possible that in the area of the Olympieion in Athens, at Nemea, possibly at Olympia, Mt. Ithome, Praisos, as well as at Kenaion, Zeus was originally seen as the guardian of local rustic settlements. At Mt. Fokas (Phoukas) and Sta Marmara, the god may have been believed to exercise apotropaic powers protecting the lands lying around from the evil. Given the extra-urban location of most of the EIA sanctuaries of Zeus, it is possible that in that time each of those played the role of a central regional sanctuary for a number of neighbouring communities; that would eventually cause wider recognition of Zeus’ divine authority over larger territories and further spread of veneration of him towards other areas;  relation to the intellectual sphere: it seems that the oracle activity practiced in some of the EIA cultplaces of Zeus was rooted in the old belief in his omniscience echoed in such characteristics given to him by Homer as μητίετα “all-wise” and ἄφθιτα μήδεα εἰδώς “that who knows the eternal values” (see Chapter 1, 1.4). Following Homer, it may be presumed that the religion of the early historic time connected the idea about Zeus’ omniscience with the recognition of him as the eldest god.1154 The prophetical aspect in the religious concept of Zeus must have derived from the traditional IndoEuropean worship of a “wise god”, who knows the predestined, but does not predestine himself; 4. perception of Zeus as a young god: the cults of Zeus practiced in the Diktaean (Psychro) and Idaean Caves originated in the worship of indigenous Minoan deities and as essentially the inside-cave cults must always have been based on the idea of the mysterious birth and rebirth of life. Therefore, the male deity worshiped in each of these caves could not be comprehended otherwise than a divine child of the Great Mother-Goddess. His identification with Zeus can not be dated with certainty, but, given that it was already known to the epic / mythic tradition of the early historic time, it may go back to the period of the Greek Mycenaean presence in Crete. Correspondingly, during the Dark Age – Geometric period, Zeus of the Diktaean and Idaean Caves appeared not as a father-god, but as a periodically reborn divine son. The same concept is traced in the Cretan sanctuaries of Zeus at Amnisos, Praisos, and Palaikastro, which were established in the EIA. Concerning the cult of Zeus practiced in the cave on Mt. Parnes in Attica, it is not certain whether it should be interpreted in the context of the birth / rebirth concept, though this possibility should not be completely rejected. A large number of EIA votive figurines of “kouros” discovered in

poems make it possible to suppose that during the late prehistoric – early historic time Zeus appeared as a storm-god in any association with two other places, both in the Aeolian cultural zone - Mt. Olympos in Thessalia and Mt. Ida in Troas, although the EIA places of worship of Zeus have not yet been discovered there. However, at many of the EIA cult-places of Zeus, the god’s original relation to the powers of nature – whether to those connected with the sunlight or to those of storm – is not traceable. It is important to emphasize that despite formal similarities between the EIA cults of Zeus, which were located at mountain tops and focused on ash altars, those expressed not the same, but quite different aspects of this god’s nature either his connection with the sun-light, either his links with stormy weather, either his quality of giving omens, or his apotropaic powers. 3. the god’s functions/concerns:  relation to the idea of power: the fact that almost all the EIA sanctuaries of Zeus were located outside the contemporary urban centers suggests that during the early historic period the god was actually disconnected from the concepts of authority and monarchical power concentrated in cities in that time. This seems to mean that in the religious perception of the early historic time, Zeus must have been imagined as a god unconcerned about state, society, and urban (polis) life in general. Two possible exclusions are the cases of Argos and Homeric Troy: in the former one, Zeus may have been regarded as the protector of the local royal family and, perhaps, of the city from the Mycenaean time, while in the latter case, the god, according to the Iliad, appeared as a powerful guardian of the city’s collective and a divine participant of communal feasts;  relation to fertility: as a non-city god, Zeus of the EIA, perhaps, mainly appeared as a nature deity concerned about harvest, fertility of lands and people, and reproduction of domestic animals; these functions of Zeus seem to have been reflected in the votive figurines representing males and females, oxen, horses, sheep, dogs, etc., plentifully dedicated to his sanctuaries. The responsibility for plants growth was possibly attributed to Zeus worshiped as Velhanos at Agia Triada, in Crete;  relation to wild nature: it is probable that at Pherai, Zeus originally had strong connections with the world of wild animals and may even have initially been worshiped in a form of a tailed, wild and aggressive, beast;  relation to warfare: according to the votive evidence, Zeus of the early historic time, similarly to a number of other EIA gods, must have been regarded as a protector of warriors. Perhaps, in certain cases, as in the Attic cave-sanctuary on Mt. Parnes and especially in Crete, at Palaikastro, Praisos, and the Diktaean (Psychro) Cave, where Zeus appeared as the “Megistos Kouros of Dikte”,

1154

It is remarkable that Aeschylus much later ascribed the art of prophecy to Zeus and characterized Apollo as a prophet of his father (Eum. 17-19).

127

representations of cultic character, which, under certain conditions, might be related to Zeus and might have shown him with the attributes of a stormgod.1155 Moreover, even the iconography of the Archaic period associated the image of a storm-deity with certain other, minor divine personalities. No secure seated representations of Zeus earlier than those of the beginning of the 6th century BC are known.

Olympia might indicate some association of Zeus with the concept of youth in that sanctuary during the early historic time. 5. the god’s relationships with other deities: the worship of Zeus in pair with the goddess Hera may be attested from the Geometric period at Olympia and Mt. Arachnaion; however, in both the places these two divinities from the beginning seem to have been honoured on separate altars, and, moreover, at Olympia eventually received separate temples. According to Homer, Zeus Idaios reputedly worshiped on Gargaron was regarded as Hera’s husband. There are grounds to believe that Zeus appeared as a minor partner or a kind of “visiting husband” of Hera in her main EIA sanctuaries, especially in the Samian Heraion. It seems possible to presume that in Dodona Zeus was initially paired with a female deity, whose nature was either stormy or chthonic. In the early historic sanctuary on the Larisa hill in Argos, as well as in that on Mt. Kynthos in Delos, Zeus was probably associated with Athena, in an unknown way. In the sanctuary on Mt. Hymettos in Attica, Zeus Σημίος may have shared the sacred place with Gaia and Herakles in the Early Archaic time. Apollo seems to have hosted Zeus in his EIA sanctuary on the top of Mt. Mesavouno, in Thera. At Pherai during the Geometric period and, possibly, even earlier, Zeus Thaulios may have appeared as a minor beast-like partner of an old nature goddess worshiped as Artemis En(n)odia in the historic time. There are traces for some association of Zeus with female divinities in the Idaean and the Diktaean Caves during the early historic time, but the character of the relationships, in which he may have been involved there - whether as that between a son and a mother or as that between divine consorts, is not known. 6. hierarchical position of Zeus in the EIA pantheon is uncertain. However, the quantitative distribution of the recorded cult-places among the worshiped deities and the relatively small number of the EIA sanctuaries of Zeus do not really indicate Zeus’ supremacy in the supposed hierarchical order of gods in the religion of the EIA.

 original myths about Zeus as those can be restored: Pausanias and other ancient authors mentioned myths, which were known in their time in association with almost all the cults and sanctuaries of Zeus. However, their accounts represent quite late and, evidently, deliberately elaborated traditions, which should not be automatically used for the EIA. It is quite possible that the original myths, which had been linked to the early sanctuaries of Zeus and explained his epithets, the initial forms of his cult, etc., were gradually forgotten or reached the Classical period in a seriously changed form. Hence, their restoration may be only presumptive. Nevertheless, it may be supposed that the appearance of Zeus in pair with Hera at Olympia, Mt. Arachnaion, and in Samos, as well as in a number of other EIA sanctuaries of Hera, was accompanied by the composition of stories about the relationship between these two deities (love-stories, hieros gamos, and the like), similar to those told in the Homeric poems. Stories of another kind, which would have treated Zeus as a father, could emerge in the cult-places, where Zeus was associated with Athena, Herakles or Apollo (correspondingly at Larisa, Mt. Hymettos, Mt. Kynthos, and Mt. Mesavouno). However, at Pherai, Zeus’ original appearance as a wild animal and a partner of the dominating there goddess of wild nature, later known as Artemis, would have been explained in myths, which did not become known to the classical tradition. The warlike appearance of Zeus at Olympia, Halos, Samos, and probably in Dodona suggests circulation of stories about the god’s combats, which would necessarily have been victorious. If Zeus indeed appeared at Olympia as a charioteer, that could be accompanied by the descriptions of the god’s rides in a chariot similar to one described in the Iliad 8.41-46. Perhaps, a myth from the circle of those describing a duel between Zeus and a centaur-like creature occurred in Olympia

 concerning the visual concept of the god: votive figurines dedicated to the sanctuaries, if accepted as a sort of evidence for the visual comprehension of the god by his worshipers, might indicate the development of the anthropomorphic image of Zeus at Olympia, Halos, probably in Samos, Dodona, and Pherai already in the EIA: the god appears with the emphasized characteristics of the male gender and sometimes bears signs of maturity; perhaps, he was imagined as a warrior or war-like; it is possible that at Olympia he also occurred in the guise of a charioteer and as a kouros. However, this visual concept was quite universal during the early historic time and may be recognized in the contemporary figurines found in the sanctuaries of other male deities. There are no EIA

1155

As it has been seen above, the earliest more or less secure representation of Zeus as a storm-god is attested in the Greek art, in a scene on the body of a ProtoKorinthian aryballos dated to c.680 BC, which shows Zeus fighting with a thunderbolt against a Centaur, while holding a scepter (Tiverios (1997) 317, nu.16; Fig.91). The earliest known votive representation of Zeus as a storm-god is a bronze figurine from Mt. Lykaion, dated to 620-610 BC (Lamb (1925-1926) 140, nu.17; Tiverios (1997) 319, nu.27; see Fig.64). 128

his birth or growing up there (note Callim. Hymn 1.5); those myths would have had the purpose to substantiate the claims of the old Greek territories for their leadership in honouring Zeus. Undoubtedly, certain information for early myths is contained in the EIA anthropomorphic representations, such as terracotta and bronze figurines as well as figures painted on vessels and incised on metal objects. However, those representations, because of their highly unrealistic character, may hardly be used even for the identification of the deities and heroes known from the recorded epic / mythic traditions, not to speak of divine personalities, which did not reach the classical mythology. Generally, the poor evidence for the original local myths about Zeus permits only approximate comparison between those and the Homeric interpretation of the god.

and in some other places (as Korinthia and Rhodes) in the EIA. The oracular activity in the sanctuaries of Zeus in Dodona, Olympia, probably at Mt. Hymettos, Mt. Lykaion and Nemea may have been commented in legends about the beginning of giving prophesies by the god at those places; this would also have contributed to the emergence of fabulous stories about his miraculous oracle responses to various local and pan-Hellenic heroes. Apparently, as the worship of Zeus as a divine child took roots in Crete and was spreading widely over it, specific myths connecting his birth and childhood with various places in the island tended to be created. It would have been that trend, to which the Greek mainland and some islands, where Zeus was originally worshiped as a born by nobody father-god, had to respond by generating countless local myths about

129

SUMMARIZING CONCLUSION The purposes of this study were, first, to make a thoroughgoing consideration of the concept of Zeus in the Homeric poems, precisely – in the Iliad, second, to determine the origins of this concept, and, third, to establish the correspondence between the epic image of Zeus and the concept(s) of Zeus, which may be traced in the actual religious practices of the prehistoric – early historic periods. The accomplishment of this research was based on the approach to the Greek mythology and religion as to variations of the common Indo-European mythology and religion, respectively. On the other hand, mythology and religion are considered as two distinct forms of expression of the religious perception. The most basic feature of the original Indo-European (PIE) religious perception was the idea about the sharing of powers in the pantheon by two principal gods: the God of the clear, sunny sky *t’y-eu-s/*t’ei-w(o)-s/*t’iu-n- (> later forms *dyeu-s / *d(e)iw(o)-s / *di(o)u-n-), who was imagined as the Father of all - *t’yeus-phHther, born from nobody and generating everything that comes into existence, on the one hand, and the God of storm pherkhoun(o)-/*pheru-n(o)-, on the other. These two gods originally personified two different conditions of the sky – correspondingly, the shining sky and the dark (cloudy) sky, and, thus, represented two different aspects of nature – the day-light and the storm. These gods had different character types and were associated with two different behavioral patterns: the God of the clear sky was imagined older, calm and passive, while the God of storm was thought of as younger and, therefore, vigorous and active. They were supposed to perform quite different functions in relation to the human sphere and humans’ needs: the God of the clear sky as the father of all was believed to play such general roles as begetting, protection and arbitration, while the functions of the God of storm were more specified and included mainly the regulation of rainfalls, which was understood as the Storm-god’s fight against the chaotic and destructive powers threatening the world order. In terms of hierarchy, the God of storm was supposed to be subordinate to the God of the clear sky, who was considered as the supreme, but not as a ruling deity, given that his concept had been formed in the conditions of undeveloped social complexity and quite primitive social organization of the carriers of the PIE culture. The God of the clear sky must originally have had a cognate to him female counterpart – the goddess *di(u)v-i-a /*d(e)iw-a /*di(o)u-n-a, who would have represented the female aspect of the clear, sunny sky and appeared as his twin sister-and-wife. The gods representing direct versions of the PIE Gods of the clear sky and of storm are securely identified in almost all Indo-European religions and mythologies (see Chapter 1, 1.3.1 and 1.3.2). The earliest available collection of the Greek myths is that contained in the Homeric poems. In the Iliad, as well as in the Odyssey, Zeus appeared as an energetic god of storm and the indisputable supreme god of the pantheon, allknowing father-πατήρ and lord-ἄναξ of gods and men,

autocratic ruler of all the world, designer and cause of being, enthroned on a golden throne on the top of Mt. Olympos in Thessalia, where he had his “house”, or on the top of Mt. Ida in Troas. Confusingly, in the poems of Homer, the god-father of all was also presented as a son of deities older than he and as the husband of his own, but not a twin sister – the goddess Hera (see Chapter 1, 1.2). The deep analysis of these characteristics has permitted the conclusion that the figure of Zeus as appears in the Homeric poems combined diverse and heterogeneous mythological and religious patterns. The main name of Zeus – Ζεύς πατήρ and his position as that of the father and leader of gods indicate his direct origin from the Proto-Indo-European God of the clear, sunny sky-father of all *t’yeus-phHther. Zeus’ association with the goddess Hera, who occurs in the epic poems and in the Classical mythology as his sister and wife, instead of Zeus’ original cognate female counterpart – the goddess Diwija (