Zoia. Animal-Human Interactions in the Aegean Middle and Late Bronze Age: Proceedings of the 18th International Aegean Conference, originally to be ... at Austin, May 28-31, 2020 (Aegaeum, 45) 9789042946361, 9789042946378, 9042946369

Citation preview

AEGAEUM 45 Annales liégeoises et 45 PASPiennes d’archéologie égéenne AEGAEUM

AEGAEUM 45 – ZOIA. ANIMAL-HUMAN INTERACTIONS IN THE AEGEANAND MIDDLE LATE BRONZE AGE AEGAEUM 45 – ZOIA. ANIMAL-HUMAN INTERACTIONS IN THE AEGEAN MIDDLE LATEAND BRONZE AGE

AEGAEUM 45 Annales liégeoises et PASPiennes d’archéologie égéenne Annales liégeoises et PASPiennes d’archéologie égéenne

102778_Aegaeum_45_stofwikkel.indd All Pages

The 18th International Aegean Conference on the subject of Zoia (literally ‘creatures endowed with an anima or life force’) was conceived and organized by Robert Laffineur and Tom Palaima, director of the Program in Aegean Scripts and Prehistory (PASP) in the Department of Classics at The University of Texas at Austin, marking 30 years of their collaboration on Aegaeum volumes and conferences. In the event, Covid-19 forced the cancellation of the conference proper.

ZOIA ANIMAL-HUMANZOIA INTERACTIONS IN THE AEGEAN MIDDLE AND LATE BRONZE AGE

ANIMAL-HUMAN INTERACTIONS

Proceedings of the 18th International Aegean Conference, IN THE MIDDLE AND LATE BRONZE AGE originally to beAEGEAN held at the Program in Aegean Scripts and Prehistory, in the Department of Classics, The University of Texas at Austin, th International May 2020 Proceedings of the 1828-31, Aegean Conference,

originally to be held at the Program in Aegean Scripts and Prehistory, in the Department of Classics, The University of Texas at Austin, May 28-31, 2020

Edited by Robert LAFFINEUR and Thomas G. PALAIMA Lorem Ipsum

This volume, however, testifies to the dedication of Aegeanist scholars worldwide to accomplish the scholarly objectives of the proposed conference: to examine, from a wide range of specialist research perspectives, how the human societies that developed in the Aegean area in the Middle and Late Bronze Age and the human beings within them interacted with wild, domesticated and semi-domesticated animals of the sea, sky and land socio-politically, economically, religiously, ideologically, imaginatively and artistically. Diamantis Panagiotopoulos stresses in his keynote paper that the 28 papers in Zoia reflect “the dynamic development of Human-Animal Studies” in the last two decades. Papers are grouped under five main topics: identification of the animal environment; human uses of domesticated and wild animals, material economy, diet and society; hybrid and fantastic creatures in animal iconography (seals, frescoes and other forms of representation); animals in beliefs and religion (their contemporary symbolic uses and later uses as relics or heirlooms); and animals in texts (Indo-European and non-IndoEuropean; Cretan Pictographic, Linear A, Linear B and later Homeric and historical Greek). The results are comprehensive, eclectic, scientifically informative and intellectually provocative. They help us see protohistoric Aegean cultures as the non-human animals inextricably linked to them saw them.

Edited by Robert LAFFINEUR and Thomas G. PALAIMA Lorem Ipsum

PEETERS LEUVEN - LIÈGE 2021

PEETERS PEETERS LEUVEN - LIÈGE LEUVEN - LIÈGE 2021 2021

01/06/2021 13:34

AEGAEUM 45 Annales liégeoises et PASPiennes d’archéologie égéenne

ZOIA ANIMAL-HUMAN INTERACTIONS IN THE AEGEAN MIDDLE AND LATE BRONZE AGE Proceedings of the 18th International Aegean Conference, originally to be held at the Program in Aegean Scripts and Prehistory, in the Department of Classics, The University of Texas at Austin, May 28-31, 2020

Edited by Robert LAFFINEUR and Thomas G. PALAIMA

PEETERS LEUVEN - LIÈGE 2021

Illustrations on cover pages: Gold lion’s head rhyton from Mycenae, Shaft Grave IV, and gold-plated sword hilt from Mycenae, Grave Circle B, tomb Delta, Athens, National Archaeological Museum (photos R. Laffineur).






















A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. D/2021/0602/87 Impression et dépositaire : PEETERS nv Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven (Belgique) © A.s.b.l. Aegaeum, Aux Piédroux 120, B-4032 Liège (Belgique) et Program in Aegean Scripts and Prehistory (PASP), The University of Texas at Austin, 2021 ISBN 978-90-429-4636-1 eISBN 978-90-429-4637-8 Reproduction et traduction, même partielles, interdites sans l’autorisation de l’éditeur, pour tous pays.




σοὶ δ᾽ ἄλοχόν τε φίλην σπέσθαι Homer, Odyssey 22.324 pi-ro-i a-ro-ko-i φίλοιιν ἀλόχοιιν To our beloved wives, Marylène and Lisa

















Blakolmer egrapsen

CONTENTS Preface

vii

Keynote Address Diamantis PANAGIOTOPOULOS, When Species Meet in the Aegean Bronze Age. Human-Animal Encounters in Seal Imagery and Beyond

3

A.
Identification of the animal environment Malcolm H. WIENER, The Contribution of Archaeological Science to the Study of Animals in Aegean Prehistory

29

Marie-Louise NOSCH, Agata ULANOWSKA, Katarzyna ŻEBROWSKA, Kinga BIGORAJ and Anna GRĘZAK, Sheep – ‘A Factory Without Waste’. Comparative, Interdisciplinary and Diachronic Views on Sheep in the Aegean Bronze Age

35

Valasia ISAAKIDOU and Paul HALSTEAD, The ‘Wild’ Goats of Ancient Crete: Ethnographic Perspectives on Iconographic, Textual and Zooarchaeological Sources

51

Nancy R. THOMAS, Panthera Leo in Ancient Egypt and Greece: Where are the Bones?

63

Karen Polinger FOSTER, Flights of Fancy: Birds in Aegean Island Art and Thought

83

Katerina PAPAYIANNI, Of Mice and Men in Minoan Crete: The Microfauna from Malia Area Pi in its Chrono-Spatial Context

101

B.
Human uses of domesticated and wild animals, material economy, diet and society Dimitra MYLONA, Processed Fish, Marine Dyes and the Fishing Domaine of the Bronze Age Aegean

113

Anne P. CHAPIN and Maria Nicole PAREJA, Betwixt and beyond the Boundaries: An Ecosocial Model of Animal-Human Relations in Minoan and Cycladic Animal Art

125

Michele MITROVICH, Bulls vs. Rams: Iconographic Reevaluation of the Inlaid Silver Cups from Enkomi, Cyprus and Midea, Dendra

135

Emily S.K. ANDERSON, Intuitive Things: Boar’s Tusk Helmets, Oxhide Shields, Ikria and the Uniqueness of Aegean Composites

149

Alessandro SANAVIA, Animals in Context: An Iconographical Perspective on MM II Phaistos

161

Alizée LEGENDART, Land Creatures and their Products. Minoan Taxonomy: Art Orders Fauna

183

vi

CONTENTS C.
Hybrid and fantastic creatures

Maria ANASTASIADOU, Conjoined Animals on Aegean Seals

191

Janice L. CROWLEY, The Fabulous Five: Monkey, Lion, Griffin, Dragon, Genius

199

Nanno MARINATOS, The Minoan Genii, the Palm Tree and Solar Cult (With some Egyptian and Near Eastern Perspectives)

215

Fritz BLAKOLMER, Messages from Another World? A Comparative Analysis of the Hybrid Creatures in Aegean Bronze Age Iconography

223

Olga KRZYSZKOWSKA, Hybrids in the Aegean Bronze Age: Diverse Origins, Divergent Trajectories

233

D.
Animals in beliefs and religion Andreas G. VLACHOPOULOS, Divine Acolytes: The Animals and their Symbolism in the Xeste 3 Wall-Paintings

249

Laetitia PHIALON and Vassilis L. ARAVANTINOS, Terracotta Birds and Hybrid Winged Creatures from Tanagra: Rethinking Relations between Funerary Practices, Beliefs and Religious Symbols in the Late Bronze Age Aegean

281

Helène WHITTAKER, Animals are Good to Think with. Some Thoughts on the Religious Meanings Associated with Animals in the Neopalatial Period

301

Andrew SHAPLAND, Sacrificial Relics or Trophies? Animal Heads in Bronze Age Crete

307

Katerina KOPAKA, Shark Teeth from Bronze Age Gavdos. Healing Heirlooms and the liokourna (Sun or Snake Horns) Medical Tradition

317

E.
Animals in texts Yves DUHOUX, The Mycenaean Bestiary: Linear B Data

327

Jörg WEILHARTNER, Interactions between Humans and Animals in the Aegean Late Bronze Age: The Textual Evidence

335

Vassilis PETRAKIS, Slaughter, Blood and Sacrifice: Mycenaean *sphag- in Context

343

John G. YOUNGER, Gournia’s Recent Contributions to Animal Studies

373

Thomas G. PALAIMA, Caring for and Nourishing Animals and Humans in Linear B and Homer: Ideological Considerations

379




PREFACE
Among scholars who pay attention to Aegean prehistory directly or indirectly, it is always a matter of anticipation and keen interest where the next Aegaeum conference organized by the peripatetic ra-pi-ne-u will be held and what the topic will be. If we remember correctly, the last such conference, on the topic of ΜΝΗΜΗ/MNEME, was held in Venice in April of 2018. Another such conference two years into the second decade of the new millennium was on the topic of PHYSIS and naturally was held in the urban center of Paris in the middle of December in 2012, when very little of nature’s Parisian splendor other than overcast skies, rain and cold could be experienced. By the end we did feel a bit like Jean-Pierre Léaud in the last scene of Truffaut’s Les Quatre Cents Coups. We were chilly, bundled up in heavy sweaters, in the wind, but with no seashore in sight. No doubt this was because the Aegeaum THALASSA conference (Corsica April 1990) was a distant memory. The followup conference was out of this world in many ways: METAPHYSIS in Vienna in 2014. After such explorations it was thought that we should be evening out the distribution of locations by examining ΕΣΠΕΡΟΣ/ HESPEROS in northwestern Greece in 2016. So as the decade came to a close, our noble ra-pi-ne-u (Robert Laffineur), recalling that the first international Aegaeum conference had been held on the morbid topic of THANATOS, and no doubt experiencing intimations of mortality because of his own advancing age, called upon another true γέρων, whom he has now known for over forty years and who had held in Austin, TX a smaller non-Aegaeum conference published as an Aegaeum volume (no. 5) Aegean Seals, Sealings and Administration (= ASSA) three decades ago. He called upon this old friend Tom Palaima, who has for many years provided the UTPASPiennes element in the Aegaeum monograph series. Thinking to dispel all thoughts about death, Robert and Tom, hereafter we/us, decided to be true to their own selves and to Aegeanists worldwide and to focus the collective scholarly attentions of participating scholars on the opposite topic. Not life itself, which would be too hard to encompass, but living creatures and how they interacted with human beings, willingly or not, in the Middle and Late Bronze Age Aegean and related cultural spheres. Ra-pi-ne-u, as it turns out, has long had so great a fondness for four-footed animals that Peter Warren conferred on him the special title ‘great donkey keeper’ in reference to the council of eight donkeys Robert keeps ready by to give a second opinion after the normal asses he consults among the human species, like myself, have rendered theirs. We also decided, in consultation with the ὀνοβουλή, to limit the size of the conference to something closer to the size of ASSA. And so we drafted a list of around 35 scholars whom we thought would cover most, but surely not all, of the approaches and areas of scholarly interest regarding the Minoans and Mycenaeans and their relationship to living or even imaginary creatures of the earth, air and water. The 18th Aegaeum conference on the topic of ZOIA was to have been held in Austin, TX on 28-31 May 2020. However, Mother Nature had other plans. This was not the first time that Mother Nature has asserted her power and reminded us that we are all her children. The 13th international Aegaeum conference was to be held at the University of Copenhagen, 19-23 April 2010 on the theme of KOSMOS. It had to be transformed, rather than fully postponed, because of ash ejections from the volcanic eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull – and you think that reading Linear A signgroups is hard! – on Iceland. At that time, curtailing air travel initially for nine days (April 15-23) and over three weeks later in Ireland and the UK for part of a day struck Aegeanists as an unimaginable interruption of our normal behaviors as human animals. Little did we know what the strange curse upon Aegaeum conferences held at the beginning of decades had in store. The intrepid Danish organizers made use of the few participants who had made it to Copenhagen and were able to impose some order (kosmos) upon the chaos (χάος) by having papers presented on-line. We had no such luck with invisible living creatures called viruses who have shut down a big part of daily human activities worldwide now for a year.

viii

PREFACE

In the Nestor news page for April 1, 2020 (https://classics.uc.edu/nestor/pages/news/577-lecturesand-conferences-covid-19-updates: last accessed March 18, 2021) we may still read: The 18th Aegaeum conference: ZOIA, which was to have been held in Austin, TX on 28-31 April [sic] 2020, has been cancelled. Papers for the conference will, however, still be published in the Aegaeum series. Given the restrictions imposed on international travel to the United States and disruptions caused by the closing of institutions of higher education in the United States and the health risks posed by travel, we decided in consultation with INSTAP to cancel the meeting in Austin, TX. And since we could not use the Danish option because technical facilities and technical specialists were unavailable, we also decided to publish the papers in what would become the first example of the proceedings volume of an Aegaeum conference that never existed at all!!! Our thinking was as follows. The animals of the Middle and Late Bronze Age Aegean and surrounding cultures, after all, really did exist, albeit some only in the imaginations of artists, myth-makers and believers in the religions of this time period. We should do our best to honor them with our pooled scholarly and human talents. Mutatis mutandis we have stuck to this B-plan. We have had some cancellations because of hardships caused by our new COVID-19 world and other inevitable dis-regulations of our human lives. We have added a few participants to the final list. We have extended final deadlines three times. We have accepted afterthought emendations and additions. And our collective patience has been amply rewarded. We say we, but half of our ‘we’, namely Tom Palaima, would like to acknowledge that Robert Laffineur aka ra-pi-ne-u has been the true ποιμήν without whose oversight this volume, like the proceedings of so many other conferences, would never have come into being: ὡς ποιμὴν ποιμανεῖ τὸ ποίμνιον αὐτοῦ [τὸ τῶν ὄνων] Like a herdsman he will herd his herd [of asses] (Isaiah 40:11 Septuagint with a new emendation). As organizers and editors, we are amazed and grateful to scholars worldwide who have persevered through the Covid crisis. The papers in this volume do right by animals and human beings who had to depend on one another through earthquakes, droughts, famines and wars within Minoan and Mycenaean and parallel cultures during the second millennium BCE. The papers in this volume also stand as testimony to the resilience of members of the international Aegaeum scholarly community, their indomitable spirit and their dedication to the essential values that underscore collaborative and cooperative humanistic research. We give special thanks to Diamantis Panagiotopoulos and Malcolm H. Wiener respectively for their comprehensive overviews of the general theme and of what Aegeanist archaeological scientific studies have accomplished. Malcolm, of course, has long been a revered friend, a much-honored champion of scientific applications to our archaeological data and a brilliant interpreter of the results of scientific research. Of course, the non-conference would have not not taken place but for the generous funding support from the Institute for Aegean Prehistory (INSTAP) that made it possible for Robert and me to conceive of it and plan it in the first place. We thank PASPians Jared Petroll and Michele Mitrovich for helping in final-stage proofing of the volume and PASP INSTAP archivist Garrett Bruner for being a helpful and animated research resource throughout. I personally would like to thank the many PASP graduate and undergraduate research assistants, archivists and visiting scholars who over the years have truly made PASP what it has been in the process of becoming since it was just an idea to bring into reality the kind of center that the late and revered Alice Elizabeth Kober and John Franklin Daniel keenly dreamt about creating at the University of Pennsylvania in the autumn of 1947 (https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/16951 last accessed March 28, 2021). Their dream was shattered even before Daniel’s untimely death at age 47 on December 17, 1948 and Kober’s at age 43 on May 16, 1950. Some of the work of these beloved PASPians can be







PREFACE

ix

found by visiting https://sites.utexas.edu/scripts/ (last accessed March 28, 2021). The short guided tour that you will find there (also at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIXUF3ZbyaQ&t=24s last accessed March 28, 2021) will give you a good sense of l’esprit du PASP. It is a spirit I share with Robert Laffineur; and it explains why I have so treasured my long and fruitful collaboration with ra-pi-ne-u, drop by drop by drop. One penultimate point, a point of disappointment. If the conference had been held in Austin, we would have had an exhibition of the artwork of Nikos Samartzidis. Nikos uses linear B as an element of pieces of art in various media (plywood, cd’s, sandstone, Chinese ink, clay tablets and canvases) to convey the essence of Greek poetry of all periods from Homer to the present. More recently Nikos has even created masterful artwork that conveys the emotional and spiritual essence of the song poems of Bob Dylan (at my special request) and the poetry written in the still surviving Greek dialect of Apulia and Calabria known as Grecanico. We profoundly regret that the intended participants and invited guests could not see the original artwork. The next best thing is for them and other readers of this volume to see it virtually by using the following links: https://sites.utexas.edu/scripts/2018/02/28/paintings-and-poetry-in-linear-b-the-nikossamartzidis-collection/ and https://sites.utexas.edu/scripts/2021/03/19/islands-of-the-blessed/ and http://www.nikosam-art.de/ and http://www.nikosam-art.de/linear-b-gallery/ (all last accessed March 28, 2021). Finally, as two old and faithful hounds, we, Robert and Tom, dedicate this volume to our loving wives, Marylène Laffineur and Lisa Laky, who have shepherdessed the shepherds of this volume in ways too many to enumerate, but too deeply embedded in our hearts ever to forget. Thomas G. PALAIMA




KEYNOTE ADDRESS




























WHEN SPECIES MEET IN THE AEGEAN BRONZE AGE. HUMAN-ANIMAL ENCOUNTERS IN SEAL IMAGERY AND BEYOND* “The first subject matter for painting was animal… The first metaphor was animal.” (J. Berger)1

In the last three and a half decades, the Aegeaum conference series has not only produced an impressive set of collective volumes, covering major aspects of Aegean archaeology, but also contributed in a most decisive way to the formation of this academic field into a genuine international community. The individual volumes published from 1987 onwards provided a platform of fruitful academic exchange, responded to pressing research desiderata or novel intellectual trends, set new common agenda, and fostered the development of a shared scientific language among Aegean archaeologists. From this background, the decision of the organisers of the ZOIA conference – and editors of this volume – to focus on animals is all but coincidental. In a time, in which the remarkable thematic range of the already published volumes has raised some doubts as to whether it is still possible to discover novel subjects for the Aegaeum series, the focus on the nonhuman agents of Bronze Age Aegean societies comes to emphatically demonstrate that this is, indeed, achievable! Apparently, our discipline still has the capacity to renew its topics, objectives, and methods by letting itself be inspired from and actively participating in discourses across disciplinary borders. More than 30 years after the conference on “Aegean Seals, Sealings and Administration” in 1989,2 the Aegaeum conference series returns to Austin with a topic that again possesses an apparent regional relevance – this time, however, not as a research focus of the local Department but as a major aspect of local life, since animals are an indispensable component of Texas’ collective identity, as encapsulated in the iconic official symbol of the state, the Texas Longhorn. At the same time, the conference meets a current scientific demand for a more serious engagement with animals in Aegean Archaeology. After the dynamic development of Human-Animal Studies (hereafter HAS), especially in the last two decades, and the impact of the ‘animal turn’ in humanities and social sciences, the time seems ripe for exploring the hermeneutic potential of this line of thought in our discipline. Therefore, the two-fold question that arises here, forming the core of the present article, is whether a new – theoretically informed – look at animals can help us to better valorise their role as a channel of cultural evolution in the Aegean context. And – more important still – whether the expected insights from this novel approach can contribute to a better understanding of Aegean societies. In an attempt to answer both questions, the first part of the present paper starts with a retrospective look at the significance of animals in previous research in the field of Aegean Archaeology (a), turns then to HAS as the unavoidable point of departure for any current approach to the interaction between human and nonhuman entities, discussing the ways in which this theoretical knowledge can be sensibly applied in the Aegean (b), and finally closes with the richest and most varied group of pictorial evidence, i.e. seal
*

1

2

I am most grateful to Tom Palaima and Robert Laffineur for their invitation and especially for their determination to cope with the adversities of an unpreceded pandemic crisis, by publishing the papers of a conference that unfortunately could not take place. My sincere thanks go to Michele Mitrovich and Sophie Florence for their invaluable editorial assistance and useful comments. J. BERGER, “Why Look at Animals?,” in L. KALOF and A. FITZGERALD (eds), The Animals Reader. The Essential Classic and Contemporary Writings (2007) 253. T.G. PALAIMA (ed.), Aegean Seals, Sealings and Administration. Proceedings of the NEH-Dickson Conference of the Program in Aegean Scripts and Prehistory of the Department of Classics, University of Texas at Austin, January 11-13, 1989 (1990).

4

Diamantis PANAGIOTOPOULOS

imagery, as a case study for asserting the symbolic significance of animals in Bronze Age Aegean societies (c). 1. Animals in previous Aegean research Already in the initial stages of Aegean archaeology, animals acquired a certain attention that was unavoidable, given their centrality in the Minoan and Mycenaean iconographical traditions.3 However, the nonhuman element never became a significant issue in traditional archaeological narratives. Animals were treated almost exclusively as pictorial themes. In the rare instances, in which they were discussed beyond imagery, they were ascribed a passive role as attributes or property of humans and not as proper agents of historical processes. C. Tsountas and J.I. Mannat’s first account of Mycenaean civilization is a characteristic example for this purely anthropocentric perspective.4 Αlthough in the illustrations of this book animals figure no less prominently than humans, the first were given no credit whatsoever in this earliest master narrative of Late Bronze Age Greece. For most of the 20th century, the discussion about animals never surpassed the realm of iconography. This was the case with both early monographic treatments by M. Oulié5 and S. Marinatos6 that unfortunately found no followers in the next decades. This focus was also present in the ‘bible’ of Minoan Archaeology, “The Palace of Minos,”7 in which A. Evans engaged intensively with nature and what he coined as Minoan ‘naturalism,’ trying to comprehend the reasons behind the dominance of fauna and flora in Minoan images.8 In the same vein, in her masterful analysis of Aegean art, in which animals were the real protagonists,9 Η.Α. Groenewegen-Frankfort discussed the nonhuman element exclusively as an artistic form, predictably without expanding her analytical scope to its significance for the evolution of Aegean societies. In the following decades, several scholars focused – and continue to focus – on individual animal species or supernatural beings, providing an impressive range of empirical data and insights. The most prominent among the animals, that attracted the interest of scholarly research, as discussed in numerous individual articles and monographs,10 include the lion, bull/cattle, goat/agrimi, boar, deer, ape, dog, scorpion, and several bird, fish and mollusc species, as well as supernatural creatures such as the ‘Minoan genius’ and the griffin (see Appendix, pp. 23-25). There have been further attempts for a comprehensive analysis of the symbolic significance of fauna
For this centrality as a combination of several religious, symbolic, and aesthetic factors see V.-P. HERVA, “Marvels of the System: Art, Perception and Engagement with the Environment in Minoan Crete,” Archaeological Dialogues 13 (2006) 225-227. C. TSOUNTAS and J.I. MANATT, The Mycenaean Age. A Study of the Monuments and Culture of Pre-Homeric Greece (1897). M. OULIÉ, Les animaux dans la peinture de la Crète préhellénique (1925). S. MARINATOS, “Αι θαλασσογραφικαί παραστάσεις της Κρητομυκηναϊκής Εποχής,” ArchEph (1930) 108-126. This was the first chapter of Marinatos’ unpublished PhD at the University of Athens on “Η αρχαία θαλασσογραφία” (1925). A. EVANS, The Palace of Minos: A Comparative Account of the Successive Stages of the Early Cretan Civilization as Illustrated by the Discoveries at Knossos, vols. I-IV (1921-1935) passim. For a critical discussion of Evans’ naturalism see A. SHAPLAND, Over the Horizon: Human-Animal Relations in Bronze Age Crete, PhD Diss., University College London (2009) 39-42, 52-53; HERVA (supra n. 3) 221240; EAD., “Flower lovers, after all? Rethinking Religion and Human-Environment Relations in Minoan Crete,” WorldArch 38 (2006) 586-598. H.A. GROENEWEGEN-FRANKFORT, Arrest and Movement. An Essay on Space and Time in the Representational Art of the Ancient Near East (1951) 185-216. For an overview of Bronze Age Aegean animal imagery (with extended bibliography) see also J. VANSCHOONWINKEL, “Les animaux dans l’art minoen,” in D.S. REESE (ed.), Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (1996) 351-412; SHAPLAND (supra n. 8); F. BLAKOLMER, “Il Buono, il Brutto, il Cattivo? Character, Symbolism and Hierarchy of Animals and Supernatural Creatures in Minoan and Mycenaean Iconography,” CretAnt 17 (2016) 97-183.

3

4

5 6

7

8

9

10




HUMAN-ANIMAL ENCOUNTERS IN SEAL IMAGERY AND BEYOND

5

representations as a whole.11 A common denominator of many of these targeted approaches was the deliberation not only to analyze exhaustively the symbolic potential of animal iconography but also to go beyond the level of representation: Starting from a comparison between the iconographical sources and the anatomy and life of real animals, several scholars undertook a thorough examination of their encounters with humans and reassessed their overall significance in several spheres of social interaction. Some of the key recurring themes among these works – beyond the comparison between imagery and reality – included the distinction between domestic, feral, and wild animals, the question whether particular species (such as the lion) were endemic, as well as the related dilemma whether or not the depicted encounters with allegedly exotic animals were nurtured by real experience. A decisive boost to this attempt of expanding the analytical scope beyond the realm of images was given by the flourishing of ethnoarchaeology and zooarchaeology, which elucidated beyond the symbolic level, the manifold economic and practical significance of certain animal species.12 Regarding animal research in Aegean archaeology as a whole, we can thus assert that scientific interest focused on the animals’ ritual and symbolic role as pictorial themes and sacrificial victims, also engaging in some cases with utilitarian approaches related to their exploitation as food source, raw materials (leather, wool, hair, antlers, tusks, bones) or as means of transportation and traction. The anthropocentric view that characterized the earliest studies also prevailed in the approaches of the following decades: Animals were not studied for their own sake and definitely not as social agents. The inherent presupposition of a clear human-animal divide and of human dominance over nature led Aegean scholars to ascribe to the nonhuman species an exclusively passive role in society.13 Although from our current standpoint, i.e. after the flourishing of HAS (see below), we can deduce that this traditional line of thought was rather monolithic, it would be unfair to exercise any critique against previous scholars. No matter how one-sided their focus on the human might have been, it still remains a pragmatic analytical method in the context of archaeological disciplines, which for several reasons (see below) cannot exploit the full potential of HAS’ methodological advances. Therefore, it must be emphasized at this point that after several decades of substantial research and manifold insights the traditional approach has neither reached a dead-end, nor is it stagnating. Recent studies, like F. Blakolmer’s holistic analysis of animal imagery in the Aegean Bronze Age,14 demonstrate the great
11

12

13

14




See first and foremost L. Morgan’s inspiring work, L. MORGAN, The Miniature Wall Paintings of Thera: A Study in Aegean Culture and Iconography (1988) 44-49; EAD., “Of Animals and Men: The Symbolic Parallel,” in C. MORRIS (ed.), Klados: Essays in Honour of J. N. Coldstream (1995) 171-184. Animal bones acquired a significance as vital source of cultural information especially after the emergence of the so-called Processual or New Archaeology in the late 1960s and 1970s, see U. ALBARELLA, “Zooarchaeology in the Twenty-First Century. Where We Come From, Where We Are Now and Where We Are Going,” in ID. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Zooarchaeology (2017) 5; for an overview of zooarchaeological advances in the Aegean context, see P. HALSTEAD and V. ISAAKIDOU, “Sheep, Sacrifices, and Symbols. Animals in Later Bronze Age Greece,” in Ibid., 113-126. The same intellectual position characterised the engagement with animals in archaeological disciplines in general. One notable exception was the interest in phenomena of pastoralism and transhumance that clearly demonstrated – especially through ethnographic insights – how animals can impact on human life and social practices, see CL. CHANG and P.A. TOURTELOTTE, “Ethnoarchaeological Survey of Pastoral Transhumance Sites in the Grevena Region, Greece,” JFA 20:3 (1993) 249-264; further R. MAGGI et al. (eds), Archeologia della pastorizia nell'Europa meridionale, vol. I (1990); L. BARTOSIEWICZ (ed.), Transhumant Pastoralism in Southern Europe: Recent Perspectives from Archaeology, History and Ethnology (1999); E. COSTELLO and E. SVENSSON (eds), Historical Archaeologies of Transhumance across Europe (2020); for the Aegean context see L.V. WATROUS, “Aegean Settlements and Transhumance,” in P.P. BETANCOURT (ed.), Temple University Aegean Symposium 2. The Aegean Bronze Age: An Interdisciplinary Approach (1977) 2-6. BLAKOLMER (supra n. 10); further ID., “Hierarchy and Symbolism of Animals and Mythical Creatures in the Aegean Bronze Age: A Statistical and Contextual Approach,” in E. ALRAMSTERN, F. BLAKOLMER, S. DEGER-JALKOTZY, R. LAFFINEUR and J. WEILHARTNER (eds), METAPHYSIS. Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 15th International Aegean







6

Diamantis PANAGIOTOPOULOS

potential of a painstaking iconographical study. Based on different encounters between human, animals, and hybrid creatures, the semantic content of which seems to be from our perspective unequivocal (for example: domination, flanking, or serving), Blakolmer suggests a reconstruction of their hierarchical position in real or imagined spheres of action. This comprehensive and insightful overview, which is the culmination of a very fruitful research trajectory, leaves – at least for the time being – not much space for truly novel ideas. From this background, the present paper has a rather modest objective, striving not to contest but only to reassess and complement previous interpretative studies, since, as already mentioned, this traditional school of thought still has a lot to offer. 2. The ‘animal turn’ Since the 1990’s, animals and their manifold interaction with humans have attracted the interest of scholars from humanities, social sciences, and arts.15 This first ‘boom’ evolved within a few couple of years to a proper research field with an impressive breadth and variety of empirical and theoretical approaches. The still unbroken interest of several scholarly disciplines on this intriguing topic marked an important scientific shift in terms of contents, objectives, and methods which can be justifiably regarded as an ‘animal turn.’ Driven by the marginalisation of animals in modern society and the persistent dichotomies between humans and animals, culture and nature, domesticity and wilderness, scholars felt the need to think anew how humans in different periods and cultures have conceptualized and constructed their relationships with nonhuman species. The idea that the latter deserve “a history of their own”16 led to new approaches to animals and their complex interplay with human society. They strongly contested the anthropocentric view of traditional narratives that is deeply rooted in Christian and Western thought, nourished by the idea of human dominion over the natural world.17 Beyond the apparent necessity to reassess animals not as a backdrop of human action but as agents-inthe-world and to explore the ways in which they were/are essential for and in human society18, HAS aims to disrupt traditional boundaries between human and nonhuman species. Building upon earlier voices that exposed the flaws and heavy consequences of the idea of human exceptionalism, scholars engaged with several facets of this key problem of modern society as well as its philosophical and ethical implications. The latter revolved less around the significance of animals in past and present but rather around the imperative challenges of how we can redefine humanity and animality, respect the moral status of animals, acknowledge their rights, and finally give them the respect they deserve. Zooming in again to Aegean Archaeology, the question that arises here is to what extent HAS can be inspiring for our discipline. Can they foster novel methodological approaches and open new
Conference, Vienna, Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Aegean and Anatolia Department, Austrian Academy of Sciences and Institute of Classical Archaeology, University of Vienna, 22-25 April 2014 (2016) 61-68. For an introduction into a vast and still growing body of pertinent literature see M. DeMELLO, Animals and Society. An Introduction to Human-Animal Studies (2012); P. WALDAU, Animal Studies: An Introduction (2013); M. LUNDBLAD, “Introduction: The End of the Animal – Literary and Cultural Animalities,” in ID. (ed.), Animalities. Literary and Cultural Studies beyond the Human (2017) 2-6; K.J. SHAPIRO and M. DeMELLO, “The State of Human-Animal Studies,” Society and Animals 18:3 (2010) 307-318; G. MARVIN and S. McHUGH, “In it together. An Introduction to Human-Animal Studies,” in EID. (eds), Routledge Handbook of Human-Animal Studies (2014) 3-6. For recent publications in the field of archaeology and related disciplines after the rise of the HAS see L. KALOF (ed.), A Cultural History of Animals in Antiquity (2007); A. ALEXANDRIDIS et al. (eds), Mensch und Tier in der Antike. Grenzziehung und Grenzüberschreitung (2008); N. RUSSELL, Social Zooarchaeology: Humans and Animals in Prehistory (2012); G.L. CAMPBELL (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Animals in Classical Thought and Life (2014); further J. CLUTTON-BROCK, Animals as Domesticates: A World View through History (2012). J. E. WILSON, “Agency, Narrative, and Resistance,” in S. STOCKWELL (ed.), The British Empire: Themes and Perspective (2008) 247. See E. SZÜCS et al., “Animal Welfare in Different Human Cultures, Traditions and Religious Faiths,” Asian-Australian Journal of Animal Science 25:11 (2012) 1499-1506. See MARVIN and McHUGH (supra n. 15) 1: “Human worlds are built upon animal lives and deaths.”

15

16

17

18




HUMAN-ANIMAL ENCOUNTERS IN SEAL IMAGERY AND BEYOND

7

research fields that will help us to understand not only the role of animals but also – through them – crucial aspects of life and ideology in Aegean societies? Before we attempt to answer these questions, it is important to note that the first steps towards this direction have already been taken. In his PhD dissertation and several articles, A. Shapland has implemented several theoretical concepts from the HAS field, addressing some key issues relating to the significance of animals and nature in Aegean imagery.19 His work provides not only a brief overview of this new field of scientific enquiry, but also entails several important observations and provocative ideas. Some of the latter will be critically discussed below. Let us return to the question about the applicability of HAS in the context of Aegean Archaeology. Their dynamic growth in the last couple of years as well as the variety of their disciplinary approaches and topics can definitely be a source of methodological inspiration for Aegean archaeologists. Yet, given the impressive breadth and diversity of this research field, it is imperative to be selective, by focusing only on those among HAS’ theoretical concepts which really make sense and can thus be sensibly implemented in the Aegean context. The philosophical, societal, and moral issues relating to the blurred boundaries between humanity and animality20 or even animal rights and animal welfare21 are definitely important and have already been extensively discussed in several disciplinary fields. There can be no doubt that it would be worthwhile to exploit them in future attempts by Aegean archaeologists to transform the field into a more complex and advanced discipline that engages with the present as intensively as it does with the past.22 However, when we concentrate exclusively on the Bronze Age horizon, philosophical or ethical issues do not substantially help us to reassess the role of animals in Aegean societies, mostly due to the fragmentary character of the evidence at hand.23 More relevant to the scope of this collective volume – and, more generally, of current research – are empirical questions that unavoidably involve the human agents, even if this approach opposes one of HAS’ most important tenets, namely that animals, as has been underlined above, have their own stories. In the Aegean context, it will be difficult indeed – now and in the future – to fully abandon an anthropocentric perspective. What we can do, however, is to practice a reduced and relative anthropocentrism: Instead of prioritising human-centred approaches, we can start thinking Aegean Archaeology also through animals, thus overcoming the culture-nature dichotomy. The incorporation of nonhuman agents within existing archaeological narratives will help us to understand that everything is a matter of relations and networks in which the human element might still have played a very important, if not dominant role. For making this relational approach applicable in the context of Aegean Archaeology, we first have to break it down into specific theoretical notions and then into specific research questions. In the thicket of concepts and terminologies relating to HAS, there are three particular notions that seem to me quite apposite, since they can provide clear methodological orientation: symbolism, situationality, and animal agency. Starting with the broadest of the three concepts, symbolism comprises an approach that is definitely not new, yet it can be imbued with new meaning through recent theoretical advances. The metaphorical use of animals in different media, such as pictorial symbols in imagery, fables, allegories,
19

20 21

22

23




A. SHAPLAND, “Wild Nature? Human–Animal Relations on Neopalatial Crete,” CAJ 19:3 (2009) 109127; ID. (supra n. 8); ID., “The Minoan Lion: Presence and Absence on Bronze Age Crete,” WorldArch 42 (2010) 273-289 ; ID., “Jumping to Conclusions. Bull-Leaping in Minoan Crete”, Society & Animals 21 (2013) 194-207 ; ID., “Shifting Horizons and Emerging Ontologies in the Bronze Age Aegean,” in C. WATTS (ed.), Relational Archaeologies: Humans, Animals, Things (2013) 190-208. T. INGOLD, “Humanity and Animality,” in ID. (ed.), Companion Encyclopedia of Anthropology (1997) 14-32. C. COHEN and T. REGAN, The Animal Rights Debate (2001); R. GARNER, The Political Theory of Animals Rights (2005); N. PHELPS, The Longest Struggle: Animal Advocacy from Pythagoras to PETA (2007); M. BEKOFF (ed.), Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare (2nd ed. 2009); G. FRANCIONE and R. GARNER, The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation? (2010). What is implied here is that Aegean archaeologists have to put stronger emphasis on subjects that can be ‘relatable’ to modern concerns, such as landscape, animals, plants, climate, risk management, urbanism, migration, cultural diversity, senses, etc. See also SHAPLAND 2013a (supra n. 19) 194-195.







8

Diamantis PANAGIOTOPOULOS

and similes in written or oral tradition, or even components in personal names is a ubiquitous phenomenon. Previous research, including the field of Aegean Archaeology, focused mostly on ad hoc interpretations, exploring the symbolic capacity of individual species. HAS insights, however, go beyond this level to address crucial overarching questions and exploring symbolism as an aspect of human cognition.24 Understanding why and how premodern societies imagined animals can shed light on ancient conceptions about the world and – to be more specific – ancient cognitive categories and taxonomic imaginaries.25 These approaches can however be extremely enlightening even beyond this general level, when engaging with the social or economic dimensions of animals’ symbolism in language or imagery. As for the social implications, a provocative argument, which goes back to I. Hodder, seeks to establish a semantic link between animal domestication and the domination of people.26 At the level of iconography, this gains relevance in the case of depictions of symbolic taming of wild/feral animals as visual allegory of political power. An even more interesting social dimension of animal symbolism, that in the future needs to be studied more systematically in the field of Aegean Archaeology, is the material value of animals as instruments of social differentiation both at the level of historical reality and visual representation.27 Related to this assumption is the alleged dependence of animal symbolism on specific modes of production. Despite some attempts to provide a direct link between them,28 there is a consensus among scholars that no direct relationship can be traced between the animals’ ‘food value’ and their ‘symbolic value’, in other words between their practical/economic and symbolic significance.29 Cattle images provide a telling example for the disentanglement between the economic and symbolic dimension. Their strong symbolic value, in both the Aegean and the Near East, cannot be explained in terms of the cattle’s significance for the subsistence of local populations. The factors that determine their prominence in iconography, feasts, and sacrificial rituals might have been mainly their size and power.30 The notion of situationality addresses the crucial question of the different ways in which humananimal relations are situated. How and with which elements is the momentary situation of being in the same place with another being rendered? In this case, as already stressed by Th. Breyer and Th. Widlock, the concept of ‘situation’ offers a much more sophisticated methodological tool than the term ‘context’, which refers only to spatial components of action.31 If we add ‘situationality’ as an analytical
See D. SPERBER, “Why are Perfect Animals, Hybrids, and Monsters Food for Symbolic Thought?”, Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 8:2 (1996) 143-169. In their interaction with animals, humans construct not only animals’ but also their own identities, see BERGER (supra n. 1) 254; further C. TILLEY, Metaphor and Material Culture (1999) 49 (cited in RUSSELL [supra n. 15] 11): “Humans use animals in order to draw elaborate pictures of themselves.” I. HODDER, The Domestication of Europe: Structure and Contingency in Neolithic Societies (1990) passim (discussed in RUSSELL [supra n. 15] 237-256); for the idea of a correspondence between human-animal relations and human social relations see also T. INGOLD Hunters, Pastoralists, and Ranchers: Reindeer Economies and their Transformations (1980); ID., “From Trust to Domination: An Alternative History of Human-Animal Relations,” in A. MANNING and J.A. SERPELL (eds), Animals and Human Society: Changing Perspectives (1994) 1-22. RUSSELL (supra n. 15) 320-331. For the influence of different modes of production on animal metaphors, see R. TAPPER, “Animality, Humanity, Morality, Society,” in: T. INGOLD (ed.), What is an Animal (1988) 47-62. RUSSELL (supra n. 15) 14: “There is no simple relationship between art and subsistence. People represent animals because they are food for thought rather than just food”. This observation goes back to Cl. LéviStrauss’s famous bonnes à penser dictum: “… the animals’ perceptible reality permits the embodiment of ideas and relations conceived by speculative thought on the basis of empirical observations. We can understand, too, that natural species are chosen not because they are ‘good to eat’ but because they are ‘good to think’”, see CL. LÉVI-STRAUSS, Totemism (1962) 89; further BERGER (supra n. 1) 252: “Animals did not first enter the human imagination as meat or leather or horn.” RUSSELL (supra n. 15) 18. TH. BREYER and TH. WIDLOCK, “Editorial Preface,” in EID. (eds), The Situationality of Human-Animal Relations. Perspectives from Anthropology and Philosophy (2018) 7-8.

24

25

26

27 28

29

30 31




HUMAN-ANIMAL ENCOUNTERS IN SEAL IMAGERY AND BEYOND

9

category referring to a particular constellation of agents/actants (see below) and a particular type of encounter, we avoid the risk of describing the interaction between specific humans and specific animals as a fixed, unvaried relationship. Beyond the self-evident fact that a scene can acquire meaning not through the definition of its context and components but only through the ‘situation’ which ties all these elements into a meaningful whole, the hermeneutical potential of the concept of ‘situationality’ derives primarily from its methodological flexibility: It can be applied as a multiscalar tool for creating an elementary vocabulary of human-animal encounters that can help us to structure not only the heterogeneous primary evidence but also the analytical approaches and insights of previous research. In what follows, we shall arrange the visual evidence – starting from the broader scale and moving to the narrower ones – according to spheres of interaction (divine/mythical or real), their milieus (for example within the sphere of real: ritual, ceremonial, profane) and the specific situations in which these encounters take place (for example within the profane milieu: predation, control, taming, training, partnership, etc.).32 A key for understanding the symbolic content of ‘situations’ in human-animal encounters is agency. One of HAS’ main merits have been the extensive discussions revolving around the question whether animals are proper historical subjects or ‘agents.’33 One might think here that it would not be wise to open again the Pandora’s box of nonhuman agency which recently, in the case of objects, generated several heated debates.34 Yet, the abundance of empirical and theoretical approaches and the arguments that have been raised during this discourse leave no doubt that this theoretical notion can be illuminating also in the Aegean context. Following one of the main premises of B. Latour’s influential Actor-Network Theory (ANT), animals, as nonhuman entities, can be regarded as ‘actants.’35 In contrast to agents (humans), which possess an uncontested agency by acting consciously,36 actants do not act but interact with agents and other actants, having a certain effect on them.37 Animal agency is thus not conscious action but refers to the various ways in which animals influence human behaviour.38 A more sophisticated approach to this problem is to speak not of agency
32 33 34

35 36

37

38




‘Sphere’, ‘milieu’, and ‘situation’ are used here as heuristic terms. V.D. ANDERSON, Creatures of Empire: How Domestic Animals Transformed Early America (2004) 3-4. There is now a consensus on the fact that an object acquires (a kind of) agency when ‘activated’ by humans, in other words when it used by them for a specific purpose, see C. TILLEY, “Ethnography and Material Culture,” in P. ATKINSON et al. (eds), Handbook of Ethnography (2001) 260; further A. GELL, Art and Agency. An Anthropological Theory (1998); C. KNAPPETT, “Animacy, Agency, and Personhood,” in ID., Thinking through Material Culture: an Interdisciplinary Perspective (2005) 11-34; J. HOSKINS, “Agency, Biography and Objects,” in C. TILLEY et al. (eds), Handbook of Material Culture (2006) 74-84. B. LATOUR, Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory (2005). See G.M. SPIEGEL, “Introduction”, in ID. (ed.), Practicing History. New Directions in Historical Writing after the Linguistic Turn (2005) 15: “At its root, minimalist definition, agency refers to the individual’s capacity to act, to do something (intentionally or otherwise), implying at the very least an agents practical knowledge and mastery of the common elements of culture, a form of cultural competency founded less upon discursive than practical consciousness.” M. ROSCHER, “Zwischen Wirkungsmacht und Handlungsmacht. Sozialgeschichtliche Perspektiven auf tierliche Agency,” in S. WIRTH et al. (eds), Das Handeln der Tiere. Tierliche Agency im Fokus der Human-Animal Studies (2016) 43-66; see also N. TAYLOR, “Anthropomorphism and the Animal Subject,” in R. BODDICE (ed.), Anthropocentrism. Humans, Animals, Environments (2011) 275: “The decentred approach to power inherent in ANT allows animals to have agency and to play a part in human-animal interactions in ways that traditional thought negates… The de-centring of power that ANT insists on is necessary to allow animals a role in human-animal interactions”; further Ibid., 265-279. See J.A. MARTIN, “When Sharks (Don’t) Attack: Wild Animal Agency in Historical Narratives,” Environmental History 16:3 (2011): “… animal agency means the ability to cause change and does not necessarily imply concurrent self-consciousness, subjectivity, language, morality, or culture on the part of the agent that we (usually) designate as the distinguishing hallmarks of humanity… wild animals are not one-dimensional participants in historical narratives onto which humans simply impose meanings or actions”; see further Roscher’s elucidating distinction between ‘Wirkungsmacht’ and ‘Handlungsmacht’, ROSCHER (supra n. 37). This ‘passive agency’ of animals which impacts on human behaviour is evident







10

Diamantis PANAGIOTOPOULOS

but interagency, as the default situation of every network of relationships between humans, animals, and things.39 Following this argument, even human agency is not absolute but relational, since it is heavily dependent on its relationships with other entities.40 A relational approach against anthropocentrism, which characterized the understanding of traditional research, would certainly enable us to reassess cultural processes in which humans and animals (re-)acted together. This applies also to the Aegean context, where the concept of agency could by employed for shifting attention from humans to networks of interaction and their links41 as well as for differentiating between what is human-caused and what is not.42 Theoretical concepts legitimise their existence or at least their implementation in specific scientific fields only when they are capable of providing novel questions. Previous research has already raised an abundance of such questions and formulated hypotheses relating to different aspects of the practical and symbolic significance of animals in Aegean societies: How do human and nonhuman animals interact? Where do these encounters take place? Why are some animals more symbolic than others? Starting from this solid fundament, HAS can help us to expand our analytical angle by engaging with overarching questions that relate to human consciousness: For instance, why are animals represented in human cultures and societies? What happens when we visualize them? How can we decipher the semantic content of these images for elucidating the actual relationship between human and nonhuman entities and understanding how humanity and animality were delineated in a given historical context?43 Can we trace premodern taxonomies and concepts on the basis of animal imagery? How can we explain anthropomorphism, i.e. the attribution of human qualities to animals? Is there any semantic link between animal iconography and gender construction? What is the place of animals in human-occupied spaces? Is there any relationship between the value of animals as wealth and social differentiation?44 These questions promise a fresh and differentiated look at old evidence and can be pursued more systematically in future studies.
in the context of animal labour, see Ch. DEJOURS, “Preface,” in J. PORCHER and J. ESTEBANEZ (eds), Animal Labor. A New Perspective on Human-Animal Relations (2019) 8: “Animal work, when studied in depth, reveals that animals can themselves develop capabilities that they owe to their companionship with humans … In their relations with animals, humans have been put to work in their turn, and they have discovered sensibility registers in themselves that would have never developed without efforts taken to understand animals and to find ways of cooperating with them. There are many capacities that human beings have been able to acquire thanks to animals, and these are specific to each animal with which they have learned to work.” V. DESPRET, “From Secret Agents to Interagency,” History and Theory 52:4 (2013) esp. 44; ROSCHER (supra n. 37) 57; see here also SHAPLAND 2009 (supra n. 19) 112: “From this perspective, the properties of the environment, whether of animals, plants or art objects, emerge from the interaction between entities.” For a most lucid argument in favour of the relationality of human agency see J. LAW, “Notes on the Theory of the Actor Network: Ordering, Strategy and Heterogeneity,” Systems Practice 5 (1992) 383-384 (cited in TAYLOR [supra n. 37] 274): “… what counts as a person is an effect generated by a network of heterogeneous, interacting, materials… An actor is a patterned network of heterogeneous relations, or an effect produced by such a network… If you took away my computer, my colleagues, my office, my books, my desk, my telephone I wouldn’t be a sociologist writing papers, delivering lectures, and producing ‘knowledge’… social agents are never located in bodies and bodies alone.” See TAYLOR (supra n. 37) 265: “This approach takes as its starting point the idea that social action is relational and that acknowledging this has the value of allowing us to study the relatings rather than the relators.” For a similar approach in the field of zooarchaeology see RUSSELL (supra n. 15) 6-7. Russell argues that instead of interpreting faunal assemblages as the result of human choices, it might be more sensible to focus on other factors that are related to animal agency. This would challenge traditional zooarchaeological interpretations which evaluated the role of animals in human societies mainly “in terms of proteins and calories”, see Ibid. 6-7. See MARVIN and McHUGH (supra n. 15) 2. RUSSELL (supra n. 15) 320-331.

39

40

41

42

43 44




HUMAN-ANIMAL ENCOUNTERS IN SEAL IMAGERY AND BEYOND

11

3. The (obvious) case study: Aegean seal imagery It is a well-known fact that seal imagery constitutes the richest and most diversified reservoir of pictorial evidence in Aegean Bronze Age societies, allowing for, as has already been emphasized by several scholars, both quantitative and qualitative analyses.45 Given the fact that Aegean pottery generally avoided the depiction of scenes of human or animal action,46 seals, signet rings, and seal impressions on nodules have been throughout the 3rd and 2nd millennium BCE the main vehicle of visual communication in Minoan Crete and Mycenaean Greece. Therefore, they can be regarded as the most representative body of evidence for studying the significance of animals in Aegean imagery. My aim will be here not to use seal images as pictorial sources for assessing the significance of animals in real life but to focus on iconography itself, exploring the question why animals became images. There are undoubtedly several ways to engage with this rich assemblage in search of ‘patterns’ that might reflect conceptual domains of Aegean Bronze Age societies. Before any such attempt, we have to keep in mind that in many cases our analytical categories might distract rather than elucidate ancient ‘realities,’ since they unavoidably – and quite often unconsciously – adhere to modern cognitive concepts. Categories often impede us from seeing around the corners of the artificial walls they create.47 To avoid making things more complicated than they already are, it is therefore wiser to stick to the evidence at hand, without trying to fit it into theoretical ‘straitjackets.’ Consequently, the theoretical issues discussed above (symbolism, situationality, and agency) will be implemented in the following section not for interpreting anything specific but mainly for arranging both primary data and scholarly opinions in a manner that will enable us to see the old evidence from a different analytical angle. 3.1. Symbolism, materiality of the medium, and embodiment: the basic triangle Before we engage with images, we ought to discuss what must always come first, namely the medium. M. McLuhan’s dictum that “the medium is the message”48 has exposed one serious methodological flaw of many traditional approaches to Aegean iconography: Instead of considering the basic fact that the materiality of the medium matters, they explored this visual language as a homogeneous set of images, without seriously acknowledging their differences in size, material, style, and ways of sensorial perception. For avoiding such shortcomings, we have to engage with iconography not as a historical ‘source’ but as a self-reliant object of scientific enquiry.49 Even though Aegean images on different classes of artefacts seem to have been nourished by a common visual tradition and despite several ‘intermedial references’ between frescoes, seals, and vase painting,50 it is obvious that there were some noticeable peculiarities between different media that have to be
45 46

47

48 49

50




See BLAKOLMER 2016 (supra n. 14) 61; further ID. (supra n. 10) 99. See D. PANAGIOTOPOULOS, “Aegean Imagery and the Syntax of Viewing,” in ID. and U. GÜNKEL-MASCHEK (eds), Minoan Realities. Approaches to Images, Architecture, and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age (2012) 67-68. Apart from sporadic exceptions over two millennia, only LH III A-B Pictorial Pottery as well as Middle and Late Cycladic Theran Pottery depicted regularly humans and animals in action. Following an aphorism by J.G. Ballard: “We’re trapped by categories, by walls that stop us from seeing around corners.” H.M. McLUHAN, The Medium is the Message: An Inventory of Effects (1967). This is one of the methodological outcomes of the ‘iconic turn’, see D. PANAGIOTOPOULOS, “The ‘Death of the Painter’. Towards a Radical Archaeology of (Minoan) Images,” in F. BLAKOLMER (ed.), Current Approaches and New Perspectives in Aegean Iconography (2020) 391-392. For the interrelation of images from different artistic media to each other, see F. BLAKOLMER, “Image and Architecture: Reflections of Mural Iconography in Seal Images and Other Art Forms of Minoan Crete,” in PANAGIOTOPOULOS and GÜNKEL-MASCHEK eds (supra n. 46) 83-114; E.C. EGAN, The Stylistic Relationship between Wall Painting and Vase Painting at the Palace at Knossos During the Neo- and Final Palatial Periods, MA Diss., University of Cincinnati (2008); A.G. VLACHOPOULOS (ed.), Χρωστήρες. Paintbrushes. Wall-painting and Vase-painting of the Second Millennium BC in Dialogue (2018) 234-241.







12

Diamantis PANAGIOTOPOULOS

addressed upfront. To be more specific, some pictorial themes or styles were characteristic for a particular class of image bearers, indicating that each medium (frescoed walls, clay and stone vases, seals, etc.) possessed its own iconographical tradition. The latter was obviously dictated by rules, a sort of artistic decorum, that were specific to each medium. For example, as Shapland has already rightly pointed out, the popularity of individual species could vary considerably across different media.51 Specific predilections seem to have existed even between different seal types or materials. Talismanic seals show a prevalence of marine animals and – to a certain extent – also birds, which are rather underrepresented in other seal types.52 More intriguing still, is the possibility of a symbolic meaning of seal stone colours which is traceable in the regular combination of clear/green/blue seals with water, while other colours could have been possibly associated with the land.53 A further illuminating example for the fact that the materiality of the medium impacted on the image, is the mixing of sexual characteristics in animal depictions, especially in the case of male animals (lions with mane or horned deer, sheep, and cattle) and in suckling scenes. Following J. Weilhartner’s convincing argument, this visual paradox does not reflect the artist’s ignorance of animal anatomy but his intention for creating an image which could be unambiguously identified as a specific species by the viewer.54 In this case, the miniature format has obviously instigated an artistic convention that would have been meaningless in a different medium. Keeping in mind the materiality of the medium as determining factor of what and how it was depicted, let us now have a look at the bare facts. The quantitative prevalence of animals in seal imagery is more than apparent. According to Blakolmer’s statistical analysis, animal and hybrid creatures make up c. 40% of the entire corpus,55 a ratio that can be even increased to an impressive 2/3, if considering only the representational images.56 It seems therefore that for the miniature iconography of these portable objects, which were in close and steady contact to the human body, animals represented the most favourite pictorial theme, thus acquiring a visual prominence that was even higher than that in other media. These embodied images (in the strict sense of the term) confirm what we should otherwise expect from premodern societies, in which humans lived surrounded by animals and where the humans unavoidably used animals as a means of understanding and imagining the world.57 In traditional research, this visual language has been implicitly regarded as a single historical continuum, mainly because it is difficult to distinguish different iconographical ‘traditions’ in the depiction of animals across space and time. Only recently, the idea of a ‘continuum’ was opposed by Shapland, who assumed that the decrease in the diversity of animals and their increasing stylisation in the Final Palatial and Post Palatial iconography might have reflected changes in the social
A. SHAPLAND, “After Naturalism: Human-Animal Relations in LM II-III Crete,” in G. TOUCHAIS, R. LAFFINEUR and F. ROUGEMONT (eds), PHYSIS. L’environnement naturel et la relation homme-milieu dans le monde Égéen protohistorique. Actes de la 14e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Paris, Institut National d’Histoire de l’Art, 11-14 décembre 2012 (2014) 555. Different media reflected therefore different types of human-animal relations, see ID. (supra n. 8) 115, fig. 4. SHAPLAND (supra n. 8) 117. SHAPLAND (supra n. 8) 118. J. WEILHARTNER, “Zur Vermengung geschlechtsspezifischer Merkmale bei Tierdarstellungen in der Glyptik der ägäischen Spätbronzezeit: Unkenntnis oder bewusster Kunstgriff?”, AA (2016:2) 1-17. BLAKOLMER (supra n. 10) 100; BLAKOLMER 2016 (supra n. 14) 61: “Although a large amount of seal images do not represent iconographical motifs, it is astonishing that out of ca. 10,000 Aegean seal motifs no fewer than 4,019 specimen present animals and hybrid creatures, representing 40% of the entire corpus. Of these, 83,6% present one or more animals of the same species, whereas only 16,4% show interacting creatures of two or more different species in one iconographical scene”; see also J.L. CROWLEY, The Iconography of Aegean Seals (2013) 349. See J. WEINGARTEN, “Review of J.L. Crowley, The Iconography of Aegean Seals,” BMCR 12:12 (2013) (http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2013/2013-12-12.html; cited in BLAKOLMER [supra n. 10] 100). This is actually a reciprocal cognitive process, see RUSSELL (supra n. 15) 11: “We use animal categories to understand human society and human categories to understand animals”; further TILLEY (supra n. 25) 49-50.

51

52 53 54

55

56

57




HUMAN-ANIMAL ENCOUNTERS IN SEAL IMAGERY AND BEYOND

13

significance of human-animal relations.58 This is a provocative, yet unconvincing argument, for the simple fact that Shapland is referring here to a general phenomenon of Final Palatial and Post Palatial style that affected not only the depiction of animals on seals but the entire spectrum of Aegean imagery. It is therefore misleading to make inferences about ideology and real practices from stylistic differences that were obviously dictated only by artistic traditions, including the materiality of the medium.59 To put it more simply, the explanation for all these phenomena must be sought only at the level of imagery and not that of historical reality. The most important aspects of Aegean animal imagery in its role as symbolic language have already been highlighted in previous research. As Morgan very aptly put it in a nutshell: “The animals … are there for a purpose: to aid, demonstrate and reflect aspects of human life.”60 It seems indeed that animal images served as a sort of ‘symbolic currency,’ in which different species possessed a different value. The fact that wild and feral animals figure more prominently clearly indicates that they were more highly appreciated than domesticated animals. Rarity, size, and strength of a species seem to have further determined its implementation and popularity as seal motif.61 The quantitative dominance of lion and bull is therefore not surprising. The fact that the number of agrimi/goat depictions is surpassed only by the two aforementioned animals implies that most of them rendered agrimia and not domesticated goats. It would however be dangerous to construct a hierarchy of the symbolic significance of animals based exclusively on numbers. The medium is here again the factor that help us to ‘calibrate’ such quantitative results. In the future, it would be worthwhile to study seal images in relation to the symbolic/material value of their bearers. This value was determined by material of manufacture, technique, and style. Only through such a relational approach that acknowledges the habitus of the seal owners, will we be able to acquire reliable information for asserting the symbolic significance of individual animal species in seal imagery. Relevant to the issue of how animals unfolded their symbolic potential is the question of who was imagining them. In the case of seals, this question can be formulated even more directly: Who was bearing animals in miniature as symbols on his/her body? It would be naïve to think that seal iconography reflected a coherent and homogeneous imaginary, since the seal-users came probably from different social milieus, obviously including not only the elite but also merchants, craftsmen and craftswomen, pastoralists, and peasants. This symbolic language could thus have articulated not a common ideology but different aspirations for visual representation by different social groups. In this case, we should expect significant variation in the selection of pictorial themes, in other words different types of human-animal encounters and/or different animals. We can even go a step further, touching the level of the individual, even if it is extremely difficult to make from seal motifs any inferences about persons/ranks/social statuses.62 Yet, even if this link between image (seal motif) and individual (sealowner) remains elusive for archaeologists, there can be no doubt that it really existed. The embodied relationship between seal-owner and seal enhanced the bond between him/her and the engraved motif. Who would – in ancient or modern times – resist the temptation to identify or at least link himself/herself with an embodied image, either engraved on a seal or printed on a T-shirt? Consequently, the capacity of the image to act as a symbolic expression for humans was in the case of
58 59

60 61

62




See SHAPLAND (supra n. 51) 556. Almost all of these Minoan and Mycenaean seals with animal depictions in crude style are on seals from soft stone or glass, see O. KRZYSZKOWSKA, Aegean Seals. An Introduction (2005) 212-213, 267-273; see also below (n. 102). MORGAN 1995 (supra n. 11) 171. See MORGAN 1988 (supra n. 11) 44-49; E.F. BLOEDOW, “On Hunting Lions in Bronze Age Greece,” in P.P. BETANCOURT, V. KARAGEORGHIS, R. LAFFINEUR and W.-D. NIEMEIER (eds), MELETEMATA. Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He enters his 65th Year (1999) 56-57. See D. PANAGIOTOPOULOS, “A Systemic Approach to Mycenaean Sealing Practices,” in W. MÜLLER (ed.), Die Bedeutung der minoischen und mykenischen Glyptik: VI. Internationales Siegel-Symposium aus Anlass des 50-jährigen Bestehens des CMS (2010) 306; BLAKOLMER (supra n. 10) 99-100.







14

Diamantis PANAGIOTOPOULOS

seals much stronger that in any other artistic medium of the Aegean Bronze Age.63 Any interpretations, that seek to go beyond this general level of symbolism, must be regarded with utmost caution. Shapland’s provocative suggestion that seals with depictions of lions (CMS II 6, no. 91; here Pl. Ia) acted as ‘tokens’ of lion hunting is rather weak.64 Apparently, we cannot rule out, that, originally, encounters with lions inspired the creation of such a pictorial theme. Yet from the moment of its crystallisation to a seal motif, the image acquires its own life (through symbolism), which was undoubtedly the decisive factor for its visual prominence. The idea that lions on seals were linked with real experiences is as simplistic as the hypothesis that seal-rings with bull leaping scenes were owned by bull leapers (even if, in some cases, this could have been true). Therefore, for creating a meaningful link between a seal image and an individual, we cannot rely only upon the image itself. We need instead to correlate the image with the social persona of the seal-user, or seal impressions on inscribed nodules that provide explicit textual context. Looking at the seal imagery of Aegean fauna as a whole, it remains difficult to make any assumptions about Aegean conceptual domains or categorical thinking, given the inherent ambiguity of this visual language. If we want to avoid the risk of anachronism and adhere to an emic perspective, we have first to free ourselves from the idea that Aegean societies divided vertebrate animals into categories that are familiar to us (mammals, birds, fishes, reptiles, amphibians). On the contrary, it is very likely that there existed categories that were anomalous to our zoological taxonomy, such as domestic/wild, edible/non-edible, sacrificial/non-sacrificial or even earth/water/air animals. A categorization which – given its universal character – must have been valid in the Aegean Bronze Age is the distinction between wild, domesticated, and feral animals, even if iconography does not help us to draw clear lines between them. The assumption that the divide between wild and domesticated species was important can be deduced by the aforementioned preponderance of the wild species among seal images. Whether feral animals existed as a cognitive category in Bronze Age Aegean societies is a question that has to remain open. Among several animals that have been discussed as feral in recent publications,65 the bull is the most prominent and intriguing case. It is likely that its special significance in Aegean imagery was related also to the ambiguity of its status between wilderness and domestication (see also below). A further interesting aspect of the nexus between imagery and categorical thinking relates to a group of animals which are described in the CMS as Vierfüßler (‘quadrupeds’, see for instance CMS II 3, no. 217; II 6, no. 276; III, no. 478; here Pl. Ib-c), since their rudimentary style does not allow a secure identification with a specific species. Whether Aegean seal engravers really intended to depict a ‘quadruped’ and not a ‘goat’ or a ‘deer’ is, however, rather unlikely, since this ‘superordinate level’ of categorical thinking apparently did not exist in Bronze Age Greece, at least if we judge from its absence among the Linear A and B ideograms.66 In
For animals as adornment of the human body see A. SIMANDIRAKI-GRIMSHAW and F. STEVENS, “Adorning the Body: Animals as Ornaments in Bronze Age Crete,” in M.-L. NOSCH and R. LAFFINEUR (eds), KOSMOS. Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 13th International Aegean Conference/13e Rencontre égéenne internationale, University of Copenhagen, Danish National Research Foundation’s Centre for Textile Research, 21-26 April 2010 (2012) 597-608. As Simandiraki convincingly argues, the sensorial qualities of materials and animals determined this form of embodiment, see Ibid., 605. SHAPLAND 2010 (supra n. 19) 285; further ID. 2009 (supra n. 19) 120: “It is the practice of lion-hunting which establishes the connection between the two”; further E.S.K. ANDERSON, “The Poetics of the Cretan Lion: Glyptic and Oral Culture in the Bronze Age Aegean,” AJA 124 (2020) 367-368 (contra Shapland). For a definition of the ‘feral’ status see MARVIN and McHUGH (supra n. 15) 7: “Feral refers to animals that are interstitial, conceived as in-between the wild and the domestic, animals that have escaped from domestication and recaptured some of the qualities of the wild.” In Eleanor Rosch’s ‘theory of prototypes and basic-level categories’, conceptual categories are defined according to varying levels of abstraction and inclusiveness, see E. ROSCH, “Principles of Categorization,” in ID. and B.B. LLOYD (eds), Cognition and Categorization (1978) 27-48. In the case of fauna, one could distinguish between the superordinate level (quadruped), basic level (dog), and

63

64

65

66




HUMAN-ANIMAL ENCOUNTERS IN SEAL IMAGERY AND BEYOND

15

this case, we have either to assume that the Minoan or Mycenaean spectator could recognize the image as signifier of a specific animal or alternatively that the appearance of blurred categories in seal imagery was an inevitable effect of the combination of miniature format and crude style and had no correspondence to any cognitive categories whatsoever. A further crucial aspect of human-animal relations in the Aegean Bronze Age is how the dividing line between humanity and animality was drawn and whether iconography could shed some light on this matter. Can we be sure that in Aegean societies people conceived their relationship to animals in terms of human exclusivity and domination, resembling the way in which this relationship has been fabricated in Western thought? Or alternatively can we discern in the imagery – and perhaps even other archaeological sources – some indications for a more balanced and reciprocal interaction? One seal impression on a nodule from Pylos seems to provide a very clear answer to this question: a man brandishes his spear against a pair of griffins that are attacking a pair of deer. The latter are attacked by a second hunter in the lower part of this complex scene (Pl. Id).67 This elaborate composition conveys an unequivocal message of human superiority both over hybrid creatures and animals.68 Even if we cannot regard a single image as definitive evidence for the mentality of both Aegean societies for a time span that covers almost two millennia, the rest of the seal imagery seems at least not to contradict this hypothesis. Blakolmer’s analysis of the hierarchical position of hybrid creatures and animals confirms the assumption of a clear structure not only between humans and nonhumans but also within the categories of mythical creatures and animals.69 The situationality of human-animal encounters (see below) shows an apparent predilection for scenes of predation and control, thus corroborating the idea of a cemented hierarchical structure among living creatures. 3.2. Situationality The symbolic significance of animals in Aegean seal imagery was determined not only by their intrinsic physical or spiritual capacities but also by their roles in different types of situational contexts. Starting from the broader and moving to the more specific level, it is worthwhile to briefly examine in which spheres, milieus, and situations human-animal encounters were embedded. After his aforementioned comprehensive analysis of animal imagery, Blakolmer has observed that the great majority of seal motifs display animals in a non-realistic, abstract, symbolic, or mythical context.70 This holds true also in the case of human-animal encounters that were evidently situated beyond real life, such as a chariot drawn by two agrimia (CMS VI, no. 85; here Pl. Ie) or a man attacking a lion assisted by a ‘Minoan genius’ (CMS XI, no. 208; here Pl. If). Despite this apparent predilection, it would be premature to draw any conclusions relating to human-animal relations, simply because we deal here, once again, with a general phenomenon of Aegean art. This iconographic tradition, and especially its Minoan branch, favoured an abstract, a-historical visual language, the exact meaning of which remains elusive to us. E. Vermeule perfectly illustrated this point in her inimitable style: “… a timeless,


67

68 69

70




subordinate level (greyhound). The basic level is the most decisive one for the categorical perception of things, since it is the field in which most of our knowledge is organized, see G. LAKOFF, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind (1987) 31-57. It is also the most important level for the visual representation of things, because the members of superordinate categories possess only a few shared properties, a fact that impedes their visualization. A special kind of a superordinate category resembles the Mycenaean use of the term ‘quadruped’ attested in the instrumental plural qe-to-ro-po-pi to designate mainly sheep and goats, analogous to historical Greek πρόβατα, see J. WEILHARTNER, this volume, p. 338-340. I. PINI, Die Tonplomben aus dem Nestorpalast von Pylos (1997) 5-6, no. 10; KRZYSZKOWSKA (supra n. 59) 258, no. 573; D. PANAGIOTOPOULOS, Untersuchungen zur mykenischen Siegelpraxis. Funktion, Kontext und administrative Verwendung mykenischer Tonplomben auf dem griechischen Festland und Kreta (2014) 142. See BLAKOLMER (supra n. 10) 154. Blakolmer’s entire analytical approach is based on the patterns of dominance and subjugation, see BLAKOLMER (supra n. 10) passim. BLAKOLMER 2016 (supra n. 14) 61; ID. (supra n. 10) 97-98.







16

Diamantis PANAGIOTOPOULOS

immobile world where vibrant fish swim energetically nowhere and princes march beautifully dressed through corridors empty of identity.”71 If we narrow our scope and move from spheres to milieus, we see a similar preference towards ritual/ceremonial rather than profane encounters that once again follows a general tendency of Aegean art, which shows a remarkable disinterest in scenes of everyday life. As a consequence, one of the primary sources of the relations of humans with animals, namely work,72 is virtually non-existent.73 Only dogs and horses appear as servants of humans, not on their own terms but embedded in scenes where they could not have been absent: Dogs assist the hunter (CMS II 8, no. 236; here Pl. Ig), horses pull the chariot (CMS II 6, no. 19; here Pl. Ih). Traction or draft animals, other than horses, are not depicted ‘at work’. Some interesting exceptions from this general rule relating to the visualization of animal labour include scenes of a man milking a cow (CMS II 8, nos 33 and 232; here Pl. IIa-b), the mirror scene of two men milking a pair of sheep on a nodule from Chania (CMS V Suppl. 1A, no. 137, here Pl. IIc), and a man selecting young goats (CMS II 7, no. 30; here Pl. IId). In their encounters with humans, the majority of animals appear in scenes that can be linked with ritual performances. What we see here is a ‘staging’ of human and nonhuman actors, in which both sets of actors have to fulfill fixed and predictable roles. The outcome of these encounters is predetermined. Given the expected result of the ritual action, it is not always important to depict its most dramatic highlight, since every single one of the sequential stages of the ceremonial performance seems to suffice. A good example for this case is the peculiar motif of women carrying a goat/ram by its horns (CMS I, no. 221; XI, no. 27; here Pl. IIe-f), which, according to I. Sakellarakis’ convincing hypothesis, must be interpreted as part of a sacrificial ritual.74 These seal images prefer anticipation to climax, adhering again to one general tendency of Aegean iconography. In the case of bull leaping, the artists cannot however resist the temptation of depicting the most decisive – and from an aesthetic point of view the most appealing – moment, the bull leaper’s salto mortale, when he jumps in perfect style above the charging beast (CMS II 6, no. 255; here Pl. IIg). Hunting, which is quite often depicted on Aegean seals, can be regarded as an in-between of a profane and ritual/ceremonial milieu, since it had not only a practical but also a social and symbolic significance.75 Its victims had to be undomesticated, free wild animals.76 These included in Aegean seal imagery deer/stag, boar, and agrimi. Interestingly, hare and wildcat, which must also haven been hunted, do not appear. It is striking that in several cases, the hunt is visualized exclusively as an interaction of nonhuman agents by omitting the hunter and showing only the animal struck by his spear or arrow (CMS I, nos 10 and 242; V, nos 645-646; here Pls IIh and IIIa) or his dog chasing the prey.77 The latter composition, which highlights the significance of the dog rather than the hunter, and thus a labouring animal, corresponds interestingly to the etymology of the ancient Greek word for hunting (κυνηγία/κυνηγεσία) which means the ‘leading of the dog(s).’78 Summing up, on Aegean seals, humans meet animals mostly in the course of a ritualised event, quite often in the wild, and only sporadically in scenes of everyday life in agro-pastoral communities.
E. VERMEULE, Greece in the Bronze Age (1964) 202. J. PORCHER and J. ESTEBANEZ, “Animal Labor,” in EID. eds (supra n. 38) 24, 27. See also BLAKOLMER (supra n. 10) 153-154. I. SAKELLARAKIS, “Το θέμα της φερούσης ζώον γυναικός εις την Κρητομυκηναϊκήν σφραγιδογλυφίαν,” ArchEphem 1972, 245-258. See RUSSELL (surpa n. 15) 144-175; further O. KRZYSZKOWSKA, “Cutting to the Chase: Hunting in Minoan Crete,” in TOUCHAIS et al. eds (supra n. 51) 346: “… hunting had attained the status of an elite pursuit … rather than for any economic value it might bring.” On the contrary, Aegean sacrificial ritual involved only domestic animals, or at least feral (bull). PINI (supra n. 67) 17-19, nos 31-32. Cf. the Homeric κυνηγέτης. In the Linear B texts *ku-na-ke-ta means the ‘dog leader’, i.e., those who train and handle specially bred hunting dogs. •qe-ra-ta, which underlies the adjectival forms qe-ra-si-ja and qe-rasi-jo means literally the ‘agent having to do with wild beasts’ and signifies the ‘hunter’. See J. WEILHARTNER, this volume, p. 339-340 and n. 28; T.G. PALAIMA, this volume, p. 390-391.

71 72 73 74

75

76 77 78




HUMAN-ANIMAL ENCOUNTERS IN SEAL IMAGERY AND BEYOND

17

If we now examine what actually happens when human meet animals by focusing on specific types of encounters, we see a clear behavioural pattern. Humans meet animal in rituals for killing them, in the wild for killing them, and in everyday life for controlling them (as a labour force). Let us look more closely to this straightforward visualisation of human violence and dominance. Sacrifice and hunting have been obviously regarded as two types of socialized violence towards animals, and thus – as it is the case in most, if not all, premodern societies – accepted as an inevitable act.79 Images of a peaceful interaction between humans and animals are considerably fewer that the aforementioned violent encounters. If we exclude the possible depictions of deities controlling or subjugating animals, and the images of animals at labour (which is admittedly a form of violence), we have only a few instances of human-animal interaction that might have evoked reciprocity, partnership, or companionship. The most prominent example might be bull leaping (see below), if we regard the bull, following Shapland’s suggestion, not as adversary but as a ‘partner’ of the bull leaper.80 Beyond this significant group of images, the evidence is extremely meagre, including the depictions of a seated female figure (goddess?) feeding a goat/agrimi (CMS II 6, no. 30; V Suppl. 1A, no 175; here Pl. IIIb). 3.3. Agency By admitting that animals have agency we do justice to their important role in the world, yet do we really gain through this statement new insights in our attempt to better comprehend Aegean societies? This a rather complicated issue. If we look at two of the most important human-animal encounters in Aegean seal imagery, man against lion and man against bull, we have to stress that in both cases the agency of these powerful animals has not been properly acknowledged in previous research. Lion and bull can be at least regarded as ‘co-participants’ in these interactions,81 if not as their main agents. In the case of the bull, the concept of agency indeed enables a differentiated look at its significance in Aegean imagery. One of the surprising results of Blakolmer’s meticulous analysis of animal imagery on Aegean seals was that the bull occupied a low position in his hierarchical scheme, primarily because it was depicted as the main victim in scenes of hunting and animal combat.82 The reason why bull does not figure very prominently, if seen from this analytical viewpoint, is related to the fact that Blakolmer’s approach is mainly based on a fixed set of predatory relations. Yet, the bull is not a predatory animal but possesses a different agency, a facet of which found an impressive expression in bull leaping, both as ritual performance and visual representation. It is likely that bull leaping evolved from rather mundane activities in the context of everyday human-cattle relationship, such as capture and restrain.83 This form of purely practical interaction between strong men and strong animals could have easily acquired an agonistic dimension which over time might have even been elevated into a ritual performance with high symbolic content. In the case of Minoan Crete, this last stage was probably connected, as already mentioned above, with the animal’s ambivalent status between wilderness and civilization. As K. Harris and Y. Hamilakis rightly pointed out, bull leaping
79

80 81

82 83




Unnecessary violence against animal is absent in Aegean imagery. A possible exception is a singular act of unnecessary violence seems to have been depicted among the frescoes from Tell el-Dab‘a that include a scene with the painful twisting of a bull’s heads, see SHAPLAND 2013a (supra n. 19) 201. See below n. 99. See K. HARRIS and Y. HAMILAKIS, “Beyond the Wild, the Feral, and the Domestic: Lessons from Prehistoric Crete,” in MARVIN and McHUGH eds (supra n. 15) 110. BLAKOLMER (supra n. 10) 108, 110. M. ZEIMBEKIS, “Grappling with the Bull: A Reappraisal of Bull and Cattle-Related Ritual in Minoan Crete,” in Πεπραγμένα Θ΄ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, Ελούντα, 1-6 Οκτωβρίου 2001, vol. A3: Προϊστορική Περίοδος, Τέχνη και Λατρεία (2006) 27-44; J. McINERNEY, The Cattle of the Sun: Cows and Culture in the World of the Ancient Greeks (2010); SHAPLAND 2013a (supra n. 19) 199; E. LOUGHLIN, “Grasping the Bull by the Horns: Minoan Bull Sports,” in S. BELL and G. DAVIES (eds), Games and Festivals in Classical Antiquity (2004) 1-8.







18

Diamantis PANAGIOTOPOULOS

was producing a heterotopic domain of a dramatic human-animal encounter within the urban texture.84 Since the ‘city’ has no place for wild creatures, we have to ask ourselves to what extent Minoan bulls were wild. There are several indications, including the colouring of the bulls in Minoan paintings,85 that strengthen the hypothesis that they must be regarded as feral or even domesticated animals. ‘Wilderness’ was in this case not given but rather constructed.86 Coming back to the issue of animal agency and considering the fact, that the raison d’être of this ritual was obviously to demonstrate the dominance of man over beast, it would be exaggerating to assume that its real protagonist was the bull, as Harris and Hamilakis suggested.87 However, without the active participation of the animal, which had to perceive the bull leaper as a target and straightforwardly attack him, this stunning encounter was doomed to fail. Human superiority was here depicted as a non-violent act, since the man dominated the bull with style and the salto mortale was executed as a perfectly choreographed circus performance (Pl. IIg).88 Notwithstanding the visualization of failure, which might have been even lethal (see CMS II 6, nos 39-40; here Pl. IIIc-d),89 bull leaping was staged as an acrobatic liturgy in which human and nonhuman actors provided their audience not only with a thrilling performance but also with a unique aesthetic – or even mystic – experience. No other animal seems to have reached this level of ‘partnership’ with humans in the realm of Aegean images. Therefore, looking at bull leaping through the prism of agency provides a different analytical angle than Blakomer’s hierarchical approach and helps us to rehabilitate the animal’s significance in the Aegean symbolic language. The lion’s stunning ‘career’ in Aegean imagery began already in the Cretan Prepalatial period, in which it was the most frequently depicted species.90 This enigmatic predominance of a nonindigenous animal can be best understood as a foreign artistic influence.91 On the contrary, the reason for the lion’s visual prominence in the Mycenaean Period, where among early Mycenaean seals and Late Mycenaean seal impressions on nodules it is almost as common as the bull, can, however, be linked with real life, i.e. with encounters between humans and lions in the Greek mainland. The lion’s ferocious capacities were enough to grant it the role of the most symbolically charged animal in Aegean seal imagery. Interestingly, this privileged position corresponds to its significance in the Homeric poems, especially in the Iliad, where lion is the most frequently mentioned species among animal similes.92 A similar symbolic property as “hero par excellence”93 can be also assumed in the
HARRIS and HAMILAKIS (supra n. 81) 107-108; for the urban context of bull-leaping see D. PANAGIOTOPOULOS, “Das minoische Stierspringen. Zur Performanz und Darstellung eines altägäischen Rituals,” in J. MYLONOPOULOS and H. ROEDER (eds), Archäologie und Ritual. Auf der Suche nach der rituellen Handlung in den antiken Kulturen Ägyptens und Griechenlands (2006) 130-131. F.E. Zeuner pointed out that the piebald marking of the bulls on the Knossian frescoes can only be found on domestic cattle, see F.E. ZEUNER, A History of Domesticated Animals (1963) 229; further RUSSELL (supra n. 15) 48; SHAPLAND 2013a (supra n. 19) 204. RUSSELL (supra n. 15) 45. See HARRIS and HAMILAKIS (supra n. 81) 108. For the non-adversarial character of bull-leaping see SHAPLAND 2013a (supra n. 19) esp. 200-201. See E. KYRIAKIDIS, “The Dead Acrobat: Managing Risk and Minoan Iconography,” in V.G. KOUTRAFOURI et al. (eds), Ritual Failure: Archaeological Perspectives (2013) 155-163. SHAPLAND 2010 (supra n. 19) 278. It is highly unlikely – if not impossible – that lions lived on Crete or the Aegean islands. The Iliad contains more than 30 similes with lions hunting, prowling, attacking, feeding, and protecting their young, see W. T. MAGRATH, “The Progression of the Lion Simile in the ‘Odyssey’,” CJ 77:3 (1982) 205. In contrast to this clear predominance, in Odyssey there are only seven lion similes, see Ibid., 205-206. The abundance and flexible use of lion similes is, according to W.C. Scott, an indication for their long ancestry which might go back to Mycenaean times, see W.C. SCOTT, The Oral Nature of the Homeric Simile (1974) 60. BLOEDOW (supra n. 61) 59… “there are few violent scenes which are not illustrated by comparison with the lion”; see further A. SCHNAPP-GOURBEILLON, Lions, héros, masques. Les représentations de l’animal chez Homère (1981) 39-40. In both Homeric poems, the lion is used as a simile only for warriors in battle, see SCOTT (supra n. 92) 62.

84

85

86 87 88 89

90 91 92

93




HUMAN-ANIMAL ENCOUNTERS IN SEAL IMAGERY AND BEYOND

19

case of Aegean seal imagery. This quite straightforward parallelism of power becomes even more apparent in the case of different types of adversarial encounter between man and animal, the meaning of which has been captured in simple words by L. Morgan: “In defeating the lion, its prowess is appropriated by the warrior.”94 The encounter between man/god and lion took different forms, such as hunting, combat, and subjugation/control. The two latter types seem to have been situated in the realm of myths and gods. Yet, ‘hunting’ was a pictorial theme that must have been nourished, as already mentioned, by real experiences (CMS III, no. 396; here Pl. IIIe). Two different aspects of lion ‘hunting’ are crucial for the understanding of its symbolic content. Against the hypothesis favoured by the majority of archaeologists, according to which the agency is here with the man, who goes into the wild for killing the most powerful animal, the Homeric similes make an alternative interpretation more plausible. With reference to A. Schnapp-Gourbeillon’s important work, Bloedow has pointed out, that there was “no deliberate lion hunt in the Iliad,” in other words no hunting as sport.95 Furthermore, as Bloedow has underlined – quoting again Schnapp-Gourbeillon – “in the Homeric similes, the lion attacks not animals in the wild but herds in pasture lands either guarded or unguarded by shepherds.”96 It would be thus tempting to interpret at least part of the seal images not as a leisure activity but as the confrontation of a threat, i.e. predator control for protecting animals on farms or herds in the countryside. The fact that in the case of defensive hunting the agency is with the lion and not with its human adversary demands a different interpretation of the depicted action. The man does not act, but re-acts, responding to a threat against his realm, or even property. In two further instances, an ivory seal from Kalathiana in the shape of a lion attacking – and obviously consuming – its human victim (CMS II1, no. 130; here Pl. IIIf) and a lentoid from Armeni (CMS V, no. 246; Pl. IIIg) with the seal motif of a lion with a man underneath, we even see the inversion of the traditional human-animal hierarchy. The intriguing question whether this encounter reflects an unequivocal case of an animal’s agency or a symbolic reference to the wild forces of nature,97 cannot, however, be answered on the basis of this isolated evidence. 3.4. Animals without humans Although the present paper has focused on human-animal encounters on seal images, we cannot fully ignore what constitutes the largest body of animal iconography within this class of objects, namely images in which animals appears alone rather than embedded in scenes of human action. This group of images can be divided into two main categories, animals interacting among themselves and isolated animals. Animals among themselves constitute a large and heterogeneous ensemble that might have acquired different symbolic meanings. Again, we can distinguish between violent and non-violent pictorial compositions. The main type of violent interaction is the popular theme of animal combat,
94

95

96

97




MORGAN 1995 (supra n. 11) 175. In a recent article, E.S.K. Anderson discussed the depictions of human-lion encounters, trying to establish an ‘epic link’ between the Aegean Bronze age horizon (specifically the burial assemblages from Grave Circle A at Mycenae) and the Homeric poems, see ANDERSON (supra n. 64) 345-379. That such a connection existed is very likely, yet not necessarily at the level of epic poetry. It is not convincing to assume that the predominance of lions in Aegean imagery presupposes the existence of a Mycenaean epos with lion similes, as Anderson implies. It suffices to argue that the determining factor was the strong symbolic capacities of lions in general which could have been expressed either through images (Bronze Age) or words (Homeric poems). SCHNAPP-GOURBEILLON (supra n. 93) 43-44; BLOEDOW (supra n. 61) 61; further N.R. THOMAS, “A Lion’s Eye View of the Greek Bronze Age,” in TOUCHAIS et al. eds (supra n. 51) 378. BLOEDOW (supra n. 61) 59; further ID., “On Lions in Mycenaean and Minoan Culture,” in R. LAFFINEUR and J.L. CROWLEY (eds), EIKΩN. Aegean Bronze Age Iconography: Shaping a Methodology. Proceedings or the 4th International Aegean Conference, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia, 6-9 April 1992 (1992) 303-304. This question has been the focus of an interesting discourse in the field of HAS, see MARTIN (supra n. 38) 451-455, esp. 452.







20

Diamantis PANAGIOTOPOULOS

which shows a predator catching/killing its victim (CMS I, no. 185; XI, no. 42; here Pl. IIIh). The question why this theme was depicted far more often than scenes of human combat or hunting must be answered with reference to its intrinsic symbolic content. The predator animal was obviously regarded as an ‘avatar’ of the warrior or hunter, in other words a visual exemplum for his special physical and mental capacities. The clear preference to depict not the signified (man) but the signifier (animal) could also be explained by the assumption that the impressive accentuation of muscles, body mass, and strength in animal combat was the most powerful visual code for human abilities when the latter had to be depicted in a miniature scale.98 Images of bucolic idyll such as images of couchant cattle/bulls (CMS I, no. 240; here Pl. IVa) must have had a totally different semantic content. Such scenes were depicted in a peculiar manner with the couchant animals not in a paratactic or symmetrical arrangement but back-to-back. This might have enhanced the impression of a scene from the countryside. Could such images have conveyed not only symbolic images but also feelings? The history of art in later periods is full of examples of animals which “set the mood” of a painting.99 In Aegean imagery, beyond the couchant cattle/bulls that possess an inherent tranquillity, there were several ‘bucolic’ images that either express joy and playfulness (dogs scratching themselves with their paws and dogs in a playful pose: CMS I, no. 255; V, no. 677a; V Suppl. 3, no. 393; here Pl. IVb-c) or even capture the most intimate feelings of affection (suckling scenes or animals caring for their young: CMS I, nos 20 and 104; I Suppl., no. 28; here Pl. IVd-e). In all these cases, it is possible that the visual effect on an Aegean observer could have entailed an emotional component. Isolated animals represent by far the majority of animal depictions in Aegean seal imagery. There is an apparent predilection for land animals rather than birds or fishes and vertebrae. Combined with the evidence from the two aforementioned groups, namely the animals that appear in human-animal and animal-animal encounters), this preference implies that Aegean seal artists depicted not just the fauna in general or animals that were significant as food but those species that either interacted with humans or were exploited by them as labour forces and sacrificial victims. This would mean that what instigated the regular production of such images was not a general disposition to naturalism but a selection of animal species with a clear point of reference, i.e. the human element. Finally, in order to understand the abundance of isolated animal images in Cretan Neopalatial and Mycenaean seals and seal impressions, we have to take into consideration two further intriguing aspects of this group, i.e. the quantitative predominance of animals with moderate symbolic potential, in most cases domesticated animals, and the fact that they were engraved on low- or middle quality seals (Pl. IVf-h). Based on this evidence, it is tempting to correlate such images with the visual representation of sub-elites.100 They could have visualized the bucolic background of the seal-users as a direct reference to their living space.101 One should however not exclude here the possibility that the preference for such motives was determined by purely artistic reasons, i.e. a ‘mass-production’ of plain images for individuals in the lower echelons of society.102
In the Aegean context, one should not have to go so far as to suggest that animal combat was a reenactment of domestication; for this assumption see J.-P. DIGARD, L’homme et les animaux domestiques : anthropologie d’une passion (1990) 197-199 (cited in RUSSELL [supra n. 15] 45). See J. MASON, “Animals: From Souls and the Sacred in Prehistoric Times to Symbols and Slaves in Antiquity,” in KALOF ed. (supra n. 15) 21: “As any serious lover of art knows, animals often set the mood of a painting. In bucolic landscapes, it is the cows chewing their cud and dozing in the shade that convey the utter tranquillity and dreaminess of country life… fear, cruelty, violence… Many of our great works of art would not be nearly so powerful, or so tender, if the animals were removed.” See SHAPLAND 2009 (supra n. 19) 117; PANAGIOTOPOULOS (supra n. 67) 209-210. This does not mean, however, that the elite did not employ pastoral activities in their symbolic language; see for instance the aforementioned seal impression from a high-quality gold signet ring from Chania, see CMS V Suppl. 1A no. 137; further PANAGIOTOPOULOS (supra n. 46) 70; SHAPLAND 2013a (supra n. 19) 203. Most of these images were engraved on LM II-III soft stone seals or LH IIIA-B ‘Mainland Popular Group’ seals and related pieces, see KRZYSZKOWSKA (supra n. 59) 212-214, 267-273.

98

99

100 101

102




HUMAN-ANIMAL ENCOUNTERS IN SEAL IMAGERY AND BEYOND

21

4. Concluding remarks Looking at animals in Aegean seal imagery after the recent theoretical advances in the field of HAS gives us the opportunity to confirm what already has been apparent in other fields of archaeological study: Theoretical models provide no straightforward answers to research questions. Yet, they help us to define novel analytical categories and concepts that can structure archaeological data and scholarly opinions in new ways and thus imbue them with new meaning. Or, to put it more simply, with theory we cannot get better answers but we can get better questions. The main contribution of the ‘animal turn’ in archaeological disciplines, including Aegean archaeology, has been the acknowledgment of animals’ agency in cultural processes, the fluctuating boundaries between humanity and animality, and, finally, the plurality of practical and symbolic roles in complex ecocultural networks of interaction between human agents and nonhuman actants. This urges us to regard humans and animals as elements of a common narrative and to try and rectify the power imbalance between them. This new narrative may confirm some traditional ideas of human exclusivity, i.e. the privileged position of humans at the top of the hierarchy of living creatures and the ability of the first to exercise control upon the latter. On the other hand, however, it contests some old beliefs, by acknowledging that animals meant much more to premodern societies than their principal modern roles as pets and food resource. Needless to say, at the end of this overview, the answer to the question, whether theory can really help us to novel insights, has to be provided not by the author but by the reader. Returning at the end of this paper to its title, we have seen that human and nonhuman species met both at a real and at a symbolic level in the Aegean Bronze Age. In attempting to extract meaning from these images, one should be cautious not to fall into methodological traps by adopting a too narrow analytical angle. It is misleading to focus only on animal imagery, ignoring at the same time the ‘general picture’ that can be decisive in the case of interpretation. For instance, the fact that we generally lack depictions of the instrumentalisation of animals as ‘tools’ does not necessarily tell us something about the relationship between humans and animals but must be rather correlated with the general disinterest of Aegean art towards everyday life. In the same vein, differences in the rendering of animals between the Neopalatial and Postpalatial period do not necessarily reflect a different valorisation of fauna but obviously resulted from an artistic development that affected the entire body of Aegean imagery. Taking these methodological premises into account, we can assert that the general message of Aegean animal imagery on seals is one of appropriation: domesticated animals were appropriated by owning them, wild animals by killing them. This is a quite sober evaluation of the relation of Minoan and Mycenaean societies with their fauna. One is inclined to believe that this symbolic language captures the representational needs of elite members, for whom urbanization processes created a distance from animals, thus nurturing the belief of human superiority and promoting the implementation of the nonhuman species as a visual metaphor for notions of inequality and power. On the other hand, the abundance of low- or medium-quality seals with isolated animals might be linked with social groups at the periphery of the palatial centres who lived surrounded by and in heavy reliance on them. In this milieu, animals provided the most obvious option for the articulation of a ‘provincial’ symbolic language. As we have already seen, the ubiquitous presence of animals in the iconography of Aegean seals is not only a reflection of their important role in these societies but can also be related to embodiment practices, since these miniature depictions were carried on the body of the seal-owner. Our attempt to elucidate their significance was to target the level of the collective imaginary because this is the only field that is tangible by means of our current archaeological explanations. Yet, even if we cannot access the individual with any certainty, there can be no doubt, that his/her role was decisive. The seal-user, who carried a miniature image of powerful or less powerful animals, was in a way identifying himself/herself with the animal’s exceptional capacities or creating a meaningful link with the action depicted. In all these cases, this embodied ‘miniature animality’ became a component of Aegean Bronze Age humanity. While the Homeric hero acted like a lion, the Aegean Bronze Age man (or










22

Diamantis PANAGIOTOPOULOS

woman) carried a miniature lion on his body, in a somatic relationship that apparently survived the end of Bronze Age, being deeply rooted in individual and collective memories. Diamantis PANAGIOTOPOULOS





HUMAN-ANIMAL ENCOUNTERS IN SEAL IMAGERY AND BEYOND

23

APPENDIX Bibliography on the most prominent among the animals and supernatural creatures in the Aegean Bronze Age Lion For some of the most important contributions of the last years (with further bibliography) see I. PINI, “Das Motiv des Löwenüberfalls in der spätminoischen und mykenischen Glyptik,” in P. DARCQUE and J.-C. POURSAT (eds), L’iconographie minoenne (1985) 153-166; MORGAN (supra n. 11); C. BAURAIN, “Recherche sur l’iconographie créto-mycénienne du lion iliadique,” in J. SERVAIS et al. (eds), Stemmata. Mélanges de philologie, d’histoire et d’archéologie grecques offerts à Jules Labarbe (1987) 337-367; E.F. BLOEDOW, “On Lions in Mycenaean and Minoan Culture,” in LAFFINEUR and CROWLEY eds (supra n. 96) 295-306; ID., “Löwenjagd im spätbronzezeitlichen Griechenland,” Altertum 38 (1993) 241-250; M. BALLINTIJN, “Lions Depicted on Aegean Seals. How Realistic Are They?”, in W. MÜLLER (ed.), Sceaux minoens et mycéniens (1995) 2337; BLOEDOW (supra n. 61) 53-61; N.R. THOMAS, “The War Animal: Three Days in the Life of the Mycenaean Lion,” in R. LAFFINEUR (ed.), POLEMOS. Le contexte guerrreier en Égée à l’Âge du Bronze. Actes de la 7e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Université de Liège, 14-17 avril 1998 (1999) 297-312; ΕΑD., “The Early Mycenaean Lion Up to Date,” in A.P. CHAPIN (ed.), Χάρις: Essays in Honor of Sara A. Immerwahr (2004) 161-206; SHAPLAND 2010 (supra n. 19) 273-289; N.R. THOMAS, “A Lion’s Eye View of the Greek Bronze Age,” in TOUCHAIS et al. eds (supra n. 51) 375-389; ANDERSON (supra n. 64) 345-379; F. BLAKOLMER, “Gab es Löwen und Affen im minoischen Kreta? Ein ikonographisches Problem,” in L. BERGER et al. (eds), Akten des 17. Österreichischen Archäologentages (2020) 40-45. Bull/cattle For bulls in the Bronze Age Aegean and beyond (with an unavoidable emphasis on bull-leaping) see J. SAKELLARAKIS, “Das Kuppelgrab A von Archanes und das kretisch-mykenische Stieropferritual,” PZ 45 (1970) 135-198; J.G. YOUNGER, “Bronze Age Representations of Aegean Bull-leaping,” AJA 80 (1976) 125-137; ID., “A New Look at Aegean Bull-Leaping”, Muse 17 (1983) 72-80; ID., “Bronze Age Representations of Aegean Bull-Games, III,” in R. LAFFINEUR and W.-D. NIEMEIER (eds), POLITEIA. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings 507-545; B.P. HALLAGER and E. HALLAGER, “The Knossian Bull – Political Propaganda in Neo-Palatial Crete?”, in LAFFINEUR and NIEMEIER eds ibidem 547-556; W. MÜLLER, “Bildthemen mit Rind und Ziege auf den Weichsteinsiegeln Kretas. Überlegungen zur Chronologie der spätminoischen Glyptik,” in ID. (ed.), Sceaux minoens et mycéniens (1995) 151-167; M.C. SHAW, “Bull Leaping Frescoes at Knossos and their Influence on the Tell el-Dab‘a Murals,” in M. BIETAK (ed.), Trade, Power and Cultural Exchange: Hyksos Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean World 1800-1500 B.C. (1995) 91-120; EAD., “The Bull-Leaping Fresco from below the Ramp House at Mycenae: A Study in Iconography and Artistic Transmission,” BSA 91 (1996) 167-190; E. SIKLA, “Θρησκευτικός συμβολισμός και ιδεολογία της εξουσίας στη μινωική ανακτορική Κρήτη. Ο ταύρος ως σύμβολο του ανακτόρου της Κνωσού,” in A. VLACHOPOULOS and K. BIRTACHA (eds), Αργοναύτις. Τιμητικός Τόμος για τον Καθηγητή Χρίστο Γ. Ντούμα από τους μαθητές του στο Πανεπιστήμιο Αθηνών (1980-2000) (2003) 367-388; LOUGHLIN (supra n. 83) 1-8; ZEIMBEKIS (supra n. 83) 27-44; PANAGIOTOPOULOS (supra n. 84)125-138; F. BLAKOLMER, “Vom Wandrelief in die Kleinkunst. Transformationen des Stierbildes in der minoischmykenischen Bildkunst,” in F. LANG et al. (eds), Στέφανος Αριστείος. Archäologische Forschungen zwischen Nil und Istros: Festschrift für Stefan Hiller zum 65. Geburtstag (2007) 31-47; M. BIETAK et al., Taureador Scenes in Tell el-Dab‘a (Avaris) and Knossos (2007); J. McINERNEY, “Bulls and Bull-Leaping in the Minoan World,” Expedition 53:3 (2011) 6-13; SHAPLAND 2013a (supra n. 19) ; E. KYRIAKIDIS, “The Dead Acrobat: Managing Risk and Minoan Iconography,” in V.G. KOUTRAFOURI et al. (eds), Ritual Failure: Archaeological Perspectives (2013) 155-163; N. MARINATOS, “Bull Games in Minoan Crete: Social and Symbolic Dimensions,” in C. RENFREW et al. (eds), Ritual, Play and Belief, in Evolution and Early Human Societies (2018) 237-249.


Goat/agrimi W. MÜLLER, “Bildthemen mit Rind und Ziege auf den Weichsteinsiegeln Kretas. Überlegungen zur Chronologie der spätminoischen Glyptik,” in ID. (ed.), Sceaux minoens et mycéniens (1995) 151-167; R. PORTER, “The Cretan Wild Goat (Capra aegagrus cretica) and the ‘Theran Antelopes’,” in D.S. REESE (ed.), Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (1996) 295-315; ST. HILLER, “Potnia/Potnios Aigon. On the Religious Aspects of Goats in the Aegean Late Bronze Age,” in R. LAFFINEUR and R. HÄGG (eds), POTNIA. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference, Göteborg, Göteborg










24

Diamantis PANAGIOTOPOULOS

University, 12-15 April 2000 (2001) 293-304; E. BLOEDOW, “The Significance of the Goat in Minoan Culture,” PZ 78 (2003) 1-59; A.M. HUSSEIN, “Minoan Goat Hunting: Social Status and the Economics of War,” in K. DUISTERMAAT and I. REGULSKI (eds), Intercultural Contacts in the Ancient Mediterranean (2011) 569-587; J.T. KILLEN, “Records of Sheep and Goats at Mycenaean Knossos and Pylos,” Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 7 (1993) 209-218; V. ISAAKIDOU et al., “From Texts to Teeth: A Multi-Isotope Study of Sheep and Goat Herding Practices in the Late Bronze Age (‘Mycenaean’) Polity of Knossos, Crete,” JAS Reports 23 (2019) 36-56. Boar A.P. VARVAREGOS, Το οδοντόφρακτον μυκηναϊκόν κράνος (1981); M. CULTRARO, “Exercise of Dominance. Boar Hunting in Mycenaean Religion and Hittite Rituals,” in M. HUTTER and S. HUTTER-BRAUNSAR (eds), Offizielle Religion, lokale Kulte und individuelle Religiosität (2004) 117-135; C.E. MORRIS, “In Pursuit of the White Tusked Boar: Aspects of Hunting in Mycenaean Society,” in R. HÄGG and G.C. NORDQUIST (eds), Celebrations of Death and Divinity in the Bronze Age Argolid (1990) 149-156; B.P. HALLAGER, “On Boar-Hunting, Hunters, Dogs and Long Robes,” in M. BETTELLI et al. (eds), Mediterranea Itinera: Studies in Honour of Lucia Vagnetti (2018) 233-244. Deer R. PALMER, “Managing the Wild: Deer and Agrimia in the Late Bronze Age Aegean,” in TOUCHAIS et al. eds (supra n. 51) 391-399; EAD., “Deer in the Pylos Tablets,” in P. CARLIER et al. (eds), Études mycéniennes 2010 (2012) 357-382; E. KOUNTOURI, “Ρυτό με προτομές ελαφιών και ταύρου από τα Βολιμίδια Μεσσηνίας,” in A. VLACHOPOULOS and K. BIRTACHA (eds), Αργοναύτις. Τιμητικός Τόμος για τον Καθηγητή Χρίστο Γ. Ντούμα από τους μαθητές του στο Πανεπιστήμιο Αθηνών (1980-2000) (2003) 665-687. Ape C. GREENLAW, “How Monkeys Evolved in Egyptian and Minoan Art and Culture,” in C. BRIAULT et al. (eds), SOMA 2003 – Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology (2005) 71-73; I. PAPAGEORGIOU and K. BIRTACHA, “Η εικονογραφία του πιθήκου στην Εποχή του Χαλκού. Η περίπτωση των τοιχογραφιών από το Ακρωτήρι Θήρας,” in C. DOUMAS (ed.), Ακρωτήρι Θήρας: Τριάντα χρόνια έρευνας 1967-1997. Επιστημονική συνάντηση 19-20 Δεκεμβρίου 1997 (2008) 287-316; M.N. PAREJA, Monkey and Ape Iconography in Aegean Art (2017); D. SPHAKIANAKIS, “You are Welcome… to Crete. Goats and Monkeys! Πήλινα ειδώλια πιθήκων από το μινωικό Ιερό Κορυφής στον Βρύσινα Ρεθύμνου,” in Πεπραγμένα ΙΑ΄ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, Ρέθυμνο, 21-27 Οκτωβρίου 2011, vol. Α1.2: Τμήμα Αρχαιολογικό (2018) 47-68; Β. URBANI and D. YOULATOS, “A New Look at the Minoan ‘Blue’ Monkeys,” Antiquity 94 (374) (2020) e 9, 1-5.


Dog B. SCHLAG, “Thematische Bindungen der Hundedarstellungen im bronzezeitlichen Griechenland,” in F. BLAKOLMER (ed.), Österreichische Forschungen zur Ägäischen Bronzezeit 1998 (2000) 137-142; N. MARINATOS and L. MORGAN, “The Dog Pursuit Scenes from Tell el Dab‘a and Kea,” in L. MORGAN (ed.), Aegean Wall Painting: A Tribute to Mark Cameron (2005) 119-122; N. DIMOPOULOU, “A Gold Discoid from Poros, Herakleion: the Guard Dog and the Garden,” in O. KRZYSZKOWSKA (ed.), Cretan Offerings. Studies in Honour of Peter Warren (2010) 89-100; Α. KARETSOU and R.B. KOEHL, “The Minoan Mastiffs of Juktas,” in TOUCHAIS et al. eds (supra n. 51) 333-340.


Scorpion Y. SAKELLARAKIS, “A Minoan Bronze Scorpion Figurine from Kythera,” in V.C. PETRAKOS (ed.), Έπαινος Ιωάννου Κ. Παπαδημητρίου (1997) 423-472; E. BANOU and B. DAVIS, “The Symbolism of the Scorpion in Minoan Religion: A Cosmological Approach on the Basis of Votive Offerings from the Peak Sanctuary at Ayios Yeoryios sto Vouno, Kythera,” in ALRAM-STERN et al. eds (supra n. 14) 123-128. Bird, fish and mollusc species J.-P. RUUSKANEN, Birds on Aegean Bronze Age Seals. A Study of Representation (1992); M.A.V. GILL, “Some Observations on Representations of Marine Animals in Minoan Art and their Identification,” in P. DARCQUE and J.-C. POURSAT (eds), L’iconographie minoenne (1985) 63-81; W. MÜLLER, Kretische Tongefäße mit Meeresdekor (1997) passim; I. BERG, “Marine Creatures and the Sea in Bronze Age Greece: Ambiguities of Meaning,” Journal of Maritime Archaeology 8:1 (2013) 1-27.




HUMAN-ANIMAL ENCOUNTERS IN SEAL IMAGERY AND BEYOND

25

‘Genius’ M.A.V. GILL, “The Minoan ‘Genius’,” AM 79 (1964) 1-21; J.H. CROUWEL, “The Minoan Genius in Mycenaean Greece: A Review,” Talanta 2 (1970) 23-31; F.T. VAN STRATEN, “A Reaction upon ‘The Minoan Genius in Mycenaean Greece: A Review,” Talanta 2 (1970) 33-35; J. WEINGARTEN, The Transformation of Egyptian Taweret into the Minoan Genius. A Study in Cultural Transmission in the Middle Bronze Age (1991); ST. CHRYSSOULAKI, “A New Approach to Minoan Iconography – An Introduction: The Case of the Minoan Genii,” in BETANCOURT et al. eds (supra n. 61) 111-118; P. REHAK, “The ‘Genius’ in Late Bronze Age Glyptic: the Later Evolution of an Aegean Cult Figure,” in W. MÜLLER (ed.), Sceaux minoens et mycéniens (1995) 215-231; F. BLAKOLMER, “Was the ‘Minoan Genius’ a God? An Essay on Near Eastern Deities and Demons in Aegean Bronze Age Iconography,” Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 7:3 (2015) 2940; ID., “The Many-Faced ‘Minoan Genius’ and his Iconographical Prototype Taweret. On the Character of Near Eastern Religious Motifs in Neopalatial Crete,” in J. MYNÁŘOVÁ et al. (eds), There and Back Again - the Crossroads II (2015) 197-219.
Griffin C. DELPLACE, “Le griffon créto-mycénien,” AntCl 36 (1967) 49-86; E.B. SHANK, “Throne Room Griffins from Pylos and Knossos,” in P.P. BETANCOURT et al. (eds), Krinoi kai Limenes: Studies in Honor of Joseph and Maria Shaw (2007) 159-165; V. DUBCOVÁ, “Mastering a Griffin. The Agency and Perception of Near Eastern Images by the Aegean Bronze Age Elite,” Anodos: Studies of the Ancient World 13 (2013) 163-178; E.B. SHANK, “The Griffin Motif – An Evolutionary Tale,” in VLACHOPOULOS ed. (supra n. 50) 234-241.














26

Diamantis PANAGIOTOPOULOS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Pl. Ia Pl. Ib Pl. Ic Pl. Id Pl. Ie Pl. If Pl. Ig Pl. Ih Pl. IIa Pl. IIb Pl. IIc Pl. IId Pl. IIe Pl. IIf Pl. IIg Pl. IIh Pl. IIIa Pl. IIIb-d Pl. IIIe Pl. IIIf Pl. IIIg Pl. IIIh Pl. IVa Pl. IVb Pl. IVc Pl. IVd Pl. IVe Pl. IVf Pl. IVg-h

Nodule from Ayia Triada (CMS II6, no. 91). Lentoid from Malia (CMS II3, no. 217). Nodule from Tylissos (CMS II6, no. 276). Nodule from the ‘Palace of Nestor’ at Pylos (PINI [supra n. 67] 5-6, no. 10). Signet ring in the Ashmolean Museum (CMS VI, no. 285). Cylinder seal from Kakovatos (CMS XI, no. 208). Nodule from the Palace of Knossos (CMS II8, no. 236). Nodule from Ayia Triada (CMS II6, no. 19). Nodule from the Palace of Knossos (CMS II8, no. 33). Nodule from the Palace of Knossos (CMS II8, no. 232). Nodule from Chania (CMS V Suppl. IA, no. 137). Nodule from Kato Zakros (CMS II7, no. 30). Lentoid from Vapheio (CMS I, no. 221). Lentoid from ‘Elis’ (CMS XI, no. 27). Nodule from Sklavokambos (CMS II6, no. 255). Gold cushion from Grave Circle A at Mycenae (CMS I, no. 10). Amygdaloid from Gouvalari (CMS V, no. 645). Three nodules from Ayia Triada (CMS II6, nos 30 and 39-40). Lentoid from the Giamalakis collection (CMS III, no. 396). Ivory seal from Kalathiana (CMS II1, no. 130). Lentoid from Armeni (CMS V, no. 246). Lentoid from ‘Athens’ (CMS XI, no. 42). Lentoid from Vapheio (CMS I, no. 240). Lentoid from Vapheio (CMS I, no. 255). Nodule from Akrotiri (CMS V Suppl. 3, no. 393). Signet ring from Mycenae (CMS I, no. 20). Lentoid from Mycenae (CMS I, no. 104). Lentoid from Armeni (CMS V, no. 248). Two nodules from the ‘Palace of Nestor’ at Pylos (PINI [supra n. 67] 41, no. 74; 43-44, no. 82).

(All drawings and the photo courtesy of the CMS Heidelberg)




I

a

b

c

e

d

g

f

h

II

a

b

d

c

e

g

f

h

III

a

b

c

d

f

e

g

h

IV

b

a

c

d

e

f

g

h

A. IDENTIFICATION OF THE ANIMAL ENVIRONMENT




























THE CONTRIBUTION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SCIENCE TO THE STUDY OF ANIMALS IN AEGEAN PREHISTORY My assigned task is to summarize current developments in the scientific study of animals in Aegean Prehistory. Valasia Isaakidou has noted that although mammalian fauna existed in Crete during the Pleistocene period, they did not survive into the Neolithic.1 Accordingly, there was limited potential for hunting (unlike the situation on the Helladic mainland), but also limited predation of livestock, allowing the breeding in Crete of large numbers of cattle, goats and pigs. Sheep, however, were by far the most common animal – Isaakidou reports a ratio of 12 sheep to 4 goats, 3 pigs and 1 bovine. Her study of cattle bones reveals that yoked cattle may have been used for plowing from the Late Neolithic, a result consistent with the rapid expansion of Knossos from an estimated 6.5 ha in EM I-EM II to 40-65 ha in EM III-MM IA. Indeed, the appearance of plough oxen in EM III-MM IA enabled extensive surplus production and the concomitant rise of the First Palaces. (We may note in this regard that it was Sinclair Hood, who first collected Minoan animal bones systematically in the course of his excavations at Knossos in the 1960s and 1970s). Major developments regarding ancient Aegean animals come from DNA research, which dramatically impacts the history not only of Homo sapiens and pre-Homo sapiens species, but also of animals and of pathogens as well. As an example of the last, we now know that the Plague of Justinian, which played a major role in the collapse of the Eastern Roman Empire, was caused by exactly the same strain of bubonic plague as caused the Black Death of 1347-1351 CE and its reoccurrences, which may have taken the lives of as much as half the population of Europe. The recent stunning discovery of the cemetery of the deme of Phaleron in Athens with its more than 1,500 preserved skeletons may uncover the nature of the Plague of Athens which preceded Pericles’ Funeral Oration. The burials cover the Archaic and Classical periods. Their study will aid immeasurably in understanding how ancient Athenians lived, worked, traveled, ate and died, including which animals they consumed, and in what approximate proportions. The burials include the skeletons of horses. The results of one major study of Late Neolithic to Bronze Age animals from the eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean is already available, and the conclusion is striking. The study found that the famous agrimi and sheep of Minoan Crete were descended from the sheep of the 4th millennium Ghassulian culture of what is now Israel and Palestine.2 Prof. Robert Koehl suggested over a decade ago the possibility of a connection between the Ghassulian culture and that of Early Minoan Crete, based on the similarities between 1) the Ghassulian and Early Minoan burials in circular tombs (e.g., at Shiq’mim), 2) the so-called “Ghassulian churn” and the Early Minoan “tankard” and 3) the red-on-cream decorated pottery of both cultures,3 but these observations were generally ignored, or regarded as coincidental or insufficient to make the case. The DNA analysis of Neolithic sheep and agrimi clearly vindicates Robert Koehl’s observations, and is consistent as well with Peter Warren’s analysis of 47 years ago pointing to the appearance of Anatolian pottery forms in Crete at the beginning of the Early Minoan period.4


1

2

3

4

V. ISAAKIDOU, “Of Animals and Humans on Prehistoric Crete: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Animal Exploitation,” paper read at Mycenaean Seminar, 2 December 2020; see also P. HALSTEAD and V. ISAAKIDOU, “Pioneer Farming in Earlier Neolithic Greece,” in K.J. GRON, L. SØRENSEN and P. ROWLEY-CONWY (eds.), Farmers at the Frontier: A Pan-European Perspective on Neolithisation (2020) 77-100. G. BAR-GAL, P. SMITH, E. TCHERNOV, C. GREENBLATT, P. DUCOS, A. GARDEISEN, and L. KOLSKA HORWITZ, “Genetic Evidence for the Origin of the Agrimi Goat (Capra aegagrus cretica),” Journal of Zoology 256 (2002) 369-377. R.B. KOEHL, “The Role of Ghassulian Culture in the Development of Early Bronze Age Crete,” paper read at The Minoan World: Exploring the Land of the Labyrinth, Onassis Cultural Center, New York City, 13 September 2008. P. WARREN, “Crete, 3000-1400 B.C.: Immigration and the Archaeological Evidence,” in R.A.

30

Malcolm H. WIENER

The DNA finding regarding the ancestors of the Minoan sheep and agrimi is also consistent with the first results of DNA analysis of the human populations of Minoan Crete and Mycenaean Greece. The analysis of a relatively small sample of 19 skeletons, 4 from mainland sites and 11 from Crete (one of which was a Mycenaean-period skeleton from Armenoi), indicates a somewhat greater amount of eastern Mediterranean DNA in the few Minoan skeletons when compared to the Mycenaean.5 With respect to Bronze Age animals, we have available not only DNA studies, but also studies of Bronze Age animal footprints, as recorded in volcanic ash. The general date of the eruption age of the ash is determined by a radiogenic helium dating method applied to tiny zircon crystals, and a cosmogenic chlorine exposure dating method is used to measure approximately the time the volcanic rocks have been residing near the earth’s surface. Applying these methods to dog’s footprints in the ash of the Çakallar volcanic eruption at the Kula Volcanic Geopark in western Turkey, researchers dated the dog footprints in question to approximately 2700 BCE.6 In principle the technique is applicable to all animals in any volcanic zone. Of course animal bones can provide radiocarbon dates as well. The general problems inherent in radiocarbon dating are by now well known.7 In addition, the IntCal20 restatement of the radiocarbon calibration curve to reflect annual, rather than merely decadal, measurements of tree-ring samples of known date shifts Aegean Bronze Age radiocarbon measurements downward.8 Annual measurements limit the effect of spike years to the year in which they occur, no longer impacting the entire decade, while limiting the effects of the 11-year solar cycle. The great volcanic eruption on Thera is now confined via radiocarbon analysis to the period 1570-1510 BCE, with a strong preference for dates on the lower end of the range, due to the many types of reservoir effects which push measured date ranges artificially higher.9


5

6

7

8

9

CROSSLAND and A. BIRCHALL (eds), Bronze Age Migrations in the Aegean: Archaeological and Linguistic Problems in Greek Prehistory (1974) 41-43. I. LAZARIDIS et al., “Genetic Origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans,” Nature 548 (10 August 2017) 214-218. I. ULUSOY, M.A. SARIKAYA, A.K. SCHMITT, E. ŞEN, and M. DANIŠÍK, “Volcanic Eruption Eyewitnessed and Recorded by Prehistoric Humans,” Quaternary Science Reviews 212 (2019) 187-198. M.H. WIENER, “Oh, No – Not Another Chronology!” in O. GOELET and A. OPPENHEIM (eds), The Art and Culture of Ancient Egypt: Studies in Honor of Dorothea Arnold (2015) 649-663; ID., “Dating the Theran Eruption: Archaeological Science Versus Nonsense Science,” in T. LEVY, T. SCHNEIDER and W.H.C. PROPP (eds), Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective (2015) 131-143; M.H. WIENER and J.W. EARLE, “Radiocarbon Dating of the Theran Eruption,” Proceedings of the 38th International Symposium on Archaeometry, Tampa, Florida, May 10-14, 2010, Open Journal of Archaeometry 2 (2014) 5265; M.H. WIENER, “Problems in the Measurement, Calibration, Analysis and Communication of Radiocarbon Dates (with Special Reference to the Prehistory of the Aegean World),” Proceedings of Radiocarbon and Archaeology, 6th International Symposium, Pafos, Cyprus, April 10-15, 2011, special issue, Radiocarbon 54.3-4 (2012) 423-434; ID., “A Point in Time,” in O. KRZYSZKOWSKA (ed.), Cretan Offerings: Studies in Honour of Peter Warren (2010) 367-394; ID., “Cold Fusion: The Uneasy Alliance of History and Science,” in S.W. MANNING and M.J. BRUCE (eds), Tree-Rings, Kings, and Old World Archaeology and Environment: Papers Presented in Honor of Peter Ian Kuniholm (2009) 277-292; ID., “The State of the Debate about the Date of the Theran Eruption,” in D.A. WARBURTON (ed.), Time’s Up: Dating the Minoan Eruption of Santorini. Acts of the Minoan Eruption Chronology Workshop, Sandbjerg (November 2007) (2009) 197-206; ID., “Time Out: The Current Impasse in Bronze Age Archaeological Dating,” in K.P. FOSTER and R. LAFFINEUR (eds), METRON. Measuring the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 9th International Aegean Conference, New Haven, Yale University (18-21 April 2002) (2003) 363-399. P. REIMER, W.E.N. AUSTIN, E. BARD, A. BAYLISS, P.G. BLACKWELL, C. BRONK RAMSEY, M. BUTZIN, H. CHENG, R.L. EDWARDS, M. FRIEDRICH et al., “The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curve (0-55 cal kBP),” Radiocarbon 62.4 (2020) 725-757; C.L. PEARSON, P.W. BREWER, D. BROWN, T.J. HEATON, G.W.L. HODGINS, A.J.T. JULL, T. LANGE and M.W. SALZER, “Annual Radiocarbon Record Indicates 16th Century BCE Date for the Thera Eruption,” Science Advances (2018) DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aar8241. WIENER 2015 (supra n. 7) 131-143; M.H. WIENER, “The Fateful Century: From the Destruction of Crete ca. 1450-1440 BC to the Destruction of Knossos ca. 1350-1340 BC,” in A.L. D’AGATA, E.

THE ARCHAEOSCIENTIFIC STUDY OF ANIMALS IN AEGEAN PREHISTORY

31

Comparison of the effects on tree rings in various areas of the world of the two most recent violent eruptions in human history, Tambora in 1815 CE and Thera indicate a probable date of the Theran eruption in 1525 BCE.10 The foregoing references discussing the manifold problems of radiocarbon dating serve as an introduction to the notorious case of the animal measurements from the major Minoan site of Palaikastro on the eastern coast of Crete. Bruins et al. in a pair of articles for the Journal of Archaeological Science (2008) and Radiocarbon (2009) discuss radiocarbon measurements from two cattle bones, a marine shell, a goat/sheep bone and a tooth which were said to be consistent with the Aegean High Chronology’s date for the Theran eruption in the late 17th century BCE.11 Unfortunately, none of the samples had a secure context. Indeed, the deposits are described in the cited publications as “chaotic,” having been disturbed by the tsunami wave that accompanied the Theran eruption, as shown by the presence of tephra. The primary evidence, the two cattle bones, produced measurements of 3390 and 3310 BP (Before Present) respectively, which were accompanied by the conventional ±35 radiocarbon years for AMS measurements. Note that 3390 -35 does not overlap with 3310 +35, thereby creating, all else being equal, a statistical likelihood of 89% that the two measurements do not represent the same event. Nevertheless, the two measurements were averaged as if they did and an average date of 3350 BP was produced, but now with a range of ±25! As the Director of the NSF-Arizona Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory and Editor-in-Chief of Radiocarbon Prof. Timothy Jull has observed, the combined measurement range should have been ±40 years at best, and even that assumes that averaging the measurements was justified in the first place.12 (A range of ±40, however, would have overlapped the 3315 BP level at which the oscillating calibration curve intersects at a second point consistent with the archaeological/Egyptological interconnection date of c. 1550-1500 BCE at the widest for the eruption). In addition, Higham et al. note that measurement of bones poses particular problems with respect to reservoir effects, but that it is not possible to determine a suitable average correction factor.13 One study showed a possible significant reservoir effect on animal bones in general via ingestion of plankton, grass and field horsetail.14 The articles in the Journal of Archaeological Science and Radiocarbon regarding the date of the Palaikastro deposit did not rely solely on the cattle-bone measurements, however. The articles also referred to a single measurement on a mollusk shell from the same chaotic deposit which provided a radiocarbon date 400 years earlier than 3350 BP, which was described as “very important.”15 Johannes van der Plicht, the former Director of the Groningen laboratory and one of the coauthors, elaborated on this point in replying on November 3, 2009 to a critique of the work by stating that the mollusk measurement was crucial, and that the marine sample offset in the Mediterranean was always exactly 400 years. In fact, the first attempt by Prof. Minze Stuiver, the Director of the University of Washington Quaternary Isotope Laboratory in Seattle, to measure the marine reservoir effect produced a general estimate, grosso modo, of


10 11

12 13

14

15

PAPADOPOULOU and L. GIRELLA (eds), One State, Many Worlds: Crete in the Late Minoan II-IIIA2 Period (forthcoming). WIENER (supra n. 9). H.J. BRUINS, J.A. MACGILLIVRAY, C.E. SYNOLAKIS, C. BENJAMINI, J. KELLER, H.J. KISCH, A. KLÜGE and J. VAN DER PLICHT, “Geoarchaeological Tsunami Deposits at Palaikastro (Crete) and the Late Minoan IA Eruption in Santorini,” JAS 35 (2008) 191-212; H.J. BRUINS, J. VAN DER PLICHT and J.A. MACGILLIVRAY, “The Minoan Santorini Eruption and Tsunami Deposits in Palaikastro (Crete): Dating by Geology, Archaeology, 14C, and Egyptian Chronology,” Radiocarbon 51 (2009) 397-411. A.J.T. JULL, pers. comm. of 19 November 2009. T. HIGHAM, A. ANDERSON, C. BRONK RAMSEY and C. TOMPKINS, “Diet-Derived Variations in Radiocarbon and Stable Isotopes: A Case Study from Shag River Mouth, New Zealand,” Radiocarbon 47 (2005) 367-375. P.L. ASCOUGH, G.T. COOK, M.J. CHURCH, E. DUNBAR, Á. EINARSSON, T.H. MCGOVERN, A.J. DUGMORE, S. PERDIKARIS, H. HASTIE, A. FRIĐRIKSSON and H. GESTSDÓTTIR, “Temporal and Spatial Variations in Freshwater 14C Reservoir Effects: Lake Mývatn, Northern Iceland,” Radiocarbon 52 (2010) 1098-1112. BRUINS et al. (supra n. 11) 197.

32

Malcolm H. WIENER

400 ±100 years.16 Subsequent work has produced further adjustments upward for different oceans and seas. With regard specifically to shells from the Mediterranean, Reimer and McCormac examined the magnitude of the reservoir effect in recent Mediterranean shells and found an average Mediterranean offset of 458 ±85 years, which may also have changed over time.17 Moreover, their research showed century-scale variations in the effect between different shells. As a further precaution, their study excluded shells thought to show a local influence of 14C-depleted river water. Exactly this effect was suspected by Siani et al. on the basis of their study of radiocarbon measurements from mollusk shells found near Mediterranean river mouths, which found a greater offset still.18 Thus, the assertion by van der Plicht that the marine offset for the North Atlantic and Mediterranean “is always 400” and that “for the marine environment, one can simply subtract 400 years from the measured BP date and subsequently calibrate the result”19 is wholly without foundation. The Bruins et al. paper in question further states that two other mollusk shells from the Palaikastro deposit provided radiocarbon ages that were much too early, but note that “a tsunami may of course scoop up and deposit shells older than the event.”20 Why this does not apply equally to the purported “very important” mollusk shell from Palaikastro in Crete is left unexplained. In sum, this attempt to radiocarbon date Aegean Bronze Age animal bones and sea creatures, plus an event assumed without sufficient basis to have created the deposit, was an exercise in fantasy. Let us close on a hopeful note regarding the scientific study of Bronze Age animal remains. More than 100,000 sheep are recorded in the Linear B tablets from the early LM IIIA2 destruction at Knossos, a number that would have taken roughly a third of the land of Crete to graze. Moreover, the palace scribes recorded the sex and age of many of the sheep. These sheep provided the wool for the brilliantly colored garments which Crete exported from the Middle Bronze Age onward to the Near East and Egypt. The scientific study of Cretan Bronze Age sheep bones has provided data about the sex and age at death of the sheep,21 while the scientific study of murex-shell dye extraction and production has also added significant knowledge. Two murex workshop sites in Crete, one on the north coast at Pefka excavated by Vili Apostolakou22 and another one on the island of Chryssi off the south coast, excavated first by Apostolakou, and after her retirement as director of the Lasithi Ephorate by Chryssa Sofianou, have uncovered evidence for a major murex processing industry to manufacture purple dye. 23 This information, together with the detailed and penetrating studies of Minoan weaving techniques by


16

17

18

19 20 21

22

23

M. STUIVER, P.J. REIMER and T.F. BRAZIUNAS, “High-Precision Radiocarbon Age Calibration for Terrestrial and Marine Samples,” Radiocarbon 40 (1998) 1131-1135. P.J. REIMER and F.G. MCCORMAC, “Marine Radiocarbon Reservoir Corrections for the Mediterranean and Aegean Seas,” Radiocarbon 44 (2002) 159-166. G. SIANI, M. PATERNE, M. ARNOLD, E. BARD, B. MÉTIVIER, N. TISNERAT and F. BASSINOT, “Radiocarbon Reservoir Ages in the Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea,” Radiocarbon 42 (2000) 271-280. J. VAN DER PLICHT, pers. comm. of 3 November 2009. BRUINS et al. (supra n. 11) 207. P. HALSTEAD and V. ISAAKIDOU, “Sheep, Sacrifices, and Symbols: Animals in Later Bronze Age Greece,” in U. ALBARELLA, M. RIZZETTO, H. RUSS, K. VICKERS and S. VINER-DANIELS (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Zooarchaeology (2017) DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199686476.013.8. V. APOSTOLOKOU, “A Workshop for Dyeing Wool at Pefka near Pacheia Ammos,” Kentro. The Newsletter of the INSTAP Study Center for East Crete 11 (2008) 1-3 V. APOSTOLAKOU, P.P. BETANCOURT and T.M. BROGAN, “Ανασκαφικές έρευνες στην Παχειά Άμμο και τη Χρυσή Ιεράπετρας,” in M. ANDRIANAKIS and I. TZACHILI (eds), Αρχαιολογικό έργο Κρήτης 1: πρακτικά της 1ης Συνάντησης Ρέθυμνο, 28-30 Νοεμβρίου 2008 (2010) 143-153; V. APOSTOLAKOU, T.M. BROGAN and P.P. BETANCOURT, “The Minoan Settlement of Chryssi and Its Murex Dye Industry,” in M.-L. NOSCH and R. LAFFINEUR (eds), KOSMOS. Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 13th International Aegean Conference/13e Rencontre égéenne internationale, University of Copenhagen, Danish National Research Foundation’s Centre for Textile Research, 21-26 April 2010 (2012) 171-178.

THE ARCHAEOSCIENTIFIC STUDY OF ANIMALS IN AEGEAN PREHISTORY

33

Andersson, Strand and Nosch, and the late Joanne Cutler,24 have added greatly to our understanding of an industry critical to the prosperity of Bronze Age Crete. To excavators and surveyors, the message is simple: collect your animal remains very carefully, and submit them for scientific analysis. Malcolm H. WIENER


24

J. CUTLER, “Fashioning Identity: Weaving Technology, Dress and Cultural Change in the Middle and Late Bronze Age Southern Aegean,” in E. GOROGIANNI, P. PAVÚK and L. GIRELLA (eds), Beyond Thalassocracies: Understanding Processes of Minoanisation and Mycenaeanisation in the Aegean (2016) 172-185; E. ANDERSSON STRAND and M.-L. NOSCH (eds), Tools, Textiles and Contexts: Investigating Textile Production in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age (2015).

SHEEP – ‘A FACTORY WITHOUT WASTE’. COMPARATIVE, INTERDISCIPLINARY AND DIACHRONIC VIEWS ON SHEEP IN THE AEGEAN BRONZE AGE Introduction: Sheep and the ‘Wool Age’ Historically, “the sheep can be seen as a ‘factory’ without wastes”,1 since sheep can be exploited for their meat, skin and fur, horns, sinews and guts, milk, and wool. The introduction of long-staple woolly sheep and wool as a new fibre into textile production was one of the greatest Bronze Age innovations, which gradually changed the use of natural resources,2 social relations and, subsequently, entire economies.3 Although the increasing importance of wool (and sheep) seems to have been a general pattern in various Bronze Age economies,4 the evidence for the role of sheep and wool in the Aegean Bronze Age is scattered and fragmentary. With this contribution, we aim to present a brief overview of this evidence, using early 20th-century ethnographic records from Greece as a potential illustration of what could be missing in the preserved environmental, archaeological, iconographic and textual data. Wool as an innovative fibre The practical and technical advantages of wool are numerous and substantial, even if wool cannot replace plant fibres entirely in textile making.5 Although both sheep breeding and flax production can be devastating for the environment, breeding sheep does not occupy arable land, nor does it pollute or deplete the soil as flax does.6 Moreover, processing wool fibres and obtaining spinnable products was


1

2

3

4 5

6

C. POPESCU and F.-J. WORTMANN, “Wool Structure, Mechanical Properties and Technical Products based on Animal Fibres,” in J. MÜSSIG (ed.), Industrial Applications of Natural Fibres (2010) 263. Cf. A. SHERRATT, “The Secondary Exploitation of Animals in the Old World,” WorldArch 15(1) (1983) 90104; H.J. GREENFIELD, “The Secondary Products Revolution: the past, the present and the future,” WorldArch 42(1) (2010) 29-54; P. HALSTEAD and V. ISAAKIDOU, “Revolutionary secondary products: the development and significance of milking, animal-traction and wool-gathering in later prehistoric Europe and the Near East,” in T. WILKINSON, S. SHERRATT and J. BENNET (eds), Interweaving Worlds: Systemic Interactions in Eurasia, 7th to 1st Millennia BC (2011) 61-76; C. BECKER, N. BENECKE, A. GRABUNDŽIJA et al., “The Textile Revolution. Research into the origin and spread of wool production between the Near East and Central Europe,” in G. GRAßHOFF and M. MEYER (eds), eTOPOI. Journal for Ancient Studies. Special Volume 6 (2016) 102-151. The importance of the substantial shift to wool exploitation has been reflected in the scholarship by terms describing this process, such as ‘fibre revolution’: J. MCCORRISTON, “The fiber revolution: textile extensification, alienation and social stratification in ancient Mesopotamia,” CurrAnthropol 38(4) (1997) 517549, ‘wool economy’: C. BRENIQUET and C. MICHEL (eds), Wool Economy in the Ancient Near East and the Aegean: From the Beginnings of Sheep Husbandry to Institutional Textile Industry (2014), ‘wool age’: M.-L. NOSCH, “The Wool Age: Textile Traditions and Textile innovations,” in F. RUPPENSTEIN and J. WEILHARTNER (eds), Tradition and Innovation in the Mycenaean Palatial Polities (2015) 167-201, ‘textile revolution’: BECKER et al. (supra n. 2); S. BERGERBRANDT and S. SABATINI (eds), The Textile Revolution in Bronze Age Europe. Production, Specialisation, Consumption (2020), or ‘wool zone’: E. ANDERSSON STRAND and M.-L. NOSCH, “The Wool Zone in Prehistory and Proto-History,” in BERGERBRANDT and SABATINI eds (supra) 15-38. Supra n. 3. Cf. A. ULANOWSKA, “Different skills for different fibres? The use of flax and wool in textile technology of Bronze Age Greece in light of archaeological experiments,” in W. SCHIER and S. POLLOCK (eds), The Competition of fibres. Textile production in Western Asia and Europe (5000-2000 BCE) (2020) 127-140. MCCORRISTON (supra n. 3) 524; E. ANDERSSON STRAND, “The textile chaîne opératoire: using a multidisciplinary approach to textile archaeology with a focus on the Ancient Near East,” in C.

36

Marie-Louise NOSCH et al.

easier, faster, healthier and with lower risk of failure when compared to flax. The elasticity of wool and its extreme plasticity when wet, as well as its insulating properties offered more possible uses, e.g. for production of water-repellent garments, all kinds of flexible fabrics and accessories (e.g. socks, leggings, scarves, belts, caps), fireproof materials, etc. Finally, with the better capacity for fixing dyes, wool provided avenues for expressing novel aesthetics and symbolic meanings through colour, and in the Bronze Age Aegean, this must have played a major role in the self-definition of the emerging elites through the use of the patterned, multi-coloured textiles so well attested on frescoes. Bronze Age zooarchaeological evidence for sheep and their woolliness Sheep (and goats) were domesticated in the Middle East probably as early as the 9th millennium BCE, which makes them one of the first domestic animals.7 Initially bred solely for their meat, skins and probably milk,8 early domestic sheep were introduced into the Balkans in the 7th-6th millennium BCE.9 There is scattered archaeozoological evidence of sheep in the Aegean area since the 7th millennium BCE, at Knossos,10 at the Franchthi Cave11 and in Thessaly.12 From the beginning of the Neolithic, ovicaprid bones increase notably within the faunal remains, however, it is notoriously difficult to distinguish sheep and goats in the osteological material and therefore new analytical methods have been tested to uncover differences in species and in breeds. The remains of sheep and goats (followed by cattle and pig) are usually the most common animals represented among the deposits of faunal remains from Minoan and Mycenaean sites, such as, for example, Karphi,13 Knossos14 or Tsoungiza.15 According to the results of isotope analysis, sheep and goats (and cattle) appear to be the basic sources of animal protein in the diet of people in the Late Bronze Age mainland Greece.16 Zooarchaeologically, the introduction of woolly sheep has been dated as early as the




7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

BRENIQUET, M. TENGBERG, E.B. ANDERSSON STRAND et al. (eds), Préhistoire des textiles au ProcheOrient, Paléorient 38 (2012) 25; M.-L. NOSCH, “Linen Textiles and Flax in Classical Greece: provenance and trade,” in K. DROSS-KRÜPE (ed.), Textile Trade and Textile Distribution in Antiquity, Phillipika 73 (2014) 17-42; L. BENDER JØRGENSEN and A. RAST-EICHER, “Fibres for Bronze Age textiles,” in L. BENDER JØRGENSEN, J. SOFAER and M.L.S. SØRENSEN (eds), Creativity in the Bronze Age: Understanding innovation in pottery, textiles, and metalwork production (2018) 32-33. M.A. ZEDER, “Domestication and early agriculture in the Mediterranean Basin: Origins, diffusion, and impact,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105 (2008) 11597-11604. D. HELMER, L. GOURICHON and E. VILA, “The development of the exploitation of products from Capra and Ovis (meat, milk and fleece) from the PPNB to the Early Bronze in the northern Near East (8700 to 2000 BC cal.),” Anthropozoologica 42 (2007) 41-69. J. DENG, X.-L. XIE, D.-F. WANG et al., “Paternal origins and migratory episodes of domestic sheep,” Current Biology 30(20) (2020) 4085-4095. V. ISAAKIDOU, “Ploughing with cows: Knossos and the ‘Secondary Products Revolution’,” in D. SERJEANTSON and D. FIELD (eds), Animals in the Neolithic (2006) 95-112. S. PAYNE, “Faunal Change at Franchthi Cave from 20,000 B.C. to 3,000 B.C.,” in A.T. CLASON (ed.), Archaeozoological Studies (1975) 120-131. P. HALSTEAD, “Counting Sheep in Neolithic and Bronze Age Greece,” in I. HODDER, G. ISAAC and N. HAMMOND (eds), Pattern of the Past: Studies in Honour of David Clarke (1981) 307-339. D. MYLONA, “The animal remains from Middle Minoan and Late Minoan IIIC Karphi, Crete,” in S. WALLACE, Karphi Revisited. A Settlement and Landscape of The Aegean Crisis Period c. 1200-1000 BC (2020) 249252. O. BEDWIN, “Appendix 2: The Animal Bones,” in M.R. POPHAM (ed.), The Minoan Unexplored Mansion at Knossos (1984) 307-308. P. HALSTEAD, “Faunal remains,” in J.C. WRIGHT and M.K. DABNEY (eds), The Mycenaean Settlement on Tsoungiza Hill. Nemea Valley Archaeological Project (III) (2020) 1077-1158. E.I. PETROUTSA and S.K. MANOLIS, “Reconstructing Late Bronze Age diet in mainland Greece using stable isotope analysis,” JAS 37(3) (2010) 614-620.

SHEEP IN THE AEGEAN BRONZE AGE

37

end of the 4th millennium BCE in Thessaly and the 3rd millennium BCE in southern Greece and Crete.17 Since then, its role in textile production and economy grew to the industrial scale that is recorded in the Linear B archives of the Mycenaean palaces. However, specific breeding practices and potential dynamics in woolly sheep exploitation are only occasionally traceable through the multi-isotope analyses carried out on osteological remains.18 Meanwhile, the ‘traditional’ zooarchaeological analysis of faunal assemblages dated to the Bronze Age do not make things easier in terms of finding traces of ‘woolly animals’. For example, according to Halstead who examined animal bones from Tsoungiza, it is unlikely that sheep and goats had been bred mainly for their wool there. That conclusion was based on the results of age and sex analysis.19 On the other hand, Wilkens suggests that in the case of ovicaprid remains from Agia Triada (Early to Late Minoan strata) “butchering aimed at the production of meat and wool”.20 There is also an example of animal bones linked with certain shepherding practice – an Early Minoan site in Debla had yielded a relatively small amount of bones, but the remains were all recognised as belonging to adult Ovis or Capra. That discovery, together with characteristic architectural remains and altitude, suggests possible identification of the site as a summer pasturage camp.21 In recent years, scholars have researched whether archaeological remains of wool can reveal sheep breeds. However, as Brandt and Allentoft observe, “species identification based on the microscopic analysis of ancient hairs is not straightforward”.22 Gleba concluded from microscopic analyses that distinct fleece types would suggest that several breeds coexisted in 1st millennium BCE Italy.23 Rast-Eicher and Bender Jørgensen suggested that fibre diameter measurements in archaeological sheep wool could indicate that different wool types or breeds coexisted in Bronze Age Europe.24 Brandt et al. were the first to test the potential of analysing DNA from ancient textiles,25 and could outline a series of challenges, which scholars have since worked to overcome and develop new methods for more reliable identification of species and breed.26 Wool textiles and potential evidence for sinews, guts, leather and parchment from impressions on clay Excavated wool textiles are very rare finds due to the preservation conditions in Greece, which seem to slightly favour the preservation of vegetal fibres.27 So far, wool has been attested as a raw material


17

18

19 20

21

22

23

24

25

26 27

N. BENECKE, Der Mensch und seine Haustiere. Die Geschichte einer jahrtausendealten Beziehung (1994) 137-138; P. HALSTEAD, “Pastoralism or Household Herding? Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandry,” WorldArch 28(1) (1996) 20-42; BECKER et al. (supra n. 2) 109. Cf. V. ISAAKIDOU, A. STYRING, P. HALSTEAD et al., “From texts to teeth: A multi-isotope study of sheep and goat herding practices in the Late Bronze Age (‘Mycenaean’) polity of Knossos, Crete,” JAS Reports 23 (2019) 36-56 and as presented by V. Isaakidou during the online Mycenaean Seminar (“Of animals and humans on prehistoric Crete: interdisciplinary approaches to animal exploitation”, 2/12/2020). HALSTEAD (supra n. 17). B. WILKENS, “Hunting and breeding in ancient Crete,” in E. KOTJABOPOULOU, Y. HAMILAKIS, P. HALSTEAD et al. (eds), Zooarchaeology in Greece: recent advances (2003) 85-90. P.M. WARREN and Y. TZEDAKIS, “Debla. An Early Minoan Settlement in Western Crete,” BSA 69 (1974) 299-342. L.Ø. BRANDT and M. ALLENTOFT, “Archaeological Wool Textiles: A Window into Ancient Sheep Genetics?,” in BERGERBRANDT and SABATINI eds (supra) 275. M. GLEBA, “From textiles to sheep: investigating wool fibre development in pre-Roman Italy using scanning electron microscopy (SEM),” JAS 39 (2012) 3643-3661. A. RAST-EICHER and L. BENDER JØRGENSEN, “Sheep wool in Bronze and Iron Age Europe,” JAS 40 (2013) 1224-1241. L.Ø. BRANDT, L. TRANEKJER, U. MANNERING et al., “Characterising the potential of sheep wool for ancient DNA analyses,” Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 3 (2011) 209-221. BRANDT and ALLENTOFT (supra n. 22) 274-303. I. SKALS, S. MÖLLER-WIERING and M.-L. NOSCH, “Survey of archaeological textile remains from the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean area,” in E. ANDERSSON STRAND and M.-L NOSCH (eds), Tools,

38

Marie-Louise NOSCH et al.

for the 50 fragments of thread discovered in Pillar Pit 65N at Akrotiri,28 and some 40 fragments of weftfaced wool tabby were uncovered in a LH I child’s grave in Eleon,29 while goat hair may have been recognised in a ribbon from Chania.30 However, since wool is suitable for dyeing, wool clothing can be implied by the rich iconography of coloured and patterned textiles in wall paintings.31 Knowledge of actual textiles and organic products can be supplemented by the evidence of textile imprints on clay, i.e. on pottery and the undersides of clay sealings.32 Depending on their detail and preservation, imprints can provide reliable information about the qualities of actual textiles but more precise identifications of the specific fibre materials are, in our opinion, difficult or impossible. Wool can be recognised by short and more irregular fibres than in fibrous plants, and by a tighter twist in threads and cords. Due to its softness and elasticity, it leaves a less clear impression on clay.33 No possible wool products have been identified, so far, among the examined casts with textile imprints from the Corpus der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel (CMS) Archive.34 Features such as long oval single fibres or flat strands prominent in the microstructure of an impression, as well as the more loose twist of threads and cords may suggest vegetal fibres and tree-bast. Similar features can characterise, however, animal-origin products, such as sinews (single fibres) and guts (strands), already recognised as possible raw materials on the imprints35 (Pl. V). Leather has been securely attested in a range of impressed thongs, round or rectangular in section, featuring sometimes the grained structure of animal skin (e.g. Pl. V e, f, h). In the case of


28

29

30

31 32

33

34

35

Textiles and Contexts: Textile Production in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age (2015) 61-74 and appendix A and B. C. MOULHÉRAT and Y. SPANTIDAKI, “Première attestation de la laine sur le site protohistorique d’Akrotiri à Théra,” in C. ALFARO and L. KARALI (eds), Vestidos, textiles y tintes, PURPUREAE VESTES II (2008) 37-42; S. SPANTIDAKI and C. MOULHÉRAT, “Greece,” in M. GLEBA and U. MANNERING (eds), Textiles and Textile Production in Europe: from Prehistory to AD 400 (2012) 189. B. BURKE, B. BURNS, A. CHARAMI et al., “Fieldwork at Ancient Eleon in Boeotia, 2011-2018,” AJA 124 (2020) 458-459. C. MOULHÉRAT and Y. SPANTIDAKI, “Cloth from Kastelli, Chania,” Arachne 3 (2009) 8-15; SPANTIDAKI and MOULHÉRAT (supra n. 28) 189. Cf. M.C. SHAW and A.P. CHAPIN (eds), Woven Threads: Patterned Textiles of the Aegean Bronze Age (2016). For impressions of spun products and textiles on Aegean sealings, see W. MÜLLER and I. PINI, “Die ‘Schnüre’ in den Plomben und die Gegenstandsabdrücke,” in N. PLATON, W. MÜLLER, J.-P. OLIVIER et al. (eds), Die Tonplomben aus dem Nestorpalast von Pylos (1997) 67-69; W. MÜLLER, “Die Tonplomben und andere gestempelte Tonobjekte,” in W. MÜLLER, I. PINI and N. PLATON (eds), Iraklion Archäologisches Museum: die Siegelabdrücke von Aj. Triada und anderen zentral- und ostkretischen Fundorten, unter Einbeziehung von Funden aus anderen Museen, CMS II,6 (1999) 339-400; IDEM, “Untersuchungen zu Typologie, Funktion und Verbreitung der Tonplomben von Knossos,” in N. PLATON, M.A.V. GILL, W. MÜLLER et al., Heraklion Archäologisches Museum, die Siegelabdrücke von Knossos, CMS II,8 (2002) 24-83; G. VOGELSANG-EASTWOOD, “The textile impression from Geraki,” in J. WEINGARTEN, J.H. CROUWEL, M. PRENT et al., Early Helladic sealings from Geraki in Lakonia, Greece, OJA 18(4) (1999) 357-376; J. MARAN and M. KOSTOULA, “The spider’s web: Innovation and society in the Early Helladic ‘Period of the Corridor Houses’,” in Y. GALANAKIS, T. WILKINSON and J. BENNET (eds), ΑΘΥΡΜΑΤΑ. Critical Essays on the Archaeology of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honour of E. Susan Sherratt (2014) 149 n. 19; S. VAKIRTZI, F. GEORMA and A. KARNAVA, “Beyond textiles: alternative uses of twisted fibres and evidence from Akrotiri, Thera,” Światowit 56 (2018) 75-88. Cf. A. ULANOWSKA, “Textile Uses in Administrative Practices in Bronze Age Greece: New Evidence of Textile Impressions from the Undersides of Clay Sealings,” in M.B. ÁLVARES, E.H. SÁCHEZ LÓPEZ and J. ÁVILA (eds), Redefining Textile Handcraft, Structures, Tools and Production Processes, PURPUREAE VESTES VII (2020) 413-424, Pl. 1, fig. 1. The unique collection of casts of the undersides of lumps of clay stamped by seals, stored in the Archive of the CMS in Heidelberg, are currently being examined, together with the iconography of ‘woolly animals’ on seals, within the research project “Textiles and Seals. Relations between Textile Production and Seals and Sealing Practices in Bronze Age Greece” (http://textileseals.uw.edu.pl/) funded by the National Science Centre of Poland and conducted at the Faculty of Archaeology, University of Warsaw, ref. no. 2017/26/D/HS3/00145. E.g. MÜLLER and PINI (supra n. 32); MÜLLER (supra n. 32).

SHEEP IN THE AEGEAN BRONZE AGE

39

potential impressions of sinews, guts and leather, an identification of a species is not possible. Fine leather or parchment, however, recognised as a raw material for small folded packets wrapped with fine threads and preserved as numerous Päckchenplomben,36 can be related to sheep and goats (Pl. V j, l).37 Sheep in Bronze Age iconography The iconography of sheep recurs in Mesopotamian and Egyptian art, providing additional information on the physical appearance and woolliness of sheep in the Bronze Age.38 The oldest Mesopotamian imagery from Uruk-Warka depicts hairy sheep (rams) with long horizontally-growing spiral horns and manes, polled ewes and smaller lambs, while bulky sheep figurines exhibit coiled horns growing downwards.39 Fleece is indicated on the EBA Mesopotamian coiled-horn sheep figurines.40 Representations of mixed flocks containing both Ovis types are known from Uruk seals, Middle Kingdom Egyptian art and the Sumerian basin.41 However, sheep have rarely been recognised in Aegean art.42 The earliest potential depictions of sheep in Crete are dated to the last phase of the Prepalatial period, but the specific species of the Caprinae subfamily cannot be securely attested. Caprinae were identified in the form of ceramic figurines (sheep or goats) forming a model of a large flock inside a bowl from Palaikastro.43 Outside Crete, sheep and goats were featured in the Miniature Fresco wall painting from Akrotiri, Thera.44 A pastoral scene shows two rows of animals grouped in separate herds each led by a shepherd in opposite directions. The tubbier sheep feature prominent lateral horns, coiled and growing downwards, as well as muzzles with a specific bump and with downhanging tails; a slender bodied goat has horns growing backward from the top of its head and a characteristic pointed beard. Additional distinction was made through the colour of the fleece, either red (sheep) or white (sheep and a goat). Another appearance of a sheep motif has been attested in Aegean glyptic during MM II, which was frequent in the Neopalatial period, and ceased in LBA III.


36

37

38

39

40 41 42

43

44

I. PINI, “Neue Beobachtungen zu den tönernen Siegelabdrücken von Zakros,” AA (1983) 560-562; MÜLLER (supra n. 32); Cf. M. PERNA, “Administrative documents without writing: The case of sealings and flat-based nodules,” in A.M. JASINK, J. WEINGARTEN and S. FERRARA (eds), Non-scribal Communication in the Bronze Age Aegean and Surrounding Areas (2017) 73-80. A. FACCHINI, “Ancient Parchment Examination by Surface Investigation Methods,” Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 231(2) (2000) 213-220; M. FOURNEAU, C. CANON, D. VAN VLAENDER et al., “Histological study of sheep skin transformation during the recreation of historical parchment manufacture,” Heritage Science 8 (2020) 78. Cf. E.J.W. BARBER, Prehistoric Textiles. The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages with Special Reference to the Aegean (1991) 25, fig. 1.7; K. SZARZYŃSKA, Sheep husbandry and production of wool, garments and cloths in archaic Sumer (2002); C. BRENIQUET, Essai sur le tissage en Mésopotamie. Des premières communautés sédentaires au milieu du IIIe millénaire avant J.-C. (2008) 93-95. E. VILA and D. HELMER, “The Expansion of Sheep Herding and the Development of Wool Production in the Ancient Near East: an Archaeozoological and Iconographical Approach,” in BRENIQUET and MICHEL eds (supra n. 3) 34, fig. 2.16, 2.21, 2.22. VILA and HELMER (supra n. 39) 31-32, fig. 2.8-2.15. VILA and HELMER (supra n. 39) 33, fig. 2.18-2.20. J. VANSCHOONWINKEL, “Les animaux dans l’art minoen,” in D.S. REESE (ed.), Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and its First Settlers (1996) 357. In the “Textiles and Seals” project database, 286 seals were identified as bearing depictions of possible ‘woolly animals’. From these, sheep have been recognised securely on 37 depictions (99 with dubious identifications) and goats on 34 depictions (57 with dubious identifications). P. MILITELLO, “Wool economy in Minoan Crete before Linear B. A minimalist position,” in BRENIQUET and MICHEL eds (supra n. 3) 268-269, fig. 5.14-5.15. Meeting on the Hill, West House, see C. DOUMAS, The Wall-Paintings of Thera (1992); J. DRIESSEN, “Kretes and Iawones: Some Observations on the Identity of Late Bronze Age Knossians,” in J. BENNET and J. DRIESSEN (eds), A-na-qo-ta. Studies Presented to J. T. Killen (1998-1999) 83-105.

40

Marie-Louise NOSCH et al.

Towards recognising species of the Caprinae subfamily on seals In the Aegean glyptic, the depictions of Caprinae share several characteristics common for sheep and, especially, for goat and agrimia, and other wild species, such as antelopes. An unambiguous identification of the species is only occasionally possible, as it is often conditioned by the degree of details of the imagery. Our criteria of distinction between particular species are based on the visual resemblance of a set of features of animals carved on seal faces to the actual physical characteristics of real-life sheep and goats. Sheep: these will demonstrate curved or coiled, sometimes explicitly crimped, horns growing downwards and forming lateral spirals; a conical muzzle with a characteristic bump visible when pictured in profile; shorter or longer tails hanging downwards; tubbier or slimmer, but rather muscular bodies only occasionally covered in fleece and occasionally having a mane (Pl. VI 1). Goats: two slightly curved horns with ridges or fluting, placed close to each other on the top of the head and growing backwards, as well as short pointed beards (in both males and females) and pointed tails held upwards are characteristic for the slender bodied goats (cf. e.g. CMS I 386). Their muzzles are conical, but straight in profile, as in agrimia. In this species, female sex indicators, such as teats and udders (Pl. VI 2), are sometimes additionally displayed. Feral goats (agrimia): these have noticeably larger and thicker, slightly curved, horns that grow out from one spot on the head, have ridges or fluting and a more prominent curve near the end, a short tail hanging downwards, like on some sheep, and beards depicted on the males (Pl. VI 3). Their hair is straight, and a spiky bristle is frequently present on their backs (see e.g. CMS I 481). All Caprinae species walk on cloven hooves. Sheep in glyptic – themes and potential references to wool In Aegean glyptic, the sheep motif often shows a single adult animal in full silhouette (Pl. VI 1), or only its head in profile (Pl. VI 5), or en face, in the form of a protome (Pl. VI 6). Scenes of presumably pastoral character including sheep and people, such as those depicting shepherding (Pl. VI 7), milking (Pl. VI 8) or the selection of lambs (Pl. VI 9),45 are rare. Perhaps they can be supplemented by possible depictions of flocks, to be distinguished by the presence of at least three animals (Pl. VI 10), sometimes more – up to six, as on a sealing from Knossos (Pl. VI 11). Very few representations indicate a woolly fleece, usually suggested through the presence of a mane shown along the sheep’s throat and lower neck (Pl. VI 4) or, in protomes, between the horns (Pl. VI 6). The gender of the animals is only sporadically indicated in a clear way. A ram is explicitly shown on a sealing from Knossos (CMS II,8 379) and Mycenae (Pl. VI 12), and ewes are probably pictured bleating over their young being taken away from them (Pl. VI 9). Pairs of sheep with coiled-horns but the sex otherwise not indicated (standing, see e.g. CMS VII 098, laying/resting?, e.g. CMS XI 063) comprise a motif that is quite widespread. What we identify as young Caprinae, either lambs or goatlings, were depicted almost exclusively in the MM. They can be distinguished by the usual lack of horns, larger heads and sometimes cloven hooves, features paired with one of three positions of the body: half-kneeling with front legs bent on the ground (CMS II,2 122a), laying (lifeless?) with crossed legs (Pl. VI 13), or standing/walking (see e.g. CMS II,1 287a). Lambs are also possibly depicted in the company of adult sheep (at least one is a ram) on LBA seals from Knossos (CMS II,3 054) and Mycenae (Pl. VI 12). Moreover, perhaps ownership marks, similar to the ones used in modern sheep breeding,46 can be discerned in the signs carved on a sheep’s rump on a MBA seal (Pl. VI 14), or on other body parts on a LBA seal from Mycenae (Pl. VI 15).


45

46

The animals were previously identified as goats (cf. F. BLAKOLMER, “Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo? Character, symbolism and hierarchy of animals and supernatural creatures in Minoan and Mycenaean iconography,” Creta Antica 17 [2016] 105-106). See e.g. https://quillcards.com/blog/smit-marks-to-identify-sheep/.

SHEEP IN THE AEGEAN BRONZE AGE

41

Linear B data from Knossos on sheep – gender and age Most Linear B inscriptions dealing with sheep come from Knossos, with additional information from Pylos and Thebes. Sheep are recorded in considerable numbers, as on the tablet below recording 10,000 sheep (Pl. VII 1). KN Ce

162 OVIS 10000

(Scribe "124", from Room of the Chariot Tablets)

Most Knossos Linear B records of the D-series record a place name and the name of the shepherd and the number of sheep. There are c. 1000 tablets or fragments of tablets preserved of the Knossos Dseries, each recording a flock of sheep. Most Cretan flocks contain c. 100 animals.47 Some flocks have both male and female animals, such as this example (Pl. VII 2): KN Db 1099 (Scribe 117, from East-West Corridor) m OVISf 10 .A OVIS 90 .B a-wa-so / qa-mo X The shepherd Awaso, at the place Qamo, 90 male and 10 female sheep. Male animals are indicated on the sheep logogram48 by two small horizontal lines drawn across the prominent vertical stem of the sign; female animals have two slightly slanting vertical ‘legs’ (Pl. VII 3). However, often the scribe uses the male sheep logogram as a designation for sheep in general. Depending on the palace scribes’ artistic skills, animal logograms can vary a lot, but this does not indicate different breeds or individual characteristics.49 Some flocks were gender-mixed,50 others contained ewes and their lambs,51 and others again were composed of adult neutered wethers only.52 There is, however, a significant predominance of male animals in the Mycenaean palace records.53


47

48

49

50 51

52

53

J.-P. OLIVIER, “La série Dn de Cnossos,” SMEA 2 (1967) 71-93; IDEM, “La série Dn de Cnossos reconsidérée,” Minos 13 (1972) 22-28. In Linear B logograms, some species, horse and deer, are rendered with accuracy and details, while logograms for other species, sheep, goats, oxen, and pigs are graphically stylised. See J. WEILHARTNER, “Die graphische Gestaltung der Tierlogogramme auf den Linear B-Tafeln,” in 13. Österreichischer Archäologentag, Salzburg, 25.-27. Februar 2010, Forum Archaeologiae-Zeitschrift für klassische Archäologie 54/III/2010 (http://farch.net). J. WEILHARTNER, “Les idéogrammes archéologiques: does variation matter?,” in M.-L. NOSCH and H. LANDENIUS ENEGREN (eds), Aegean Scripts. Proceedings of the 14th International Colloquium on Mycenaean Studies, Copenhagen, 2-5 September 2015 1-2 (2017) 174-175. IDEM, “Zur Darstellung von Mensch und Tier auf Linear B-Tafeln und Siegelbildern der ägäischen Bronzezeit,” in E. TRINKL (ed.), Akten des 14. Österreichischen Archäologentages am Institut für Archäologie der Universität in Graz vom 19. bis 21. April 2012 (2014) 445-456, compares how the two genders are expressed in logograms for animals and humans. He observes that human logograms mirror the artistic rendering of men and women in art and glyptic. Mixed flocks in J1: Db, Dd, De, Df, Dg, Dq(2) tablets. Ewes and lambs are recorded by scribes 120, 118, and 106, and the tablets (Dh[2], Dk[1], Dl[1], Do) are from the North Entrance Passage (I2, I3). In the East-West Corridor (J1) are also records of ewes and lambs by scribe 117 (Dh[1]) and 119 (Dk[2]). J.T. KILLEN, “The Wool Industry in Crete in the Late Bronze Age,” BSA 59 (1963) 5; OLIVIER 1967 (supra n. 47) 89. Da-Dg, Dh(1), Dk(2), Dm, Dn, Dq(2) and Dv tablets were found in J1. The Knossos Da-Dg tablets record the composition of flocks, and with a predominance of adult male sheep: 81.5% males, 7% females, and the rest are designated as pa (old), pe (old or from last year), or o (missing or owed). At Pylos, males are also more frequently recorded than females: 66% males, 18% females, 14% old males (pa), and 2% young males. P. HALSTEAD, “Texts, Bones and Herders: Approaches to Animal Husbandry in Late Bronze Age Greece”, in BENNET and DRIESSEN eds (supra n. 44) 154, 163.

42

Marie-Louise NOSCH et al.

In the Linear B records at Knossos, about 330 shepherds appear with their personal name and the place name with which they are affiliated.54 Approximately a third of the flocks of sheep are also associated with a second man’s name, a so-called ‘collector’.55 Collectors seem to have been supervising parts of the sheep-herding activities. Therefore, while an individual shepherd is responsible for one flock of c. 100 sheep, collectors supervise several such flocks. For example, the collector called we-we-si-jo is registered in relation to more than 30 flocks, with a total of more than 3000 sheep in the Da-Dg series.56 Other collectors, such as e-me-si-jo, are recorded in association with fewer: only 200 sheep.57 More collectors are recorded on the Knossos tablets in western Crete and fewer in central Crete, and this suggests that they played a greater role in the further provinces compared to shepherding activities closer to Knossos.58 The scribes distinguish clearly between collectors and the non-collector personnel, and administer them separately.59 The flocks of ewes and lambs, instead, appear with fewer collectors and with an affiliation to the great goddess Potnia or Hermes.60 The Mycenaean palace scribes note in abbreviated form standard information on sheep, which is relevant for the quality of sheep rearing. The gender distinction is integrated in the logogram for sheep, and additional information is added as abbreviations and is mainly about the animals’ age. This specialised age-related vocabulary is very rich in terms for young animals, and this suggests a high interest in the animals’ first years of life. This includes ‘lambs’ (ki OVISm), ‘new lambs’ (ki ne OVISm, ne = ne-wo), ‘from this year’ (za OVISm, za = za-we-te, alph. Greek *σά
ετες; from ἔτος, ‘year’), ‘from last year’ (pe OVISm, pe = pe-ru-si-nu-wo περυσιν
οί; cf. classical Greek περυσινός), and ‘yearlings’, abbreviated WE for


54

55

56

57 58

59

60

On shepherds at Knossos, see H. LANDENIUS ENEGREN, The People of Knossos. Prosopographical Studies in the Knossos Linear B Archives (2008) 37-50. See J. BENNET, “Collectors” or “owners”? An examination of their possible functions within the palatial economy of LM III Crete,” in J.-P. OLIVIER (ed.), MYKENAÏKA. Actes du IXe Colloque international sur les textes mycéniens et égéens organisé par le Centre de l’Antiquité Grecque et Romaine de la Fondation Hellénique des Recherches Scientifiques et l’École française d’Athènes (Athènes, 2-6 octobre 1990) (1992) 65-101; P. CARLIER, “Les collecteurs sont-ils des fermiers?” in OLIVIER ibidem 159-166; J. DRIESSEN, “’Collector’s Items’. Observations sur l’élite mycénienne de Cnossos,” in OLIVIER ibidem 197-214; L. GODART, “Les collecteurs dans le monde égéen,” in OLIVIER ibidem 257-283; J.T. KILLEN, “Some Further Thoughts on ‘Collectors’,” in R. LAFFINEUR and W.-D. NIEMEIER (eds), POLITEIA. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, University of Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut, 10-13 April 1994 (1995) 213-224; J.P. OLIVIER, “Les ‘collecteurs’: leur distribution spatiale et temporelle,” in S. VOUTSAKI and J.T. KILLEN (eds), Economy and Politics in Mycenaean Palace States (2001) 139-160; F. ROUGEMENT, Contrôle économique et administration à l’époque des palais mycéniens (fin du IIème millénaire av. J.-C.) (2009); EADEM, “The Administration of Mycenaean Sheep Rearing (Flocks, Shepherds, ‘Collectors’),” in B. FRIZELL (ed.), PECUS. Man and animal in Antiquity. Proceedings of the Conference held in Rome, September 11-15, 2002 (2004) 24-34. Collectors also supervised textile workers (Ak series) and textile production (Lc, Ld, Le series), especially of the fabric type pa-we-a. BENNET (supra n. 55) 89-90, 94: We-we-si-jo’s flocks are attested at 9 different places but with a geographical tie to pa-i-to/Phaistos where 14 of his flocks are located. See Da 1156, 1161-1164, 1420, 8201. Db 1155, 1159, 1160, 1165, 1166, 1168, 1344, 1464. Dc 1154. Dd 1157, 1579. De 1151-1153, 1167, 1169, 1648, 5989. Dg 1158 De 1381 records e-me-si-jo’s 200 sheep, of which 20 are reported missing. BENNET (supra n. 55) 91; J. BENNET, “Knossos and LM III Crete: A Post-Palatial Palace?,” in R. HÄGG and N. MARINATOS (eds), The Function of the Minoan Palaces: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 10-16 June, 1984 (1987) 310. There are separate production targets for collectors (Lc[l] 535), and scribe 116 totals the collector deliveries of textiles separately on Ld(l) 587. See J.T. KILLEN, “The Knossos Ld(1) Tablets,” in E. RISCH and H. MÜHLESTEIN (eds), Colloquium Mycenaeum. Actes du sixième colloque international sur les textes mycéniens et égéens tenu à Chaumont sur Neuchâtel du 7 au 13 septembre 1975 (1979) 151-181. M.-L. NOSCH, “Schafherden unter dem Namenspatronat von Potnia und Hermes in Knossos,” in F. BLAKOLMER (ed.), Österreichische Forschungen zur ägäischen Bronzezeit 1998. Akten der Tagung am Institut für klassische Archäologie der Universität Wien, 2.-3. Mai 1998 (2000) 211-216.

SHEEP IN THE AEGEAN BRONZE AGE

43

wetala, perhaps equivalent to pe.61 There is also a specialised term, wo-ne-we, for lambs (*
ορνῆ
ες, related to the classical Greek ἀρήν, ‘lamb’). Adult animals are simply denoted by the sheep logogram alone, and older animals can be designed pa OVISm, where pa was an abbreviation for pa-ra-jo/ παλαιός.62 In Pylos on Cn(5) 4 and 595, the scribe combined the sheep logogram with the syllable ta (OVIS+TA) concerning sheep in various places and under the heading ta-to-mo, stathmós, sheep ‘in stable or pen’.63 This may therefore refer to a place, or to a special condition of these animals. Ethnographic sources on sheep and goats from Greece Fieldwork and ethnographic studies in Greece can yield information on sheep and goat husbandry before industrialisation and the intensification of agriculture.64 Sheep rearing in modern times is mainly focused on dairy and meat production, but early 20th century studies testify to shepherding as an economic activity with the main aim to produce wool. This makes it relevant for the comparison to Bronze Age societies. The British archaeologists Maurice Scott Thompson and Alain Wace,65 and the Danish philologist Carsten Høeg66 travelled in Northern Greece at the beginning of the 20th century and reported on shepherds living a semi-nomadic life. Thompson and Wace focused on the Vlachs before WW I,67 and


61 62

63

64

65

66

67

HALSTEAD (supra n. 53) 147. We know the meaning of these abbreviations because in some records, such as Pylos Cn 40, the scribe spells out the full word: male animals are designated as pa-ra-jo, ‘old’, or as wo-ne-we, ‘lambs’, or are without an age designation. First are listed flocks of male animals (OVISm) and then flocks of females (OVISf). Just like at Knossos, these Pylian flocks are associated with ‘collector’ names in the genitive form. V. PETRAKIS, “Figures of speech? Observations on the Non-phonographic Component in the Linear B Writing System”, in NOSCH and LANDENIUS ENEGREN eds (supra n. 49) 136; J.L. MELENA, “Mycenaean writing,” in Y. DUHOUX and A. MORPURGO DAVIES (eds), A Companion to Linear B Mycenaean Greek Texts and their World, Vol. 3 (2014) 130. M. LANG, “Cn Flocks,” in L. PALMER and J. CHADWICK (eds.), Proceedings of the Cambridge Colloquium on Mycenaean Studies (1966) 250-250 instead suggests breeding rams. For a wider discussion of ethno-archaeology and analyses of ancient pastoralism, see C. CHANG, “Archaeological Landscapes: the Ethnoarchaeology of Pastoral Land Use in the Grevena Province of Greece,” in J. ROSSIGNOL and L. WANDSNIDER (eds), Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes. Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology (1992) 65-89. Chang conducted fieldwork in the Pindos Mountains in 1988. For a more pessimist view on ethnographic records as sources for archaeology, see J.F. CHERRY, “Pastoralism and the role of animals in the Pre- and Protohistoric Economies of the Aegean,” in C.R. WHITTAKER (ed.), Pastoral Economies in Classical antiquity (1988) 6-34. Halstead included ethnographic studies of Vlachs and Sarakatsani in his analyses of early Greek animal husbandry but he emphasised that their pastoral life is highly influenced by modern times. HALSTEAD (supra n. 17) 22-23. After his fieldwork by the Vlachs, in the years 1914-1923, Alan Wace became the director of the British School at Athens and conducted excavations at Mycenae. After his post in Athens, he returned to England to become Deputy Keeper in the Department of Textiles in the Victoria and Albert Museum 1924-1934, see http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/periods_styles/features/history/staff_obituaries/textiles/wace/index.htm l. On his life and works, see C. HØEG, Les Saracatsans, une tribu nomade grecque, vol. I-II (1925-26); C. HØEG and M. VARMING, Blandt græske nomader 1922 (1993); M. KONOW and E. BØEGH, Carsten Høeg. Breve fra Studierejserne 1920-1922 (2018); M. KONOW, Carsten Høeg. Forsker og Menneske (2020); H. LANDENIUS ENEGREN and M.-L. NOSCH, “Michael Ventris and Aegean scripts in Scandinavia,” in NOSCH and LANDENIUS ENEGREN eds (supra n. 49) 819-823. A.J.B. WACE and M.S. THOMPSON, The Nomads of the Balkans: An Account of Life and Customs among the Vlachs of Northern Pindus (1914) 4. The archaeologists Wace and Thompson spent their summers 1909 to 1913 with Vlach communities. Initially, they had been travelling in search of archaeological remains and inscriptions assisted by a Vlach muleteer. Thereby they gained interest in the Vlach culture and lifestyle, and arranged to return the following year to join the annual migration from the plains to the mountains and spend time with Vlach families, mainly in the town of Samarina and adjacent villages in the Pindos Mountains. The areas of Epirus were under Ottoman rule until 1913. The fieldwork was marked by the political tensions between the Ottoman and Greek states.

44

Marie-Louise NOSCH et al.

Høeg studied the Sarakatsani in 1922. Their works contain rich information on sheepherding, including on terminology, songs and tales, traditions, practical knowledge and photo documentation. Sheepherding Vlachs The Vlachs or Valaques call themselves Aroumani or Romans because of their linguistic proximity to Romanian and speaking a Romance language.68 They live a semi-sedentary life: they dwell in the plains of Thessaly and Macedonia in the winter and live in the Pindos Mountains in the summer.69 The mountain villages are considered their true homes.70 In April, they transfer back to their homes in the mountains. Lambs born in December and January are ready for the long march.71 Shearing takes place in late April/early May, at the time of the transfer.72 The shepherds, their families and flocks remain in the mountains until October, when it is time to depart for the plains again.73 In the mountain town of Samarina, Wace and Thompson reported that 800 families every year left their houses and spend winter in the plains.74 The Vlachs’ main source of income and the principal occupation is sheep rearing,75 operationalised by shepherds (sing. tshelnikŭ, plu. tshelnikazl’i) and their helpers, often boys. Wace and Thompson write that “The wool trade is the most important trade of the village and the one on which it mostly depends”,76 and they conclude: “Thus Samarina to a great extent lives by wool and thinks in wool.”77 Vlach women transform the wool into yarn and fabric to be sold at markets. Most of their time is spent on wool and textile manufacture. Sheep-rearing was the basis of the Vlach economy, although Wace and Thompson noticed that it was declining in their times.78 The flocks are made up of sheep (sing. oaie, plu. oi), but they also comprise goats (sing. kapră, plu. kăprili) although rarely mentioned, and goats seem to follow along but are comprised under the heading of sheep. Each flock is headed by an elderly ram with a bell.79 Wace and Thompson reported that for the transhumance twice a year, sheep flocks were divided into specific categories: rams (birbeatse), lambs, and ewes. The ewes are further divided into two groups: barren ewes (stearpe) and milk ewes (aplikatoară or mātrisă).80 These groups based on gender, age and productivity were then further subdivided according to


68 69 70

71 72 73 74

75 76 77 78

79 80

WACE and THOMPSON (supra n. 67) 2. S.E. NIKOLOV, “Aroumanians,” in J.E. COLE (ed.), Ethnic Groups of Europe: An Encyclopedia (2011) 16-19. WACE and THOMPSON (supra n. 67) 2. V. NITSIAKOS, A Vlach pastoral community in Greece: The effects of its incorporation into the national economy and society. Doctoral thesis, Cambridge (1985) 35-37 observed that until the years after WW II, the mountains were still considered the Vlach homes and permanent base. WACE and THOMPSON (supra n. 67) 76-77. WACE and THOMPSON (supra n. 67) 80. WACE and THOMPSON (supra n. 67) 79. WACE and THOMPSON (supra n. 67) 36. NIKOLOV (supra n. 69) 18: “These seasonal migrations were made by communities of 50–100 people, comprising rich and poor families as well as servants. They kept horses and large flocks of sheep and fashioned cheeses such as the yellow cheese, kashkaval. Before the coming of the railway, they furnished central markets with such primary products as meat, wool, and dairy products.” WACE and THOMPSON (supra n. 67) 36. WACE and THOMPSON (supra n. 67) 78-79. WACE and THOMPSON (supra n. 67) 83. WACE and THOMPSON (supra n. 67) 76-80: The Vlach town of Samarina had in the latter part of the 19th century some 80,000 sheep, reduced to 17,000 in 1915. This was due to the division of the Vlach territory between a Greek part and an Ottoman part and the national border went through the summer and winter pastures, and also due to a disease in 1911 which affected sheep and goats severely. However, it should be noted that 25 years earlier, Gustav Weigand was opposed to defining the Vlachs as a shepherding community. G. WEIGAND, Die Sprache der Olympo-Walachen nebst einer Einleitung über Land und Leute (1888) 7: “Sie aber deshalb als ein Volk von Hirten darstellen zu wollen, wie man dies oft gethan hat, ist ein grosser Irtum.” WACE and THOMPSON (supra n. 67) 79. In the 1980s, NITSIAKOS (supra n. 70) 40-41 observes a similar division: animals are divided into two flocks: a flock of ghalaria (Vlach: matritsi), lactating ewes, and another flock of stira (Vlach: stiarpi) with non-pregnant

SHEEP IN THE AEGEAN BRONZE AGE

45

the colour of the wool: black animals and white animals.81 In the mountains, the Vlachs’ camps are called konakia,82 and the sheep were kept in the fold (kutarŭ or strungă),83 and here the milking took place as well as the manufacture of cheese, which in the 1910s had become a major source of income.84 Sheepherding Sarakatsani The Sarakatsani are a group of c. 80,000 people living in Epirus, Aitolo-Acarnania, Thessaly, Macedonia, Thrace, Serbia and Bulgaria, speaking a similar Greek dialect.85 Høeg travelled in Greece at a time marked by the conflicts with emerging Turkey and the aftermath of the population exchange in the 1920s. He visited Sarakatsani settlements and camps, and lived with them for shorter periods in 1922.86 As a philologist, Høeg’s main interest was their language, but he also reported extensively on other aspects of life.87 He concluded that the Sarakatsani are Greek speaking but formed their own distinct dialectal group no later than the 15th century CE, and that the Sarakatsani had continued a nomadic lifestyle since antiquity and had never been farmers.88 In the 1920s, the Sarakatsani communities in the Pindos Mountains still practiced seasonal transhumance between summer dwellings in the mountains and winter dwellings in the plains. Once arrived in the summer camp in the mountains, the Sarakatsani women constructed the summer huts of branches and straw.89 The huts were round and of a diameter of 5-10 meters.90 The architectural infrastructure of sheep breeding is in Sarakatsani Greek termed stani: these are enclosures where the sheep rest, are milked or shorn, and dairy production takes place. Stani can also designate the entire camp of breeding facilities and huts (konákia) for the shepherds and their families.91 A modest stani has only a few konákia while a very wealthy stani could comprise 100-150 konákia.92 Each stani is headed by a chieftain, čeliŋgas /τσέλιγγας93 and his wife is celinggina. A rich chieftain would wear a


81 82 83 84 85 86

87

88

89 90 91 92 93

ewes or with late pregnancies, last season’s female lambs, and rams. The ghalaria are often kept inside and given extra fodder. WACE and THOMPSON (supra n. 67) 77-78. NITSIAKOS (supra n. 70) 43, and the pasture areas are known by specific place names, see p. 46. NITSIAKOS (supra n. 70) 47. WACE and THOMPSON (supra n. 67) 78-79. Numbers are from 1993, HØEG and VARMING (supra n. 66) 7, 9. Høeg travelled in spring to Ioannina, Delvinali and Visani and further to Kerkyra and in the summer he travelled north to Aristi, Papingo, and to Rókovo and surrounding villages. Later, he travelled to Larissa and Thessaloniki and to the west to Edessa. HØEG and VARMING (supra n. 66); KONOW and BØEGH (supra n. 66). Høeg’s methods were those of observing, listening and asking. He documented his work in photographs, noted his observations in his notebooks, and reported on his fieldwork in the letters to his mother. The results were summarised in his doctoral dissertation; HØEG (supra n. 66). The notesbooks are preserved in the Royal Library of Denmark, and letters are published by Carsten Høeg’s daughter Mette Konow. KONOW and BØEGH (supra n. 66). Georges Kavadis revisited the Sarakatsani in the 1960 and observed many of the same structures and traditions but with a focus on the anthropological topoi of family structure and marriage patterns. G. KAVADIS, Pasteurs-nomades méditerranéens. Les Sarakatsans de Grèce (1965). See review by Guy BURGEL in Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales 24:2 (1969) 477-482. HØEG and VARMING (supra n. 66) 11. Høeg’s essentialist conclusions are challenged by CHERRY (supra n. 64). Historian-anthropologist John CAMPBELL, Honour, Family and Patronage. A Study of Institutions and Moral Values in a Greek Mountain Community (1964) did fieldwork with Sarakatsani in Northern Greece in the 1950s together with his wife Sheila. Campbell writes a short chapter on sheep activities, which in the 1950 were focused on milk and meat. HØEG (supra n. 66) vol. I, 3-4. HØEG (supra n. 66) vol. I, 5. HØEG (supra n. 66) vol. II, 136-137. HØEG and VARMING (supra n. 66) 61. HØEG (supra n. 66) vol. I, 8. BURGEL (supra n. 87) 479 notes : “Le tséligato est à mi-chemin entre la famille étendue et une coopérative économique. Formé, nous l’avons dit, par la réunion de plusieurs familles étendues

46

Marie-Louise NOSCH et al.

magnificent costume.94 Despite the transhumance and mobility, Høeg identifies the stani by a place name or by the name of chieftains of stani and the heads of families, for example, ‘Lambros’ stani’ located near the village Lingiades by Ioannina.95 “Mais ce sont les moutons qui font la grande richesse des Saracatsans”, writes Høeg.96 A medium stani could have c. 2000 sheep.97 Others were exceptionally large: in a stani near Edessa, Høeg visited three brothers who led a stani of 22 konákia and 10,000 sheep.98 Sheep were kept in flocks of 100 animals.99 Each flock was headed by a shepherd termed τσοπάνες, which is a dialectal form of čubánu.100 The hierarchical and gendered division of labour is mirrored in the management of the sheep and goats. Male shepherds and their male helpers take care of the sheep and also their milk and wool; boys take care of lambs and goats, and women take care of goats’ milk and wool.101 The Sarakatsani have a rich terminology for their animals. Sheep (próta, πρόβατα) and goats (jíδi̭a, γίδια) are used in plural forms. If reference is made to an individual animal, another set of terms is used: ram (kri̭ar, κριάρι), ewe (pratína, προβατίνα), lamb (arní, ἀρνί), mbl’ór and mbl’óra (one-year-old male and female sheep, start of reproduction/pregnancy). Milk lambs (vizaχtár) are nourished by the milk ewe (γalára), and later they become grazing lambs (zγur). The basic Sarakatsani animal terminology stems from Greek, but Høeg observed that the technical breeding vocabulary, instead, derives from Aroumanian/Vlach or from Albanian.102 Sheep are classified according to incision in the ears, to reproductive stages,103 and to colour, mainly black and white.104 Specific terms designate sheep with other physical characteristics: a long udder (kalamuvíżku) or a short udder (čimburuvíżku), ewes with horns or rams with short horns (krútu), with truncated horns (kutsuk’éra), without horns (šútu), rams with four horns (tesaruk’ératu), or with truncated ears (čúlu).105 There is a similarly rich and slightly overlapping vocabulary for goats.106 Campbell notes how Sarakatsani divide animals into four types of flocks:107 (1) Pregnant ewes, and then milking ewes (galária) kept on the best grass land by


94 95

96

97 98 99

100

101 102

103

104

105 106 107

sous la direction du tsélingas, chef de la plus puissante entre elles, le tséligato exploite en commun le troupeau collectif.” HØEG and VARMING (supra n. 66) 61. HØEG (supra n. 66) vol. I, 63-62; HØEG and VARMING (supra n. 66) 33. Høeg attended the annual sheep shearing in June 1922 in this stani. HØEG (supra n. 66) vol. I, 9. BURGEL (supra n. 87), 477: “Le fondement de l’économie et du genre de vie sarakatsanes réside dans l’élevage nomade du petit bétail, essentiellement moutons et plus récemment chèvres.” HØEG and VARMING (supra n. 66) 47. HØEG and VARMING (supra n. 66) 83. HØEG (supra n. 66) vol. I, 16: “Les moutons sont divisés en troupeaux de 100 bêtes chacun, lorsqu’il s’agit de les tondre comme lorsqu’il s’agit de les traire et quand ils sont au pâturage.” HØEG (supra n. 66) vol. I, 17: “Chaque troupeau de cent moutons est à la charge d’un berger, τσοπάνες (forme dialectale čubánus).” HØEG and VARMING (supra n. 66) 71. HØEG (supra n. 66) vol. I, 16. HØEG (supra n. 66) vol. II, 110. It is interesting to note that the vocabulary for textile manufacture, in contrast, mainly stems from Greek, see HØEG (supra n. 66) vol. II, 143-149. CAMPBELL (supra n. 88) 31 was not particularly interested in terminology but notes: “There is an extensive descriptive vocabulary on sheep terms.” Reproductive stages are for the ewes the number of pregnancies, since they give birth once a year. Hence, the stirupúl is a two-year old animal, and zγurujenmén is an ewe giving birth in her first year, and her first born is called a arnízγurár. The tritára is an ewe who has given birth three times, an ewe giving birth to twin lambs (δiplárka) is called δiplára. HØEG (supra n. 66) vol. II, 111-112. With white body (bélu), white tail (asprunórku), white muzzle (bál’u), white spots on the neck (bašúrku), white body and red cheeks (búčku), white animal with black around the eyes (kálisu), white animal with brown spots (káŋguru), white animal with black head and black legs (vákru), black animal with white legs (kalγúṡku), with black spots on the cheeks (karabáṡku), with a black head (karamánku), with a red head (kátsinu), black and white (parδaló), various hues of black (láju, murátulaju, rúsiláju). HØEG (supra n. 66) vol. II, 112-113. HØEG (supra n. 66) vol. II, 115-116. HØEG (supra n. 66) vol. II, 116-118. Goat buck (traí) and female goat (jíδa, γίδα). CAMPBELL (supra n. 88) 19-26.

SHEEP IN THE AEGEAN BRONZE AGE

47

experienced shepherds; (2) Rams and sterile or non-pregnant ewes (sterpha) kept on more distant and rough grazing areas and with a less experienced shepherd; (3) Last season’s ewe lambs (ziguria), not yet pregnant were kept on good grazing lands; (4) Goats, the less prestigious animals who ate what was unsuitable for sheep and boys were shepherding them. Women were also in charge of goats. Conclusions Each of the source categories presented briefly in this paper offers its own limited set of data on sheep. The data do not allow capturing changes or developments in the pastoral economy throughout the Bronze Age. However, when gathered, they reflect, in a fragmented way, both the organisation and strategies of breeding and shepherding, as well as the main areas of sheep exploitation, specifically their use for meat, skin, wool and perhaps even sinews and guts. We have gathered data on sheep in Bronze Age iconography, in Linear B inscriptions, and from academic fieldwork in the early 20th-century Pindos Mountains. They share approximate geographical scope and they regard communities with emphasis on sheep’s wool, and less on meat production (as is the case today). Mycenaeans and Sarakatsani also share language (Greek). We have no essentialist views on universal sheepherding practices in Greece and we do not necessarily endorse comparative studies of the Bronze Age Aegean and early 20th century Balkan. Our focus was to explore what the most salient features of sheep are – seen from the perspective of Minoan seal carvers, Mycenaean palace scribes and the mountain shepherds. We assume that they all had intimate knowledge of the salient features of sheep – of what encapsulated their values, as expressed in language and in imagery. Moreover, this paper compares these salient features of sheep to data from archaeological bone assemblages of the Bronze Age in order to highlight the difference between ‘concepts of sheep’ and the archaeological context.108 In bone assemblages from Bronze Age Greece, sheep and goats generally form 50-70% of the data and sheep outnumber goats on all sites.109 The Linear B tablets are rich in terms for younger animals; this could correlate well to the observation of the faunal mortality patterns at some sites with animals slaughtered at a young age.110 However, the specialised wool-focused pastoralism of the Mycenaean palace economies would entail that sheep, especially neutered weathers in large numbers, lived longer (5-6 years) to produce the targeted wool quantities.111 The Linear B inscriptions also demonstrate the clear predominance of male animals, and male characteristics are also depicted in iconography, but information on biological sex of sheep cannot be gained from the other kinds of sources. The increasing number of bone remains of Caprinae dating to the end of the Neolithic and continuing into the Bronze Age confirms the growing importance of sheep in Bronze Age societies. The zooarchaeological remains provide information on different strategies in breeding sheep and goats at Knossos as early as in the EBA. They indicate sheep transhumance in this period, revealed by different patterns of sheep and goat mobility at Knossos and the summer shepherds’ camp recovered at Debla. The iconography of seals, especially Middle Minoan prisms, may provide a new source of knowledge about how textile production was integrated in Bronze Age societies and administration, since various textile production-related motifs have been recognised, including depictions of ‘woolly animals’ potentially referring to both wool and the source of wool.112


108 109 110

111 112

Studies combining Linear B and bone assemblages were pioneered by HALSTEAD (supra nn. 17 and 53). HALSTEAD (supra n. 17) 28-30. Tiryns, Kommos and perhaps Pylos may represent this patteern, according to HALSTEAD (supra n. 17) 33. HALSTEAD (supra n. 17) 33. M.-L. NOSCH and A. ULANOWSKA, “The Materiality of the Cretan Hieroglyphic Script: Textile Production-Related Referents to Hieroglyphic Signs on Seals and Sealings from Middle Bronze Age Crete,” in P. BOYES, P. STEELE and N.E. ASTORECA (eds), The Social and Cultural Contexts of Historic Writing Practices (2021) 73-100.

48

Marie-Louise NOSCH et al.

However, specialised breeding strategies for wool are less evident from the osteological material, but instead they are very well attested in the numerous Linear B tablets recording sheep and wool yields. In language, both sheep and goat had their own terminologies including a complex vocabulary classifying sheep gender and age, especially as regards differentiation of young animals. In daily life, however, sheep and goats could be considered to form one group of animals, mostly covered by the term ‘sheep’, not unlike the classical Greek probata with the meaning of both sheep but also of small domesticated animals.113 Vlachs and Sarakatsani separate pregnant and milking ewes and their lambs from the rams and barren ewes, and the same praxis is attested in the Linear B records of ewes and their lambs, separated from gender-mixed flocks or neutered wethers.114 The Linear B inscriptions reveal how shepherding was organised in the palace economies and administrations and how in Crete, flocks and shepherds were associated with named locations in Crete; also the Vlach and Sarakatsani shepherding communities, despite their transhumance, relate their life and activities to specific named places. Sheep were kept in flocks of approximately 100 animals, both in Mycenaean Crete and in the Sarakatsani communities, and one shepherd took care of each flock. The Mycenaean palace scribes classified some of the flocks under a ‘collector’, and it is tempting to compare these collectors to the stani chieftains/tzelingas of the Sarakatsani. Vlach and Sarakatsani herders employ a specialised vocabulary for their animals that contains many shared words (konakia, stani) and also loanwords from neighbouring languages, so it is relevant to assume that Mycenaean herders would share or borrow specialised terms from the Minoans as well. In the iconography, a distinction between the species of the Caprinae subfamily is difficult and depictions that can clearly be recognised as sheep are rare. This lack of details is surprising compared to the very detailed administrative information noted by the Mycenaean palace scribes. However, the preserved imagery of sheep occasionally alludes to the pastoral economy, e.g. in scenes from Aegean glyptic of shepherding, milking or selecting animals. Gender and age, i.e. adult and young animals, were also occasionally illustrated. Visual allusions to the woolliness of sheep are limited to a few depictions of sheep with fleece, but no scenes of plucking or shearing have been recognised so far. The very rich Vlach and Sarakatsani vocabulary for sheep reproduction, colour, physical features and age invites us to re-evaluate the many abbreviations used for sheep and lambs in the Linear B records. Some of these abbreviations could be related to age and reproduction/fertility. Likewise, it is worth noticing that the Vlachs divide the animals according to colours, and the Sarakatsani have a very rich terminology for sheep’s fleece colours, mainly black and white. This colour information, however, is absent from the Linear B records, and also not possible to retrieve from bones or iconography, with the exception of the Miniature Fresco from Akrotiri, where the sheep are white and red. The very limited evidence of excavated textiles does not reflect the scale of wool exploitation in the Bronze Age Aegean. However, with the Linear B tablets as notable exception, the iconographical and osteological evidence does not suggest that wool was the main economical activity, nor a focus of symbolic reflection in art. The combined evidence rather emphasizes the utility of sheep as a ‘factory’ without waste, than sheep as a producer of wool only. Perhaps, the new concept of ‘wool revolution’ should be reconsidered with regard to the wider packet of advantages and benefits brought into the Aegean Bronze Age economies with these useful animals. Marie-Louise NOSCH, Agata ULANOWSKA Katarzyna ŻEBROWSKA, Kinga BIGORAJ, Anna GRĘZAK





113 114

P. CHANTRAINE, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque, 3 vols. (2009) s.v. See supra nn. 50-52, 80, 107.

SHEEP IN THE AEGEAN BRONZE AGE

49

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Pl. V

A selection of plant and animal-origin textile raw materials and products, as compared to imprints on the CMS casts. Pl. V 1 Gotland wool. Pl. V 2 a-c Limebast (Tilia). Pl. V 3 Thong made of unidentified animal skin. Pl. V 4 Thong made of tanned bovine skin. Pl. V 5 Bulrush (Typhalatifolia). Pl. V 6 Pig gut. Pl. V 7 Mechanically-processed retted flax. Pl. V 8 Guts of one-year old ram. Pl. V 9 Nettle. Pl. V 10 Sinews of a deer. Pl. V a Phaistos PH 855α? Pl. V b Kea 8.112. Pl. V c Phaistos PH 721. Pl. V d Knossos KN 997. Pl. V e, f, h Impressions of leather thongs made of skins of unidentified animals: e) Phaistos PH 720; f) Malia MAL 1072; h) Malia MAL 1086. Pl. V g Lerna L 4.397. Pl. V i Phaistos PH 860δP?. Pl. V j Aghia Triada AT 501/3. Pl. V k Phaistos PH 871zD. Pl. V l Chania CHA 1551. Pl. VI 1 The sheep motif. Seal from Lasithi (?), Crete (CMS XII 136). Pl. VI 2 The goat motif. Seal impression (CMS II,8 378). Pl. VI 3 The motif of agrimi. Seal from Crete (CMS ISuppl. 082). Pl. VI 4 Sheep with mane pictured on a seal (CMS VI 177). Pl. VI 5 Sheep heads in profile. Seal from Vaphio (CMS I 257). Pl. VI 6 Impression of a seal depicting a sheep protome (CMS II,7 176). Pl. VI 7 Shepherding scene shown on a seal from Crete (CMS VI 330). Pl. VI 8 Seal impression with a milking scene (CMS VSuppl. 1A 137). Pl. VI 9 Selection of lambs pictured on a sealing from Kato Zakros (CMS II,7 030). Pl. VI 10 Possible flock of sheep shown on a seal (CMS VS1B 096). Pl. VI 11 Depiction of a large flock preserved on a sealing from Knossos (CMS II,8 521). Pl. VI 12 A ram on a seal impression from Mycenae (CMS I 168). Pl. VI 13 A youngling(?) with crossed legs (CMS XIII D015c). Pl. VI 14 Sheep with ownership marks? (CMS XII 035c). Pl. VI 15 Sheep with ownership marks? Seal from Mycenae (CMS I 048). Pl. VII 1 Linear B tablet KN Ce 162. Pl. VII 2 Linear B tablet KN Db 1099. Pl. VII 3 Sheep logogram in Linear B, male and female.

V

VI

VII

1

2

3

THE ‘WILD’ GOATS OF ANCIENT CRETE: ETHNOGRAPHIC PERSPECTIVES ON ICONOGRAPHIC, TEXTUAL AND ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL SOURCES* Introduction Animal imagery is a principal focus of later Bronze Age iconography in the southern Aegean, for example making up 40% of the particularly large corpus of seal motifs.1 Although the most popular creatures vary through time and between regions,2 and also between artistic media,3 wild animals (real and mythical) are prominent and, on Crete, especially so if we accept the attribution of most goat-like figures to the ‘wild’ agrimi (Capra aegagrus cretensis) rather than domestic goat. In favour of this attribution, is the depiction of many goats with the distinctively long, curved and ribbed horns characteristic of a modern adult male agrimi4 and their placement in apparently ‘natural’ (non-anthropogenic) landscapes or in hunting scenes.5 Conversely, depictions of sheep, which are prominent in zooarchaeological assemblages,6 are scarce7 and scenes of domestic husbandry (e.g. herding, milking) even more so.8 The ideological significance of this emphasis on the wild, exotic, and often dangerous has been explored by several authors,9 but here we focus more narrowly on the Cretan agrimi and on the more practical issues of its


*

1

2 3

4

5

6

7 8 9

We are indebted to: many informants on Crete and Kythera, for patiently sharing their knowledge of feral goats; Dr Katerina Athanasaki, at whose instigation we began research on this topic; and Dr Dimitra Mylona, for constructive comments on a draft of this chapter. The fieldwork described here was funded by a British Academy/Leverhulme Small Research Grant (2016) and a Loeb Classical Library Foundation Fellowship (2018-19 to Halstead). Abbreviations: PHYSIS = G. TOUCHAIS, R. LAFFINEUR and F. ROUGEMONT (eds), PHYSIS. L’environnement naturel et la relation homme-milieu dans le monde Égéen protohistorique. Actes de la 14e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Paris, Institut National d’Histoire de l’Art, 11-14 décembre 2012 (2014); Pleistocene and Holocene = D.S. REESE (ed.), Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and its First Settlers (1996). F. BLAKOLMER, “Il Buono, il Brutto, il Cattivo? Character, Symbolism and Hierarchy of Animals and Supernatural Creatures in Minoan and Mycenaean Iconography,” Creta Antica 17 (2016) 97-183, esp. 100. BLAKOLMER (supra n. 1). A. SHAPLAND, “Wild Nature? Human–Animal Relations on Neopalatial Crete,” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 19 (2010) 109-127, esp. 116 fig. 4; O. KRZYSZKOWSKA, “Cutting to the Chase: Hunting in Minoan Crete,” in PHYSIS 341-347, esp. 343. J. VANSCHOONWINKEL, “Les animaux dans l’art minoen,” in Pleistocene and Holocene 351-412, esp. 355; R. PORTER, “The Cretan Wild Goat (Capra aegagrus cretica) and the Theran ‘Antelopes’,” in Pleistocene and Holocene 295-315. VANSCHOONWINKEL (supra n. 4) 352-3, 356, 360; E. BLOEDOW, “The Significance of the Goat in Minoan Culture,” Praehistorische Zeitschrift 78 (2003) 1-59, esp. 6-21. P. HALSTEAD and V. ISAAKIDOU, “Sheep, Sacrifices and Symbols: Animals in Bronze Age Greece,” in U. ALBARELLA, M. RIZZETTO, H. RUSS, K. VICKERS and S. VINER (eds), Oxford Handbook of Zooarchaeology (2017) 113-126. VANSCHOONWINKEL (supra n. 4) 357. BLAKOLMER (supra n. 1) 106; SHAPLAND (supra n. 3) 122. C.E. MORRIS, “In Pursuit of the White Tusked Boar: Aspects of Hunting in Mycenaean Society,” in R. HÄGG and G.C. NORDQUIST (eds), Celebrations of Death and Divinity in the Bronze Age Argolid (1990) 149155; Y. HAMILAKIS, “The Sacred Geography of Hunting: Wild Animals, Social Power and Gender in Early Farming Societies,” in E. KOTJABOPOULOU, Y. HAMILAKIS, P. HALSTEAD, C. GAMBLE and P. ELEFANTI (eds), Zooarchaeology in Greece: Recent Advances (2003) 239-247; A. SHAPLAND, “The Minoan Lion: Presence and Absence on Bronze Age Crete,” World Archaeology 42 (2010) 273-289; IDEM

52

Valasia ISAAKIDOU and Paul HALSTEAD

zoological status, establishment on the island, and exploitation by humans during the Bronze Age. We first summarise what is currently known, and unknown, with regard to these questions, before exploring what additional light may be shed by recent ethnographic enquiries. Agrimia: their status, origins, and exploitation on Bronze Age Crete As a result of modern hunting pressure, the agrimi is now restricted to southwest Crete and small offshore reserves,10 but was much more widespread on the island in the recent past.11 Despite the emblematic status of the agrimi, however, currently as well as in the Bronze Age, the wild bezoar goat (Capra aegagrus), to which the agrimi was until recently attributed, was not native either to mainland Greece (where Bronze Age images of hunted goats are relatively rare)12 or to the insular southern Aegean. By default, the agrimi must be descended from animals introduced to the island by humans, whether wild bezoars or their close relatives, domestic goats (Capra hircus). Studies of modern specimens have suggested that the agrimi is phenotypically intermediate between the wild bezoar and domestic goat, and thus descended from an early domestic form,13 while genotypically (in mitochondrial DNA) it is closer to the domestic goat,14 but neither argument definitively excludes the release of wild bezoars on Crete, given observed interbreeding between modern agrimia and domestic goats.15 Biogeographically, however, the introduction of wild bezoars to Crete, necessarily by sea, from mainland Turkey or further east must be regarded as a less parsimonious solution than the release or escape of domestic goats on the island sometime after the Initial Neolithic (early 7th millennium BC) when they are first documented at Knossos.16 Moreover, even if wild bezoars were released on Crete, whether before or after the introduction of domestic goats, subsequent interbreeding with the latter seems inevitable so the agrimi must be regarded as a feral animal, descended at least in part from escaped or released domesticates. Apart from these phenotypic and genetic analyses of modern feral specimens, scholars have drawn on three principal sources – iconography, Linear B texts, and macroscopic zooarchaeology – to explore the origins and development of Cretan agrimia and their interaction with humans. Of these, iconography has hitherto dominated the field, but the frequent representation of imaginary beasts and of lions, that are unlikely to have roamed the hills of Crete (and may have circulated on mainland Greece only as skins or rare captives),17 pose obvious problems for interpreting apparent depictions of agrimia. We next summarise what is known, and what remains unknown, from Linear B and macroscopic zooarchaeology. Linear B texts from Final Palatial Knossos apparently record palatial mobilisation of feral goats, both alive and dead. As regards the former, a single document (C(2) 7064) lists 26 male and an unknown number of female goats, described as a-ke-ri-ja (wild?) and presumably (given the lack of indications to the


10

11 12 13

14

15

16

17

(supra n. 3); BLAKOLMER (supra n. 1). E.g. T.H. HUSBAND, P.B. DAVIS and J.H. BROWN, “Population Measurements of the Cretan Agrimi,” Journal of Mammalogy 67 (1986) 757-759. E.g. T.A.B. SPRATT, Travels and Researches in Crete (1865) 12-13; Halstead field notes (Gonies, Mt. Psiloritis). BLAKOLMER (supra n. 1) 105-106. E.g. C.P. GROVES, “Feral Mammals of the Mediterranean Islands: Documents of Early Domestication,” in J. CLUTTON-BROCK (ed.), The Walking Larder: Patterns of Domestication, Pastoralism, and Predation (1989) 46-58. G.K. BAR-GAL, P. SMITH, E. TCHERNOV, C. GREENBLATT, P. DUCOS, A. GARDEISEN and L.K. HORWITZ, “Genetic Evidence for the Origin of the Agrimi Goat (Capra aegagrus cretica),” Journal of Zoology 256 (2002) 369-377. L.K. HORWITZ and G.K. BAR-GAL, “The Origin and Genetic Status of Insular Caprines in the Eastern Mediterranean: a Case Study of Free-Ranging Goats (Capra aegagrus cretica) on Crete,” Human Evolution 21 (2006) 123-138. M.R. JARMAN, “Human Influence in the Development of the Cretan Fauna,” in Pleistocene and Holocene 211-229; V. ISAAKIDOU, “The Fauna and Economy of Neolithic Knossos Revisited,” in V. ISAAKIDOU and P. TOMKINS (eds), Escaping the Labyrinth: the Cretan Neolithic in Context (2008) 90-114. E.g. HALSTEAD and ISAAKIDOU (supra n. 6).

THE ‘WILD’ GOATS OF ANCIENT CRETE

53

contrary) located at Knossos and alive (but perhaps destined for slaughter).18 As regards dead goats, the Mc series of texts details expected deliveries from various locations outside Knossos of four commodities, represented by the ideograms *150, *107b/CAPf (female goat), *142 and *151/CORN (?agrimi horn). CORN closely recalls conventional rendering of the horns of the male agrimi in wider Aegean iconography,19 a recurring source of inspiration for Linear B ideograms,20 and is widely accepted as representing horns or pairs of horns of such animals; by extension, CAPf may here indicate female agrimia; and *150 may be read as *22 (goat) with ra, perhaps indicating adult male agrimi.21 *142 is requisitioned by weight in direct proportion to numbers of CORN (1 unit per 2 horns/pairs of horns), possibly implying that it too is derived from carcasses of male agrimia (e.g. hair or tendons).22 By the same logic, *150 and CAPf might in this context represent not live animals,23 nor carcasses with meat given the difficulty of avoiding spoilage (and the supposed inedibility of non-domestic, and thus uncastrated, adult males),24 but skins and/or some other carcass product25 used in the manufacture of military gear such as chariots or composite bows.26 The layout of the tablets in question, however, separates *150 and CAPf on an upper line from *142 and CORN below, while the numbers of the first two commodities are not as regularly proportional to the latter two as might be expected if *150 and/or CAPf were derived from slaughter of the same animals as *142 and CORN. If *150 and CAPf represent live animals or whole skins, males outnumber females roughly 5:3,27 with the numbers of putative males slightly larger than the numbers of CORN. The rather poorly preserved Mc series thus poses significant problems of interpretation,28 but implies the requisitioning of at least 154 dead male agrimia, if CORN represents single horns, and potentially of ca. 350 males and ca. 200 females (alive or dead), if *150 and CAPf represent whole animals or skins. In addition, apparent repetition between two texts (Mc 1508, Mc 4456) with different archaeological find-spots suggests that these requisitions were recurring rather than one-off and also similar from year to year.29 The apparently large palatial demand for agrimi carcass products, and the high levels of culling so implied, has led to recurring speculation as to whether such exploitation of free-range populations was sustainable, whether semi-domesticated management of agrimia might have been necessary to ensure the supply of raw materials, and whether agrimia can realistically be enclosed given their ability to leap over high fences.30 Macroscopic zooarchaeological identification of agrimia in Neolithic and later faunal assemblages31 has been proposed on the basis of unusually large bone or horn size or features of bone development characteristic of a free-range existence,32 but unfortunately all three criteria are problematic.33 First,


18

19 20

21

22

23

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

M. VENTRIS and J. CHADWICK, Documents in Mycenaean Greek (1973) 529; R. PALMER, “Managing the Wild: Deer and Agrimia in the Late Bronze Age Aegean,” in PHYSIS 391-399, esp. 394. A.J. EVANS, The Palace of Minos IV (1935) 832. J. WEILHARTNER, “The Influence of Aegean Iconography on the Design of the Linear B Logograms for Animals, Plants and Agricultural Products,” in PHYSIS 297-304. E.g. VENTRIS and CHADWICK (supra n. 18) 302; J.T. KILLEN, “A Note on the Knossos Mc Tablets,” Faventia 30 (2008) 47-52, esp. 48. M. PERNA, “Testi che trattano di procedure fiscali,” in M. DEL FREO and M. PERNA (eds), Manuale di epigrafia micenea. Introduzione allo studio dei testi in lineare B (2016) 453-489, esp. 484-485 (hair); J.L. MELENA, “On the Knossos Mc Tablets,” Minos 13 (1972) 29-54, esp. 44, 52 (tendons). E.g. L. BAUMBACH, “The Dilemma of the Horns - an Analysis of the Knossos Mc Tablets,” Acta Classica 14 (1971) 1-16, esp. 8; PALMER (supra n. 18) 395. MELENA (supra n. 22) 42. MELENA (supra n. 22) 41; PALMER (supra n. 18) plate 116. BAUMBACH (supra n. 23); MELENA (supra n. 22); PALMER (supra n. 18) 397. MELENA (supra n. 22) 35. BAUMBACH (supra n. 23). KILLEN (supra n. 21) 51. EVANS (supra n. 19) 834; BAUMBACH (supra n. 23) 13, 15; PALMER (supra n. 18) 397. Ε.g. citations in VANSCHOONWINKEL (supra n. 4) 376. E.g. JARMAN (supra n. 16) 214-216; B. WILKENS, “Faunal Remains from Italian Excavations on Crete,” in Pleistocene and Holocene 241-261, esp. 243; D. MYLONA, “Sacrifices in LM IIIB. Early Kydonia Palatial

54

Valasia ISAAKIDOU and Paul HALSTEAD

although it is often assumed that prehistoric agrimia were larger than domestic goats, the size of both is likely to have varied both regionally and diachronically for genetic and environmental reasons; anyway, because sexual size dimorphism is pronounced in goats (and may be exaggerated by castration of males), a few very large specimens in faunal assemblages might represent domestic males rather than agrimia. Secondly, while long horns may be a less ambiguous criterion for identifying agrimia, they are displayed only by feral adult males and, in available faunal assemblages, adult male goats are less frequent than small-horned adult females and juveniles. Moreover, a rare individual with very large horns might be a domestic male sired by an agrimi rather than a free-ranging feral animal. Thirdly, domestic goats today vary greatly in their degree of mobility (as also apparently in the past – below) and use of rough terrain that might favour the development of distinctively strong muscle insertions. Apparent contrasts between and within sites in the representation of agrimia are thus as likely to reflect differences in the application of diagnostic protocols as variation in the availability or pursuit of these animals. For example, while agrimia were not positively identified in the large assemblage from Neolithic Knossos studied by Jarman and Isaakidou,34 they are reported in much smaller assemblages from later Neolithic Knossos35 and Phaistos,36 but these latter specimens almost all overlap in size with those of the same date at Knossos identified as domesticates by Isaakidou.37 As yet, therefore, it is questionable whether macroscopic zooarchaeology, in isolation, can even confirm the existence of agrimia of Neolithic or Bronze Age date, let alone shed light on their exploitation by humans. On the other hand, as Jarman emphasised,38 there is good macroscopic zooarchaeological evidence that the Neolithic and Bronze Age inhabitants of Crete introduced to the island and exploited a range of conventionally ‘wild’ mammals (e.g. badger, fallow deer). Together with these introductions, the feral agrimi is potentially of great significance to our understanding of past humananimal relationships, on prehistoric Crete and beyond, in blurring the conventional distinction between domestic and wild. As Guest-Papamanoli has argued,39 ethnographic observations of hunting and trapping of a range of wild species in the present or very recent past may shed light on the Bronze Age exploitation of Cretan agrimia. In the following sections, we explore the potential of such ethnographic research, but focus specifically on human exploitation of feral goats on southern Aegean islands. Feral goats of modern Crete and Kythera After a sharp contraction in the number and distribution of agrimia on Crete in the last century, the remnant population is now restricted to a few protected reserves. Although these reserves have been the focus of invaluable studies on the biology, ethology and ecology of agrimia,40 the protected status of these animals greatly limits their potential both for human exploitation and, given that this is illegal, for academic investigation thereof. Throughout Crete, however, there are groups of feral goats




33 34

35

36 37 38 39

40

Centre: the Animal Remains,” Pasiphae 9 (2015) 53-57, esp. 53; EADEM, “Animal Remains,” in S. WALLACE (ed.), Karphi Revisited: a Settlement and Landscape of the Aegean Crisis Period c. 1200-1000 BC (2020) 249260, esp. 249. E.g. JARMAN (supra n. 16) 218. JARMAN (supra n. 16); V. ISAAKIDOU, Bones from the Labyrinth: Faunal Evidence for the Management and Consumption of Animals at Neolithic and Bronze Age Knossos, Crete (Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University College London, 2005) 278. M.P. RIPOLL, “The Knossos Fauna and the Beginning of the Neolithic in the Mediterranean Islands,” in N. EFSTRATIOU, A. KARETSOU and M. NTINOU (eds), The Neolithic Settlement of Knossos in Crete: New Evidence for the Early Occupation of Crete and the Aegean Islands (2013) 133-170, esp. 138 table 8.4, 152-153. WILKENS (supra n. 32). ISAAKIDOU (supra n. 34) 274-275 figs 7.19-20. JARMAN (supra n. 16). A. GUEST-PAPAMANOLI, “Hunting and Trapping in Prehistoric Crete: a Proposal for Ethnographic Research,” in Pleistocene and Holocene 337-349. T.P. HUSBAND and P.B. DAVIS, “Ecology and Behavior of the Cretan Agrimi,” Canadian Journal of Zoology 62 (1984) 411-420.

THE ‘WILD’ GOATS OF ANCIENT CRETE

55

that, in appearance, resemble local domesticates and that local residents regard as distinct from agrimia in terms of both genotype (they form wholly or largely separate breeding populations) and ownership. Similar feral goat populations, but without the potential for confusion with agrimia, exist on several other Aegean islands including Kythera. What follows is a brief summary of the results of our own field observations and especially interviews (to be reported in greater detail elsewhere) with individuals (ca. 50 on Crete and 15 on Kythera) with current or past experience of these feral goats. For the sake of clarity, in discussing recent/modern goats, we use the term agrimia to refer to the animals known by that name on Crete and ‘feral goats’ to refer to animals on Crete and Kythera that avoid human contact, but are recently descended from or interbred with local domestic herds. We summarise our findings on these feral populations under the following headings: 1. formation and antiquity; 2. composition, ethology and ecology; 3. hunting and trapping methods; 4. taming and re-domestication. 1. The formation and antiquity of recent feral goat populations on Crete and Kythera The numbers and distribution of these feral goats have expanded greatly in the last 50 years, as the contraction of arable farming and de-intensification of domestic goat herding (with year-round pedestrian driving of the herd and seasonal milking by hand replaced by more or less sparse visits to fenced enclosures) have facilitated the escape of free-spirited animals, while the increased size of domestic herds has reduced the incentive and opportunity for recovering escapees. Oral histories in west, central and east Crete alike, however, make clear that some of these feral groups date back at least into the 19th century, while the terms for these animals on Crete (fouriárika, matsárika and vetsárika in west, centre and east, respectively) and for their driving on Kythera (kátsa) seem likely to be of Venetian origin,41 suggesting rather greater antiquity. In recent decades, a few feral populations have been established by the enforced abandonment (usually due to the herder’s death or infirmity) or deliberate release of a domestic herd, but most were formed gradually by the escape or loss of individual animals that retreated to areas of inaccessible terrain (ravines, cliffs) where re-capture was difficult. 2. The composition, ethology and ecology of recent Cretan and Kytheran feral goat populations Feral goats live (as do agrimia)42 in small groups of related females and male kids, led by a senior female. They are mixed browsers and grazers, take refuge on cliffs and in ravines, and use caves to shelter from the mid-day sun and to hide newborn kids. They give birth from autumn to spring, over a longer period than most domestic goats (for which breeding is usually controlled). While young males move away in their second year in search of opportunities to mate, the groups of related females remain attached to particular localities. Feral groups thus tend to exhibit close family resemblance to nearby and genetically related domestic goats and are often recognised as the property of the herders of the latter. Such feral goats are of considerable interest in that they behave like wild animals but are ‘domestic’ in the sense that they belong to someone.43 3. Hunting and trapping of recent feral goats Excluding use of guns (mainly by ‘poachers’) and other modern equipment unavailable in prehistory (e.g. motor vehicles, metal fencing), feral goats were traditionally hunted with dogs or by various forms of driving and trapping. Hunting dogs were used to flush out and drive goats, but also to pursue and then immobilise them by seizing a rear leg. The best trained dogs could immobilise their prey without causing damage to muscle (i.e. meat), but others were more wasteful.


41 42 43

S. XANTHOUDIDES, “Poimenika Kritis,” Lexikografikon Archeion 5 (1918) 341. BAUMBACH (supra n. 23) 7. T. INGOLD, The Appropriation of Nature: Essays on Human Ecology and Social Relations (1986) 113.

56

Valasia ISAAKIDOU and Paul HALSTEAD

Sometimes feral goats were caught in ‘natural traps’: hunters surprised sheltering goats (or concealed kids) in a cave; and hunters, with or without dogs, exploited the tendency of frightened goats to retreat to isolated rocky ledges or pinnacles, from which they could then be recovered by lassoing or hooking with a herder’s crook. Goats were also captured in artificial traps: enclosures constructed of drystone and/or thorn-bushes. The walls were built too high for the goats (except perhaps adult males) to jump out, but a door was normally left open and, when this was closed, an external ramp provided an alternative means of entry. Enclosures were built around a spring or pool and/or were baited with water or fresh fodder, usually in summer when these resources were scarce, to accustom the animals to use the trap. The trap was set by closing the door overnight and the unsuspecting goats, entering by the ramp, could not escape. One method of driving involved directing domestic goats to mix with feral animals (often recent escapees from the same herd), which could not disentangle themselves and so were driven into the same pen as the domesticates. Alternatively, teams of human beaters/runners drove feral goats into a natural or artificial cul-de-sac, in the manner well documented for mass hunting of many other ungulates including caribou, bison and gazelle; fit members of such teams might also outrun and so catch individual quarry, especially where the terrain favoured man rather than goat. In practice, these various methods of capture were not mutually exclusive, but they differed in two important respects. First, while pursuit by dogs or human runners, use of natural traps, and mixing with domestic goats tended to capture just a few animals or even single individuals, driving with teams of beaters/runners and use of water-traps sometimes caught several dozens. Secondly, while goats caught and immobilised by dogs usually had to be killed, other methods yielded live animals and thus opportunities for selective culling and release (especially of large catches), for delayed slaughter, and even for attempts at taming. Decisions on selective culling or release were informed by such considerations as the physical condition of each animal, the demand for meat, the sustainability of the local feral population, and the likelihood of re-capture by the same person(s). Does and many female kids were frequently released to sustain the population and the youngest male kids left to grow for a few more months, but most of the older male kids were retained for immediate or staggered slaughter. Adult males too might be kept for slaughter and indeed were sometimes specifically targeted, for example by those needing a mature carcass for gamopílafo (rice cooked in meat broth) at a wedding feast. Such animals were sometimes caught and castrated a few months in advance, so the meat would not be tainted, but some practitioners considered this unnecessary. The meat of feral goats was considered much superior to that of their domestic counterparts and so they were consumed especially on major festive occasions. Animals captured alive were occasionally slaughtered on the spot for an impromptu hunters’ party, but were usually, and especially when retained in large numbers, removed for consumption elsewhere. In some cases, where traps were located or drives terminated by the sea, captive goats were trussed at the feet and loaded onto a kaíki (small boat). Overland, goats might be forced to walk, attached to a rope by a noose around the neck, or they were trussed and carried away on pack animals, on the shoulders of hunters or suspended from a ladder carried by two people. 4. Taming and re-domestication of recent feral goats Captured feral goats were sometimes tamed and (re-)integrated into domestic herds. Opinions differ greatly on the practicability of taming such animals, probably reflecting the variable propensity of individual animals to accept close human contact, the extent to which local terrain facilitated escape, and the amount of time that the herder was able and willing to invest in the attempt, but success was particularly high with kids captured just a few days after birth. Some herders attempted taming precisely because it was difficult, either from curiosity or to demonstrate their abilities. Others did so as a means of building up a herd or to improve their breeding stock, selecting feral kids to this end on either practical (e.g. udder conformation) or aesthetic (‘beauty’) criteria. Whatever their motivation,

THE ‘WILD’ GOATS OF ANCIENT CRETE

57

such acts of (re-)domestication obviously reinforce the genetic and phenotypic similarities between feral populations and neighbouring domestic herds. Agrimia on Neolithic and Bronze Age Crete: insights from study of recent feral goats Individual domestic goats probably fled from human control soon after their introduction to Crete, which on present evidence occurred in the Initial Neolithic, but the experience of recent herders strongly suggests that escapes will have been more frequent, and so more likely to have created a viable feral population, if domesticates were not handled regularly in milking and if large herds ranged extensively across the landscape. Dental data for the age at death of Neolithic goats at Knossos, with an emphasis on rearing sizeable juveniles, suggest that management of this species of livestock prioritised production of meat over milk,44 but this does not preclude regular milking. Stable carbon and nitrogen isotope analysis of animal bones suggests that earlier Neolithic goats (and sheep) at Knossos were closely associated, perhaps penned or tethered, with small-scale, intensively cultivated gardens – conditions not conducive to escape. From the later Neolithic onwards, however, isotopic data indicate that goats ranged further afield and in rougher terrain,45 implying looser control of probably larger herds and thus very favourable conditions for escapes and the formation of feral populations; indeed it is not impossible that some isotopically extreme specimens represent feral animals. From the end of the Early Minoan period, iconography frequently represents apparently ‘wild’ goats, as noted above. Many of these scenes show such animals under attack by wild predators such as lions, or by dogs and/or men armed with bow, spear or sword, but a few recall other practices prevalent in the recent past. Dogs are usually shown pursuing or trying to bring down their quarry, but a few scenes show them seizing the hind leg in what may be an attempt at immobilisation (e.g. on a LM ΙΙΙ larnax from Episkopi).46 Moreover, the scene on an MM III-LM I seal possibly from Archanes (Pl. VIIIa), elsewhere described as ‘an agrimi taunting a barking dog from a projecting ledge’,47 strongly recalls a description by an informant from Gonies, on the foothills of Psiloritis, of a well-trained dog driving a feral goat to an isolated crag and then holding it at bay until the hunter climbed up to lasso it from above or to hook it from below; the dog on the seal is depicted with a collar and so was apparently working with a human hunter. Another scene on a LM IIIB larnax from Armenoi (Pl. VIIIb) suggests the final stages of a hunting drive: two large adult stags(?) and a smaller adult agrimi, each accompanied by a fawn/kid, are cornered in a space defined by features that Guest-Papamanoli interprets as nets,48 but that might equally represent bushes or rocks behind which one hunter is concealed; a second hunter brandishes beating implements to drive the animals and block the open side of the enclosure; and a third hunter is despatching one of the adult stags. A similar scenario was described on Kythera for the climax of a drive that led to the capture alive of numerous feral goats. On the Armenoi larnax, the two adult stags were apparently to be killed on the spot, but there is no indication that the same fate awaited the adult agrimi and the three young animals, as previously noted


44

45

46 47 48

V. ISAAKIDOU, “Ploughing with Cows: Knossos and the ‘Secondary Products Revolution’,” in D. SERJEANTSON and D. FIELD (eds), Animals in the Neolithic of Britain and Europe (2006) 95-112. P. HALSTEAD and V. ISAAKIDOU, “Pioneer Farming in Earlier Neolithic Greece,” in K.J. GRON, L. SØRENSEN and P. ROWLEY-CONWY (eds), Farmers at the Frontier: a Pan-European Perspective on Neolithisation (2020) 77-100. H. SIEBENMORGEN (ed.), Im Labyrinth des Minos: Kreta, die erste Europäische Hochkultur (2000) 116 fig. 101. BLOEDOW (supra n. 5) 12 fig. 23. GUEST-PAPAMANOLI (supra n. 39) 343 fig. 27.6. She identifies the adult animals as two bovids and one antelope, whereas BLOEDOW (supra n. 5) 13 sees two stags and one agrimi; the choice of bovid or stag is not important here, while agrimi is biogeographically more likely than antelope. Both authors identify the three small animals as dogs, but all three are apparently depicted with horns/antlers and so are read here as two fawns(/calves) and a kid.

58

Valasia ISAAKIDOU and Paul HALSTEAD

by Krzyszkowska.49 An EM III-MM II ivory seal from a tholos tomb at Platanos depicts seven resting agrimia within a circular arrangement of what might be thorn bushes (Pl. VIIIc), rather reminiscent of the traps built before mass-produced metal fence panels became readily available. This image too can very plausibly be taken to indicate capture of live animals, while a steatite seal reportedly from Malia and dated stylistically to MM II shows a man carrying a pole from which are suspended two agrimia with fore and hind feet trussed together (Pl. VIIId) in the manner used in the recent past for transporting live feral goats. Finally, a few images depict apparently tame agrimia, for example a harnessed pair pulling a chariot 50 or a single animal being hand-fed. 51 Whether these images represented ‘real-life’ scenes or fantasy is another matter, but in either case the viewer would doubtless have understood the taming of agrimia as an ability restricted to divinities and/or exceptional human beings. Recent human exploitation of feral goats on Crete and Kythera also sheds useful light on the Linear B records of Knossian palatial interest in dead and live agrimia. First, the numbers of agrimia requisitioned by the palace at Knossos on a probably annual basis, even accepting the maximum figures of ca. 350 males and 200 females potentially implied by the Mc series, are modest by comparison with the numbers of feral goats caught latterly (dozens in good years) by trapping or driving in local catchments each of just a few km2. The Mc toponyms suggest requisitioning of agrimia from a broad area of central Crete52 and, within the probable territory of Final Palatial Knossos,53 the rough terrain of the Lasithi, Asterousia, Psiloritis and Iouktas uplands all supported feral goats in living memory (and, in all but perhaps the last, still do). The sustainability of such a level of capture of Bronze Age agrimia will have depended of course on the intensity both of competition for pasture from domestic goats and of hunting for non-palatial consumption. Final Palatial domestic goats were managed extensively, judging by carbon and nitrogen stable isotope analyses of goat bones from Knossos,54 but Linear B55 and zooarchaeological data from EM I-LM III (including Final Palatial) Knossos56 suggest that domestic livestock were heavily dominated by sheep, while recent feral goats tend to exploit terrain where domestic goats are difficult to herd (and thus liable to escape). It seems unlikely, therefore, that competition from domesticates would have severely limited numbers of FP agrimia. As for the impact of ‘non-palatial’ hunting, much depends on the methods used: recent experience suggests that stalking or hunting with dogs by one or two individuals would have taken far fewer animals than driving by teams of beaters or use of water-traps, but the latter methods of mass live capture also enable selective culling. If *150 and CAPf in the Mc texts do represent male and female agrimia, respectively, then more males were taken than females and, especially given that the larger males are more likely to have escaped from traps and drives, this would be compatible with intentionally selective release of females – with obvious benefits to the sustainability of the population.


49 50 51 52 53

54

55

56

KRZYSZKOWSKA (supra n. 3) 345. BLOEDOW (supra n. 5) 18 fig. 40. BLOEDOW (supra n. 5) 19 fig. 43; CMS VS1A 175. MELENA (supra n. 22) 31. J. BENNET, “‘Outside in the Distance’: Problems in Understanding the Economic Geography of Mycenaean Palatial Territories,” in J.-P. OLIVIER and T.G. PALAIMA (eds), Texts, Tablets and Scribes (1988) 19-41. V. ISAAKIDOU, P. HALSTEAD, A. SARPAKI, E. HATZAKI, P. TOMKINS, A. GKOTSINAS, E. STROUD, E. NITSCH, A. BOGAARD, “Changing Land Use and Political Economy at Neolithic and Bronze Age Knossos, Crete: Stable Carbon and Nitrogen Isotope Analysis of Charred Crop Grains and Faunal Bone Collagen” (in prep.). P. HALSTEAD, “Texts, Bones and Herders: Approaches to Animal Husbandry in Late Bronze Age Greece,” Minos 33-34 (2002 for 1998-99) 149-189. ISAAKIDOU (supra n. 34) 224 fig. 6.27.

THE ‘WILD’ GOATS OF ANCIENT CRETE

59

Also worth considering in this context is the precise significance of the CORN ideogram. This is normally taken to refer to a horn (or pair of horns) of an adult male agrimi and it is indeed hard to imagine that the needs of the palace workshops would be equally satisfied by horns of either sex or of males of any age. Indeed, the strict proportionality in the Mc texts between the number of CORN and weight of *142 demanded by the palace, whether the latter was derived from the same carcasses as the horns and/or was used in quantities proportional to the number of horns,57 suggests that there was some shared understanding of the size of male horns to be provided.58 Second-year bucks, that had recently left the maternal social group, would have been easier to trap in large numbers than older males of full size and greater wisdom, but would have still had small horns, perhaps no larger than those of adult females.59 On the other hand, the habit of male emigration would have ensured the replacement of older adult males if these were targetted. Either way, water-traps and/or multiparticipant drives would have been by far the most efficient and also sustainable means of capturing large numbers of agrimia and of selectively releasing those of unwanted sex or age. Iconographic hints of mass live capture of agrimia are sparse and ambiguous, but the same is true of husbandry of livestock (and especially so of sheep), so elite imagery is a poor guide to how the palace would have procured the commodities listed in the Mc series. Conversely, the ethnographic record of human exploitation of recent feral goats on Crete and Kythera strongly indicates that the level of capture implied by the Mc series (and even more so the more modest numbers recorded on the single C(2) 7064 text) was both feasible and sustainable if animals were captured alive by trapping or driving and were selectively released. It is not unlikely that the wealth of ancient dry-stone constructions found in recent pedestrian and aerial reconnaissance in eastern Crete60 includes enclosures that have served as traps for feral goats, although infrequent use for this purpose may well have left no dateable material culture. Some dateable structures might tentatively be identified as traps if they enclosed, rather than bordered, a water source. On the other hand, some recent traps were not purpose-built, but opportunistically reused farm buildings or livestock pens, and residues of such earlier and more intensive occupations would probably obscure any traces of fleeting use to capture feral goats. Recent drives, to direct the movement of feral goats, seem overwhelmingly to have taken advantage of natural landscape features (e.g. cliffs, water) and abandoned buildings or field walls (sometimes capped with cut bushes to increase their height). Driving thus seems less likely than trapping to have left detectable (and dateable) built features, although some of the most extremely inaccessible ‘refuge’ sites discussed by Nowicki61 occupy the kind of ‘natural trap’ locations that could have been used at times to corner feral goats. Whether or not traps can be identified on the ground, Evans’ argument, that a reliable supply of agrimi horns was possible only by semi-domesticated enclosure of such animals,62 can be rejected as unnecessary and also implausible, in that trapping or driving would have been both easier and more


57 58 59

60

61 62

MELENA (supra n. 22) 44. MELENA (supra n. 22) 53. E. GUNDOGDU and I. OGURLU, “The Distribution of Wild Goat Capra aegagrus Erxleben 1877 and Population Characteristics in Isparta, Turkey,” Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances 8 (2009) 2318-2324, esp. 2321. E.g. L. VOKOTOPOULOS, “A View of the Neopalatial Countryside: Settlement and Social Organization at Karoumes, Eastern Crete,” in K.T. GLOWACKI and N. VOGEIKOFF-BROGAN (eds), ΣΤΕΓΑ: the Archaeology of Houses and Households in Ancient Crete (2011) 137-149; S. BECKMANN, Domesticating Mountains in Middle Bronze Age Crete: Minoan Agricultural Landscaping in the Agios Nikolaos Region (Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Crete, 2012); EADEM, “Εξημερώνοντας τα κρητικά όρη στη Μέση Εποχή του Χαλκού: η μινωική διαμόρφωση του τοπίου στην περιοχή του Αγίου Νικολάου,” Αρχαιολογικό Έργο Κρήτης 3 ΧανιάΡέθυμνο-Λασίθι (2015) 495-508; H.A. ORENGO and C. KNAPPETT, “Toward a Definition of Minoan Agro-Pastoral Landscapes: Results of the Survey at Palaikastro (Crete),” AJA 122 (2018) 479-507; T.I. KALANTZOPOULOU, Η κατοίκηση και η εκμετάλλευση του βουνού στην ανατολική Κρήτη κατά την προϊστορία: ανάλυση με βάση τα αρχιτεκτονικά κατάλοιπα και τα επιφανειακά κινητά ευρήματα στις ορεινές περιοχές της Ζάκρου και της Ιεράπετρας (Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Athens, 2019). E.g. K. NOWICKI, Monastiraki Katalimata: Excavation of a Cretan Refuge Site, 1993-2000 (2008) 71-72. Supra n. 19.

60

Valasia ISAAKIDOU and Paul HALSTEAD

dependable. Nonetheless, enclosure would have been necessary if live agrimia were kept in captivity, as seemingly implied by C(2) 7064. Successful taming of such animals, unless captured very young, is unlikely, but untamed animals may have been penned pending slaughter for a feast or in sacrifice, as suggested by the image on the LM III Agia Triada sarcophagus of two possible agrimia recumbent under a table on which a bull is sacrificed and the blood apparently collected for libation.63 Conclusions The prehistoric antecedents of Cretan agrimia, or ‘wild’ (strictly, feral) goats, have attracted considerable academic attention in discussions of three very different sources. First, agrimia are prominent in Minoan Bronze Age iconography, where they are often depicted as the prey of human hunters, dogs or other predators. Given the depiction of both unambiguously imaginary beasts and ‘real’ animals known from other sources, however, iconography alone is an unreliable guide to how humans exploited agrimia or even to their existence. Secondly, the Linear B texts from Knossos include one record (C(2) 7064) of a small number of presumably live, probably ‘wild’ goats, while the fragmentary Mc set records the requisitioning of four commodities, apparently including adult male horns and probably other carcass products and/or live individuals of agrimia. The scale and apparently recurrent nature of these requisitions have led to suggestions that they may have been unsustainable, unless agrimia were kept in an enclosed, semi-domesticated state. The zooarchaeological record includes several claims of a few agrimia among more numerous domestic goats, but the criteria for distinguishing feral and domestic skeletal material are uncertain. Stable isotope evidence for animal diet, however, implies that, while earlier Neolithic domestic goats were closely tied to cultivated land and so had limited opportunities to escape, their later Neolithic counterparts ranged more widely across the landscape and probably in much larger numbers. Ethnographic study of recent feral goat exploitation on Crete and Kythera implies that, with extensive herding of domestic goats, regular escapes and the formation of feral populations would have been inevitable, leaving little doubt that the striking interest of Minoan artists in ‘wild’ goats was inspired, at least in part, by the reality of the Bronze Age landscape. Whereas Minoan iconography, however, highlights the pursuit and killing of small numbers of agrimia by armed men and/or dogs, the ethnographic record emphasises the importance of mass live capture and selective release/slaughter in recent exploitation of feral goats. Such methods of mass live capture, of which there are only limited and ambiguous hints in Bronze Age iconography, will have been the easiest and most sustainable ways of procuring the agrimi carcass parts and perhaps live animals recorded in the few Linear B texts from Knossos dealing with wild goats. ‘Semi-domesticated’ enclosure, as proposed by Evans, would have been a much more difficult and wholly unnecessary alternative. Nonetheless, the methods by which we propose that Bronze Age agrimia were managed to meet Knossian palatial demands might in some respects be described as ‘semi-domestication’. The tendency of groups of closely related female feral goats to stick closely to particular patches of rough terrain may, as in modern times, have favoured claims of ‘ownership’ by local farmers or herders, and especially so if mass capture made use of permanent traps or of landscape features that aided driving. Moreover, recent informants frequently noted that they were far more likely selectively to release captured animals, in order to maintain the local population or to allow individuals to grow to the desired age or size, if they were confident (thanks to the animals’ stationary habit and/or to notions of ownership) of recapturing them in the future. In this sense, agrimia may have occupied a liminal position between domestic livestock and those wild animals that belonged to no one (or everyone). Finally, it is important to note that, in using ethnography to shed light on iconographic, Linear B and zooarchaeological evidence for Cretan Bronze Age agrimia, we have focussed on observations (and oral-history accounts) related strictly to feral goats and to the topographic and climatic conditions of the insular southern Aegean. Such analogical sources offer greater potential for insight into


63

N. MARINATOS, Minoan Sacrificial Ritual: Cult Practice and Symbolism (1986) 25-27.

THE ‘WILD’ GOATS OF ANCIENT CRETE

61

prehistoric practices than accounts from other continents and relating to other species for the simple but fundamental reason that traditional methods of hunting, driving and trapping feral goats took advantage of practitioners’ detailed knowledge both of the animals’ habits and of the landscape settings that they inhabited.




Valasia ISAAKIDOU and Paul HALSTEAD

62

Valasia ISAAKIDOU and Paul HALSTEAD LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Pl. VIIIa Pl. VIIIb Pl. VIIIc Pl. VIIId

MM III-LM I seal possibly from Archanes, showing agrimi trapped(?) by dog; Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 1938.0954; drawing after CMS VI 180. Scene from LM IIIB larnax from Armenoi, showing two stags and an agrimi with young cornered in a trap(?); drawing after SIEBENMORGEN ed. (supra n. 46) 175, fig. 152. EM III-MM II ivory seal from Platanos, depicting seven resting agrimia within a trap(?) constructed of possible thorn bushes; Herakleio Museum, HMS 1103; drawing after CMS II l, 311a. Steatite seal from Malia(?) and dated stylistically to MM II showing a man carrying a pole from which are suspended two agrimia with fore and hind feet trussed together; Ashmolean Museum, 1938.0763; EVANS (supra n. 19) 522 fig. 466; drawing after CMS VI 025a.

VIII

a

b

c

d

Panthera leo IN ANCIENT EGYPT AND GREECE: WHERE ARE THE BONES?* Why have so few lion bones been found in ancient Egyptian sites compared to the number recovered from ancient Greece/southeastern Europe? The discrepancy in numbers is startling. For ancient Egypt, bones have been found at four sites, compared to forty in the north. In Egypt the bones represent a minimum of ten individual lions, while in Greece/southeastern Europe the remains indicate the existence of sixty-four individual animals. This is a ratio of one to six. All of these bones are Panthera leo, that is, modern, maned lions.1 The discrepancy in regional numbers is further surprising because the lion was hugely represented in the arts of both places, beginning earlier in Egypt and continuing through Hellenistic times, and in Greece lasting from the Bronze Age onward. Indeed, the lion was the most frequently depicted wild predatory mammal in both areas where it was clearly associated with kings, gods, and the elite. Extant texts from both Egypt and Greece also imply that lions were plentiful. At the height of the 18th Dynasty (14th century BCE) Amenhotep III boasted of killing 102 lions in the first ten years of his reign,2 and in early classical Greece3 Homer and Hesiod mentioned the lion more times than any other wild animal.4 According to art and text, then, we should expect to find somewhat similar numbers of ancient faunal remains in both regions. Why is this not so? In this article I first critique the classes of evidence used in studies of lions and lion art, and then I briefly investigate the three most likely reasons for the magnitude of territorial difference in the recovery of Panthera leo remains from ancient Egypt and Greece: (1) habitat. Did habitat favor the existence of lions in ancient Greece and/or facilitate the modern recovery of their bones? (2) Ancient practices. Did ancient Egyptians and Greeks themselves view and treat lions and their remains differently, in turn affecting the deposition and survival of their bones? and (3) modern archaeozoological practice. Has modern archaeological and archaeozoological practice either hindered or favored recovery of lion remains in the two areas?


*

1

2 3

4

I offer sincere thanks for their help to Robin Barber, László Bartosiewicz Fritz Blakolmer, Fabio Bona, Oliver Dickinson, Xavier Droux, Gerhard Forstenpointner, Karen Foster, Jonathan Harrington, Salima Ikram, Valasia Isaakidou, Irene Lemos, David Reese, Nadja Pöllath, Annik Schnitzler, Andrew Shapland, Christina Televantou, Wim Van Neer, Eleni Voultsiadou, John Younger, and especially to Robert Laffineur and Tom Palaima for extending the deadlines. The only large cats in the Old World are lions, tigers, leopards, and cheetahs. Lion bones from Greece were sometimes erroneously referred to as “mountain lions,” a cat that only exists in the New World. Recent largescale genetic studies have reduced the number of subspecies of lion from eleven to two. Panthera persica is no longer recognized as a distinct subspecies. All the lions depicted in Greek and Egyptian art would have been Panthera leo leo despite the many pictorial variations. K. KITCHENER et al., “A revised taxonomy of the Felidae,” CATnews Special Issue 11, Winter 2017; M. de MANUEL, R. BARNETT et al., “The evolutionary history of extinct and living lions.” Sequence Read Archive (SRA). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra/? term=PRJNA 611920. Deposited 11 March 2020, 72-73. A. KOZLOFF, Amenhotep III. Egypt’s Radiant Pharaoh (2012) 65. Although the word for lion appears in Linear B tablets, written evidence for lions in Greece does not seriously begin until the first millennium BCE. See K. USENER, “Zur Existenz des Löwen im Griechenland der Antike,” SymbOslo (1994) 5-33. E. VOULTSIADOU and A. TATOLAS, “The fauna of Greece and adjacent areas in the Age of Homer: evidence from the first written documents of Greek literature,” Journal of Biogeography (2005) 1875-1882 esp. Table 1. The authors studied all the texts from Homer and Hesiod, plus the Homeric Hymns. See also M. ALDEN, “Lions in Paradise: Lion Similes in the Iliad and the Lion Cubs of IL. 18.318-22,” The Classical Quarterly New Series (2005) 335-342.

64

Nancy R. THOMAS

I conclude that the first explanation is paramount: natural and human-made environment in Greece supported a larger population of wild lions over a longer period of time than in Egypt. Present evidence indicates that there were more lions living in the wild in Greece than in Egypt during the Neolithic through Hellenistic periods. Why is this study important to Aegeanists? Lion art is one of the most widely shared iconographies of the ancient eastern Mediterranean. The discovery of painted lions and leopards in Aegeanizing style at Tell el-Dabʽa in the Nile Delta has generated many studies involving Egyptian/Aegean interconnections, written almost entirely by Aegean scholars. Even the most judicious studies have utilized the standard publications on Egyptian wildlife which unfortunately have not been updated with recent faunal information. Thus Lyvia Morgan could write in 2010, “Tell el-Dabʽa borders to the east what was an inhospitable land of swamps, rocks and desert in which wild animals, including lions and leopards, would surely have roamed.”5 In fact, no indigenous lion bones have been found in the Nile Delta since Neolithic times,6 and none has ever been found in the Eastern Desert. Egyptologists and art historians have fed the widely held belief that Egypt is the ‘Land of Animals’. For example, scholars have long debated the meaning of the “hair star” on lion’s shoulders in Egyptian art but did not doubt that it “may have been reproduced from life by any observant artist.”7 In 2004 Xavier de Planhol suggested that lions were relatively common in Egypt from 1500 to 1300 BCE along the Mediterranean coast of the western desert, in the eastern desert, in the Sinai, and in the region of El Natroun, along the Nile.8 In 2005 Patrick Houlihan wrote: “Precisely when lions became extinct in Egypt is unknown. They roamed widely the semidesert regions bordering the Nile Valley during Predynastic times and for much of the historic period, and became less common by the New Kingdom.”9 That same year Pascal Vernus and Jean Yoyotte wrote that the Ramessides chased lions in the ‘gebel’ just behind the Pyramids of Giza.10 In 2012 Arielle Kozloff in her study of Amenhotep III, wrote: “Because lions roamed not just sub-Saharan Africa but as far north as Syria in the fourteenth century BCE, these lion hunts could have occurred almost anywhere in the region.”11 Many of these ideas have now been challenged by the archaeozoologist who found the lion remains in Ramesside Egypt and who has recently reclassified them as imports; in 2006 Angela von den Driesch, noting the spectacular relief showing the Ramesside king riding into battle with a lion by his side, said reality does not mirror these images.12


5

6

7

8

9

10 11 12

L. MORGAN, “A Pride of Leopards: A Unique aspect of the Hunt Frieze from Tell el-Dabʽa,” Ägypten und Levante (2010) 263-301, esp. 296. Morgan used D. OSBORN and J. OSBORNOVȂ, The Mammals of Ancient Egypt (1998) which was out of date when published, having omitted the important finds of lion bones from Qantir/Piramesse published in 1982. Osborn and Osbornovâ based their book almost entirely on artistic imagery. A. VON DEN DRIESCH, “Ausgefallenes Wild in Pi-Ramesse (Qantir) und Auaris (Tell el Dabʽa) und seine kulturgeschichtliche Ausdeutung,” in E. CZERNY (eds), Timelines. Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 149 (2006) 309-315 esp. 311. A. ARKELL, “The Shoulder Ornament of Near Eastern Lions,” JNES (1948) 52. K. FOSTER, “Lions and Science and Whorls, Oh My!,” in S. IKRAM, J. KAISER, and S. PORCIER (eds), The Ancient Egyptians & the Natural World. Proceedings of the Conference on the Bioarchaeology of Ancient Egypt & the Second International Symposium on Animals in Ancient Egypt (2021) in press. X. de PLANHOL, Le paysage animal. L’homme et la grande faune : une zoogéographie historique (2004) 59-60. I thank Jonathan Harrington for sending me extracts from this work. P. HOULIHAN, “Felines,” in D. REDFORD (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (2005) accessed 213-2021; R HOATH, A Field Guide to the Mammals of Egypt (2003) 95, wrote the lion “probably became extinct in late pharaonic times.” P. VERNUS and J. YOYOTTE, Bestiaire des pharaons (2005) 153. KOZLOFF (supra n. 2). VON DEN DRIESCH (supra n. 6) 310, “Doch die Wirklichkeit spiegelt diese Bilder nicht wieder.”

Panthera leo IN ANCIENT EGYPT AND GREECE: WHERE ARE THE BONES?

65

A compilation of lion remains from Greece/southeastern Europe is already available in two recent publications,13 but I know of no similar, recent work for Egypt. Thus, the discussion here is geared toward Egypt. Parameters of the Study To begin, I delimit two territories, roughly equal in size, in which lions can and have lived. For “Egypt” John Baines and Jaromir Malek, taking the long view, described Egypt as “the whole region from the confluence of Blue and While Niles [at Khartoum] to the delta . . . .”14 to which I add the Eastern and Western Deserts with oases.15 This makes one natural region,16 fairly comparable in sq. km. to the triangular peninsula of Greece/southeastern Europe which begins at the Carpathian Mountains in the north and ends at the tip of the Peloponnesus.17 Both regions have natural boundaries: water, desert or mountains. Although their topography and political histories look very different to us, both regions would have made habitable sense to lions. In a review of biological, archaeological, and historic records of the lions, Annik Schnitzler concluded: “Les latitudes comprises entre 30 et 43 degrés Nord auraient constitué le cœur de leur territoire” which was maintained for six to eight millennia.18 Lions “dispersed” even further, she said, north to 48° N (Hungary, Ukraine) and south to 18° N (Nubia/Sudan) (Pl. IXa).19 Classes of Evidence: Bones, Images, and Texts20 Of the three classes of evidence relevant to our question, osteological remains are the most reliable. Imagery and texts from Egypt and Greece are laden with symbolism and ideology and are often in direct contrast to the faunal evidence. Bones are not infallible proof of native species, either, because lions can be imported from afar and because there is no guarantee that they will be found by modern faunal


13

14

15

16 17

18

19

20

N. THOMAS, “A Lion’s Eye View of the Greek Bronze Age,” in G. TOUCHAIS, R. LAFFINEUR, and F. ROUGEMENT (eds), PHYSIS. L’environement naturel et la relation homme-milieu dans le monde égéen protohistorique. Actes de la 14e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Paris, Institut National d’Histoire de l’Art (INHA), 11-14 décembre 2012 (2014) 375-389, Pl. CXIII, CXIV, CXV and EADEM, “The Lion in the Aegean Bronze Age,” The Oxford Classical Dictionary, digital, 2021 in press. J. BAINES and J. MALEK, Cultural Atlas of Ancient Egypt (rev. ed.) (2000) 14: this area includes ancient Nubia, now in modern Sudan. For the intertwining of Egypt and Nubia, see N. SPENCER, A. STEVENS, and M. BINDER, Amara West. Living in Egyptian Nubia (2014). This territory coincides with the land area studied in K. NICOLL, “Recent environmental change and prehistoric human activity in Egypt and Northern Sudan,” Quaternary Science Reviews (2004) 561-580, esp. maps in figs 1, 2; and J. LESUR, “Des animaux et des hommes en Égypte au Néolithique et Prédynastique : les apports de l’archéozoologie,” Archéo-Nil 23 (2013) 33-54, esp. 37, fig. 1. This territory also coincides with the land area controlled by Egypt in the New Kingdom. The entire peninsula must be considered in lion studies ; see THOMAS 2014 (supra n. 13). For AegeanBalkan connections see Z. TSIRTSONI, “Formation or Transformation?: The 4th Millennium BC in the Aegean and the Balkans,” in B. HOREJS and M. MEHOFER (eds), Western Anatolia before Troy. Proto-Urbanisation in the 4th Millennium BC? (2014) 275-304. A. SCHNITZLER, “Les voyages du Lion,” Pour la science (imprimé) (2012) 50-57, esp. 56, in which she corrected an error in southern latitude (38° changed to 30°)
given in A. SCHNITZLER, “Past and present distribution of the North African-Asian lion subgroup: a review,” Mammal Rev (2011) 220-243, esp. 220 and 238. SCHNITZLER 2011 (supra n 18) 237-238; her southern latitude of dispersal includes the lions from Sanam cited in the present article. Post-classical sightings are not included here as evidence. For these see C. GUGGISBERG, Simba, the Life of the Lion (1963) esp. 32; L. BARTOSIEWICZ, “A Lion’s Share of Attention: Archaeozoology and the Historical Record,” ActaArchHung (2009) 275-289; SCHNITZLER 2011 (supra n. 18) 231-232; and H. JOUSSE, Atlas of Mammal Distribution through Africa from the LGM to Modern Times. The Zooarchaeological Record (2017) 176-178.

66

Nancy R. THOMAS

specialists.21 For example, despite the many references in text and image to lions from North Africa used in Roman games in North Africa and in Rome itself,22 no remains of “exotic” lions, giraffe, or elephants have yet been published from classical North African sites.23 Nevertheless, we can glean some sound information from osteological finds. With lion bones as a basis, we can then use habitat and prey studies to cautiously infer lost populations. Bones: Egypt To date, nineteen bones plus five whole skeletons, representing a maximum of ten individual lions, have been published from our territory of “ancient Egypt”. These remains have been recovered from four locations: two in the Delta (a Neolithic village and a New Kingdom palace), one in Nubia at an ordinary cemetery (three separate depositions, 730-500 BCE), and one at Saqqara near Giza (two different depositions in a sacred cemetery dating from 664 BCE-395 CE).
The five whole skeletons, of which two were mummified, all date from the Late through Roman periods. The two earlier examples, Neolithic and New Kingdom, were disarticulated bones.24 The earliest of these lion finds is two burnt bones from Merimde-Benisalâme, a Neolithic settlement on the southwest edge of the Delta. Joachim Boessneck said that all phases of the settlement belong to the 5th millennium BCE, and he concluded that the people there did little hunting of large animals.25 The most important find for our study is the seventeen Panthera leo bones found in the New Kingdom Ramesside palace at Qantir/Piramesse in the Delta near Tell el Dabʽa, dated 1300-1150 BCE. The numbers and significance of this find have been revised twice. The original publication by Boessneck and von den Driesch in 1982 described six lion bones that could all belong to one fully grown individual, possibly a lioness based on the small size of the animal. Because the lion bones were found in association with the remains of African elephant, gazelle, hartebeest, roan antelope, ibex, oryx, addax, and giraffe, the archaeozoologists thought they had found a royal menagerie or game park. They said the bones were distributed all over the quadrants studied, perhaps having been disturbed by later agricultural displacement, and they concluded that the bones affirmed the factual accuracy of Ramesside imagery depicting live lions as a component of royal power.26 In 1988 Boessneck revised his thoughts, saying the bones represented at least two adults and one less than three-month-old lion. Noting the lack of many post-cranial bones, he now suggested the idea of trophies [pelts] to hang on a wall. 27 In a 1994 autobiographical essay von den Driesch repeated these findings, adding that it was no problem for rulers


21

22 23

24

25

26

27

M. BRASS, “Early North African Cattle Domestication and Its Ecological Setting: A Reassessment,” JWorldPrehist (2018) 81-115 esp. 97, who said when the environment [7th-6th millennia BCE in the Western Desert] was known to be sufficient to support addax/oryx but the bones were not well represented in the faunal record, the conclusion is “that the addax/ oryx was either not hunted very often or it was hunted away from the camps and any remnants brought back to camp were not preserved, which further renders the faunal records unrepresentative of the diversity in the broader landscape.” See de PLANHOL (supra n. 8) 85. M. MACKINNON, “Animals, Acculturation, and Colonization in Ancient and Islamic North Africa,” in U. ALBARELLA et al. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Zooarchaeology (2017) 466-478, esp. 474. I thank Xavier DROUX for telling me that he found no lion bones in his 2005 dissertation study of riverine and desert animals in predynastic Upper Egypt (p.c. 8-8-2018). J. BOESSNECK, Die Tierwelt des Alten Ägypten (1988) esp. 13, 17, and Table 2, p. 17; I have not seen the original publication, A VON DEN DRIESCH and J. BOESSNECK, Die Tierknochen Funde aus der neolithischen Siedlung von Merimde-Benisalâme am westlichen Nildelta (1985) 45-46. J. BOESSNECK and A. VON DEN DRIESCH, “Elefanten-, Löwen- und andere Tierknochen aus der Palastanlage der Ramessidenzeit bei Qantir im östlichen Nildelta,” Studien an subfossilen Tierknochen aus Ägypten (1982) 136-143, Pls 12-13. This is the reference used by D. KLEINSGÜTL, “Some Remarks on the Felids of Thera,” in S. SHERRATT (ed.), The Wall Paintings of Thera. Proceedings of the first international Symposium, Petros M. Nomikos Conference Centre, Thera, Hellas, 30 August - 4 September 1997 (2000) II 699-708. BOESSNECK (supra n. 25) 57-58.

Panthera leo IN ANCIENT EGYPT AND GREECE: WHERE ARE THE BONES?

67

like Ramses II to get lions via the tax/tribute from the south.28 However, in 2006 she greatly revised her conclusions. After thoroughly restudying the material, she published additional bones and abandoned the idea of an exotic menagerie. She concluded that, except for fallow deer, all the rest of the bones were imported, apparently not in living animals, for use in palace bone and leather industries. The deer, she thought, could have been kept in captivity.29 A total of seventeen lion bones were now reported, all from crania and feet, apparently still representing two adults and one youth. The youth’s jaw had been damaged, probably from having a canine tooth roughly extracted. The complete lack of post-cranial bones led von den Driesch to conclude that the lion remains were imported as pelts from the Near East. I wonder if the pelts were brought in as trophies, and that only later were the boney contents sent to the workshops.30 In 2009 Veerle Linseele and Wim Van Neer summed up the Qantir/Piramesse material: “Most of these animals, apart from gazelle and hartebeest, must have been impossible to find or capture near the site. They must have been brought in from the Western Desert (oryx, addax), the Eastern Desert (ibex), the Levant (fallow deer) or from more southerly located lands along the Nile, as far as present-day Sudan.”31 No further lion remains are reported to date for the New Kingdom. The next find is from Sanam in Nubia, on the Nile north of Khartoum in modern Sudan, dated 730-500 BCE. It is most unusual. In 1923 Francis Llewellen Griffith published over 1500 simple graves in the town cemetery, among which were four animal graves, three containing one lion each, and one with fish. He made no mention of mummification but did report that ordinary Egyptian-style ornaments had apparently been hung on two of the lions’ bodies when they were buried. The fish were accompanied by an iron blade.32 The town of Sanam was the capital of the area, but its elite were buried elsewhere. What do these lion burials tell us? In my view, if ordinary people could bury whole lions, then lions lived rather nearby.33 The last two finds are a cub and an old male, both mummified, from the Bubasteion, the sacred cat cemetery at Saqqara, near Giza. The Bubasteion enjoyed two main phases when it was part of a flourishing industry to breed animals to sell as votives.34 The cub belongs to the earlier period (26th Dynasty, 664–525 BCE) and is therefore contemporary with the lions from the other end of the Nile at Sanam. The old male belongs to the later period of the Bubasteion, dated broadly to the PtolemaicRoman era (333 BCE to 395 CE). Both finds caused much excitement when announced, and information about each has since been revised or supplemented. The old male mummy was at first dated to the New Kingdom because it was found in the tomb of Maïa/Méritaton, Akhenaton’s daughter and Tutankhamen’s sister/wet nurse. However, the mummy was actually deposited at least a thousand years


28

29 30

31

32

33

34

A. VON DEN DRIESCH, “Das Verhältnis Mensch-Löwe aus der Sicht einer Archäozoologin,” Chloe (1994) 5-20 esp. 19. VON DEN DRIESCH (supra n. 6) esp. 311, 314. For the workshop, see S. PRELL and C. KITAGAWA, “The Bone Workshop of the Armoury from the Chariotry of Ramesses II in Qantir-Piramesse – a Case Study,” in A. HODGKINSON and C. TVETMARKEN (eds), Approaches to the Analysis of Production Activity at Archaeological Sites (2020) 39-49. Among the other mammal bones that were being modified into tools or arrowheads were two lion bones, one giraffe bone, two fallow deer bones, two oryx bones, and one bone from hartebeest (43). Since large, long, strong bones were preferred for the work (46), I doubt that the head and toe bones in lion pelts were originally imported as workshop material. V. LINSEELE and W. VAN NEER, “Exploitation of desert and other wild game in ancient Egypt: the archaeozoological evidence from the Nile Valley,” in H. RIEMER et al. (eds), Desert animals in the eastern Sahara. Status, economic significance, and cultural reflection in antiquity. Proceedings of an interdisciplinary ACACIA Workshop held at the University of Cologne December 14-15, 2007 (2009) 47-78 esp. 69. F. Ll. GRIFFITH, “Oxford Excavations in Nubia, 18-28: The Cemetery of Sanam,” (Liverpool) Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 10 (1923) 73-171, esp. 80, 82, http://sfdas.com/IMG/pdf/3.pdf. Wim VAN NEER, p.c. 2-17-2021: “I see no problem as far as the local occurrence of the species is concerned”; Salima IKRAM, p.c. 2-17-2021: “I doubt they were mummified.” For animal mummies, see S. IKRAM, “Animals in ancient Egyptian religion: belief, identity, power, and economy,” in ALBARELLA et al. eds (supra n. 23) 452-465.

68

Nancy R. THOMAS

later when Maïa’s tomb was reused and changed into an animal cemetery. The lion is thought to have suffered diseases of captivity and to have died naturally at the age of nine.35 The cub is part of a group of five mummified felines announced in 2019 which were at first thought to be lions.36 Not all of the mummies have yet been scientifically examined, but in December 2020 Salima Ikram reported, “Alas, not all 5 are lions. There is the cub you know about. There might be one more.”37 Readers of Egyptian literature will still find references to one other group of lions that has, however, recently been reclassified from lions to leopards.38 This was the largest group of lions ever reported from Egypt (at least seven animals, adult to cub). Found in 1983 at Abydos in Upper Egypt north of Thebes, the animals had been buried in the grave complex of Umm al-Qaab, early First Dynasty, ca. 3100 BCE. Boessneck described their rotten teeth, porous bones, and rickety skeletons as signs of appalling living conditions; he ascribed their miserable life in captivity to the desire of King Aha to hold a family of lions at his court.39 Although we now know these poor animals were leopards, they are a telling corrective to our rather romantic ideas of Egyptian kings parading lions for their own glory. The most important conclusions to remember about lion remains in Egypt are: (1) no indigenous lion bones have yet been found from Old, Middle, or New Kingdom sites; (2) the bones from the most prestigious site, a palace, were imported in pelts, perhaps as workshop material; (3) although to date no evidence of lion sacrifice has been found, the leopards were killed in order to be buried with the king; (4) no veneration of the animal itself has been detected, but the two mummies at Saqqara were in an important sacred location; (5) the mummy found in Maïa’s New Kingdom grave at Saqqara was actually placed there a thousand years later; and (6) no lion remains have yet been recovered away from the Nile. Bones: Greece/southeastern Europe Eight new bones can now be added to my 2014 catalogue: one heel bone from late Chalcolithic Hódmezővásárhely in Hungary; four bones (a family of three individuals) from LH III (?) Aigeira in the northern Peloponnese in Greece; and three bones (two individuals) from Lefkandi-Xeropolis in Greece, one from a post-palatial late bronze context, and the other from the early iron age. This gives us a total of 110 Panthera leo bones, representing sixty-four individuals from forty sites in our region of study on the north side of the Mediterranean. The faunal material from Mycenae is still unpublished. The new bone from Hungary adds to the already substantial evidence for lions in Chalcolithic southeastern Europe.40 The bones from Aigeira41 and Lefkandi42 reinforce the conclusion that viable lion


35

36

37 38

39

40

Bibliography on this find that I have seen, in chronological order: C. CALLOU et al., “A Lion found in the Egyptian Tomb of Maïa,” Nature (January 15, 2004) 211-212; C. CALLOU et al., “Le lion du Bubasteion à Saqqara (Egypte). Une momie remarquable parmi des momies de chats,” Anthropozoologica (2011) 63-84; A. ZIVIE and R. LICHTENBER, “The Cats of the goddess Bastet,” in S. IKRAM (ed.), Divine Creatures. Animal mummies in Ancient Egypt (2015) 106-119. A. ROUSSI, “Rare mummified lions boost exciting trove of Egyptology finds,” Nature (28 November 2019) 573-574. Salima IKRAM, p.c. 12-8-2020. Wim VAN NEER (p.c. 11-20-2012) determined that the seven individuals were as small as or smaller than leopard and that “there is no single indication for lion.” This conclusion was published in W. VAN NEER, B. DE CUPERE, and R. FRIEDMAN, “A leopard in the Predynastic Elite Cemetery HK6 at Hierakonpolis, Egypt,” in B. DE CUPERE, V. LINSEELE, and S. HAMILTON-DYER (eds) Archaeozoology of the Near East X. Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of South Western Asia and Adjacent Areas, 2013 (2014) 283-305. BOESSNECK (supra n. 25) 32-33, and fig. 18. Boessneck could not determine whether the animals had been captured as young or had reproduced in captivity. These animals were also described by VON DEN DRIESCH (supra n. 28) 18-19. I owe this information to the kindness of László BARTOSIEWICZ who sent the publication, M. DARÓCZI-SZABÓ et al., “Pending danger: Recent Copper Age lion (Panthera leo L., 1758) finds from Hungary,” IntJOsteoarchaeol (2020) 469-481.

Panthera leo IN ANCIENT EGYPT AND GREECE: WHERE ARE THE BONES?

69

populations existed in Bronze age Greece. The three lions from Aigeira represent a puppy, a juvenile, and an adult. Among the teeth and foot bones was a post-cranial atlas (first cervical vertebra) from the puppy (Pl. IXb). The Aigeira bones, together with previous finds from three chronological levels at Tiryns, suggest to Gerhard Forstenpointner, “a stable lion population on LBA Peloponnesos.”43 He also cited “other unpublished post-cranial lion bones from late Helladic contexts of the saddle area [of Aigeira which suggest] the probability of a nearby lion population is to be considered very high.”44 The humerus (upper foreleg) from Lefkandi has fine cut marks which indicated “fresh carcass dismemberment that must have taken place on-site or at least at a location nearby.” 45 We should remember that a fragment of a humerus of “a rather huge animal” was found in a MB IIB/IIIA (19th/18th century BCE) context at Kolonna, Aegina, with taphonomy that could indicate butchering. It was associated with remains of red deer, wild boar, and possibly aurochs (Pls IXc, Xa).46 In comparison with Egypt, the area of Greece/southeastern Europe has produced no whole skeletons and no mummies. In both Egypt and Greece, head and foot bones found alone have usually suggested imported pelts, rather than local live animals. We should note that in Chalcolithic Durankulak, Bulgaria, a different conclusion about pelts was indicated. At a hunter’s site, ten bones from three animals, apparently a family with young, were found. Various parts of the skeletons had been left, including the long bones. Almost all the bones show cut marks, indicating to the excavator that the hunters removed the pelts and ate the meat. Surprisingly, the crania and toe bones were missing from all three lions, suggesting that the animals were butchered at the hunt site and the ‘trophies’ carried back to the village. If correct, this means that teeth and claw bones are not necessarily the residue of exotic, imported pelts but can also be the remains of local wild hunts.47 Yet another combination of missing bones was reported at Aigeira where in some cases the front and hind legs of animals were brought back for eating, leaving the head, toes, and the torso skeleton elsewhere.48 Imagery The second class of evidence is imagery. Egyptian images of lions are overwhelmingly symbolic49, and Bronze Age and classical Greek lion art is heavily borrowed from both Egypt and the Near East. Thus, we should be very reticent in using any of it as evidence for the presence or prevalence of the real animal. If we are tempted to use Predynastic Egyptian rock art as early reflections of undiluted, real


41

42 43 44

45

46

47

48

49

I thank Gerhard FORSTENPOINTNER for this information, for photographs, and for generously sharing unpublished manuscripts on the re-examinations of Aigeira faunal material (p.c. 2-8-2021). Irene LEMOS kindly sent me the publication of these new finds. Gerhard FORSTENPOINTNER (p.c. 2-1-2021). G. FORSTENPOINTNER and G. WEISSENGRUBER, Löwen, Bären und Backenzähne – Überlegungen zu den Tierknochenfunden aus den Altgrabungen am „Sattel“ von Aigeira,” Unpublished MS. Translated from the German. A. MULHALL, “A Preliminary Examination of Lefkandi’s ‘Ritual’ Area from a Zooarchaeological Perspective,” in I. LEMOS and A. TSINGARIDA (eds), Beyond the Polis. Rituals, Rites and Cults in Early and Archaic Greece (12th-6th Centuries BC) (2019) 273-287, esp. 280-281; according to MULHALL, the humerus was “likely deposited sometime during the Early Iron Age” (279).

G. FORSTENPOINTNER et al., “Subsistence and more in Middle Bronze Age Kolonna: Patterns of Husbandry, Hunting and Agriculture,” in A. PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS et al. (eds), Mesohelladika. La Grèce continentale au Bronze Moyen. Actes du Colloque international organisé par l’Ecole française d’Athènes, Athènes, 8-12 mars 2006 (2010) 733-742, esp. 738. L. NINOV, “Des vestiges de lion sur les terres bulgares,” Archeologija (Sofia) (1989) 55-61 (Bulgarian with French abstract 61). FORSTENPOINTNER and WEISSENGRUBER (supra n. 44), and Gerhard FORSTENPOINTNER (p.c. 2-23-2021). According to S. HENDRICKX and M. EYCKERMAN, “Les animaux sauvages dans l’Égypte prédynastique,” in M. MASSIERA, B. MATHIEU and Fr. ROUFFET (eds), Apprivoiser le sauvage / Taming the wild (2015) 197-212, esp. 207: “À part ce contexte général, certains animaux sauvages avaient une sémantique particulière… Cela est surtout évident pour le taureau sauvage et le lion”.

70

Nancy R. THOMAS

experience, we will be disappointed. Species identification is notoriously weak, many dating techniques rely on false assumptions,50 and the images could be the memory of animals seen elsewhere. John Darnell takes us into the mindset of the people who carved on rocky surfaces: “Utilizing pictographs on the desert to link far flung areas in their annually changing physical world allowed mobile groups and travellers literally to brand their world through inscriptions, linking areas through a network of symbols … Upper Egyptians appear to have concentrated much of their rock art oeuvre on images that blended the extremes of Upper Egyptian topography, Nile and desert.” 51 Rock art in Greece has not produced usable information for this study. The rock art animals at late Neolithic Andros, originally thought to be lions, are probably hyenas.52 The inverse correlation between iconography and occurrence is a standard warning by faunal experts. According to Linseele and Van Neer, “true desert animals, such as addax, oryx and ibex, are extremely rare in the archaeozoological record of all periods of the Nile Valley … the sparse bone finds hence contradict the abundant occurrence and exploitation of these animals suggested by Dynastic iconographical data.”53 Juan Carlos Moreno Garcia cautioned that the vivid, lifelike, naturalistic detail of animal scenes in Pharaonic tombs leads us to believe we are seeing almost a photographic verisimilitude without intervening ideology, but, he said, nothing could be more erroneous; ideology affected whether animals were shown or not shown, depicted as plentiful or scarce.54 The mental maps and artistic developments of the Egyptians influenced everything. Martin Fitzenreiter pointed out that Egyptian artisans accurately differentiated between North and South in their imagery, placing animals accordingly, but they mixed animals from East and West of the Nile indiscriminately because the latter directions were not symbolically important to them.55 Thus we must be careful in using imagery for habitat information. A recent predator-prey-extinction study by Justin Yeakel, et al.56 relied too heavily on imagery to pronounce on the presence, prevalence, or extinction of species, including the lion. In a critique, Linda Evans cautioned against accepting Egyptian art unquestioningly as scientific evidence because artistic archaism, religious conservatism, and varied access to artisans can leave us a skewed impression.57 Yeakel et al. rebutted her critique, reaffirming the soundness of using “recorded species occurrence” as a basis of


50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

R. BEDNARIK, “The Dating of Rock Art: A Critique,” Journal of Archaeological Science (2002) 1213-1233, esp. 1213-1214 on the hazards of using an art historical approach for iconography in rock art. J. DARNELL, “Iconographic attraction, iconographic syntax and the tableaux of royal ritual power in the Pre- and Proto-Dynastic rock inscriptions of the Theban Western Desert,” Archéo-Nil, (2009) 83-107. I thank Christina TELEVANTOU for this information (p.c. 10-28-2020) which corrects my statement in N. THOMAS, “The Early Mycenaean Lion Up To Date,” in A. CHAPIN (ed.), XAΡIΣ. Essays in Honor of Sara A. Immerwahr (2004) 161-206, esp. 163, n. 13. LINSEELE and VAN NEER (supra n. 31) 47; For a tabular comparison of animal depictions and animal remains, see N. PÖLLATH, “The prehistoric gamebag: the archaeozoological record from sites in the Western Desert of Egypt,” in H. RIEMER et al. eds (supra n. 31) 79-108, esp. 87-89 and Table 2; Conversely,
the lack of images of a specific animal can reflect a cultural choice to omit the animal, even though it was most likely present in a known landscape: S. DI LERNIA, “Review of Holocene Settlement of the Egyptian Sahara. Volume 1: The Archaeology of Nabta Playa by F. WENDORF,” African Archaeological Review (2004) 49 -57, esp. 54. J. MORENO GARCIA, “Production alimentaire et idéologie : les limites de l’iconographie pour l’étude des pratiques agricoles et alimentaires des Égyptiens du IIIe millénaire avant J.-C.,” Dialogues d’histoire ancienne (2003) 73-95, esp 73-75. M. FITZENREITER, “On the yonder side of bread and beer: the conceptualization of animal based food in funerary chapels of the Old Kingdom,” in RIEMER et al. eds (supra n. 31) 309-340, esp. 330. J. YEAKEL et al., “Collapse of an ecological network in Ancient Egypt,” ProcNatlAcadSciUSA (2014) 1447214477. L. EVANS, “Ancient Egypt’s fluctuating fauna: Ecological events or cultural constructs?,” ProcNatlAcadSciUSA (2015) 239. I thank Linda Evans for reading this section and giving valuable comments. She says: “There are definitely accurate scientific observations in Egyptian art, but we have to look at this data through a whole range of lenses in order to see what the Egyptians were trying to convey in their imagery” (p.c. 2-20-2021).

Panthera leo IN ANCIENT EGYPT AND GREECE: WHERE ARE THE BONES?

71

their data.58 By “recorded species occurrence” the authors meant “depictions”, with no further details or named examples given. On this basis, Yeakel et al. charted the times of extinction of the ‘long-maned’ and ‘short-maned lion’, distinctions that are now no longer recognized. Unfortunately, Yeakel et al. also tried to pinpoint the decline of lions in Greece to the century between Herodotus and Aristotle. They wrote that lions were “common” in Greece according to Herodotus but “rare” by the time of Aristotle. Their reference was Schaller, The Serengeti Lion, no page cited.59 Actually, Herodotus and Aristotle both said that in Europe in their day lions only existed in a limited territory between the Nestius and Achelius rivers.60 In Greece, a similar discrepancy between imagery and faunal remains has been noted for the Neolithic61 and Bronze Ages. Katerina Trantilidou said about the Theran wall paintings: “With the exception of the domesticated animals, there is no absolute correspondence between the species represented in the osteological material and those seen in the iconographic programme. In other words, we have in the [Akrotiri] wall paintings environmental elements pertaining to the whole of the southeastern Mediterranean and not exclusively to the Cyclades or Thera.”62 Just as in Egypt, it is difficult to cull real scenes from the predominantly conventional imagery.63 However, one of the very earliest examples of figurative art on the mainland may give us a look at local life before the mainlanders became enchanted with everything Minoan. On a stone stele in Grave Circle B at Mycenae (MH III/LH I), two men fight off a lion that is marauding their livestock.64 Texts Are texts reliable evidence about animals? In an unusual study, Michael Herb places the three most famous Egyptian “documents” about wild animals – the Old Kingdom relief of the Hunt of King Sahure, the Middle Kingdom image of Mentuhotep’s writing board at Beni Hasan, and the New Kingdom scarab describing Amenhotep III’s Wild Bull Hunt – against their environmental and faunal backgrounds. He concluded that Mentuhotep’s writing board can have historical merit if it is taken to list all the animals killed in a lifetime of hunts. This is important for our study because the animals listed are among the preferred prey of the lion. He also suggested that Amenhotep’s Wild Bull Hunt took place at Wadi elNatrun in the Delta, a place where large mammals flourished longer than in Upper Egypt.65 Concerning Amenhotep III’s famous Lion Hunt Scarab in which he says he killed 102 lions in the first ten years of his reign, Schnitzler said the figure may “have been exaggerated and the lions may have come from Nubia” (Pl. Xb).66 Houlihan thought the lion hunt might have occurred at the pharaoh’s


58

59 60

61


62 63

64

65

66




J. YEAKEL et al., “Reply to Evans and Bar-Oz et al.: Recovering ecological pattern and process in Ancient Egypt,” ProcNatlAcadSciUSA (2015) 240. YEAKEL et al. (supra n. 56) 14473. The History of Herodotus, VII, 124-126: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2456/2456-h/2456-h.htm (accessed 01/30/2021); and Aristotle, Historia Animalium, 6. 28. 1. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/ 59058/59058-h/59058-h.htm (accessed 01-30-2021). For the Greek, see K. TRANTALIDOU, “Animal Bones and Animal Representations at Late Bronze Age Akrotiri,” in SHERRATT ed. (supra n. 26) 709735, esp. 716, n. 18. S. NANOGLOU, “Animal Bodies and Ontological Discourse in the Greek Neolithic,” JArchaeolMethodTheory (2009) 184-204, esp. 199-200. TRANTALIDOU (supra n. 60) esp. 711. THOMAS 2021 (supra n. 13); and A. SHAPLAND, Over the Horizon: Human-Animal Relations in Bronze Age Crete (2009) dissertation, University College London. Mycenae, above Grave Gamma in Grave Circle B (Mycenae Archaeological Museum); for bibliography and date, see THOMAS (supra n. 52) 164, 194, fig. 9.1. M. HERB, “Der Jäger der Wüste. Zur kulturgeschichtlichen Entwicklung der Jagd im Alten Ägypten,” Nikephoros (2005) 21-37, esp. 35 and n. 14 for bibliography on scientific studies. For texts in Greece, see P. HALSTEAD, “Texts and Bones: Contrasting Linear B and Archaeozoological Evidence for Animal Exploitation in Mycenaean Southern Greece,” BSA (2003) 257-261. SCHNITZLER 2011 (supra n. 18) 230.

72

Nancy R. THOMAS

temple at Soleb, upper Nubia.67 Douglas Brewer went further and wrote: “Evidence from the dynastic period indicates that large numbers of wild animals were held captive in what could be described as a royal zoo or menagerie. One such example was that of Amenhotpe III, who had animals roaming freely within an enclosure 300 by 600 meters (950 by 1850 feet).”68 Indeed, post holes have been found there that seem to indicate some kind of enclosure, but from the area described by the post holes, Herb doubted it was big enough to be “one of the large desert corrals in economic use by the ancient Egyptians” which could enclose five square miles or more.69 Questions revolving around lions and prey lead us to the first of our possible explanations for the large difference in lion remains recovered from ancient Egypt and Greece: habitat. Habitat Since lions can reportedly live anywhere except the driest deserts and the densest forests,70 one wonders why they would ever go extinct. What do they need every day to survive? What ecological and human pressures modify these basics and make the difference between surviving, thriving, and extinction? The current world-wide crisis in lion depopulation is generating a huge number of studies on these questions.71 Experts conclude that the basic needs in a lion’s life have not essentially changed over time. In a major study, Nobuyuki Yamaguchi found the lion stalked the same prey in the Pleistocene as today, and that this fact, “together with habitat similarity, may suggest that abundance and diversity of prey in the environment where the first lions lived were comparable to those in African woodlands and savannahs today.”72 Recent mega-studies on lions give us a window into the lion’s world in ancient Egypt and Greece.73 For basic survival, a female lion needs a minimum of eleven lbs. (five kg.) of meat daily,74 which means it needs to kill at least ten-twenty large mammals a year. 75 Its preferred prey is large wild herbivores with a weight range of 190-550 kg., such as gemsbok, buffalo, and wildebeest,76 animals that


67 68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75 76

P. HOULIHAN, The Animal World of the Pharaohs (1996) 72. D. BREWER, “Fauna,” in D. REDFORD (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (2005) accessed 213-2021. M. HERB and F. FÖRSTER, “From desert to town: The economic role of desert game in the Pyramid Ages of ancient Egypt as inferred from historical sources (ca. 2600–1800 BC). An outline of the workshop’s inspiration and objectives,” in RIEMER et al. eds (supra n. 31) 17-44, esp. 28, 34, n. 2. A. GAUTIER et al., “Palaeolithic Big Game Hunting at HP766 in Wadi Umm Rahau, Northern Sudan,” Journal of African Archaeology (2012) 165-174 esp. 171. “… in most non-protected areas in West and Central Africa … the lion has disappeared,” according to M. TRINKEL and F. ANGELICI, “The Decline in the Lion Population in Africa and Possible Mitigation Measures,” in F. ANGELICI (ed.), Problematic Wildlife (2015) 45-68, esp.47. N. YAMAGUCHI et al., “Evolution of the mane and group-living in the lion (Panthera leo): a review,” Journal of Zoology (2004) 329-342, esp. 336: “there is no reason to suppose that the relationship amongst sympatric large African carnivores then was much different from that of today.” Studies that start at the macro level include G. CELESIA et al., “Climate and landscape correlates of African lion (Panthera leo) demography,” AfrJEcol (2009) 58-71, esp. 65: this is a meta-analysis of over 25 years of studies focusing on climate and environment, specifically the “solar radiation, water (rainfall) and appropriate temperature regimes” that produce the abundant vegetation needed for herbivores to thrive. Herbivores are basic to lion survival. J. BOCKNEK, Lions (2002) 35
A different figure is given in a study of lions in a semi-arid environment of short-grass plains in Etosha, Namibia. There, lionesses ate an average of 8.7 kg./day in the dry season and 14.1 kg./day in the wet season. Most of the prey was smaller (springbok), and the night hunts of small prey caused continual movement of the lions that resulted in high cub mortality rates: P. STANDER, “Foraging dynamics of lions in a semi-arid environment,” Canadian Journal of Zoology (1991) 8-21. R. NOWAK, Walker’s Carnivores of the World (2005) 260. M. HAYWARD and G. KERLEY, “Prey preferences of the lion (Panthera leo),” J. Zool., Lond. (2005) 309322 esp. 309; based on an analysis of 32 studies over 48 different spatial locations or temporal periods throughout the distribution of the contemporary lion. For the significant differences in the leopard’s prey and

Panthera leo IN ANCIENT EGYPT AND GREECE: WHERE ARE THE BONES?

73

give the most food for the trouble. Michael Hayward gives us an idea of how lions ‘think’ about prey selection: “Blue wildebeest, with males weighing 250 kg … are within the lion’s preferred body mass range, occur in large herds, occur in habitat used by lion, and are unlikely to cause injury to hunting lions. Their maximum speed is very similar to that of lions and much slower than other potential prey species, and their ability to detect predators is much lower than zebra and gazelles … Consequently, they are one of the most preferred prey species.”77 The range necessary to obtain this prey varies with the environment. As the density of herbivores drops, the lion’s range must expand. At the next level up, we encounter the pride and stronghold. In an continent-wide and countryspecific study of Africa, Jason Riggio gave the basics: (1) “If areas retain lions, the continent’s top predator, they are likely to be reasonably intact ecosystems;”78 (2) “We took the average lion pride as containing approximately five adults;” 79 (3) “For a lion area to qualify as a stronghold, it must … contain at least 500 individuals.80 Mats Björklund estimated that ‘‘… to sustain a large out-bred population of lions, a continuous population of at least 50 prides, but preferably 100 prides, with no limits to dispersal is required.’’81

What happens if any of these needs, from meat to mating, is unmet? Gastone Celesia described the cascade: “…at the end of the dry season, as prey becomes scarce, subadult females may be expelled from prides … older lions and cubs may die of starvation and … prides become smaller.”82 Schnitzler, writing about the beginning of the Bronze Age, said, “L’espace disponible pour la faune sauvage s’est amenuisé et les populations de lions se sont fragmentées et isolées, devenant de plus en plus vulnérables.” (Pl. Xc)83 We now have a genetic explanation as to why fragmentation of prides is so detrimental. David Reed studied the effects of “inbreeding depression” and “genetic exchange” on “population fitness”, predicting that the lack of “genetic exchange” due to “continued habitat fragmentation is likely to accelerate the ongoing global extinction crisis.”84 For viable, healthy populations to thrive, they need “contiguous blocks of habitat capable of supporting at least 2000 adult animals.”85 The following sentence, written about Africa in 2016, could equally well describe the situation for lions in ancient Egypt: “… lion distribution was drastically reduced and fragmented … many areas where lions still occur are isolated without any connection to each other … many populations are small and may have insufficient genetic variability, which is essential for maintaining a healthy population.”86 An optimal environment for wild game in Egypt is proposed by Linseele and Van Neer as “gallery forest along the main Nile channel and a mosaic of acacia-shrub and acacia-wood savannah around residual and other moist depressions near the valley margins. Just after the yearly floods, hartebeest and aurochs, probably, could have found acceptable grazing in the shrub land, and later on in the year, when conditions became drier, in the woodland closer to the Nile.”87


77

78

79 80 81

82 83 84 85 86 87

habitat, see M. HAYWARD, et al., “Prey preferences of the leopard (Panthera pardus),” J. Zool., Lond. (2006) 298-313. HAYWARD and KERLEY (supra n. 76) 318. These concepts are reiterated in a study of neolithic Hungary by DARÓCZI-SZABÓ et al. (supra n. 40) 470: “Lion home ranges … need to be optimal: as large as necessary but as small as possible to balance energetic needs. Maxima are limited by the energy expenditure required by territorial defence … whereas minima are determined by prey.” 


 
'
#&

#$
"

 )#
 
 
$%(
    

   
  
  
#!
  RIGGIO et al. (supra n. 78) 32. RIGGIO et al. (supra n. 78) 22. M. BJÖRKLUND, “The risk of inbreeding due to habitat loss in the lion (Panthera leo),” Conservation Genetics (2003) 515-523, esp. 515.

CELESIA et al. (supra n. 73) 65. SCHNITZLER 2012 (supra n. 18) 56. D. REED, “Extinction risk in fragmented habitats,” Animal Conservation (2004) 181-191, esp. 186. REED (supra n. 84) 188. TRINKEL and ANGELICI (supra n. 71) 48. LINSEELE and VAN NEER (supra n. 31) 54.

74

Nancy R. THOMAS

When did this optimal period exist? Their answer is disquieting: the Epipalaeolithic between 8500 and 5300 BCE, when the Nile Valley was essentially devoid of people.88 This all changed in the following Predynastic period: people and domestic animals dominated the Nile Valley. “ … game populations in the Nile Valley started to deplete after the Palaeolithic, probably mainly due to (increasing) anthropogenic pressure.”89 The people moved in and the game moved out.90 The next two axioms bring us to the lion: “Lion population density across the species’ range is known to track the biomass of principle lion prey species; large wild herbivores”91 and there is “a mean human population density threshold at which lions went extinct of 26 people per km2.”92 What about the wadis and deserts, two areas unfamiliar to people in temperate lands, but which might have supported game and lions? Wadis are transitory tributaries of the Nile that cut into the desert walls and allow animals and people to come to the river. In the Predynastic period, nomadic people had “seasonal settlements at the mouths of these wadis” which ended in the Nile valley,93 but by Early Dynastic times, drier climate ended vegetation on wadi floors. Although some oases and wadis kept their desert scrub grasslands after it had vanished from most other habitats in southern Egypt and northern Nubia ca. 2080 BCE,94 the process of desertification continued. As the wadis lost their acacia trees and other vegetation that supported game, the populations of herbivores and their predators further declined (Pl. XIa). As for the deserts themselves, specialists on animals in the Pre- and Early Dynastic periods do not describe a scene in which large ‘strongholds’ of lions could survive.95 According to Linseele and Van Neer, there is “no need to assume that hunting [for any animal] took place far from the settlements in the Nile Valley … Considering the absence of oryx and addax [in the settlement fauna] hunting deep in the desert is even unlikely.”96 What about hunting camps of the kind found at Durankulak in Bulgaria? A large study of the Western Desert from the Mediterranean coast into Sudan, covering the last 12,000 years, reported that any sort of camp that left artifacts or evidence of butchering game was ”exclusively or predominantly found at the water pools.”97 Unfortunately, by the end of the third millennium BCE “the once-extant flora


88

89 90

91

92

93 94 95

96 97

According to B. MIDANT-REYNES, The Prehistory of Egypt. From the First Egyptians to the First Pharaohs (1992 French, 2000 English) 94, the typical Egyptian habitat of wooded savanna has moved about 400 km. further south and in the later twentieth century still supported lions, hippos, giraffes, buffaloes, and antelopes. She did not cite faunal remains. LINSEELE and VAN NEER (supra n. 31) 62. A. TIGANI EL MAHI, “The Wildlife of the Sudan in a Historical Perspective,” Beiträge für Sudanforschung (1996) 89-113, esp. 96: “The introduction of domesticates in new ecosystems was in reality the terminal phase of wild animals’ dominance in the ecosystem.” For a comparison of the relative importance of aurochs, hartebeest and gazelles in Palaeolithic, Epipalaeolithic and Predynastic sites of Lower and Upper Egypt, see LINSEELE and VAN NEER (supra n. 31) 51, fig. 3. H. BAUER et al., Panthera leo. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (2016) http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/ IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T15951A107265605.en (accessed 8-22-2018). R. WOODROFFE, “Predators and people: using human densities to interpret declines of large carnivores,” Animal conservation (2000) 165-173. According to BAINES and MALEK (supra n. 14) 16-17, more than half of the Nile Valley, excluding Nubia, had at least four times that population density in pharaonic times. K. BARD, An Introduction to the archaeology of Ancient Egypt, second ed. (2015) 92. NICOLL (supra n. 15) esp. 571-572, which, according to the author, is at the end of the Old Kingdom. For contacts between the Nile Valley and the two deserts and their oases, see S. HENDRICKX, “Review of R. KUPER, Wadi Sura. The Cave of Beasts. A rock art site in the Gilf Kebir (SW-Egypt). Africa Praehistorica 26. Köln, 2013,” Bibliotheca Orientalis (2015) col. 661-664. LINSEELE and VAN NEER (supra n. 31) 62. O. BUBENZER and H. RIEMER, “Holocene Climatic Change and Human Settlement Between the Central Sahara and the Nile Valley: Archaeological and Geomorphological Results,” Geoarchaeology (2007) 607-620 esp. 618. This supra-regional analysis covered geo-scientific, environmental, and archaeological studies of contrasting sample areas across the Libyan Desert from the Mediterranean coast in the north to the Wadi Howar in Sudan, for the last 12,000 years.

Panthera leo IN ANCIENT EGYPT AND GREECE: WHERE ARE THE BONES?

75

of desert scrub grasslands disappeared from most habitats in southern Egypt and northern Sudan, except at some oases and wadis … The lack of vegetative cover allowed sands to be mobilized across much of the region.”98 These studies suggest to me that we should not expect archaeozoologists to somehow uncover significant sites or numbers of lion bones away from the Nile.99 We should also forget the idea that lions can live anywhere and eat anything, even scavenge,100 and still survive. All of these factors, including availability of prey, range size, topography, and climatic support, apply as well in Greece/southeastern Europe. Some controversy exists over the kind of environment existing in Greece in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages, but nowhere do I find studies indicating the massive ecological changes that affected wild fauna and human habitation seen in Egypt. According to Anthony Stuart, lion distribution in Europe shrank after the Pleistocene because of denser forests and hunting pressure, but “only when ranges were severely reduced by major climatic and vegetational changes might hunting pressures have become critical, resulting in extinctions.”101 In a brief review, Vasilios Papanastasis et al. concluded that the landscape and climate in Greece had essentially stabilized, with some later changes, by the Bronze Age and may have been basically what we see today.102 A discussion of availability of large herbivorous prey related to lion extinction, with examples from Chalcolithic Hungary, is found in Daróczi-Szabó.103 This leads us to the question of how many lion bones should we be expecting to find? As the apex predator, the lion leaves us very few of its bones compared to those of its prey. We should therefore expect to find few bones even when a lion population exists.104 To compare the numbers of lion bones with the remains of other animals recovered in a large site, we must turn to Chalcolithic Hungary. The four sites that contained one lion bone each averaged forty-two aurochs and 821 cattle bones. At Tiszalúc-Sarkad in the Carpathian Basin, in a collection of 49,436 animal bones, sixteen were lion, 788 were aurochs, and 40,438 were cattle bones.105 Hundreds of bones of red deer, roe deer, aurochs and wild boar were also identified.106 The huge quantitative difference in the remains of lions and prey is normal. The fact that lion bones in some numbers have been found in Greece/southeastern Europe tells us that the habitat, including prey abundance, climate, topography, and human competitors for the land, was acceptable for Panthera leo to breed and survive for several thousand years. The original “heartland” of lions lasted longer north of the Mediterranean than it did in Egypt.


98

99

100

101




103

104

105 106





NICOLL (supra n. 15) 571; Nicoll estimated that the “tremendous rates of erosion via deflation-excavation within the Kharga region [removed] approximately 30 m of sediments” (572). For a contrasting conclusion on finding small camps in deserts, see P. ATTEMA et al., “A guide to good practice in Mediterranean surface survey projects,” Journal of Greek Archaeology (202) 1-62, esp. 9. Five surface surveys in Egypt are reported at FASTI - Home (fastionline.org). GAUTIER et al. (supra n. 70) 165-174, esp. 168: “Formerly, lions occurred at most altitudes and in most vegetation types, except extensive forest and the driest deserts. They hunt mainly game between 50 and 300 kg, … lions have been seen to drive hyenas away from their prey. This suggests that lions scavenge occasionally.” A. STUART, “Late Pleistocene Megafaunal Extinctions. A European Perspective,” in R. MACPHEE (ed.), Extinctions in near time: causes, contexts, and consequences (1999) 257-269, esp. 265-266. For a regional study of ecological change in Greece at a site where lion has been found, see L. LESPEZ et al., “Les paléoenvironnments du site préhistorique de Dikili Tash (Macédoine orientale, Grèce),” BCH (2000) 413-434, esp. 423. V. PAPANASTASIS et al., “Management of biotic resources in ancient Greece,” in Proceedings of the 10th Mediterranean Ecosystems (MEDECOS) Conference (2004) 1-11, esp. 9. I have not seen the 1991 study by Robert Sallares, The ecology of the ancient Greek world. DARÓCZI-SZABÓ et al. (supra n. 40) esp. 470, 479. See also P. HALSTEAD, “Man and other animals in later Greek prehistory,” BSA (1987) 71-84, esp. 74; Halstead reported that aurochs, red deer, roe deer, boar, and bear “regularly make up a significant proportion of Bronze Age assemblages.” GAUTIER et al. (supra n. 70) 171: “Predators or scavengers are at the top of the food pyramid and occur only sporadically with respect to plant-eating game at most sites.” DARÓCZI-SZABÓ et al. (supra n. 40) 471, Table 1. BARTOSIEWICZ (supra n. 20) 281; I thank István VÖRÖS for the number of lion bones (p.c. 8-4-2012).

76

Nancy R. THOMAS

Ancient Practices Did ancient Egyptians and Greeks themselves view and treat lions and lion remains differently, in turn affecting the deposition and survival of the bones? Natural taphonomic factors have hindered recovery, more so in Egypt where sand has obliterated the peripheries, and people have super-populated the centers.107Among other natural factors that affect survivability everywhere are “weathering, carnivore gnawing, freeze-thaw cycles, chemical actions of the soils”108 See Richard Meadow for special problems in semi-deserts.109 In addition, ancient people themselves made choices that affected the survivability of the bones, such as rapidity of disposal, reuse, and above all the contexts in which the bones were placed. From very early times the Egyptians began practices that have preserved animal bones for us. Although lions have not been found in these early contexts, other charismatic animals have, such as imported leopard, elephant, and baboon, as well as local animals – hippo, hartebeest, and aurochs. All these animals were found buried with ceremony at an elite cemetery at Predynastic Hierakonpolis in Upper Egypt. This cemetery, HK6 (first half of 4th millennium BCE), is unique to date for its wild animals. According to the excavators, most of the animals were “placed in formal graves, with or without a human occupant … whole and unbutchered, their skin intact. Matting was used to line the grave floor and to cover the body, and linen shrouding has also been observed, much as in human burials.”110 The rulers must have been demonstrating their prowess in several arenas: acquiring, hunting, managing, displaying, and sacrificing exotic animals, ultimately being buried among them. The animals were apparently not held in captivity long, so the hunts could have been fairly frequent. The animals showed many signs of trauma probably sustained while in captivity, but they were not malnourished or kept in dark galleries as happened later.111 The common thread running from HK6, through Umm al-Qaab, to late Saqqara is the burial of animals in some ritual context, whether as elite companions or as pilgrim votives. No evidence for veneration of the animal itself has been cited. An undercurrent of prestige and respect must have always been present, even among ordinary Egyptians, for the majesty and fearsomeness of the great beast, which we can glimpse in the humble graves in the town cemetery at Sanam. The decline of wild animals may help explain the fact that in some New Kingdom foundation deposits, statuettes of the meat of wild animals seem to have replaced the actual creatures themselves.112 How plentiful were menageries stocked with exotic animals? Qantir/Piramesse can no longer be cited as an example, but live lions could be imported into ancient Egypt and the practice is perhaps illustrated in the Old Kingdom mastaba relief showing
a lion and a leopard being transported in cages (Pl. XIb).113 The glorious New Kingdom image of a lion running alongside pharaoh is, in my view, ideological rather than natural, since lions can at best be made tractable, rarely tamed. However, two rather humble views could depict real conditions. The great Luxor relief of Ramses II at the Battle of Kadesh has many


107

108

109

110

111 112 113

See F. HASSAN, “The dynamics of a riverine civilization: a geoarchaeological perspective on the Nile Valley, Egypt,” World Archaeology (1997) 51-74. P. CRABTREE, “Zooarchaeology and complex societies: Some uses of faunal analysis for the study of trade, social status, and ethnicity,” JArchaeolMethodTheory (1990) 155-205, esp. 166. R. MEADOW, “Animal Bones: Problems for the Archaeologist Together with Some Possible Solutions,” Paléorient (1980) 65-77 esp. 68. W. VAN NEER et al., “Traumatism in the Wild Animals Kept and Offered at Predynastic Hierakonpolis, Upper Egypt,” IntJOsteoarchaeol (2017) 86-105, esp. 87; LINSEELE and VAN NEER (supra n. 31) esp. 55, 62. VAN NEER et al. (supra n. 110) 101-103. LINSEELE and VAN NEER (supra n. 31) 65, 72. Saqqara, mastaba D64. N. de G. DAVIES, Mastaba of Ptahhetep and Akhethetep at Saqqareh I (1900) 11 and Pl. XXIV; Davies translated the hieroglyphs for this scene as “seeing the gifts and contributions of the [owner’s] villages of the North and the South” and “return of the huntsmen with their spoil.” For menageries attested in text and art, see R. MÜLLER-WOLLERMANN, “‘Zoologische Garten’ als Mittel der Herrschaftslegitimation im Alten Ägypten,” Die Welt des Orients (2003), 31-43. See also N. BEAUX, Le cabinet de curiosités de Thoutmosis III. Plantes et animaux du ‘Jardin botanique’ de Karnak (1990).

Panthera leo IN ANCIENT EGYPT AND GREECE: WHERE ARE THE BONES?

77

subsidiary scenes, one showing a kind of stable/holding area with oxen, horses, carts, yokes, fodder and chariots, and a seated lion in front of an Egyptian holding a raised baton (Pl. XIc).114 The other ‘behind the scenes’ view appears on a fragment of a relief block from Karnak thought to originally belong to structures from the time of Akhenaten at Thebes. Here we see three lions inside two conical cages, situated just outside the wall of a comfortable estate. Steps lead up to the door and possibly other steps go to the top for looking through an opening at the animals (Pl. XId).115 For more references to transport of animals and possible game parks in Egypt, Crete and Greece, see Fritz Blakolmer.116 Information about human treatment of lions in ancient Greece/southeastern Europe has remained essentially unchanged since my 2014 study. We can still say that small populations of native lions roamed freely north of Greece in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic Ages; that they had moved into Greece during the Bronze Age; and that in all these periods, people saw them, killed them, skinned or butchered them, no doubt ate them, and deposited their bones in various places. In the Bronze Age, there are fewer collections of larger bones than earlier and more finds of single or small bones related to pelts; the massive numbers of wild game bones decline; when important groups of lion bones are found in association with other game animals, it is likely to be at habitation sites such as Tiryns; and the find spots now include several places that will be sacred in the first millennium BCE. There are no ceremonial or whole-body interments.
The one human activity underlying all of the lion bone finds from Neolithic through the Bronze Age is hunting. Modern Archaeozoological Practice In both Egypt and Greece, the recovery of lion bones, indeed of all animal bones, is a very recent phenomenon. Until the 1970s “faunal reports”, if they existed at all, were short appendices at the ends of archaeological publications and were often considered a “luxury”117 if not an intrusion. “Osteological studies” meant human bones first, then animals related to domestication, diet, or trade. A host of archaeological practices made the recovery of wild animals, large and small, difficult.118 Many of these problems have been addressed as archaeozoologists are more frequently included in field projects from the beginning, collaborating on goals and strategies, above all on preserving information about context. 119 As a result the discovery of lion bones has soared in Greece, less so in Egypt. 120 Do archaeological practices still impede the discovery of lion bones? Of great interest in this question is Mackinnon’s finding that the more text that is available for a culture, the less interest there is in faunal studies.121 In Egypt, faunal studies are plentiful for the prehistoric


114

115

116

117

118 119

120

121

H. SCHÄFER, Von äg yptischer Kunst, besonders der Zeichenkunst. Eine Einführung in die Betrachtung äg yptischer Kunstwerke 2 (1922) 185, fig. 155. P. ANUS, “Un domaine thébain d’époque amarnienne sur quelques blocs de remploi trouvés à Karnak,” Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale du Caire (1971) 69-88, figs 3, 5, and Pl. XV; the house depicted on this block is thought to be for workers, and the shapes to the right may be sand dunes.

also A. WILKINSON, “Symbolism and Design in Ancient Egyptian Gardens,” Garden History (1994) 1-17 esp. 5, 11, fig. 12 . F. BLAKOLMER, “Gab es Löwen und Affen im minoischen Kreta? Ein ikonographisches Problem,” in L. BERGER, L. HUBER, F. LANG, and J. WEILHARTNER (eds), Akten des 17. Österreichischen Archäologentages (2020) 39-49. D. BREWER, Fishermen, Hunters and Herders. Zooarchaeology in the Fayum, Egypt (ca. 8200-5000 bp) (1989) comments on p. v. MEADOW (supra n. 109) 71-72 for practices that adversely affect the recovery of large or rare animals. Zooarchaeologists have an excellent listserve, similar to AegeaNet. Subscribe at https://www.jiscmail. ac.uk/. At Aigeira, Greece, a recent re-examination of the 1970s excavations found serious problems in the old methods, and in the process recovered four more lion bones; cited by FORSTENPOINTNER and WEISSENGRUBER (supra n. 44). M. MACKINNON, “Osteological Research in Classical Archaeology,” AJA 111 (2007) 473-504, esp. 477; MacKinnon.pdf and free extended bibliography at Osteological Research in Classical Archaeology |

78

Nancy R. THOMAS

periods but decline as soon as Egyptian writing becomes prominent, ca 3000 BCE. In Greece, faunal studies last through the Bronze Age but are overtaken by language study after 800 BCE. Once texts are plentiful, the focus of archaeological investigations shifts as well; in Egypt Carol Yokell reported that “the extremely limited investigations into Dynastic Period desert occupations have concentrated primarily on mining and quarrying.”122 A 1999 analysis of 300 archaeozoological reports on Africa showed only four as relevant to archaeozoology and complex societies along the Nile.123 The focus on excavating settlements, rather than the “type of contexts where game animals would have been offered,” may partly explain the discrepancy between iconographic and faunal records of animal prevalence.”124 These problems are echoed by Greek archaeologists. Christos Doumas, in a discussion about finding lion remains said, “… we don’t find the bones of felines etc. because we are dealing with inhabited areas. The lack of lion bones does not mean that the lion was extinct or did not exist.”125 Although surface surveys have increased around the Mediterranean in recent years, David Reese said the goals in fieldwalking are usually to find “readable pottery,” so surveys are not very helpful in faunal studies.126 In a 2020 guide to good practices in Mediterranean surface surveys, wild fauna is not mentioned.127 Summaries and critiques of archaeozoology in the Aegean suggest, to me, that both Greece and Egypt share the problems of newcomers in the overall development of the discipline.128 Thus, a history of the discipline in Germany is useful to Aegeanists because so many projects in Greece and eastern Europe have been directed by Germans.129 A great deal of work has been done in southeastern Europe north of Greece, but it has not always been accessible to the larger community. An insightful description of the methodological divide between Central-Eastern European and Western European-North American approaches to the field (such as humanities vs. science-based methods; inductive vs. deductive reasoning) as well as the effects of political influence on research before and after the fall of the Iron Curtain is found in László Bartosiewicz’s analysis available on Academia.130 Interestingly, a 2020 book on this exact subject did not mention fauna at all.131 Greece and Egypt are very different places, but their scholars voice similar thoughts. Yannis Hamilakis said that the amount of lost and missed evidence of animals is so large that we should revisit




122

123

124 125 126

127 128

129

130

131

July 2007 (111.3) | American Journal of Archaeology (ajaonline.org); and M. MACKINNON, “Animals, Economics, and Culture in the Athenian Agora: Comparative Zooarchaeological Investigations,” Hesperia (2014) 189-255, esp. 191-192. C. YOKELL, Modeling socioeconomic evolution and continuity in ancient Egypt: The value and limitations of zooarchaeological analyses (2004) 82. This figure was reported by F. MARSHALL and K. MUTUNDU, “The role of zooarchaeology in archaeological interpretation: a survey of African literature from later archaeological periods, ca. 20,000 BP-present,” in I. PLUG and R. KLEIN (eds), Archaeozoology in Africa, Archaeozoologia (1999) 83-106, esp. 88. LINSEELE and VAN NEER (supra n. 31) 71. C. DOUMAS in the discussion following the paper by KLEINSGÜTL (supra n. 26) 708. D. REESE (p.c. 2-27-2021): “To me the key point for fauna study is sieving, particularly a systematic plan of water-sieving/flotation.” ATTEMA et al., (supra n. 99). SHAPLAND (supra n. 63) 76-103; K. TRANTALIDOU, “Zooarchaeology in Greece. A Short Historiography of the Science,” Archeofauna (2001) 183-199; E. KOTJABOPOULOU et al. (eds), Zooarchaeology in Greece. Recent Advances (2003); and V. ISAAKIDOU, “Zooarchaeology,” in D. HOLLANDER and T. HOWE (eds), A Companion to Ancient Agriculture (2021) 37-54 C. BECKER and N. BENECKE, “Archaeozoology in Germany. Its Course of Development,” Archaeofauna (2001) 163-182. See also J. BOESSNECK, “Gemeinsame Anliegen von Ägyptologie und Zoologie aus der Sicht des Zooarchäologen,” Sitzungsberichte, Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften (München), Philosophisch-historische Klasse (1981) although lions were not mentioned. L. BARTOSIEWICZ, “Archaeozoology or zooarchaeology?: a problem from the last century,” Archeologie Polona ( 2001) 75-86. K. ŠABATOVÁ et al. (eds), Bringing Down the Iron Curtain. Paradigmatic change in research on the Bronze Age in Central and Eastern Europe? (2020).

Panthera leo IN ANCIENT EGYPT AND GREECE: WHERE ARE THE BONES?

79

and restudy almost all archaeozoological materials and their contexts.132 About Egypt, Baines and Malek wrote, “… because three or more meters of silt have been deposited over the whole valley since 3000 BCE, the archaeological record of settlement within the inundated and cultivated area is rather slight. Much of Egyptian archaeology is therefore somewhat hypothetical.”133 Conclusion This study presents information about the existence of real lions in ancient Egypt/Nubia and Greece/southeastern Europe in an effort to replace some long-standing assumptions drawn from images and texts with new information based on scientific studies. First, real lions did exist in both areas where their remains have been documented from Neolithic through Hellenistic times. Second, these animals were real lions, Panthera leo, not lynx or wild cats. Third, lions were never as plentiful as suggested by imagery or texts in either area. Fourth, lion populations were probably larger and certainly lasted longer in Greece/southeastern Europe than they did in Egypt, largely due to habitat, both natural and anthropocentric. However, the demise of sustainable lion populations occurred at different times in the two areas. In Egypt, lions were very rare by the end of the Old Kingdom, ca. 2080 BCE, but were occasionally sighted in northern Sudan into the 20th century of our era.134 In ancient Greece, on the other hand, wild lion populations remained viable approximately a thousand years longer, to the end of the Bronze Age ca. 1100 BCE. Lions then withdrew northeast and dwindled into non-existence in our area of study by the end of Hellenistic times. Finally, to answer the question posed at the beginning of this article, the paucity of lion bones recovered in Egypt reflects the scarcity of lions there.135 These conclusions are findable in the large literature on animals, habitat, and archaeozoology. Knowledge acquired by biologists and archaeozoologists, however, moves slowly into the larger community of scholars of the ancient world. Because lions were occasionally reported in Egypt/Nubia into modern times, Egyptologists were not aware that their main demise had occurred by the end of the Old Kingdom, well before Amenhotep III boasted of killing them. Scholars continued to write about the New Kingdom as though lions were as prevalent in nature as they were in ideology, i.e. in image and text. Misinterpretations of visual evidence was compounded by the lack of communication among disciplines. In Greece a similar disconnect occurred, somewhat in reverse. In this case Aegeanists and classicists discounted the evidence of art, rejecting the idea that real lions had ever roamed in the wild in ancient Greece. This is because lion imagery in Minoan, Mycenaean, and Greek art had such strong affinities with the Near East. Even when the first Panthera leo bones were discovered at late bronze (Mycenaean) Tiryns in 1978, most scholars said they had arrived from the near east, either as pets or pelts. However, the real obstacle to acceptance of an autochthonous Bronze Age lion population in Greece was the absence of any bones from earlier times or from northern locations. This problem should have disappeared when the work of many archaeozoologists in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania,
Ukraine, and Greece was


132

133 134

135

Y. HAMILAKIS, “Time, Performance and the Production of a mnemonic record: from feasting to an archaeology of eating and drinking,” in L. HITCHCOCK, R. LAFFINEUR and J.L. CROWLEY (eds), DAIS. The Aegean Feast. Proceedings of the 12th International Aegean Conference/12e Rencontre égéenne internationale, University of Melbourne, Centre for Classics and Archaeology, 25-29 March 2008 (2008) 3-20, esp. 10. In this context G. FORSTENPOINTNER (p.c. 2-23-2021) noted that proper determination of “unexpected species like lion, requires remarkable skills that are not always available.” BAINES and MALEK (supra n. 14) 14. For post-classical and modern sightings in Egypt and northern Sudan, see supra n. 20. For aridification and severe change of vegetation around the end of the Old Kingdom period, see NICOLL (supra nn. 15, 94, 98). Wim Van Neer, in answer to my query about how we can recover more bones, replied, “the low find numbers of lion in Egypt are probably related to the fact that the carrying capacity of the Nile valley was very low during the Holocene. There was not so much large game for the lion to feed on, human occupation may have disturbed the animals as well that lived in the narrow fertile strip along the Nile; for the rest it was just desert …” (p.c. 2-5-2021).

80

Nancy R. THOMAS

collated and published in German and English,136
and further updated in the Hesperia and Aegaeum series.137 There should no longer be any doubt that wild lions roamed north of Greece from Neolithic through late Classical times. Although the discoveries continue today, particularly in Greece, the existence of the real lion is still frequently slighted, even by faunal experts. As Rainer Felsch lamented decades ago, “I’m wondering why we cannot accept that lions actually existed in Greece during the Bronze and Early Iron age.”138 Nancy R. THOMAS





136

137

138

H. MANHART, “Vorgeschichtliche Fauna Bulgariens. Die vorgeschichtliche Tierwelt von Koprivec und Durankulak und anderen prähistorischen Fundplätzen in Bulgarien auf Grund von Knochenfunden aus archäologischen Ausgrabungen,” Documenta Naturae 116 (1998); BARTOSIEWICZ (supra n. 20). THOMAS (supra n. 52) and EADEM 2014 (supra n. 13). R. FELSCH on AegeaNet, 8-25-2002.

Panthera leo IN ANCIENT EGYPT AND GREECE: WHERE ARE THE BONES?

81

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Pl. IXa Pl. IXb Pl. IXc Pl. Xa Pl. Xb Pl. Xc Pl. XIa Pl. XIb Pl. XIc Pl. XId

Mediterranean. Google Earth (accessed 2-8-2021). Greece, Aigeira: Cervical vertebra of a lion puppy, LH III (?), photo courtesy of Gerhard Forstenpointner. Greece, Aegina, Kolonna: Humerus fragment of an adult lion, MB IIB/IIIA (19th/18th century BCE), photo courtesy of Gerhard Forstenpointner. Greece, Aegina, Kolonna: Open air bone lab at the Austrian excavation house, 2004, photo Roger Thomas. Amenhotep III Lion Hunt Scarab, Leiden Archaeological Museum, photo author. Lion in Grass. Cecil - Hwange National Park, Zimbabwe by Vince O’Sullivan is licensed under CC BYNC 2.0. Egypt, River Nile by Michael Gwyther-Jones is licensed under CC BY 2.0. Egypt, Saqqara, Tomb of Ptah-hotep II, East wall, relief of hunt scene, N. de Garis DAVIES, The Mastaba of Ptahhetep and Akhethetep at Saqqareh I (1900) Pl. XXIV. Luxor, Ramses II at the Battle of Kadesh, army camp with lion, H. SCHÄFER, Von ägyptischer Kunst besonders der Zeichen (1922) fig. 155. Egypt, Karnak, reused relief block, after P. ANUS, “Un domaine thébain d’époque ‘Amarnienne’. Sur quelques blocs de remploi trouvés à Karnak,” BIFAO (1971) fig. 3.

IX

a

b

c

X

a

b

c

XI

a

b

c

d







FLIGHTS OF FANCY: BIRDS IN AEGEAN ISLAND ART AND THOUGHT* Introduction Nearly two thousand objects from the Aegean Bronze Age have images of birds, far more than show people and about the same number as depict quadrupeds.1 As heirs to Aristotelian traditions, Linnaean systems, and European folk taxonomies and lore, we Aegeanists approach these ancient birds with a mix of cognitive constructs. On the one hand, many of us cannot help but try to equate the birds on seals, walls, and elsewhere with their common and scientific names. With an array of bird guides to hand, we study the differentiating subtleties that ornithologists have established regarding plumage colors, beak shapes, flight patterns, and the other features they call field marks. We reject many previous notions about birds, tolerantly smiling at their patent absurdity. Yet at the same time, we sometimes find ourselves ignoring the pictured clues of bird behavior, habitat, and season in order to suggest interpretations meant to validate broader issues of meaning.2 And we have been known to doubt the
*

1

2

As this paper was written during a long period of self-isolation owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, I am very grateful to many colleagues and friends for making it possible to complete my research while working from home. For their generosity in sending publications and images electronically and discussing and sharing ideas remotely, I thank especially Julia Binnberg, Fritz Blakolmer, Anne Chapin, Janice Crowley, John Darnell, Brent Davis, Jack Davis, Constance de Brun, Linda Evans, Eckart Frahm, Carol Hershenson, Irini Papageorgiou, Philippa Steele, Sharon Stocker, and Nancy Thomas. Andreas Vlachopoulos kindly allowed me to cross-reference his plate in this volume of the avian-costumed Xeste 3 woman (Pl. LXIIIb). Benjamin Foster provided welcome guidance through the thicket of cuneiform lexical lists. My ideas benefited particularly from numerous electronic exchanges with Judith Weingarten and Anne Chapin, who cast their eagle eyes over a draft version. I am also glad to have had the opportunity years ago to go birding in the Thera quarry with the ornithologist Kenneth Harte (infra n. 1). My own Aegean bird studies began with “A Flight of Swallows,” AJA 99 (1995) 409-425, followed by “Fur and Feathers in Aegean Art,” in G. TOUCHAIS, R. LAFFINEUR and F. ROUGEMONT (eds), PHYSIS. L’environnement naturel et la relation homme-milieu dans le monde égéen préhistorique. Actes de la 14e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Paris, Institut National d’histoire de l’art, 11-14 décembre 2012 (2014) 217-226; “Bees and Birds in Aegean Epiphanic Dance,” Mantichora 7 (2017) 17-28; and “Two New Aegean Memories and Metaphors: Athena as a Swallow, Herakles as a Lion,” in E. BORGNA, I. CALOI, F.M. CARINCI, and R. LAFFINEUR (eds), MNHMH/MNEME. Past and Memory in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 17th International Aegean Conference, University of Udine, Department of Humanities and Cultural Heritage, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Department of Humanities, 17-21 April 2018 (2019) 609-618. Other avian studies include V.G. KENNA, “Studies of Birds on Seals of the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean in the Bronze Age,” OpAth 8 (1968) 23-38; J.-P. RUUSKANEN, Birds on Aegean Bronze Age Seals (1992); M. MASSETI, “Representations of Birds in Minoan Art,” International Journal of Ostoarchaeology 7 (1997) 354-363; K.J. HARTE, “Birds of the Thera Wall Paintings,” in S. SHERRAT (ed.), The Wall Paintings of Thera. Proceedings of the first International Symposium, Petros Nomikos Conference Center, Thera, Hellas, 30 August-4 September 1997 (2000) 681-698; M. MARTHARI, “An MM Seal with Swallow Motif from Knossos and Its Interconnections with Late MC-LC I Theran Iconography,” in D. DANIELIDOU (ed.), ΔΩΡΟΝ. Honorary Volume for Professor S. Iakovides (2009) 419-439. The most comprehensive treatment is now J. BINNBERG’s Oxford University doctoral dissseration, “Birds in the Aegean Bronze Age” (2018). Material based on her thesis appears in her article “Like a Duck to Water – Birds and Liquids in the Aegean Bronze Age,” BSA 114 (2019) 1-38. For groundbreaking work synthesizing scientific research on bird behavior with imagery in ancient art, see L. EVANS, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art. Representations of the Natural World in Memphite Tomb Scenes (2010) and her “Bird Behavior in Ancient Egyptian Art,” in R. BAILLEUL-LESUER (ed.), Between Heaven and


84

Karen Polinger FOSTER


acuity of ancient observation, influenced by our own experiences with wild birds, interactions limited all too often by the intense urbanism and visual distractions of the modern age.3 Take the example of swallows, chosen for their centrality in the present inquiry. Their annual migration, especially their return, has ever been of interest, inspiring Aristotle to write, “One swallow does not make a spring” (Nicomachean Ethics, Book I), an adage reprised for summer by Cervantes (Don Quixote, Part I, Book II, Chapter 4). In early modern England, Charles Morton suggested that they migrated to the moon, while others continued to believe Aristotle, who thought they buried themselves underwater, awaiting warmer weather.4 Their habits and proximity to people have made them prime candidates for country wisdom: swallows nesting in the eaves bring good luck (wishful thinking); swallows flying low in the sky herald damp weather (actually so).5 When swallow pairs and singletons came to light painted on the walls of a small room at Thera (Pl. XIIa), they immediately became embedded in scholarly discourse as sweet signs of springtime, despite their being perfect illustrations of swallow aggression, exactly as millennia later Audubon would pose his pair.6 Of particular import for our subsequent discussion here are the ways in which swallows have inspired artistic imagination and expression across the millennia. In Homer, Athena memorably becomes a swallow, flying up to a roof beam as Odysseus prepares to slay the suitors.7 As he strings his great bow, “the taut gut vibrating hummed and sang a swallow’s song” (Od. 21.411). For Shakespeare, “True hope is swift, and flies with swallow’s wings” (Richard III, Act V, Scene 2, line 23). For Tennyson, their song and flight suggested the opposite: “Short swallow-flights of song, that dip their wings in tears, and skim away” (In Memoriam, Part XLVIII, Stanza 4). And most recently, migration, metaphor, and myth poetically merged in “Swallows,”8 in which we read of their return to a raftered seaside taverna; their flights and songs of “cursive loops and Morse-code call…one scissors forth, one zigzags back”; and their place in the swallow legends of classical antiquity.9


3

4 5

6

7 8 9




Earth. Birds in Ancient Egypt (2012) 91-98; and in the same volume, J. WYATT, “Bird Identification from Art, Artifacts, and Hieroglyphs: An Ornithologist’s Viewpoint,” 83-90. See, for example, the discussion after HARTE’s paper (supra n. 1) 697-698, during which several non-birder audience members voiced skepticism about Theran bird-watching expertise or engagement. Earlier in that conference session, though, E. DAVIS, a lifelong birder, inquired about a Xeste 3 reedbed duck, shown flying with its head turned back, asking A. VLACHOPOULOS, “It doesn’t bother you that way?” (656) She, well aware that no bird ever flies like that, saw at once that this was an anomaly in otherwise authentically depicted avian behavior. To my knowledge, she did not pursue the matter. In thinking about her comment now, I wonder if the artist chose in that instance to follow the glyptic strategem that often reverses a longer neck so the flying bird can fit within the seal shape. Why he should have done so, given that there was ample room on the wall and that other Theran birds do fly properly, I cannot say. On the proportions and compositions of seals with birds, see RUUSKANEN (supra n. 1) 64-93. F. BLAKOLMER holds that influences went in the other direction too: “Image and Architecture: Reflections of Mural Iconography in Seal Images and Other Art Forms of Minoan Crete,” in D. PANAGIOTOPOULOS and U. GÜNKEL-MASCHEK (eds), Minoan Realities. Approaches to Images, Architecture, and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age (2012) 83-114 and “Small is Beautiful: The Significance of Aegean Glyptic for the Study of Wall Paintings, Relief Frescoes and Minor Relief Art,” in W. MÜLLER (ed.) Die Bedeutung der minoischen und mykenischen Glyptik. VI. Internationales Siegel-Symposium aus Anlass der 50 jährigen Bestehens des CMS, Marburg, 9.-12. Oktober 2008 (2010) 91-108. K. THOMAS, Man and the Natural World. A History of the Modern Sensibility (1983) 88. THOMAS (supra n. 4) 75-76; P. TATE, Swallows (1981) 67-86; E.A. ARMSTRONG, The Folklore of Birds (1959) 179-185. FOSTER 1995 and 2019 (supra n. 1); in the latter, see Pl. CCXVI for the images juxtaposed and Audubon’s swallows in color. FOSTER 2019 (supra n. 1). A.E. STALLINGS, The New Yorker, 6 & 13 August 2018, 62-63. W.G. ARNOTT, Birds in the Ancient World from A to Z (2007) 28-30.




BIRDS IN AEGEAN ISLAND ART AND THOUGHT


85


Formal ornithology in Greece began in the 1830s.10 The first comprehensive study of Aegean passerines (perching birds), including island-by-island inventories, was carried out in the early 1960s by Watson.11 On Thera, he observed the lark, crested lark, barn swallow and its Egyptian subspecies, crag martin, house martin, raven, hooded crow, goldfinch, bunting, two species of wheatear, tawny pipit, white wagtail, yellow wagtail, woodchat shrike, house sparrow, and rock sparrow. His Appendix A provides details on variations among individuals. Of the swallows, he reports minimal size differences, but some diversity in the color of their underparts and in how far the red throat patch spreads into the breast band.12 It is interesting that Watson saw resident barn swallows (Hirundo rustica) on Thera as late as 1964, but in 1971 Marinatos reported that the swallows he spotted were migrants, not island inhabitants.13 The organizers of ZOIA extended a welcome invitation for me to revisit the matter of birds in the Aegean Bronze Age. Given the enormity of the avian corpus now available, thanks to much new discovery and research, I propose to go birding mainly in the Aegean islands of Thera, Crete, and Melos, searching out primarily the barn swallow and Eleonora’s falcon. Since birders often keep a Life List, checking off species seen, I thought it might be useful to close with brief discussion (“Birds of a Feather” below) of how scribes and scholars in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia organized their own bird lists, from which we may perhaps extrapolate to the Aegean. Before setting forth, some in the group might question the premise of my project. After all, isn’t a hallmark of Bronze Age natural-history art its willingness to combine and stylize, even to create fantastic creatures, remarkable hybrids, and human-animal composites?14 While this is assuredly true, I would
G. HANDRINOS and T. AKRIOTIS, The Birds of Greece (1997) 19-23; theirs is the standard work, although one would wish for more illustrations, and in color. A handy pocket-guide is G. SFIKAS, Birds of Greece (1976), with montages of painted birds and backdrop photographs. For European birds in general, see the classic R.T. PETERSON, G. MOUNTFORT and P.A.D. HOLLOM, A Field Guide to the Birds of Britain and Europe (1987). G.E. WATSON, “Ecology and Evolution of Passerine Birds in the Islands of the Aegean Sea,” Yale University doctoral disseration (1964); vol. I, 1-12, summary of previous research, 1837-1964. WATSON (supra n. 11) vol. II, 16-17. S. MARINATOS, Excavations at Thera IV (1970 Season) (1971) 51-52; see also C. DOUMAS’s remarks on swallow absence in the discussion (244-245) after S. IMMERWAHR’s paper, “Swallows and Dolphins at Akrotiri: Some Thoughts on the Relationship of Vase-Painting to Wall-Painting,” in D.A. HARDY, C.G. DOUMAS, J.A. SAKELLARAKIS, P.M. WARREN (eds), Thera and the Aegean World III, Volume One. Archaeology (1990) 237-244. The suggestions put forward – disruption of swallow patterns post-eruption, unsuitable habitat, dearth of nesting material – would seem not to account for their presence just a few years before. The explanation may lie instead in some island-wide ecological event(s) in the late 1960s. Of the considerable literature on this subject, starting points include A. SIMANDIRAKI-GRIMSHAW, “Minoan Animal-Human Hybridity,” in D.B. COUNTS and B. ARNOLD (eds), The Master of the Animals in Old World Iconography (2010) 93-106; J. WEINGARTEN, “The Arrival of Egyptian Taweret and Bes[et] on Minoan Crete,” in L. BOMBARDIERI, A. D’AGOSTINO, G. GUARDUCCI, V. ORSI, and S. VALENTINI (eds), Identity and Connectivity. Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Florence, Italy, 1-3 March 2012 (2013) 371-378; C. RENFREW and I. MORLEY (eds), Image and Imagination. A Global Prehistory of Figurative Expression (2007); K.P. FOSTER, “Animal Hybrids, Masks, and Masques in Aegean Ritual,” 69-76 and F. BLAKOLMER, “Hierarchy and Symbolism of Animals and Mythical Creatures in the Aegean Bronze Age: A Statistical and Contextual Approach,” 61-68, both in E. ALRAM-STERN, F. BLAKOLMER, S. DEGER-JALKOTZY, R. LAFFINEUR and J. WEILHARTNER (eds), METAPHYSIS. Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 15th International Aegean Conference, Vienna, Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Aegean and Anatolian Department, Austrian Academy of Sciences and Institute of Classical Archaeology, University of Vienna, 22-25 April 2014 (2006); F. BLAKOLMER, “Il Buono, il Brutto, il Cattivo? Character, Symbolism and Hierarchy of Animals and Supernatural Creatures in Minoan and Mycenaean Iconography,” Creta Antica 17 (2016) 97-183; E. SHANK, “The Griffin Motif – An Evolutionary Tale,” in A.G. VLACHOPOULOS (ed.), Paintbrushes. Wall-Painting and Vase-Painting of the Second Millennium BC in Dialogue (2018) 235-241.

10

11

12 13

14





86

Karen Polinger FOSTER


hold that it matters very much if, for instance, a bird on a Theran ship prow is a dove or a swallow or a falcon, and I hope to suggest reasons why. A Flight of Swallows, Again As cooler weather sets in and insects diminish in number, barn swallows begin to leave Europe for their winter grounds.15 Our best chance of observing them before they depart is to visit Aegean reedbeds near water, where hundreds, often thousands of birds roost, the juveniles staying for two weeks or so, the adults moving on after a few days. Making a leisurely journey, feeding by day, they eventually head up the Nile Valley to much farther south in Africa. There, the juveniles develop the deeply forked tail that is the adults’ most readily recognized field mark. Usually in April, having made a round-trip of some 20,000 km, they are back. Successful breeding birds, as well as the now-grown juveniles, tend to return to the same area for nesting, having millennia ago shifted their preferred habitat from natural sites to human-made structures. From now until late summer, we have ample occasion to watch their aerial acrobatics, intense competitions, and brood raising, and to listen to their wide repertoire of vocalization. We see them most vividly in the Delta 2 frescoes at Thera (Pl. XIIa). As we look on, this flight of swallows engages neither in Love nor Lunch, but in aggressive, high-intensity display over territory and/or possession of airborne feathers to enrich their nests, with their beaks agape, necks and legs extended, and claws flexed.16 Numerous works capture this quintessential aspect of swallow behavior, as seen explicitly on the nippled ewer (5916) from the West House, Thera, and implicitly in the birds chasing each other around the bodies of vessels and along a Shaft Grave gold plaque (see below). With a sophisticated interplay of dark and light shapes, the artist also caught the essence of the birds’ distinctive plumage, especially the tail, whose outermost feathers, or streamers, project (as they should) approximately one-third the body length. A few the painter curved slightly to enhance the sense of movement. The white dots are authentically there at the base.17 But then at the tips, we see a decidedly odd feature: small loops, or racquets in ornithological parlance. Barn swallow tails do not end in racquets. Yet we espy racquets on the streamers of the majority of the other swallows in Aegean art.18
15

16

17

18




On swallow biology and behavior, see TATE (supra n. 5); A. TURNER and C. ROSE, Swallows and Martins. An Identification Guide and Handbook (1989); A.P. MØLLER, Sexual Selection and the Barn Swallow (1994); A. TURNER, The Barn Swallow (2006); J. ELPHICK, The Atlas of Bird Migration. Tracing the Great Journeys of the World’s Birds (2007) 104-105. FOSTER 1995 and 2019 (supra n. 1) for ornithological arguments against both Love and Lunch; ARNOTT (supra n. 9) 28 for Pliny’s astute observation that swallows “carpeted” their nests with feathers. Tail lengths, and at least in Asian populations the size of the white dots, are predictors of fitness quality in male and female swallows, which they use in selecting mates: MØLLER (supra n. 15). I would endorse nearly all of the swallow identifications in MARTHARI (supra n. 1) and BINNBERG 2018 (supra n. 1). In general, I find the birds on seals and sealings the most problematic. RUUUSKANEN (supra n. 1) enlisted the assistance of ornithologists, but includes more swallows than I would. My main diagnostic field mark is the V-tail, with secondary ones the carinated wing and small, pointed beak. These are seen fairly consistently in CMS 1 406, 469; CMS 1 Suppl. 169; CMS II 2 41; CMS II 3 94, 356; CMS XII 235. I hesitate about CMS X 248; although it has the V tail, its beak is missing and it has a broad, straight wing. It also finds itself jammed next to a waterbird, which is unusual company for a swallow. I still believe the silver discoid CMS II 2 43 shows a bird-person, not a swallow (supra n. 1, “Flight,” 416). I would draw attention here to some misapprehensions, starting with correcting my own list of what I then thought were certain swallows in “Flight”:#18, Tell Kabri bird (infra n. 79); #22, prow emblem, West House, shows a falcon (infra n. 52); #33 eyed jug, House of the Ladies, repository 2, shows falcons (infra n. 58); #34, pithoid jar, West House, room 6, Thera, falcons (infra n. 60), #35 Sellopoulou gold ring, falcon (infra “A Cast of Falcons”); #37 gold ring from Midea, columbids; #39, sealing from the South Porch, Knossos (Evans’s “swallow on a leash”), confronting corvids. The fresco fragment from the South House, Knossos (#21), which Evans thought was “apparently” a swallow, I saw as a likely dove; I now think it a hoopoe. Of the sightings since that list was made, I would not deem these swallows, as they have sometimes been identified:




BIRDS IN AEGEAN ISLAND ART AND THOUGHT


87


There would doubtless be more to add to our list, if their tails were completely preserved.19 Definite sightings include the following: -Wall painting, Beta 6, Thera: three or more swallows, globular loops.20 -Wall painting, Xeste 3, room 3a, Thera: six or more swallows, globular loops.21 -Wall painting, Xeste 3, room 2, Thera: six or more swallows and nestlings, globular loops.22 -Gold plaque, Shaft Grave III, Mycenae: two swallows, circular loops.23 -Gold ring, Tomb of the Griffin Warrior, Pylos: one swallow, tiny circular loops.24 (Pl. XIIb) -Gold ring (CMS II.3 114), Tomb 11, Kalyvia: one swallow, tiny circular loops.25 -Carnelian amygdaloid (CMS V, Suppl. IA 337): one swallow, tiny circular loop(s) (Pl. XIIc) -Strainer (3592), Xeste 3, room 3, Thera: four swallows, globular loops.26 (Pl. XIId) -Kymbe (101), Sector Alpha, room 2, Thera: ten? swallows, globular loops.27 -Bathtub (8886), Thera: four swallows, two with tiny circular loops.28 -Nippled ewer (2385), Thera: four swallows, globular loops.29 -Nippled ewer (9405), Thera: three swallows, trace of racquets.30
the gold foil cut-outs from the tholos tombs at Peristeria are falcons (infra n. 71); the Chrysolakkos gold pendant is a columbid (A. SIMANDIRAKI-GRIMSHAW and F. STEPHENS, “Adorning the Body: Animals as Ornaments in Bronze Age Crete,” in M.-L. NOSCH and R. LAFFINEUR [eds], KOSMOS. Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 13th International Aegean Conference, University of Copenhagen, 21-26 April 2010 [2012] 603); the prism seal from the Heraklion region (CMS VI 258) shows a falcon. The birds on ewer 6605 from the Megalochori settlement on Thera are difficult to discern, but are more likely corvids or falcons, rather than swallows (MARTHARI [supra n. 1] figs 15-16). The small netted birds in Xeste 3, room 3a are not swallows, perhaps warblers (infra nn. 74-76). Among the fragmentary or abraded birds likely to have had them: C.C. EDGAR, “The Pottery,” in T.D. ATKINSON et al. (eds) Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos (1904) fig. 92; R.C. BOSANQUET, “The WallPaintings,” in the same volume, fig. 65; S. MARINATOS, Excavations at Thera II. (1968 Season) (1969), fig. 28, nippled ewer 13481 from Shaft Grave Gamma; M. ROUSSAKI, “New Evidence in Minoan Pictorial Wall Painting: ‘The Swallows Fresco’ from the Knossos Area,” in TOUCHAIS et al. (supra n. 1) Pl. CLXXI; N. PLATON, “Iconography Workshops at Minoan Zakros: Marrying Political-Religious Symbolism with Expressive Freedom?” in VLACHOPOLOUS (supra n. 14) lower right, fig. 6, ivory from the East Building, broken at racquets. E. GEORMA, A. KARNAVA, and I. NIKOLAKOPOLOU, “The Natural World and Its Representations: A View from Akrotiri, Thera,” in TOUCHAIS et al. (supra n. 1) pl. LIVb [References for this list are meant to guide the reader to particularly clear photographs or drawings, in color wherever possible, and to a select range of sources, to facilitate swallow comparisons]. A. VLACHOPOULOS and L. ZORZOS, “Physis and Techne on Thera: Reconstructing Bronze Age Environment and Land-use Based on New Evidence from Phytoliths and the Akrotiri Wall-Paintings,” in TOUCHAIS et al. (supra n. 1) Pl. LXI. A.G. VLACHOPOULOS, “The Wall Paintings from the Xeste 3 Building at Akrotiri: Towards an Interpretation of the Iconographic Programme,” in N. BRODIE, J. DOOLE, G. GAVALAS, and C. RENFREW (eds), Horizon. Όρίζων. A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades (2008) figs 41.15, 41.16. FOSTER 1995 (supra n. 1) fig. 10. J.L. DAVIS and S.R. STOCKER, “The Lord of the Gold Rings,” Hesperia 85 (2016) 645-646. In her catalogue entry for D11, BINNBERG 2018 (supra n. 1) reads this bird as having a “fan-shaped tail, indicated by three lines.” I still see a V-tail, with two miscellaneous marks near it, and possibly an airborne feather near the beak. M. MARTHARI, “The Attraction of the Pictorial: Observations on the Relationship of Theran Pottery and Theran Fresco Iconography,” in SHERRATT ed. (supra n. 1) fig. 1. MARINATOS (supra n. 19) Pl. C8. C. DOUMAS, “The Human Figure at the Mercy of the Paintbrush,” in VLACHOPOULOS ed. (supra n. 14) fig. 12. MARTHARI (supra n. 1) fig. 18. MARTHARI (supra n. 1) fig. 13.

19

20

21

22

23 24 25

26

27 28

29 30





88

Karen Polinger FOSTER


-Nippled ewer (NAM 112), Thera: three swallows, globular loops.31 -Nippled ewer (5915), West House, Thera: three swallows, one with globular loops.32 -Nippled ewer (5916), West House, Thera: at least five interacting pairs, globular loops.33 -Eyed ewer (2651), Thera, three swallows, globular loops.34 The Delta 2 birds are clearly not alone in having tail racquets. Are these signs of damage or congenital malformation? Or did a significant number of Aegean barn swallows have tail racquets, a trait that did not survive 3500 years of evolution? Since neither of these scenarios is ornithologically plausible, are they simply “fanciful”35 or designs “improved upon nature”36? The curious case of the racquets has puzzled me for many years. The solution I offer here follows an iconographic clue. Let us take a closer look at the birds on the Xeste 3 strainer (3592) (Pl. XIId), where we discover that their tail racquets are precisely the same shape as the stigmas of the large crocus blossoms painted below them. When we turn to crocuses in clumps, we find miniature swallow tails aplenty in the V-shaped styles and globular stigmas growing in the flowers on the walls of Xeste 3, the House of the Frescoes at Knossos, and elsewhere.37 Of the birds with racquets, those in Beta 6, Xeste 3, and the bathtub (8886) appear with crocuses; furthermore, some of the Xeste 3 women have crocuses on their faces and ankles, or embellishing their clothing, or in one case under a foot.38 Many of these blossoms were painted using purple murex dyes, fugitive and now barely visible to the eye, especially where the flowers appear against a white background of skin or sky. I wonder if the comparatively rare open racquets of the Delta 2 and several other fresco swallows were originally filled in with crocus petal colors.39 Crocuses may be tacitly present in rockwork settings often abloom with them and alive with swallows, as in the kymbe (101), the new Knossos fresco fragments (supra n. 19), and the Shaft Grave III gold plaque. And if we return to Delta 2 for a moment, where we saw our first flight of swallows, we find an intriguing pithos on which spirals and crocuses surround a rayed sun-disk with a crocus in its center.40


31 32 33 34 35 36 37

38

39

40




MARTHARI (supra n. 1) fig. 14. MARTHARI (supra n. 1) fig. 12. MARTHARI (supra n. 1) fig. 11. MARINATOS (supra n. 19) Pl. A. DAVIS and STOCKER (supra n. 24) 645-646. HARTE (supra n. 1) 693. For botanical and painted renderings, see R. PORTER, “The Flora of the Theran Wall Paintings: Living Plants and Motifs – Sea Lily, Crocus, Iris and Ivy,” in SHERRATT ed. (supra n. 1) 614-623; C. DOUMAS, The Wall-Paintings of Thera (1992) especially the endpapers; A.P. CHAPIN and M.C. SHAW, “The Frescoes from the House of the Frescoes at Knossos: A Reconsideration of Their Architectural Context and a New Reconstruction of the Crocus Panel,” BSA 101 (2006) 57-88. F. BLAKOLMER, “Body Marks and Textile Ornaments in Aegean Iconography: Their Meaning and Symbolism,” in NOSCH and LAFFINEUR eds (supra n. 18) 325-333; P. REHAK, “Crocus Costumes in Aegean Art,” in A.P. CHAPIN (ed), XARIΣ. Essays in Honor of Sara A. Immerwahr (2004) 85-100. B. ALOUPI, Y. MANIATIS, T. PARADELLIS, and L. KARALI-YANNACOPOULOU, “Analysis of a Purple Material Found at Akrotiri,” in HARDY et al. eds (supra n. 13) 488-490. The presence of murex purple in Theran wall paintings has now been confirmed: E. CHRYSIKOPOULOU, “Use of Murex Purple in the Wall-Paintings of Akrotiri, Thera,” AΛΣ 3 (2005) 77-80; A.G. VLACHOPOULOS, “Purple Rosettes/Πορφυροί ρόδακες: New Data on Polychromy and Perception in the Thera Wall Paintings,” in R.B. KOEHL (ed.), Studies in Aegean Art and Culture. A New York Aegean Bronze Age Colloquium in Memory of Ellen N. Davis (2016) 59-76. See also infra nn. 74, 120. N. MARINATOS, “Myth, Ritual, Symbolism and the Solar Goddess in Thera,” in ALRAM-STEIN et al. eds (supra n. 14) Pl. IVb.




BIRDS IN AEGEAN ISLAND ART AND THOUGHT


89


The saffron crocus is a perennial Aegean motif, especially in Minoan and Cycladic frescoes, seals, pottery, jewelry, faience, textiles, and bodily adornment.41 The plant has a uniquely contrary life cycle.42 The sterile crocus blooms in the autumn, and its leaves wither and die back in the spring. Months later, the crocus emerges from the underground daughter corms in a dramatic, floral epiphany. Processing saffron for culinary, dyeing, pharmacological, and psychoactive uses seems to have been an economic mainstay of the day.43 I propose that there are two principal reasons for the swallow/saffron crocus connection. One is their sequential, complementary existence: just as swallows depart, crocuses bloom, and as their leaves shrivel to nothing, swallows return. Together, bird and plant span the year, appearing and reappearing in a natural-world epiphany, with both magical mystery and cyclical certainty.44 The pairing also figures in epiphanies engendered by human agency.45 On gold rings, swallows and other birds dart and swoop overhead as people pull on trees, kneel against boulders, and experience ecstatic visions, many of them conceivably saffron-induced.46 The Kalyvia ring swallow (CMS II.3 114) may even have a floating feather in its sights. Another racqueted swallow (Pl. XIIc), this one the sole subject, carries a circlet of beads in its beak (CMS V, Suppl. 1A 337).47 Do these have ritual meaning and purpose? We recall here the beads held and worn by the Xeste 3 women engaged with saffron, as well as the so-called necklaces painted around some of the (gendered?) white necks of the nippled vessels with swallows.48
J. DAY, “Crocuses in Context: A Diachronic Survey of the Crocus Motif in the Aegean Bronze Age,” Hesperia 80 (2011) 337-379 (for ceramic image archetypes, see her Table I, chronological development of the crocus motif) and “Counting Threads: Saffron in Aegean Bronze Age Writing and Society,” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 30 (2011) 369-391. M. KAFI, A. KONECHEKI, M.H. RASHED, and M. NASSIRI (eds), Saffron (Crocus sativus). Production and Processing (2006); M. NEGBI (ed.), Saffron. Crocus sativus L (1999). K.P. FOSTER, Strange and Wonderful. Exotic Flora and Fauna in Image and Imagination (2020) 50-53; S.C. FERRANCE and G. BEDERSKY, “Therapy with Saffron and the Goddess at Thera,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 47 (2004) 199-226; P. REHAK, “Imag(in)ing a Women’s World in Bronze Age Greece: The Frescoes from Xeste 3 at Akrotiri, Thera,” in N.S. RABINOWITZ and L. AUANGER (eds), Among Women. From the Homosocial to the Homoerotic in the Ancient World (2002) 47-50 on saffron’s health properties; N. MARINATOS, “An Offering of Saffron to the Minoan Goddess of Nature: The Role of the Monkey and the Importance of Saffron,” in T. LINDERS and G. NORDQUIST (eds), Gifts to the Gods. Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1985 (1987) 123-132; D. KRIGA, “Flora and Fauna Iconography on Strainers and Kymbes at Akrotiri: Theran Ceramic Vessels of Special Use and Special Iconography,” in TOUCHAIS et al. eds (supra n. 1) 501 for the suggestion that some crocus-decorated vessels were intended for saffron-related purposes. So, too, perhaps seen in the floral iconography of the Xeste 3 Procession Fresco, which A.P. CHAPIN proposes “encompasses three different seasons, creating a sense of timelessness that enhances the transcendent quality of the composition” (“The Lady of the Landscape: An Investigation of Aegean Costuming and the Xeste 3 Frescoes,” in C.S. COLBURN and M.K. HEYN [eds], Reading a Dynamic Canvas. Adornment in the Ancient Mediterranean World [2008] 77). On a Thera kymbe with goats and crocuses, PORTER (supra n. 37) saw the goat horns as stigmalike and noted that “wild goats mate in the autumn when the saffron crocus flowers” (614). Among numerous studies of Aegean epiphany, see especially N. MARINATOS, Minoan Religion. Ritual, Image, and Symbol (1993), as well as the many papers in ALRAM-STERN et al. eds (supra n. 14). K.P. FOSTER, “Psychedelic Art and Ecstatic Visions in the Aegean,” in D. STEIN, S.K. COSTELLO, and K.P. FOSTER (eds), Routledge Companion to Ecstatic Experience in the Ancient World, in press. BINNBERG 2018 (supra n. 1) 187 takes this to be mud pellets being brought for nest-building; although the photograph in her fig. 193 shows a swallow so doing, I still read the small dots as beads. For example, Thera 5915, 5916 (supra nn. 32, 33); on Theran beads, see R. LAFFINEUR, “Dress, Hairstyle and Jewellery in the Theran Wall Paintings,” in SHERRATT ed. (supra n. 1) 999-1007; J. YOUNGER, “Representations of Minoan-Mycenaean Jewelry,” in R. LAFFINEUR and J.L. CROWLEY (eds), EIKΩN. Aegean Bronze Age Iconography, Shaping a Methodology. Proceedings of the 4th International Aegean Conference, University of Tasmania, 6-9 April 1992 (1992) 257-293; A. VLACHOPOULOS and F. GEORMA, “Jewellery and

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48





90

Karen Polinger FOSTER


A recent find adds an acoustical dimension, perhaps echoing the exceptional range of swallow vocalization.49 From Xeste 4 come three wooden finger clappers, one of which partially preserves addorsed passerines framing a crocus clump growing among rocks.50 Their streamerlike tails, crocus association, and appearance on an object likely used during some significant event induce me to deem them swallows. A Cast of Falcons In common with others of its genus, the Eleonora’s falcon (Pl. XIIe) has on its cheek prominent malar markings, often called moustachial stripes or streaks, which serve to diminish sun glare.51 With pointed wings spanning over a meter, it glides impressively, carpals projecting slightly and the rear edges held straight. While most Mediterranean birds breed and nest between late March and May, the Eleonoras delay breeding until late summer. This gives their chicks the advantage of an abundant and richly diversified food source in the large flocks of migratory birds passing through the Aegean in the early autumn. Adult Eleonoras hover in wait for them, facing into the wind, tails fanning out, with as many as 150 males evenly spaced above the water and at varying altitudes up to 1000 meters. This cooperative, large-scale avian trap results in high group and individual success: one falcon was observed to bring five songbirds to its mate and nestlings within half an hour. Clutched in the talons, the victims are plucked before being eaten. By late autumn, adults and fledgings are ready to set forth on their own migratory journey, heading to Madagascar, where they remain until May. Its distinctive predatory behaviors made the Eleonora an eminently fitting prow emblem for Cycladic ships.52 As a result, I believe that we may gainfully bring into sharper focus, in at least this aspect of boat iconography, the “sketchy symbolism of animals…as metaphorically indicating rapidity, strength, and aggressiveness.”53 The most naturalistic rendering is seen on a boat pictured in the West House miniature frieze. Glyptic versions can be stylized to the point of abstraction, with a few deft strokes catching the falcon silhouette. In more pictorialized seals and sealings, its field marks are easier to spot, from the hooked beak to the longish tail rendered with two or more parallel grooves. This is what we observe on the gold Sellopoulou ring (CMS B 1 17), where the falcon participates front and center in an epiphanic tableau. We also see it by itself, perhaps about to snag a small bird (CMS XII 150), or filling nearly the entire space (CMS II.6 113, 114). The last, both from Haghia Triada, include an indication of the malar markings, in the form of a sinuous line from the eye to the breast. On a prism seal from the Heraklion region, this is refined as a spiral encircling the eye and scrolling down the neck (CMS VI 258). The spiral was elaborated further on gold addorsed falcon ornaments from Shaft Graves III and V at Mycenae, complementing the sculptural quality of their flexed talons and fanned tails.54 If the ten


49

50

51

52

53 54




Adornment at Akrotiri, Thera: Evidence from the Wall Paintings and the Finds,” 35-42 and E. SHANK, “The Jewelry Worn by the Procession of Mature Women from Xeste 3, Akrotiri,” 559-565, both in NOSCH and LAFFINEUR eds (supra n. 18). TURNER (supra n.15) 59-65; a loud rattle by males may indicate high reproductive fitness. On the Homeric swallow metaphors of sound and silence, see FOSTER 2019 (supra n. 1) 611. M. MIKRAKIS, “Technologies of Sound across Aegean Crafts and Mediterranean Cultures,” in A. BRYSBAERT (ed.), Tracing Prehistoric Social Networks through Technology (2011) 53-54. On the Eleonora’s characteristics and behavior, see HANDRINOS and AKRIOTIS (supra n. 10) 145-146; ELPHICK (supra n. 15) 92-93. HARTE (supra n. 1) 688-689 was the first to identify the bird as the Eleonora’s falcon, previously thought to be a swallow or dove. For falcon and other Aegean boat emblems, see M. WEDDE, Towards a Hermeneutics of Aegean Bronze Age Ship Imagery (2000); K.P. FOSTER, “The Adornment of Aegean Boats,” in NOSCH and LAFFINEUR eds (supra n. 18) 673-684. BLAKOLMER 2016 (supra n. 14) 98. G. KARO, Die Schachtgräber von Mykenai (1930-33) Pl. XXVI (NAM 44, 60), with close-ups in BINNBERG 2018 (supra n. 1) fig. 82 and catalogue entry C25.




BIRDS IN AEGEAN ISLAND ART AND THOUGHT


91


Shaft Grave V pieces were strung together, we may picture the necklace as a miniature, but evocative, Eleonora trap.55 Vase painters, especially in the Cyclades, expanded the moustachial streak into multiple spirals or stripes, and they normally rendered the body as a large, red-painted circle (Pl. XIIf). This derives from another striking feature of this raptor’s plumage – color polymorphism, rare in not being sexually determined, with about 70% of both males and females having a prominent ruddy breast.56 The most numerous examples come from Phylakopi, with others notably from Thera and the Temple Repositories at Knossos.57 Variants pull the circle into a petaloid shape, often filled with subsidiary patterns nested within it.58 On several of the vessels, solid red disks, sometimes rayed, appear among the birds.59 More elaborate disks occur on a pithoid jar from the West House, room 6, whose three falcons have small disks, divided into quadrants, on their bodies.60 We see this falcon/disk combination as well on a silver Cycladic diadem.61 This would seem to introduce a solar component and perhaps Egyptian interconnections,62 From the beginnings of dynastic Egypt onward, they “found in the soaring falcon their perfect metaphor for majesty…the notion that the king fulfills a role on earth under the protective wings of the celestial falcon in heaven.”63 In pharaonic art, the bird is a composite creation,64 which I suggest united the falcon species of both Upper and Lower Egypt in a neat political emblem. Most display moustachial markings, in their simplest guise a single spiral added to a human eye to make the popular wedjat amulet. When transferred to Twelfth Dynasty griffins, they developed into exuberant face and neck spirals, which possibly influenced Aegean interpretations of these fantastic beasts.65 Of all the falcon’s features, the most spectacular is its mid-air killing strike.66 The hunter drops down on its target at enormous speed until it is about two meters away. Then it lowers its feet, thrusting them forward to double the impact force. The second the prey is snagged in the powerful talons, the
One is reminded here of the cormorants and dragonflies on the necklace of the so-called goddess figure in Xeste 3, seen in detail in DOUMAS (supra n. 37) 163. On-going ornithological research is investigating the costs and benefits of this pale morph, as it is known, versus the dark morph of more uniformly brown feathers: L. GANGOS and J. FIGUEROLA, “Breeding success but not mate choice is phenotype- and context-dependent in a color polymorphic raptor,” Behavioral Ecology 30 (2019) 763-769. For representative examples: from Phylakopi, EDGAR (supra n. 19) fig. 91 (NAM 5768), Pls XVI 20, XXI 1 (NAM 5762, in color in R.L.N. BARBER, “Subject and Setting: Early Representational Motifs on Pottery from Phylakopi (EC IIIB-MC) and their Relevance to Fresco Scenes,” in VLACHOPOULOS ed. [supra n. 14] fig. 7); from Thera, A. PAPAGIANNOPOULOU, “From Pots to Pictures: Middle Cycladic Figurative Art from Akrotiri, Thera,” in BRODIE et al. eds (supra n. 22) figs 40.24-25 (9109) and I. NIKOLAKOPOULOU, “The Painter’s Brush and How to Use it: Elementary and Advanced Lessons from Akrotiri Iconography,” in VLACHOPOULOS ed. (supra n. 14) fig. 5a, also her figs 1-3 (9671) and figs 4-5 (11737) in “Minoan and Minoanising Imagery: Myths and Realities,” in F. BLAKOLMER (ed.) Current Approaches and New Perspectives in Aegean Iconography (2020); from Knossos, at least nine vessels from the Temple Repositories, many in PM 1, 550-561, figs 404, 405. Examples include the eyed jug, House of Ladies, repository 2 (S. MARINATOS, Excavations at Thera V [1972] Pl. A and the beaked jug from Shaft Grave VI (PM 1 fig. 405g). As in the tubular spouted jug 9109 (supra n. 57) and the nippled jug from chamber tomb 2, Antiparos: Z. PAPADOPOULOU, “Middle Cycladic Pictorial Pottery from Antiparos: The Case of the ‘Nippled Jug with Birds,’” in VLACHOPOULOS ed. (supra n. 14) fig. 16. Ergon 1980, fig. 83. PAPAGIANNOPOULOU (supra n. 57) fig. 40.21 (NAM 5234). MARINATOS (supra n. 40) and her Minoan Kingship and the Solar Goddess (2010). S. QUIRKE, Ancient Egyptian Religion (1992) 21-22. BAILLEUL-LESUER (supra n. 2) 174 (catalogue entry 21); P.F. HOULIHAN, The Birds of Ancient Egypt (1986) 46-48; P. GERMOND and J. LIVET, An Egyptian Bestiary. Animals in Life and Religion in the Land of the Pharaohs (2001) 166. As EVANS first noted (PM 1, 709-712). See also FOSTER 2014 (supra n. 1) 223-225; SHANK (supra n. 14). R. BURTON, Bird Behavior (1985) 104-105.

55

56

57

58

59

60 61 62 63 64

65 66





92

Karen Polinger FOSTER


falcon brakes by fanning its tail and thrusting up its wings. This permits an almost instantaneous change of direction, so the falcon may swiftly carry its victim off to be plucked and eaten. As we near the end of our birding adventures, we come upon a falcon in triumph (Pl. XIIg).67 Dominating one side of a spouted jug, the red-brown bird fans its tail and spreads its great wings, carpals projecting. Its talons are fastened onto the back of its kill, whose own claws dangle limply. Some have seen this small creature as the falcon’s nestling, but this is an ornithological impossibility.68 Nor, in my view, can it be an insect (strangely two-legged), although falcons are occasionally known to ground-feed on beetles, locusts, and grasshoppers. Instead, what I believe the painter has done is to combine the significant phases of the falcon-hunt narrative into one image, from the spectacular aerial seizure over water (shown as a wavy line?) to the prey display. On the other side of the jug, perhaps in a thematically related scene, two men pour liquid in an outdoor setting.69 Since the little bird is not a nestling, I would demur before seeing the falcon as “embodying a ‘fertility’ goddess” and the men as “offering libations in its presence.”70 Avian Adornment If instead we construe that falcon as an epiphanic, divine vision, then this prompts us to consider the relationship between avian appearance (in both senses) and human response, as seen particularly with respect to falcons and swallows in costume and performance. Let us begin with the gold spangles attached to burial garments. From tholos tombs 1 and 3 at Peristeria, Messina, come falcon ornaments, at least one of which preserves its diagnostic moustachial spiral.71 The slightly forked tail on a cut-out found at Archanes might indicate a juvenile swallow, which would be rather fitting if this was a child’s grave, as the small bones suggest.72 We gain a fuller sense of bird-adorned clothing thanks to the wall paintings of women processing along an upper-story corridor in Xeste 3 (Pl. LXIIIb infra, in Andreas Vlachopoulos’s paper, fourth woman from left). The so-called Lady of the Landscape wears an ankle-length skirt decorated with brightly colored rocks and at least six swallows darting among them.73 Little remains of her upper body, but it is appealing to speculate that she might have carried a bouquet of crocuses or had them embellishing her blouse. Or perhaps those on the wall opposite, pictured on the Basket Bearer’s bodice and in her hair, were sufficient. Behind the Lady of the Landscape is the Lily Bearer, named for the large spray of white lilies she holds against her left shoulder. Our attention focuses on the mesh pattern on her upper arms, for there we find two tiny blue birds with red throats and necks, outspread wings, and black-bordered fan tails. While these are usually read as showing embroidered or appliquéd decoration on the bodice sleeves, Papageorgiou has recently made a detailed examination of this area of the fresco, concluding that it
67

68

69

70

71 72 73




PAPAGIANNOPOULOU (supra n. 57) fig. 40.14-20 (8960). We should in passing note two pairs of soaring falcons: one set flies head to head on a lid from Quartier Mu, Mallia (K.P. FOSTER, Minoan Ceramic Relief [1982] 94); the other adorns the handles of Schliemann’s “Cup of Nestor” from Shaft Grave IV, Mycenae. As pointed out by L. MORGAN, “Inspiration and Innovation: The Creation of Wall-paintings in the Absence of a Pictorial Pottery Tradition at Ayia Irini Kea,” in VLACHOPOULOS ed. (supra n. 14) 279 n. 6. The drawing in fig. 40.20 (supra n. 67) shows a hooked beak on the little bird; so far as I can tell from the photographs, its (open?) beak overlaps with a plant leaf. Compare, for instance, the prism seal CMS VI 258, with a ewer on one side and a bird and vegetation on another. A. PAPAGIANNOPOULOU, “The Beginnings of an Island Narration: Pictorial Pottery and Wallpaintings of the Second Millennium BC,” in VLACHOPOULOS ed. (supra n. 14) 179, where she suggests “epiphany of a bird goddess” as an altenative interpretation. See my next section for discussion. VLACHOPOULOS and GEORMA (supra n. 48) Pl. XVIa. BINNBERG 2018 (supra n. 1) catalogue entry for C17. CHAPIN (supra n. 44).




BIRDS IN AEGEAN ISLAND ART AND THOUGHT


93


depicts small birds caught in a net, which the Lily Bearer wears like a shawl.74 As for the birds, they are definitely not swallows. If miniaturized, they may be columbids.75 If naturalistically scaled, the Subalpine Warbler is a likely sighting.76 Since that little songbird is a favored falcon prey species,77 there may be an implied link. Furthermore, Papageorgiou’s reconstruction of the net (her fig. 8) reminds me of the Eleonora trap, and its possible rendition as a gold necklace (supra n. 55). While she views the birds as alive and struggling, meant to be an offering along with the flowers, I would see them rather as part of the elaborate costume iconography of Xeste 3. Falcons may themselves appear on the skirt of a seated woman in a fragmentary wall painting from Phylakopi.78 These birds too have been called swallows, also griffins; their wing shape and feather patterns preclude the former, and their avian bodies and tails rule out the latter. Bits and pieces of other Aegean frescoes and objects hint at many similar garments decorated with motifs of birds, plants, and landscapes.79 Despite the incomplete nature of the material, it is clear that the Aegean had developed a sophisticated language of dress, its vocabulary and syntax testaments to the significance of pictorial clothing and to the important roles these richly garbed women played in ritual performances. Prime among these were surely epiphanic celebrations. At greater length elsewhere, I have suggested that the readily observable swallow theater of aerial acrobatics, dark and light gyrations of wings and bodies, and expressive vocalization was a major inspiration for dance and costuming.80 Outright evidence comes from the birds flying to and fro on the Lady of the Landscape’s skirt. Here I would also include the Bird Ladies shown on over thirty seals and seal impressions.81 It is their long, carinated sleeves that best convey the swallow illusion, since the human arm is proportioned very like the swallow’s wing in terms of its distances from shoulder to elbow to wrist to fingertips.82 In addition, I believe there are subtle but telling swallow referents in the dark, calligraphic bands adorning light-colored bodices and elbow-length sleeves. Of the numerous examples, I would note particularly the Temple Repositories’ faience dress plaques, with their forked tail patterns, and a faience snake-handler’s sleeves, with their winglike play of positive and negative.83 And as we might expect, crocuses are present too, from those shown on the dress-plaque skirts and a faience rolled belt to a pair of faience blossoms.84 In her comprehensive treatment of the Temple Repositories, Panagiotaki remarks that thematically “the only element not covered is the air: no images of birds or insects in faience were
“The Practice of Bird Hunting in the Aegean of the Second Millennium BC: An Investigation,” BSA 109 (2014) 111-128. An actual fishing net, comprising several mesh sizes, was preserved at Akrotiri: D. MYLONA, “Marine Resources in Late Bronze Age Southern Aegean Communities,” AJA 124 (2020) 186. On possible methods for introducing motifs to clothing, including using murex dye for crocus blossoms (supra n. 39), see REHAK (supra n. 38) 91. See also infra n. 120. CHAPIN (supra n. 44) 55-56. PAPAGEORGIOU (supra n. 74) 120 n. 11. HANDRINOS and AKRIOTIS (supra n. 10), 255. BOSANQUET (supra n. 19) fig. 61; S.P. MURRAY, “Patterned Textiles as Costume in Aegean Art” in M.C. SHAW and A.P. CHAPIN (eds), Woven Threads. Patterned Textiles of the Aegean Bronze Age (2016) fig. 3.20. For the corpus, see CHAPIN (supra n. 44) 71. I wonder if the three avian pieces found among the wallpainting fragments discovered in the palace at Tell Kabri might belong to textile depictions, rather than to a miniature seaside scene. These include: a wing patterned like the ones on the Phylakopi skirt; a moustachial spiral; and what is said to be a swallow (I cannot quite make out its V-tail). I am also not sure about its reconstructed placement, flying over the harbor town, as this would be the first swallow seen in the sky of a miniature fresco. Could the wing and spiral belong to a falcon, not a griffin? (B. and W.-D. NIEMEIER, “Aegean Frescoes in Syria-Palestine: Alalakh and Tell Kabri,” in SHERRATT ed. [supra n. 1] 779, figs 12, 13; figs 7, 8 for floor paintings of crocuses). FOSTER 2017 (supra n. 1. FOSTER (supra n. 14). J.J. VIDELER, Avian Flight (2005) especially 89, fig. 2.1. K.P. FOSTER, Aegean Faience of the Bronze Age (1979) figs 17, 18, pls. 10, 11, 17. M. PANAGIOTAKI, The Central Palace Sanctuary at Knossos (1999) figs 19:147; 27:217, 218, 221; FOSTER (supra n. 83) Pl. 14.

74

75 76 77 78

79

80 81 82 83 84





94

Karen Polinger FOSTER


found.”85 In my view, faience swallows do fly in artful ways. And, as we remember, falcons soar on many of the vessels also recovered from the Temple Repositories. It is usually up to the imagination to picture how Aegean avian costumes might have looked in motion. Here, we are fortunate in actually being able to witness the effect, thanks to the tableaux vivants staged for the opening ceremonies of the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens.86 Led by a snake-handler, a group of dancers wore form-fitting bodices with elbow-length, swallow-banded sleeves. In the choreography of their arm movements, a flight of swallows came wondrously alive. Birds of a Feather Certain of those who have now birded with me in the Aegean islands may still question the applicability of the Linnaean system to Bronze Age concepts of classification. How, they ask, did Aegean peoples order the natural world? What criteria did they use to define categories? As Morgan puts it, “…classification according to genus/species…is effective, but I wonder if it adequately reflects the system of animal classification revealed in Minoan iconography? Would the predator-prey relationship, or wild and domestic, or even non-edible and edible be more to the point?”87 In the absence of Minoan and Mycenaean textual evidence, it is instructive to look for possible answers to the many pertinent records from more or less contemporaneous Mesopotamia and Egypt.88 Beginning in the late fourth millennium B.C.E. and continuing for over three thousand years, Mesopotamian scribes produced extensive lexical lists of signs and words, first in Sumerian, then in bilingual and multilingual versions.89 One even finds Egyptian/Akkadian glossaries at Amarna and extracts written half in Greek on clay tablets from Hellenistic Babylonia.90 While some word lists are organized acrographically, that is, by first sign (akin to alphabetization), most are grouped thematically and include enumerations of animals, fish, and birds, as well as plants, stones, occupations, tools, foods, and so on. Taken as a whole, these cover all aspects of what Rochberg has termed “observable and imaginable phenomena.”91 Over the millennia, they exhibit great stability in their content, attesting to an “underlying unity of the tradition.”92 As a result, these documents have been instrumental in aiding modern scholars with decipherment and translation. For ancient scribes, the lexical lists, both sign and word, served several crucial purposes. Above all, they “reflect the extraordinary importance of cuneiform writing for culture and cultural identity.”93 Mastery of this material defined the educated, literate person. Particularly from the Old Babylonian period on, the lists were used for earnest instructional, philological, and heuristic training within the scribal curriculum. To give an idea of their bulk, there were ultimately over fourteen thousand entries listing Sumerian logograms with their pronunciations and Akkadian meanings. Rigorous lexicographical learning meant that administrators and especially practitioners of divination, medicine, and magic had
85 86

87

88

89 90

91 92

93




Supra n. 84, 104. “Klepsydra,” opening pageant for the 2004 Olympic Games held in Athens: http://youtu.be/ bh919Dz4xQU; A. SIMANDIRAKI, “Minoan Archaeology in the Athens 2004 Olympic Games,” European Journal of Archaeology 8 (2005) 157-181. L. MORGAN, “Idea, Idiom and Iconography,” in P. DARCQUE and J.-C. POURSAT (eds), L’iconographie minoenne. Actes de la Table Ronde d’Athènes (21-22 avril 1983) (1985) 6. For an overview, see T. POMMERERING and W. BISSING (eds), Classification from Antiquity to Modern Times. Sources, Methods, and Theories from an Interdisciplinary Perspective (2017). N. VELDHUIS, History of the Cuneiform Lexical Tradition (2014). A. MILLARD, “Lexical Texts,” in P. BIENKOWSKI and A. MILLARD (eds), Dictionary of the Ancient Near East (2000) 181; T. BOIY, Late Achaemenid and Hellenistic Babylon (2004) 38-39, 41-42, 292, 296-297; K. STEPHENS, Between Greece and Babylonia. Hellenistic Intellectual History in Cross-Cultural Perspective (2019) 120143. F. ROCHBERG, Before Nature. Cuneiform Knowledge and the History of Science (2016) 97. J.A. BLACK and F.N.H. AL-RAWI, “A Contribution to the Study of Akkadian Bird Names,” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 77 (1987) 117. VELDHUIS (supra n. 89) 426, with further discussion 427-429.




BIRDS IN AEGEAN ISLAND ART AND THOUGHT


95


access to an enormous body of linguistic knowledge. As the centuries passed, lexical texts connected scribes to a distant past, by providing a means for them to become part of an immensely long tradition of transmission and professional identity, whatever subsequent use they made of their knowledge. But do the Bird List and the other thematic word lists take us beyond the pedagogical, practical, or psychological to any understanding of how the Mesopotamians viewed their world? Do they reflect a wish to know and classify nature, or to describe empirically the universe? Von Soden’s seminal study, published in 1936, focused on the then-available corpus of the earliest lists.94 As a forthright supporter of the dominant German ideology of the time, he sought to distinguish the non-Semitic Sumerian mind from the Semitic one of later Babylonia and Assyria, admiring and elevating the former for its apparent Ordnungswille, or desire to order the cosmos, demonstrated, he believed, by the lexical lists.95 Yet as also one of the pre-eminent Assyriologists of his generation, he engaged more dispassionately with the subject once he moved beyond his preliminary remarks and into the heart of his work. In discussing the animal lists, he bids us look at how carefully the Babylonians observed creatures and collected information, producing thousands of omen texts referring to their typical and anomalous appearance and behavior. Divination operations literally opened the way to intense scrutiny and description of internal organs and their function.96 While acknowledging that no general compendia on the natural history of animals survive, von Soden holds that the extant material does attest to a nascent zoology, in the modern sense.97 Where does this leave the Bird List? From the start, it seems to have had a high level of consistency. In addition, it has no loosely related items, such as the various containers found in the early Fish List, for instance, apparently included because they were used for delivering the catch. Instead, when nonbirds occur, they are creatures like locusts and bats, which suggests a classification system for “animals that fly.”98 Accordingly, it “conforms much better to our notion of what an encyclopedic list of bird names should look like.”99 By the Old Babylonian period, and beyond, the Bird List had some 150 entries. To insure that scribes matched a given word to the correct bird, notations sometimes provided germane details, such as “an ostrich has huge eggs” or “the magpie carries valuables.”100 While individual Bird List entries may vary in length and spelling, they generally group together comparable numbers of species of domestic/edible fowl, waterfowl, and birds of prey. This holds true even in an Old Babylonian list from Sippar, which exceptionally gives seventy birds in a different over-all arrangement.101 In a thirdmillennium version from Ebla, birds of prey are afforded expanded attention, perhaps reflecting commercial interests in supplying raptors from that region of Syria for clients elsewhere.102
W. VON SODEN, “Leistung und Grenze sumerischer und babylonischer Wissenschaft,” Die Welt als Geschichte 2 (1936) 411-464, 509-557 (reprinted 1965, with new pagination 21-123). In the years since World War II, Assyriologists have regularly challenged von Soden’s “Order of the World” theories, colored as many of them were by his socio-political views. For a summary of the various positions, see VELDHUIS (supra n. 89) 53-59. See also J. FLYGARE, “Assyriology and Nazism: A Contextual Analysis of Three Texts by Wolfram von Soden from 1936-38,” Journal of Associated Graduates in Near Eastern Studies 11 (2006) 3-42, with the article supra n. 94 one of those he treats. For a first-rate introduction to this complex and fundamental aspect of Mesopotamian civilization, see S.M. MAUL, The Art of Divination in the Ancient Near East. Reading the Signs of Heaven and Earth (2018). Supra n. 94, reprint, 70-71. As ROCHBERG (supra n. 91) 102 puts it, while it is true that those involved with medico/magical practices relied on the lists mainly for their utility, they were nevertheless establishing “norms and anomalies within meaningful categories, and using those categories as vehicles, to find an order of things.” M. BONECHI, “Noms d’oiseaux à Ébla. Les rapaces,” in D. PARAYRE (ed.) Les animaux et les hommes dans le monde syro-mésopotamien aux époques historiques (2000) 253. VELDHUIS (supra n. 89) 45. VELDHUIS (supra n. 89) 85. BLACK and AL-RAWI (supra n. 92). BONECHI (supra n. 98).

94

95

96

97

98

99 100 101 102





96

Karen Polinger FOSTER


By any measure, it would seem that the Bird List does comprise meaningful classifications transcending time and space, even if other lexical lists do not. A final point. I am intrigued by the markedly ornithological role of birds in literature, drawing on the rich avifauna of Mesopotamia.103 I give here two examples to suggest directions for the fuller study the topic merits. In the Sumerian poetic lamentations over the destruction of cities, the goddess Inanna swoops down like a predatory falcon, the people fly from their homes like swallows, and the reedbed is safe haven no more.104 And it seems as though an actual third-millennium Bird List was used in a later tale about the long-ago origins of bird diversity, a text today known as “Nanshe and the Birds.”105 The story’s old-fashioned bird names lend it literary authenticity, as do the careful descriptions of plumage, song, and diet, pronounced by the goddess Nanshe as she decrees the destinies of all birds. Categorization in Egypt may be assessed primarily through its hieroglyphs, which Kemp has called “a set of entry points into the world and mind-set of the ancient Egyptians.” As he goes on to say, “Most of the signs require the instantaneous mental substitution of concepts that are quite different from the represented image – the sounds of letters, singly or in groups – …to construct instead a system of meaning with its own integrity…the product of a highly sophisticated level of brain processing.”106 Words usually comprise phonetic signs expressing one, two, or three sounds. When a sign occurs at the end of a noun or verb, it acts as a determinative, serving to clarify the specific meaning of the preceding signs, or to show the relationship of that word to its general category of phenomena. Thus, individual signs normally possess both symbolic and sound values, mutually enriching and enlightening. Recent analyses of determinatives have yielded new insights, thanks to their offering “a unique glimpse into the ‘laboratory of the mind’.”107 In Goldwasser’s view, all words classified by a particular determinative form a conceptual category that in turn reflects an inclusive knowledge structure, shared at a minimum by the social group involved in writing and education. By charting a determinative’s historical occurrences and contexts, it has proven possible to suggest how sense and connotation cluster and evolve.108 A particularly intriguing determinative is the sparrow, G37 in the Sign-List in Gardiner’s Egyptian Grammar and often referred to by Egyptologists as the “bad bird.” This little passerine with a slightly rounded tail denotes inferiority or ill-omen, determining words running the gamut from “small” and “narrow” to “misery” and “evil.” Written sources seldom mention sparrows, so it may be that they acquired their negative meaning because they were the least significant members of the Bird set.109 As for the other members of this set, Gardiner’s Sections G and H include 54 bird signs, as well as seven bird parts and a generic egg. The pintail duck, for instance, appears in four signs – standing, flying, alighting, and head-only – each associated as a determinative or sound with a wide range of meanings. Sign G36 is of particular interest for the present inquiry, for it shows a small passerine with a forked tail, used phonetically in the words “great” and “annoint” and as a determinative in the word for swallow. From many texts, we learn that the bird is a dawn metaphor, perching on the solar barque’s prow to announce the daily re-creation of the world, or sitting on the mythological hill emerging from the primordial waters, or rousing lovers at daybreak.110 In funerary settings, swallows are among the
103 104

105 106 107 108

109 110




K.P. FOSTER, A Mesopotamian Miscellany (2020) 111-126. J. BLACK, “The Imagery of Birds in Sumerian Poetry,” in M.E. VOGELZANG and H.I.J. VANSTIPHOUT (eds), Mesopotamian Poetic Language. Sumerian and Akkadian (1996) 23-46. Fresh from our birding in the Aegean, we are struck by the congruence of the imagery chosen. N. VELDHUIS, Religion, Literature, and Scholarship. The Sumerian Composition “Nanše and the Birds” (2004). B.J. KEMP, Think Like an Egyptian. 100 Hieroglyphs (2005) ix-x. O. GOLDWASSER, Prophets, Lovers, and Giraffes. Wor(l)d Classification in Ancient Egypt (2002) 80. GOLDWASSER (supra n. 107); E.-S. LINCKE, Die Prinzipien der Klassifizierung im Altägyptischen (2011); O. HERSLUND, “Coths – Garments – and Keeping Secrets: Textile Classification and Cognitive Chaining in the Ancient Egyptian Writing System,” in C. MICHEL and M.-L. NOSCH (eds), Textile Terminologies in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean from the Third to the First Millennia BC (2010) 68-80. A. DAVID, De l’infériorité à la perturbation. L’oiseau du “mal” et la catégorisation en Égypte ancienne (2000). HOULIHAN (supra n. 64) 122-125.




BIRDS IN AEGEAN ISLAND ART AND THOUGHT


97


birds figuring in the transformation spells that allowed the deceased to become the bird of his or her choosing, along with its divine associations.111 Although much color and detail was often applied to swallows in art, their syncretistic and often idiosyncratic depictions combine elements of four species – the barn swallow, its Egyptian variant, and the house, crag, and sand martins.112 With rare exceptions, the streamers are not shown. It would appear that in the Egyptian mind “swallow” formed a Bird subset, its members linked, I suggest, by their distinctive tails and aerodynamic flight. I wonder, however, if some images might specifically picture young barn swallows, yet to develop adult streamers, their bodies fittingly painted the standard blue-green of rejuvenation and renewal. Onomastica, as Egyptologists usually call the lexical lists of “that which is in the world,” unfortunately survive only in fragmentary condition, but do appear to be attempts at conscious classification and do include birds. The distinction made in other texts between migratory and resident birds may have been elaborated in those lists.113 I close with a note on two bird series in imagery. Iritsen, an expert artisan active during the reign of Nebhepetra-Mentuhotep II at the end of the First Intermediate Period, boasts on his stele that he can render quite well “…the attitudes of eleven birds [of prey],”114 At about the same time, the Beni Hasan tomb of Baqet III, governor of the Oryx nome, was decorated with vignettes of nearly thirty birds. They stand individually along their registers, some facing right, others left, each neatly labeled with its name above it, their placement apparently reflecting a classification scheme.115 To return to Morgan’s questions, I would answer by saying that, at least so far as birds are concerned, if the Minoans thought as their contemporaries in Egypt and Mesopotamia did, then, yes, they did conceive of such distinct (and timeless) classes as domestic/edible fowl, waterbirds, and birds of prey. Did they ever write bird lists or labels in Linear A? To date, unfortunately none survive. But there are a few tantalizing hints of avian text/image combinations from the Minoan world. To cite one example, certain roundels from Khania were stamped several times each with a seal bearing a naturalistic flying columbid next to a conical object very similar to AB 80, the Linear A logogram for WOOL (CMS V Suppl. 1A 165).116 The roundels were also inscribed with the ideogram *164, which continues into Linear B as the LANA/WOOL sign. Could this seal-owner have developed a brand icon for goods or materials?117 If so, did it operate on the rebus principle to identify himself or a wool enterprise, and/or does it reflect a characteristic of the wool or woolen cloth in question, as in its color
F. SCALF, “The Role of Birds within the Relgious Landscape of Ancient Egypt,” in BAILLEUL-LESUER ed. (supra n. 2) 33-35. WYATT (supra n. 2) 87. R. BAILLEUL-LESUER, “Introduction,” in BAILLEUL-LESUER ed. (supra n. 2) 16. R. BAILLEUL-LESUER, “Bird Motifs in Ancient Egyptian Arts and Crafts,” in BAILLEUL-LESUER ed. (supra n. 2) 157. N. KANAWATI and L. EVANS, Beni Hassan, Volume IV. The Tomb of Baqet III (2018) Pls 60, 72. J. WEINGARTEN, “When one equals one: The Minoan roundel,” in A.M. JASINK, J. WEINGARTEN, and S. FERRARA (eds), Non-scribal Communication Media in the Bronze Age Aegean and Surrounding Areas. The semantics of a-literate and proto-literate media (seals, potmarks, mason’s marks, seal-impressed pottery, ideograms and logograms, and related systems) (2017) fig. 5, 104-107; see also fig. 4, one of the Khania roundels stamped with a butterfly (moth?) seal (CMS V Suppl 1A 169), and fig. 6, one of the Haghia Triada roundels stamped with a flying dove seal (CMS II 6 110), all apparently wool-related transactions. D. WENGROW, in his article “Prehistories of Commodity Branding,” Current Anthropology 49 (2008) 7-34, argues persuasively that branding systems existed millennia before their supposed origin in the capitalist imperative to promote and target specific goods and demographics, enticing consumers with clever prose and pictures. He discusses material from Egypt and Mesopotamia, but not the Aegean. As Weingarten (supra n. 116, 106 n. 28) says, “Perhaps it is time to re-examine the rare Linear signs on Minoan (and Mycenaean) seals last discussed by Gill” [M.A.V. GILL, “Seals and Sealings: Some Comments,” Kadmos 5 (1966) 1-16]. All this has inspired me to take up the question of commodity branding in the Minoan world, with special reference to textiles, which will appear in my forthcoming article, “Hieroglyphs of Value across the Great Green,” Oriental Institute Festschrift, in press

111

112 113 114

115 116

117





98

Karen Polinger FOSTER


or feel?118 If I may be indulged in a final flight of fancy here, do we have an ancient counterpart to the modern advertising campaign that created the well-known bird trademark for Dove personal care products?119 Was perhaps our Khania seal-owner noted for his high-quality wool, as soft and gentle as a dove?120 I would like to think so.





Karen Polinger FOSTER





118

119

120







On wool texts and textiles in Minoan Crete, see M. DEL FREO, M.-L. NOSCH, and F. ROUGEMONT, “The Terminology of Textiles in the Linear B Tablets, including Some Considerations on Linear A Logograms and Abbreviations,” in MICHEL and NOSCH eds (supra n. 108) 348-354, especially fig. 17.9, chart of possible linear A logograms for wool; P. MILITELLO, “Wool Economy in Minoan Crete before Linear B: A Minimalist Position,” in C. BRENIQUET and C. MICHEL (eds), Wool Economy in the Ancient Near East and the Aegean (2014) 264-282, especially 272 on a tablet from Phaistos (PH 3) apparently distinguishing several kinds of wool by their quality. During the 2020 coronovirus pandemic in the United States, Dove roofed its iconic bird with a house gable and small chimney and added the empathetic words “Take care, be safe.” The amplified logo thus continued to encourage purchase of Dove soaps, while conveying two public health messages: wash your hands frequently and shelter in place. It also occurs to me that the wool might have been blue, since doves are regularly painted blue in frescoes. The murex dye industry, which produces a range of blue, purple, and red hues, appears to have begun at Minoan sites in eastern Crete, spreading from there to other islands, the Greek mainland and the Levant. For a comprehensive survey of shellfish-dye terminology and material evidence from the entire region, see S. THAVAPALAN, The Meaning of Color in Ancient Mesopotamia (2020) 224-244; also supra nn. 39. 74.




BIRDS IN AEGEAN ISLAND ART AND THOUGHT


99


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Pl. XIIa Swallows, wall painting, Delta 2, Thera (author drawing). Pl. XIIb Swallow, gold ring, Tomb of the Griffin Warrior, Pylos (reproduced courtesy of the Department of Classics, University of Cincinnati, drawing by Tina Ross). Pl. XIIc Swallow, carnelian amygdaloid (CMS V, Suppl. 1A 337) (reproduced courtesy of Diamantis Panagiotopoulos). Pl. XIId Swallows and crocuses, strainer, Xeste 3, room 3, Thera (3592) (author drawing). Pl. XIIe Eleonora’s Falcon (author drawing). Pl. XIIf Falcon, jug, Phylakopi (NAM 5762) (author drawing). Pl. XIIg Falcon and prey, Thera (8960) (author drawing).




XII

b a

c

e d

g f

OF MICE AND MEN IN MINOAN CRETE: THE MICROFAUNA FROM MALIA AREA PI IN ITS CHRONO-SPATIAL CONTEXT* Abstract This paper deals with the microfauna (mice and shrews) from the deposits of Area Pi at Malia. As already documented for Neopalatial Mochlos and Chania, mice and shrews were frequent inhabitants of the Minoan buildings. The Malia contexts and layers where microfauna was found in comparison with other sites will be discussed. The paper deals also with issues of mouse commensalism and shrew synanthropy as well as their introduction by humans in the insular environment of Crete on the expense of endemic rodents and shrews. The sole iconographic evidence of mice in the Minoan repertoire is mentioned in addition to archaeozoological finds. Finally, the topic of mousers among the Minoan zooarchaeological assemblages is discussed as opposed to the iconographic evidence of them.

Introduction Microfauna is a complex of small-sized vertebrates usually found in paleontological and archaeological sites after extensive soil sieving or water flotation in very fine meshes. Such creatures are rodents, insectivores, bats, small birds, reptiles and amphibians.1 For this paper we focus on the small mammal component of microfauna, namely mice and shrews as well as a small carnivore, a weasel, a mandible of which was recovered among the microfauna bones of Malia. The importance of recovering, studying and publishing small mammal assemblages lies with the fact that they have specific and identifiable microhabitat requirements, thus their presence indicates habitats or shifts of habitats. Furthermore, some of them depict commensal behavior, because they are attracted to the human niche by the stored cereal or other edible commodities, as well as the safety from avian predation created in the human dwellings. However, dogs, cats or weasels that act as mousers are a form of danger present in human settlements and actually provoked by the presence of commensal mice and shrews. This paper will summarise data about small mammal presence in Malia in comparison with other contemporary Minoan sites and discuss them through the lenses of synanthropy and humanly driven diaspora. Also, any evidence for mammalian predation from the Minoan layers will be discussed in accordance with the mouse finds.


*

1

I would like to thank the organisers of the 2020 Aegaeum conference for inviting me to participate and share my work with fellow Aegeanists. This article would not have been written without the support and help of Dr Maia Pomadère, head of the Area Pi excavations, who invited me to study the microfauna from Area Pi as well as assisted me with all necessary stratigraphic and contextual information and references on weasel and mouse iconography. I would also like to thank Professor E. Mantzourani, who offered insights regarding iconographic issues and figurines and Dr A. Sarpaki, who provided contextual and editing comments of this paper. D.R. BROTHWELL and R. JONES, “The relevance of small mammal studies to Archaeology,” in D.R. BROTHWELL, K.D. THOMAS, J. CLUTTON-BROCK (eds), Research problems in zooarchaeology (1978) 47-57; P. ANDREWS, Owls, caves and fossils (1990) 91-106; L.WEISSBROD and G. BAR-OZ, “Caprines and toads: taphonomic patterning of animal offering practices in a Late Bronze Age burial assemblage,” in S.J. O’DAY, W. VAN NEER and A. ERVYNCK (eds), Behaviour behind bones: the archaeology of ritual, religion, status-identity. Proceedings of the 9th ICAZ Conference, Durham 2002 (2003) 20-24.

102

Katerina PAPAYIANNI

Issues of small mammal synanthropic behavior Mammal synanthropy is a phenomenon that started some 17,000 years ago, when humans and wild mammals came close to each other due to climatic, social and economic reasons.2 Dogs are the best example of these kinds: wolves were so-well acquainted with humans in the course of time that were eventually domesticated and have ever since been man’s best friends.3 In one way or another, most current domestic mammals went through the filter of synanthropisation while they were still wild; however some wild mammals never became actual domesticates and remained in the level of commensalism: cats, house mice, rats, shrews, hedgehogs.4 All of them are small in size and, apart from the cats, belong to the range of microfauna and behave rather as pests, since humans do not have any direct profit from them. On the contrary, they are the ones who benefit from the human niche: easy food access, plenty of leftovers to scavenge, absence of avian predators, ideal shelter for reproduction. Some of them, like the house mouse and the black rat are pathogen hosts: house mice are carriers of leptospirosis and salmonellosis and black rats are carriers of plague.5 The histories of synanthropy and dispersal of most small mammals are not studied and documented, apart from that of the house mouse. The history of the origins of house mouse commensalism and its prehistoric spread The commensal or synanthropic behavior of the house mouse goes back in time to 15,000 years before our time (BP), in the dawn of the Natufian period of the Levant. It was in the early Natufian period (15,000-13,000 BP) when the first western house mice, Mus musculus domesticus, appeared in these early sedentary human sites.6 The house mouse, a native species of the Middle East, was attracted by the food leftovers and the lack of predators of the human habitat.7 The gradual establishment of agriculture in the Levant during the PPNA and PPNB periods and the storage of cereal in communal and domestic silos allowed the house mouse to colonise the human habitat and also to be spread along with human migratory routes.8 The first stop of the house mouse’s dispersal was Cyprus, where it was non-deliberately


2

3

4 5

6

7 8

J.-D. VIGNE, “The origins of animal domestication and husbandry: a major change in the history of humanity and the biosphere,” Comptes Rendus Biologies 334 (2011) 171-181. J.A. CLUTTON-BROCK, Natural History of Domesticated Mammals (1999) 49-61; C. VILA, P. SAVOLAINEN, J.E. MALDONADO, I.R. AMORIM, J.E. RICE, R.L. HONEYCUTT, K.A. CRANDALL, J. LUNDEBERG, R.K. WAYNE, “Multiple and ancient origins of the domestic dog,” Science 276 (1997) 1687-1689. VIGNE (supra n. 2). A.J. ΜITCHELL-JONES, G. AMORI, W. BIGDANOWICZ, B. KRYŠTUFEK, P. J. H. REIJNDERS, F. SPITZENBERGER, M. STUBBE, J. B. M. THISSEN, V. VOHRALÍK, J. ZIMA, The Atlas of European Mammals (1999) 282; B. KRYSTUFEK and V. VOHRALIK, “Mammals of Turkey and Cyprus, Rodentia II: Cricetinae, Muridae, Spalacidae, Calomyscidae, Capromyidae, Hystricidae, Castoridae,” Knjižnica’ Annales Majora (2009) 134; D. MAC DONALD and P. BARRETT, Collins Field Guide: Mammals of Britain and Europe (1993) 269. T. CUCCHI, K. PAPAYIANNI, S. CERSOY, L. AZNAR-CORMANO, A. ZAZZO, R. DEBRUYNE, R. BERTHON, A. BĂLĂȘESCU, A. SIMMONS, F. VALLA, Y. HAMILAKIS, F. MAVRIDIS, M. MASHKOUR, J. DARVISH, R. SIAHSARVI, F. BIGLARI, C.Α. PETRIE, L. WEEKS, A. SARDARI, S. MAZIAR, C. DENYS, D. ORTON, E. JENKINS, M. ZEDER, J. SEARLE, G. LARSON, F. BONHOMME, J.C. AUFFRAY, J.D. VIGNE, “Tracking the Near Eastern origins and European dispersal of the western house mouse,” Scientific Reports (19/5/2020) doi: 10.1038/s41598-02064939-9; L. WEISSBROD, F.B. MARSHALL, F.R. VALLA, H. KHALAILI, G. BAR-OZ, J.-C. AUFFRAY, J.-D. VIGNE, T. CUCCHI, “The origins of house mice in ecological niches created by settled hunter-gatherers in the Levant 15,000 y ago,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (2017) doi/10.1073/PNAS.1619137114. CUCCHI et al. (supra n. 6). T. CUCCHI, J.-C. AUFFRAY, J.-D. VIGNE, “History of house mouse synanthropy and dispersal in the Near East and Europe: a zooarchaeological insight,” in M. MACHOLAN, S.J.E. BAIRD, P. MUNCLINGER, J. PIÀLEK (eds), Evolution in Our Neighbourhood: The House Mouse as a Model in Evolutionary

OF MICE AND MEN IN MINOAN CRETE

103

transported by the PPNA hunters-cultivators that came to the island.9 During the PPNB-C period, the house mouse had spread all over the North Levant and Anatolia.10 However, it did not follow the Neolithic migrations in the Aegean and the south Balkan regions during the Early ceramic Neolithic (7th6th millennia), because the commensal niche was occupied by the native Macedonian mouse, Mus macedonicus, as well as by other synanthropic small mammals, such as the wood mouse, Apodemus sp., and the garden shrew, Crocidura suaveolens.11 The earliest European presence of commensal mice has been dated for the Chalcolithic period of Romania, when bones of the eastern house mouse, Mus musculus musculus, were found among the burnt house debris of the Buçsani La Pod tell settlement.12 These bones were radiocarbon dated at 4619-4464 cal BC and they were also genotyped to verify the species.13 It was not before the Early Bronze Age that the western house mouse, Mus musculus domesticus, appeared in the Aegean: a mandible of the species from the Early Cycladic II/III layers of Akrotiri on Thera was radiocarbon dated at 2502-1913 cal BC and it was also genotyped to verify the species.14 The same species spans the Middle and Late Cycladic layers of Akrotiri and it was also recovered from the hearths of two LC I kitchens, which were abandoned during the volcanic eruption.15 The small mammals of Malia: species, contexts and taphonomic implications The small mammal spectrum from Malia includes two rodents of the family Muridae, two insectivores of the family Soricidae, and a small carnivore of the family Mustelidae (Table 1, Pl. XIVc). The rodents are the house mouse, Mus musculus domesticus, and the endemic Cretan mouse, Mus minotaurus. The insectivores are the garden shrew, Crocidura suaveolens, and the Etruscan shrew, Suncus etruscus. The small carnivore is a weasel, Mustela sp. The small mammals of Malia have been recovered from different contexts of the Area Pi dating mostly to the MM II, III and LMIA periods; postcranial bones of mice (Muridae) and shrews (Soricidae) were also recovered from EM II contexts, however a narrower identification to species level is not possible (Table 1, Pl. XIVc). The micromammals were retrieved from floated or sieved soil samples from inside the rooms of the buildings as well as from open areas or road debris, like that under the Rue de la Mer. Different contexts that yielded microfauna include (Pl. XIII): floors of areas of domestic character (e.g. Space 12 - Corridor 2, Space 16), storage rooms (e.g. Space 32, 19), areas of industrial character (e.g. Space 17-workshop). Mixed contexts (backfills) or secondary destruction layers also contained micromammals, but these should be dealt with caution due to the mixed stratigraphic events they represent. The taphonomic factors that have affected the small mammal deposition and preservation are mostly of natural rather than anthropogenic origin: natural death, avian predation and deposition of owl pellets. Many of the recovered dentitions betrayed light loss of the enamel, which is created by the stomach acids of predatory birds, when they regurgitate their prey. Micromammal bones recovered from destruction layers may have resulted either from pellets or from natural death of the commensal mice and shrews that lived inside or around the settlement. The Area Pi laid abandoned after the LM IA but its


9

10 11 12

13 14 15

Research (2012) 65-93; CUCCHI et al. (supra n. 6). J.-D. VIGNE, F. BRIOIS, T. CUCCHI, Y. FRANEL, P. MYLONA, M. TENGBERG, R. TOUQUET, J. WATTEZ, G. WILLCOX, A. ZAZZO and J. GUILAINE, “Klimonas, a late PPNA hunter-cultivator village in Cyprus: new results,” in J.-D. VIGNE, F. BRIOIS and M. TENGBERG (eds), Nouvelles données sur les débuts du Néolithique à Chypre (2017) 21-46.; CUCCHI et al. (supra n. 6). CUCCHI et al. (supra n. 8); CUCCHI et al. (supra n. 6). CUCCHI et al. (supra n. 6); K. PAPAYIANNI, study in progress. T. CUCCHI, A. BĂLĂŞESCU, C. BEM, V. RADU, J.-D. VIGNE, and A. TRESSET, “New insights into the invasive process of the eastern house mouse (Mus musculus musculus): Evidence from the burnt houses of Chalcolithic Romania,” The Holocene 21 (8) (2011) 1195-1202. CUCCHI et al. (supra n. 6). CUCCHI et al. (supra n. 6). K. PAPAYIANNI, “The microenvironment of urban spaces of the Late Bronze Age: the microfauna from Late Cycladic I Akrotiri, Thera,” in C. DOUMAS (ed.), Akrotiri, Thera: 40 years of research (1967-2007), Athens 15-16/12/2007 (in press).

104

Katerina PAPAYIANNI

northern part area was abandoned and not rebuilt after the MM IIB. The transformation of this area in an open space perhaps gave the opportunity to birds of prey, like owls, to roost inside and around the buildings and regurgitate their prey. Of similar prey origin is the endemic Mus minotaurus that was recovered under the LM IA pavement of the Rue de la Mer. It seems that the birds preyed inside or around the settlement, which was heavily infested by mice and shrews. Some of the micromammal bones from MM IIB contexts appear to have been burnt, due to a destruction fire, which seems to be the reason for the MM IIB destruction of this part of the Malia town, as well as of the Quartier Mu. There is one case of a mouse molar recovered from Space 17, a space identified as a workshop or a storage room for craft tools and raw material, that is of green colour, obviously because it had laid in soils along with several bronze items, such as small saws and a dagger (Pl. XIVa).16 The house mouse belongs to the western subspecies, Mus musculus domesticus, according to a recent international research,17 and it was spread in the Aegean by marine exchange. The endemic Cretan mouse is a Pleistocene relic, recovered so far only from paleontological localities as well as from three EM contexts at Chania (see below).18 It was thought to be extinct by the end of the Pleistocene, however this view should now be dealt with caution. The garden and the Etruscan shrew must also have been imported on Crete by humans, since they do not belong to the Pleistocene fauna of the island. The weasel, Mustela sp., is a member of the modern Cretan fauna bearing the local name zouridha, however its date of introduction to Crete was so far considered much later.19 We will return to issues of animal introductions and their dating in the next part of the paper. The character and behavior of the identified micromammals is commensal or synanthropic. An exception to this is the endemic Cretan mouse, Mus minotaurus, which does not survive and thus its ecological behavior is elusive. The house mouse is the most typical commensal.20 The garden shrew can also exhibit synanthropic or anthropophilous characteristics.21 Both were introduced on Crete accidentally by humans, along with the Etruscan shrew. The weasel is another human introduction on Crete, probably an intentional one, as weasels can be playful but mischievous pets and can also hunt rodents.22 Small mammal introductions in Crete: evidence from the Minoan Layers All the available evidence for the small mammal biodiversity of the Minoan period, apart from Malia, comes from another three Minoan towns with ports: Mochlos in East Crete, Chania (Kydonia) in West Crete and Kommos on the south coast of the Messara plain. The range of species from these three sites is larger than the one from Malia; overall, the data covers a long period from the Early Minoan times through the Iron age and gives us an image of the gradual enrichment of the island’s fauna with new small mammal species (see Table 2, Pl. XIVd). In the Early Minoan layers there were mice (Muridae) and


16

17 18

19

20

21

22

M. POMADERE, “Rapport sur les travaux de l’Ecole française en 2010. Malia, bâtiment Pi,” BCH 135 (2010) 611-612. CUCCHI et al. (supra n. 6). D.F. MAYHEW, “The endemic Pleistocene murids of Crete I-II,” Proceedings of the Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen B 80 (3) (1977) 182-214; K. PAPAYIANNIS, “The micromammals of Minoan Crete: human intervention in the ecosystem of the island,” in G. ILIOPOULOS, C. MEYER, E. FREY, E. BUFFETAUT, J. LISTON and A. ÖSI (guest eds), Proceedings of the 9th EAVP Meeting, Heraklion 2011, Palaeobiodiversity and Palaeoenvironments 92 (2) (2012) 239-248. M. JARMAN, “Human influence in the development of the Cretan mammalian fauna,” in D.S. REESE (ed.), Pleistocene and Holocene fauna of Crete and its first settlers (1996) 220. T. CUCCHI and J.D. VIGNE, “Origin and diffusion of the house mouse in the Mediterranean,” Human Evolution 21 (2006) 95-106; CUCCHI et al. (supra n. 6). B. KRYŠTUFEK and V. VOHRALÍK, Mammals of Turkey and Cyprus, Introduction, Checklist, Insectivora (2001) 88; J.-D. VIGNE, “The large ‘true’ Mediterranean islands as a model for the Holocene human impact on the European vertebrate fauna? Recent data and new reflections,” in N. BENECKE (ed.), The Holocene history of the European vertebrate fauna: modern aspects of research,Workshop 6th-9th April 1998, Berlin. Archäologie in Eurasien (1999) 295-322. A. MAYOR, “Grecian weasels,” The Athenian (February 1989) 22-24.

OF MICE AND MEN IN MINOAN CRETE

105

shrews (Soricidae), for which we start having a clearer image from the EM II onwards, when the house mouse, Mus musculus domesticus, was first imported to the islet of Mochlos.23 The earliest presence of the garden shrew, Crocidura suaveolens, is dated to the EM III period of Mochlos.24 For the endemic Cretan shrew, Crocidura zimmermanni, there is evidence from EM Chania only;25 however this species is an extant Pleistocene relic,26 so even if it does not appear in the archaeological record, we know that it was living on Crete throughout the Minoan period. The Etruscan shrew, Suncus etruscus, has been imported during the MM II period at Malia and has also been found in LM I contexts at Mochlos.27 Recent research identified the house mouse from Mochlos and Chania as the western subspecies, Mus musculus domesticus.28 In Kommos three more rodents have been found: the spiny mouse, Acomys sp., the rock mouse, Apodemus mystacinus, and the wood mouse, Apodemus cf. sylvaticus.29 Dentitions of the wood mouse, Apodemus sylvaticus vel flavicollis were recovered also from EM IIA Mochlos and EM Chania.30 When assessing all the evidence for small mammal presence on different Minoan sites we realise the important role that humans played in the introduction of all these species. The Pleistocene terrestrial fauna of Crete contained one mouse, Mus minotaurus, and one shrew, Crocidura zimmermanni.31 Since there is no data for any small mammals from Neolithic Cretan sites, we should look into the Bronze Age in order to understand the steps of ‘anthropisation’ of the Cretan microfauna. The most obvious of these steps is the import of the house mouse as a result of a diaspora facilitated by the commercial routes of the Minoan boats. All four sites, at which the house mouse was located, happen to be ports. Malia and Mochlos are well known for imported commodities and precious items, as well as workshops for the manufacture of such items;32 the presence of the species in such settlements reaffirms its import through Minoan exchanges, probably of perishable commodities. The discovery of a house mouse mandible among the ingots of the Uluburun shipwreck, dated at the LH IIIA-2 period according to the pottery of the vessel, documents the actual stowaway transport of the species inside boat cargos. The study of the first lower molar of the Uluburun mouse by geometric morphometrics indicated a Syrian morphotype of the species, which means that the last departure of the vessel must have been some Syrian port.33 The exciting detail


23

24 25

26

27

28 29

30 31

32

33

PAPAYIANNIS (supra n. 18); K. PAPAYIANNI, Η συμβολή της μικροπανίδας στη μελέτη του παλαιοπεριβάλλοντος του Αιγαίου: οι περιπτώσεις Ακρωτηρίου Θήρας, Μόχλου και Μινωικών Χανίων Κρήτης, Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Athens (2012) 154-155. PAPAYIANNI (supra n. 23) 155. K. PAPAYIANNIS, “The microfauna from the Greek-Swedish Excavations,” in E. HALLAGER and B.P. HALLAGER (eds), The Greek-Swedish Excavations at the Agia Aikaterini Square, Kastelli, Khania 1970-1987, 2001, 2005 and 2008.Vol. V The Late Minoan IIIA:1 and II settlements (2016) 447-468. J.F. REUMER, “Shrews (Soricidae) on islands, with special reference to Crocidura zimmermanni from Crete,” in REESE ed. (supra n. 19) 173-179. K. PAPAYIANNI, “The microfauna from Mochlos Neopalatial settlement,” in J. SOLES and K. DAVARAS (eds), Mochlos IV: the House of the Metal Merchant and other houses in the Neopalatial settlement (forthcoming). CUCCHI et al. (supra n. 6). S. PAYNE, “Appendix 5.1: The small mammals,” in J. SHAW and M. SHAW (eds), The Kommos region and the houses of the Minoan town. Part 1: the Kommos region, ecology and Minoan industries (1995) 278-291. PAPAYIANNIS (supra n. 18); PAPAYIANNI (supra n. 23) 172. For the Pleistocene Cretan fauna see A.A. VAN DER GEER, G. LYRAS, J. DE VOS, M. DERMITZAKIS, Evolution of island mammals. Adaptation and extinction of placental mammals on islands (2010) 4349. J.-Cl. POURSAT and M. LOUBET, “Métallurgie et contacts extérieurs à Malia (Crète) au Minoen Moyen II : Remarques sur une série d’analyses isotopiques du plomb,” in R. LAFFINEUR and E. GRECO (eds), EMPORIA. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference, Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14-48 April 2004 (2005) 117-121; J.-Cl. POURSAT, Artisans minoens : Les maisonsateliers du Quartier Mu (1996); J.S. SOLES, “The Mochlos Sistrum and Its Origins,” in P.P. BETANCOURT and S.C. FERRENCE (eds), Metallurgy: Understanding How, Learning Why. Studies in Honor of James D. Muhly (2011) 133-146. T. CUCCHI, “Uluburun shipwreck stowaway house mouse: molar shape analysis and indirect clues about the vessel’s last journey,” Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 2953-2969. This mouse mandible

106

Katerina PAPAYIANNI

of the shipwreck mouse story is that the bronze and tin ingots, among which it was found, bear remarkable similarities with ingots found in the Neopalatial Mochlos town:34 a copper ingot from Neopalatial House C.3 at Mochlos and a similar copper ingot from Uluburun originate from the same location, even though the Mochlos ingot predates the Uluburun ingot by two centuries, because they bear the same declarants of ownership: incised marks, identified as ‘quarter rudder’.35 Soles has proposed a potential route for the delivery of such ingots to Mochlos from either Cyprus, the Syropalestinian coast (port of Ugarit) or the Cilician coast (port of Ura)36 and through the Dodecanese; the Uluburun shipwreck find-spot fits well in this route, despite being much later than the first Mochlos house mice, a fact that gives us an idea on how the latter could have arrived on Mochlos or other Minoan ports. Similarly, the garden shrew and the Etruscan shrew have been unintentionally imported to Crete by humans, perhaps also during commercial trips. The endemic Cretan shrew still survives on Psiloritis and the White Mountains, where it has been restricted due to its competition with the two imported shrews.37 The dispersal of these shrews is not as well documented as that of the house mouse. We should keep in mind that the garden shrew is currently distributed in continental Greece, Anatolia and the Levant; it also appears only in the Middle Pleistocene fossil record of Balkans.38 Similar evidence for the Etruscan shrew is not available. Keeping in mind that shrews have been transported by humans to other Mediterranean islands as well,39 the Cretan shrews are no exception and come to reaffirm the gradual anthropisation of the Cretan ecosystem. This level of anthropisation should be considered the reason for the gradual extinction or restriction of the endemic small mammals of Crete. The aforementioned presence of the endemic and currently extinct mouse Mus minotaurus in the EM Chania and LM IA Malia indicates a potential survival of the species until the Bronze Age. However, more data is necessary to affirm or not this hypothesis and especially from Neolithic secure contexts. If a survival of this mouse into the Bronze Age is indeed proved, then it should be estimated to what extent it survived and how it was limited by the house mouse. The latter signifies a shift of habitats for the endemic species, because it is a very adaptable and ubiquitous animal that can adjust to any environment replacing existing species. Mice are also carriers of pathogens and their unintentional introduction to an area results in the transmission of zoonoses, like salmonellosis or leptospirosis, as well as in the infestation of stored edible products. The production of the latter necessitates the clearance of the landscape for the creation of arable land.40 Any land clearance, though, should have disturbed narrow ecosystems of endemic species leading to extinctions or change of biotope. Perhaps this is also the reason for the current restriction of the endemic shrew in the montane areas, however more evidence is necessary before any conclusion is drawn. Artistic depictions of mice Unlike other creatures, the mice have not been a popular theme of the Minoan iconographic repertoire. An Early Prepalatial theriomorphic perforated seal from Ayia Triada Tholos A (CMS II 1.20)


34

35

36 37 38

39 40

is of green colour, similar to the molar of Pl. XIVa, due to its long stay among the ingots in the bottom of the sea. J.S. SOLES, “From Ugarit to Mochlos: remnants of an ancient voyage,” in LAFFINEUR and GRECO eds (supra n. 32) 429–442. C. PULAK, “The copper and tin ingots from the Kas shipwreck,” in Archäometallurgie der Alten Welt. Beiträge zum Internationalen Symposium: Old World Archaeometallurgy 7 (1989) 102-104. SOLES (supra n. 32). Α. ΣΑΚΟΥΛΗΣ, Αμφίβια, ερπετά και θηλαστικά της Κρήτης (2008). W. SANTEL, W. VON KOENIGSWALD, “Preliminary report on the Middle Pleistocene small mammal fauna from Yrimburgaz Cave in Turkish Thrace,” Eiszeitalter u. Gegenwart 48 (1998) 162-169. VIGNE (supra n. 21). VIGNE (supra n. 21).

OF MICE AND MEN IN MINOAN CRETE

107

represents a seated animal, usually identified as a monkey.41 It bears a distinctive feature of a mouse: prominent and rounded ears, although its seated position is not typical of this animal. Another case stands out: a couple of playful mice against a grassy background depicted on an LM IA wall-painting fragment from the Caravanserai at Knossos.42 The depiction of the mice is very fragmentary and it preserves only the tail of the left mouse and the stomach of the right one (Pl. XIVb).43 The restoration of the image by M.A.S. Cameron presents both complete animals climbing on browngreen reeds or grass on a white background and lead to their interpretation as Micromys minutus, the harvest mouse, which is the smallest of the murids. However, the harvest mouse does not inhabit Crete nowadays, nor did it in the Pleistocene or the early Holocene;44 furthermore the harvest mouse has a light-coloured belly, whereas the fragment of the fresco shows a uniform grey colour for the belly of the right mouse. This reminds of the house mouse, Mus musculus, or the rat, Rattus sp., however a narrower identification cannot be made due to the fragmentary state of the fresco.45 Small mammals and cats: were there any mousers? In a recent article, Pomadère and Papayianni questioned the presence of cats in Minoan Crete.46 The lack of actual cat bones from the Minoan layers is in contrast with the iconographic evidence, which depicts cat motifs quite frequently. Two vases with relief cat figurines come from MM II Malia and imply either the import of actual cats at the Malian port or the existence of some cats in the town itself. However, the bone record of Malia does not contain any cat bones, either because they were not consumed or probably because, if they indeed existed, they must have been very limited in number and used as luxury pets rather than mousers. The independent and lonesome nature of the cat can also be blamed for their absence, because modern stray cats prefer to die unnoticed. When it comes to the question of who was hunting the mice to protect the storage areas and households, there is actually no answer. The sole weasel mandible recovered from the collapse debris of Space 17 in the area Pi, a context of homogenous MM IIB date, could be an answer to this question. If this mandible has not slipped in the stratigraphy of Space 17 by an upper layer, then it is the earliest weasel evidence on Crete, because the weasel was so far thought to have been introduced after the Minoan times.47 Perhaps this is evidence for the import of a non-sacred less luxurious mouser, which has been used also as such during historic times.48 We should stress that weasel bones are small in size and their rarity or absence from Minoan layers is perhaps due to inadequate soil sampling and sieving methods during excavations.


41 42

43

44

45 46

47

48

E.S.K. ANDERSON, Seals, craft and community in Bronze Age Crete (2016) 75. M. MASSETI, “Taxonomic and behavioural aspects of the representation of mammals in Aegean Bronze Age art,” in E. KOTJABOPOULOU, Y. HAMILAKIS, P. HALSTEAD, C. GAMBLE, P. ELEFANTI (eds), Zooarchaeology in Greece: recent advances (2003) 273-282. A. EVANS, The Palace of Minos at Knossos I: The Neolithic and Early and Middle Minoan ages (1921); D. EVELY, Fresco: a passport into the past. Minoan Crete through the eyes of Mark Cameron (1999). A.J. MITCHELL-JONES, G. AMORI, W. BOGDANOWICZ, B. KRYŠTUFEK, P.J.H. REIJNDERS, S. SPITZENBERGER, M. STUBBE, J.B.M. THISSEN, V. VOHRALÍK, J. ZIMA, The Atlas of European Mammals (1999). MASSETI (supra n. 42) 274-275. M. POMADÈRE and K. PAPAYIANNI, “The cat, an exotic animal in the Minoan world?” in B. DAVIS and R. LAFFINEUR (eds), ΝΕΩΤΕΡΟΣ. Studies in Bronze Age Aegean Art and Archaeology in Honor of Professor John G. Younger on the Occasion of His Retirement (2020) 237-250. JARMAN (supra n. 19). There is a mustelid femur from the MM II-III fill of Room 16, CH at Kommos (D. REESE, “The Minoan fauna”, in SHAW and SHAW eds [supra n. 29] 193-194). However, it has not been attributed to species. The Mustelidae family includes three candidates for this femur: the badger (Meles meles), the marten (Martes foina) and the weasel (Mustela nivalis), all of which are living on Crete today. PAYNE (supra n. 29); MAYOR (supra n. 22).

108

Katerina PAPAYIANNI

The iconographic evidence for weasels comes only from the corpus of the Minoan figurines: weasel figurines are common among zoomorphic figurines found in peak sanctuaries,49 whereas the frescoes or seals do not depict such animals. Seven such terracotta figurines were found at the Petsofas peak sanctuary.50 They are usually dated to MMII or generally to the Protopalatial period. As other clay figurines, weasel or stoat figurines are found only within peak sanctuaries. Dietrich characterized them as vermin51 and interprets them as apotropaic cult objects offered to the deity as a protection against diseases and destructions caused by such creatures. The latter view was first expressed by Evans.52 However, the deposit of these weasel figurines in a peak sanctuary could indicate that their role as mousers was recognized by the Minoans. It then allows us to hypothesize that weasels did exist and were brought to Crete occasionally during the Protopalatial period, although their presence is documented mostly through the iconography and not by bones. Concluding remarks The Cretan micromammals of the Bronze Age have a distinct synanthropic character, because they were imported by humans, even though not on purpose, and subsequently colonized the settlements and their buildings and gradually infested Crete from the eastern to the western end. We notice a faunal turnover from the Pleistocene endemic mice and shrews to the Holocene introduced ones due to human unintentional action via boat cargos. These economically unimportant species, rather pests or vermin, show clearly the responsibility of humans in the change of the biotopes preferred by endemic species and subsequently the change of the Cretan biodiversity. It is difficult to associate this biodiversity change with iconographic depiction, since the choice of representations usually excludes mice and shrews. Furthermore, we lack information on the small carnivores that played the role of mousers, namely cats or weasels, since their bones are almost non-existent and we can only know their presence through the iconography. To conclude, it is important to keep on sampling for and studying small mammal bones from excavations in order to enlarge the image of the biodiversity change and the introduction of new animal species to Crete facilitated by humans. We should also compare and contrast the zooarchaeological evidence with the iconographic ones in order to understand if and how the animal biodiversity change is perceived and expressed by past societies. Since equivalent data from mainland Bronze Age sites are missing, it is important to extend this problematic towards that direction too, in order to gain information for species introductions or extinctions as well as on the broader issue of synanthropisation of the continental Bronze Age microfauna in comparison to the Cretan one. Katerina PAPAYIANNI



49 50

51

52

N. MARINATOS, Minoan religion: ritual, image and symbol (1993) 117. B. RUTKOWSKI, Petsofas: a Cretan Peal Sanctuary (1991) 36, 111-112, Pls XLVIII-13, XLIX-6; B.C. DIETRICH, The origins of Greek religion (1974) 292, 300; EVANS (supra n. 43) 152, fig. IIIx; A.A.D. PEATFIELD, “Minoan peak sanctuaries: history and society,” OpAth 18 (1990) 120, fig. 2 lower right, Peatfield considers weasels as mousers and sources of fur (120); N. DIMOPOULOU-RETHEMIOTAKI, The Archaeological Museum of Herakleion (2005) 97. DIETRICH (supra n. 50) 299. Tortoise and hedgehog figurines are also associated with peak sanctuaries, according to Dietrich, because they are vermin or field pests. EVANS (supra n. 43) 153.

OF MICE AND MEN IN MINOAN CRETE

109

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Pl. XIII Pl. XIVa Pl. XIVb Pl. XIVc Pl. XIVd

Excavation plan of the Area Pi. House mouse (Mus m. domesticus), upper first molar from Area Pi - space 17. Fresco fragment of the Caravanserai at Knossos depicting mice (after EVELY [supra n. 43] as restored by M.A.S Cameron). Table 1: the small mammals from Malia (Minimum Numbers of Individuals per period). Table 2: dating of the survival (X) and first introduction (x) of the different small mammal species to Crete based on data from Chania, GSE, Mochlos and Malia.

XIII

XIV

a

b

Family / Genus Muridae

EM II

MM ?

MM

MM IB

x

x

x

x

MM II

Mus m. domesticus

MM III

x

x

6

1

x

x

2

2

MM III/LM IA x

x 2

Mus cf. minotaurus Soricidae

LM IA

1 x

Crocidura suaveolens

2

Suncus etruscus

1

Mustela sp.

1

3

c

Species M. m. domesticus

EM I

EM II

EM III

x

M. minotaurus

MM I

MM II

X

C. zimmermanni

LM III

Historic times

X

x x x extant

S. etruscus

x

Mustela sp.

x

d

LM II

x

Acomys sp. C. suaveolens

LM I

x

Apodemus mystacinus A.sylvaticus/flavicollis

MM III

B. HUMAN USES OF DOMESTICATED AND WILD ANIMALS, MATERIAL ECONOMY, DIET AND SOCIETY




























PROCESSED FISH, MARINE DYES AND THE FISHING DOMAINE OF THE BRONZE AGE AEGEAN* Introduction Research on the significance of marine resources, mostly fish and molluscs in the Bronze Age Aegean, have had a slow start. This was due to the effects of field collection methods and the strong influence of dominant theoretical models, which downplayed the extent and intensity of the interactions between humans and aquatic animals.1 Current research reassesses the significance of marine resources. It is now clear that the Aegean Bronze Age saw the transformation of a number of marine animals into economically significant products or symbolically charged objects. This transformation was systematic and with important economic and social consequences which have not been fully explored yet. This paper contributes to this research by outlining certain aspects of the relationship of coastal human communities to the aquatic animals, i.e. processing. The discussion starts with an overview of Bronze Age fisheries across the Aegean that highlights the nature and the geographical and chronological variations in it. This acts as a contextual background of the two artisanal activities that are subsequently discussed in some detail. Fish processing is the first of these activities. A synopsis of the known archaeological cases of fish processing is combined with an assessment of the implications of this hitherto undocumented activity. The case study of processed fish from Akrotiri, Thera, frames the discussion. The production of purple dye from marine molluscs is the second activity that is analysed in this paper. This is perhaps the most discussed of the fishing-related topics in literature and the one that is fraught with misunderstandings and vagueness. Here, a first attempt is made to examine the rise of this industry and some of its social and economic implications, as these become apparent from a review of the current evidence. These two activities do not exhaust the types of processing of marine animals that took place in the BA Aegean. Modification of marine molluscs into jewels, tools and ritual objects and a similar treatment of fish bones make up a significant part of this realm. These, however, will not be discussed here. Aegean fisheries – the background Processing of fish and marine molluscs took place against a background of diverse fisheries throughout Bronze Age Aegean. They seem to reflect the basic hydrogeographic division of the Aegean Sea that is influencing today’s fisheries as well.2 The north Aegean, roughly north of the Cyclades, is shallow, rich in nutrients, with relatively low salinity waters, influenced by the discharge of several large rivers and the communication with the Black Sea via Propontis. The area is noteworthy for extensive coastal lagoons and numerous smaller coastal wetlands. The southern part of the Aegean is characterised by deeper waters with steep depth gradients (with waters becoming deep very near the


*

1

2

A synthetic paper like this owes many debts to a number of people who, over the years, helped to collect, contextualize and interpret the large amount of disparate data that are used here. Many thanks are especially due to the Akrotiri and Chryssi excavation teams and their directors, Ch. Doumas, T. Brogan, Ch. Sofianou and V. Apostolakou. I would also like to thank the editors of this volume who persisted in publishing the papers of the Aegaeum ZOIA conference, despite COVID-19 causing the cancelation of a superbly organized event. Paul Halstead, Valasia Isaakidou and David Reese commented on earlier drafts of this paper and together with Don Evely ironed out several language lapses. I thank them for that. Any shortcomings are, of course, my own. D. MYLONA, Fish-eating in Greece from the Fifth Century BC to the Seventh Century AD: a story of impoverished fishermen or luxurious fish banquets? (2008) 7-11 with references. The following review is based on MYLONA (supra n. 1) 33-50 with references.

114

Dimitra MYLONA

shore), high salinity levels, and low concentration of nutrients in the waters. Nutrients are more concentrated very near the shore. Large coastal lagoons are rare but coastal wetlands are present, and were more common in the past. The waters in this area are more strongly influenced by processes in the Eastern Mediterranean. These conditions have a direct impact on the richness and the type of fish and molluscan resources found in the two parts of the Aegean. The northern Aegean is generally richer in fish and shellfish. Large schools of small pelagic fish like anchovies and sardines are found there and their exploitation follows a seasonal pattern. The same is true for the migratory fish which are also found in those waters in abundance. The southern Aegean is home to a great variety of species, with the most biomass found near the coast. Collectively, however, these fish represent a reliable, all year round resource. Schools of small pelagic fish are smaller and of different dominant species (mostly picarel - Maena/Spicara sp. and bogue – Boops boops). The migratory fish are passing along specific locations in southern Aegean too, but often they follow trajectories out in the open sea (e.g. south of Crete). Molluscs are much less abundant in the southern Aegean, and certain types, such as the cockles, the oysters and mussels are rare or missing altogether. Bronze Age fisheries reflect, to a certain degree, these differentiations. In southern Aegean, in the Bronze Age, fishing and shellfish gathering was mostly practiced very near the shore, often in the shallow waters of the splash zone.3 Catches in this zone were taxonomically rich (e.g. wrasses Labridae, damsel fish – Chromis chromis, sea breams such as annular seabream – Diplodus annularis, stripped sea bream- Lythognathus mormyris, parrot fish – Sparisoma cretense). Limpets – Patella sp. and topshells – Phorus sp. along with purple shellfish - Hexaplex trunculus, ceriths – Cerithium vulgatum, Noa’s arcs – Arca noae, crabs, sea urchins, etc are collected from these waters. This fishing zone was exploited all though the Bronze Age in a rather intensive manner, so much so that in fish bone and molluscan assemblages from this area we can observe a clear reduction in the size of captured fish and shells. Fishing for these resources is technologically simple; it only requires dexterity and almost no tools (e.g. limpet and top shell hand gathering). It can be practiced by anyone who has some familiarity to the sea. Fishing, however, was also practiced, in deeper waters, but still near the coast. This offered access to shellfish and also to larger fish that live either among the rocks or on the sea bed (benthic) or swim in the water column (benthopelagic). The capture of these fish is more demanding in technology and knowledge, and it could be suggested that this type of fishing is the domain of professional fishers, those who had been trained and versed in the specialized knowledge and the multitude of skills required for this type of activity.4 Migratory fish, that appear twice a year in certain locations along their migration routes were only occasionally captured, or not at all. Their capture was, in the southern Aegean in the Bronze Age, rather opportunistic and it was apparently done in the shallows, near the coast, where these fish were approaching periodically. The chronological development of fisheries in the southern Aegean, especially its earlier phases (Early Bronze Age), is not very clear, mainly because most available material originates from Late Bronze Age sites. In the northern Aegean the picture is not as detailed, but fish bone and molluscan assemblages here are much more sizable and diverse.5 Here too, we have no clear picture of all sub-phases in the Bronze Age. The Early Bronze Age is very well documented in a number of sites, Middle and Late


3

4 5

The discussion on fisheries in southern Aegean is summarizing data presented in detail in D. MYLONA, “Marine resources and coastal communities in the Late Bronze Age southern Aegean: a seascape approach,” AJA 124 (2020) 179-213. MYLONA (supra n. 3). The following review is based on Τ. THEODOROPOULOU, L’exploitation des faunes aquatiques en Égée septentrionale aux périodes pré- et protohistoriques (PhD Dissertation Université de Paris I, 2007), ID., “Οι αλιευτικές δραστηριότητες στη Προϊστορία της Βόρειας Ελλάδας: ένα πανόραμα των αρχαιοζωολογικών δεδομένων,” in E. STEFANI, N. MEROUSIS, A. DIMOULA (eds), A Century of Research in Prehistoric Macedonia 1912-2012 (2014) 453-464 and on R. VEROPOULIDOU, Όστρεα από τους Οικισμούς του Θερμαϊκού Κόλπου. Ανασυνθέτοντας την κατανάλωση των μαλακίων στη Νεολιθική και την Εποχή του Χαλκού (PhD Dissertation Aristotelean University of Thessalonike, 2011) esp. 425-461.

PROCESSED FISH, MARINE DYES AND THE FISHING DOMAINE OF THE BA AEGEAN

115

Bronze Age less so (e.g. Thessaloniki Toumba, Limenaria on Thassos Island, Mikro Vouni on Samothrace Island). People in the northern Aegean were able to explore a much wider range of aquatic ecosystems, because they were available: coastal and lagoonal/estuarine ecosystems in the coastal zone and freshwater habitats in the hinterland. The Early Bronze Age saw an increase in the use of lagoonal and marine resources, compared to earlier times, and a wider range of exploited fish and mollucan taxa, with most assemblages dominated by typical euryaline species (certain Sparidae, such as the gilt head sea bream – Sparus aurata, grey mullets - Mugilidae and lagoon cockle – Cerastoderma glaucum). This trend lasted all through the Bronze Age with some local variations. It has been observed that although in landlocked waters fishing targeted large fish (especially cat fish Siliuridae and carp – Cyprinus carpio) in the lagoons and the sea, such selectivity did not seem to apply. Another interesting observation for the Bronze Age fisheries in the northern Aegean is that in inland sites fishing was practiced in whatever aquatic environments were near the site, but few marine fish and larger quantities of molluscs found their way there. The observation that inland waters were exploited on a year round basis has been used as an argument for the existence of professional fishers. The same inference is made by the systematic harvesting of the thorny oyster - Spondylus gaederopus, which required diving and dexterity, traits that can be linked to special training. In coastal sites in the Bronze Age northern Aegean molluscan and fish bone assemblages are characterized by considerable taxonomic variety. Here migratory fish were caught probably more often than in the southern Aegean and cartilaginous species were also caught in considerable numbers, especially in certain sites. Shellfishing was targeted to a few species, which were abundant locally, e.g. cockles – Cerastoderma sp., mussels – Mytilus galloprovincialis, oysters – Ostrea edulis. Small quantities of other taxa were collected either opportunistically or for non-culinary uses. Wherever laggonal/estuarine environments were near settlements, the high productivity of those ecosystems in molluscs was fully exploited. Marine shellfish were used not only for food but also as raw material for jewelry and adornment. It has been suggested that production of purple dye from marine molluscs started in northern Aegean from as early as the Middle Bronze Age. Processed fish Fish processing in the Aegean, and indeed the whole eastern Mediterranean, goes back to the Mesolithic period.6 The technical knowledge survived through the Neolithic too.7 From early in the Bronze Age, fish processing was practised in various locations in the eastern Mediterranean and Near Eastern world. A wall painting in the Tomb of Re-em-Kuy at Saqqara (Vth Dynasty, 2500-2350 BC), for example, illustrates fish being prepared for drying,8 while Akkadian and Sumerian documents preserve terms for fresh-water and marine processed fish, including the most elaborate fermented fish sauce.9 Furthermore, fish bones of “exotic” species have been found in various locations: fish from the Nile in Cyprus or Israel and Mediterranean fish on sites hundreds of kilometres inland in the Near


6

7

8 9

D. MYLONA, “Fish and seafood consumption in the Aegean: Variations on a theme,” in T. BEKKERNIELSEN and R. GERWAGEN (eds), The Inland Seas: Towards an ecohistory of the Mediterranean (2016) esp. 61-65 with references to specific cases. M. ROSE, With Line and Glittering Bronze Hook: Fishing in the Aegean Bronze Age (PhD Dissertation Indiana University, 1994) esp. 434-436; MYLONA (supra n. 6); T. THEODOROPOULOU, “To salt or not to salt: a review of evidence for processed marine products and local traditions in the Aegean through time,” in D. MYLONA and R. NICHOLSON (eds), Bountiful Sea: fish processing and consumption in the Mediterranean antiquity, Journal of Maritime Archaeology 13 (2018) 389-406. D.J. BREWER and R.F. FRIEDMAN, Fish and fishing in ancient Egypt (1989) esp. 12-13. For a review of Egyptian and eastern Mediterranean evidence of fish processing with relevant references see indicatively R. CURTIS, Ancient Food Technology (2001) esp. 174-175 and 239-240; J. BOTTÉRO, The Oldest Cuisine in the World: Cooking in Mesopotamia (1994) esp. 60-61.

116

Dimitra MYLONA

East. They all suggest that some type of preservation and fish trade was practised, more emphatically in the latest part of the Bronze Age.10 The Bronze Age fish bone record from the Aegean is only suggestive for the most part. Bones from three small eels in a jar at Middle Helladic I (ca 2050/2000-1900 B.C.) Ayios Stephanos in Lakonia may represent processed eels11 and the same goes for a few fish bones found within several vessels containing indeterminate organic matter at pre-eruption Akrotiri on Thera,12 but also at Kommos (various dates in the Bronze Age),13 and possibly at Knossos14 and possibly at the shipwreck of Ulu Burun.15 Consideration of depositional processes and find context needs to be taken into account when evaluating such cases, but their multiple occurrences suggest that at least some might indeed have contained processed fish. Processing, using salt or other preservatives is a technology that is not suitable only for fish preservation but it can be applied to different plant and animal foodstuffs. A find from the “Ouranias to Froudi” rock shelter near Zakros on Crete, sheds some light on this issue. It dates to the end of the Old Palace and the beginning of the New Palace period (ca 1900 BC). Pure sea salt, but also salt alternating with layers of dark organic matter, perhaps preserved plant foods, has been found stored in wide shallow vessels (lekanis-basin) in the rock shelter. Various other products (barley seeds, wild goat horn-cores, pottery) were also stored there.16 This find suggests that the basic preservation technique, salting (alone or perhaps in combination with other methods, such as drying or smoking or use of vinegar), was certainly practised on Bronze Age Crete. Concrete evidence from the Bronze Age north Aegean is missing. The definite evidence for fish processing that created a variety of products and recipes has been found in the destruction horizon at Akrotiri, Thera.17 Akrotiri, destroyed by a volcano eruption and buried under meters of volcanic ash in the Late Cycladic I period (16th c. BC)18 was left undisturbed until its excavation (from 1970’s to present day) and this, along with the preservation qualities of the volcanic ash and the advanced recovery methods applied during excavation, led to the preservation and recovery of a wide range of organic remains. So far three instances of processed fish and three distinct recipes have been identified. Two of them were recovered in the north part of the excavated area, at a trench known as Pillar Shaft 77-78A, where several vessels and organic materials were found in what was an open space during the last days


10

11 12

13

14 15 16

17

18

ROSE (supra n.7) esp. 454-472; W. VAN NEER, O. LERNAU, R. FRIEDMAN, G. MUMFORD, J. POBLÓME and W. WAELKENS, “Fish remains from archaeological sites as indicators of former trade connections in the Eastern Mediterranean,” Paléorient 30.1 (2004) 101-147; I. ZOHAR and M. ARTZY, “The role of preserved fish: Evidence of fish exploitation, processing and long-term preservation in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age (14th-13th Century BCE),” Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 23 (2019) 900-909. ROSE (supra n. 7) 214, interpretation in THEODOROPOULOU (supra n 7). D. MYLONA, “Fish eating in LC West House, Akrotiri, Thera: the fish bone evidence,” unpublished manuscript. M. ROSE, “The Fish Remains,” in J.W. SHAW and M.C. SHAW (eds), Kommos: An Excavation on the South Coast of Crete; The Kommos Region and Houses of the Minoan Town; The Kommos Region, Ecology and Minoan Industries (1995) 216-217. A. EVANS, The Palace of Minos I (1921) 554-556. C. PULAK, “The Bronze Age Shipwreck at Ulu Burun, Turkey: 1985 Campaign,” AJA 92 (1988) 1-37. K. KOPAKA and N. CHANIOTAKIS, “Just taste additive? Bronze Age salt from Zakros, Crete,” OJA 22 (2003) 53-66. The following is a review of data presented in detail in D. MYLONA, “Preserved fish products at Bronze Age Akrotiri, Thera: a long-lived Mediterranean tradition,” in C. DOUMAS (ed.), Akrotiri Thera. Forty years of research 1967-2007 (forthcoming), MYLONA (supra n. 3) and C. TOKARSKI, N. GARNIER and D. MYLONA, “Culinary practices from Late Bronze Age Southern Aegean revealed by Chemical Analysis and Proteomics,” Journal of Proteomics (forthcoming). The date of the volcanic eruption is a much debated issue. The 16th c. BC is proposed by C. PEARSON, P.W. BREWER, D. BROWN, T.J. HEATON, G.W.L HODGINS, A.J.T. JULL, T. LANGE and M.W.SALZER, “Annual radiocarbon record indicates 16th century BCE date for the Thera eruption,” Science Advances 4.8 (2018) 7.

PROCESSED FISH, MARINE DYES AND THE FISHING DOMAINE OF THE BA AEGEAN

117

of the settlement. The excavation uncovered articulated remains of at least 6-7 large common dentex Dentex dentex, 30-50 cm in length. The fish are all of similar size. They had been sliced open and the vertebral column removed. The fish were then dried (and probably salted) and hung in a bunch ready for consumption (Pl. XVa). At the same spot, a small pithos contained a thick layer of an organic dark colored paste. Macroscopic examination during its excavation showed that it was made up of small fish bones, some seeds (cereals) and an amorphous dark substance (Pl. XVb). The bones in this product were from very small fish, including a tiny sting ray - Dasyatis sp., damsel fish - Chromis chromis, picarel Manea/Spicara sp. and other small Sparidae such as bogue - Boops boops and annular sea bream Diplodus annularis. These are the types of the fish that made up the bulk of fish diet on site. In order to explore the composition of the fish paste, chemical and proteomics analyses have been employed in addition to the basic zooarchaeological approach. The combined results of these methods led to the conclusion that the pithos contained an elaborate concoction of preserved fish that was cooked rather than fermented and contained whole small fish (including flesh and skin), white wine, vegetal matter (leaves or seeds) and vegetal oils. The fact that this product was found in a pithos, stored along with many other objects in an open space of the settlement, may suggest a type of cooked fish with a long shelf life, similar to traditional savoro.19 The third find comes from Room 6 of the so called West House, which is widely known for its marine themed frescoes.20 Early excavations in this building revealed that the contents of a two handled fusiform pithos consisted of fish bones and seeds. The fish bones represent at least 29 common sea bream (Pagrus pagrus) of large size (30-50 cm in length). The whole fish were included. Initially the seeds in this pithos were considered intrusive;21 but, in view of the more recent find of the fish paste with cereals in it in Pillar Shaft 77-78A, it appears plausible that the seeds were part of the initial recipe and perhaps crucial to fish processing. In the same way, rice and millet are crucial in processing many Asian fermented fish and seafood products.22 The three processed fish products at Akrotiri, were part of a wider tradition of fish processing, that was practised by coastal communities along the Mediterranean (as seen by the summary review above). Fish preservation was a complex process that involved different recipes and several ingredients. It resulted in products with distinct visual and culinary impact. Each recipe demanded different fish (species, size) and some selectivity was obviously at play (two of the three products used single species and specific size fish). Although small fish used for the fish paste were regularly eaten all over the settlement and were probably often caught by any of Akrotiri’s inhabitants, the common dentex and the common sea breams of large size that make up the other two fish products, are not as common. Bones of these fish are found on site, but they are few and far apart. The common dentex in Pillar Shaft 77-78A could probably not result from a single fishing episode as these fish, in their maturity (i.e. over 34.6 cm in length) lead a solitary life,23 and the very large number of common sea bream in the pithos in the West House represent a too large number of fish to be caught in one go. It seems possible that they were either accumulated over several fishing expeditions or many fishers pooled their


19

20

21

22

23

Savoro a dish of fried fish that are marinated in a sauce of olive oil and vinegar with the optional addition of rosemary, raisins and other condiments. It extends the fish’s live by several days. For the so called “Little fishermen” see D. MYLONA, “Representations of fish and fishermen on the Thera wall paintings in light of the fish bone evidence,” in S. SHERRATT (ed.), International Symposium the Wall Paintings of Thera, Thera 30th August-4th September 1997 (2000) 561-567 and P. ECONOMIDIS, “The ‘Little fisherman’ and the fish he holds,” ibidem 555-560; for the miniature fresco indicatively P. WARREN, “The miniature fresco from the West House at Akrotiri, Thera, and its Aegean setting,” JHS 99 (1979) 115-129. A. SARPAKI, The Palaeoethnobotany of the West House, Akrotori, Thera: A Case Study (PhD Dissertation University of Sheffield, 1987) 208-209, table 5.11. A.K. ANAL, “Quality ingredients and safety concerns for traditional fermented foods and beverages from Asia: a review,” Fermentation 5.1 (1919) doi.org/10.3390/fermentation5010008 table 3. R. FROESE and D. PAULY (eds), FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication (2019). www.fishbase.org, version (12/2019).

118

Dimitra MYLONA

resources together to achieve these homogenous groups of fish. The implication of this hypothesis is that there was probably at Akrotiri (or at the location where the fish were preserved) a specialised fishing enclave, that was able to procure many fish of a specific kind. At the moment it is not possible to tell whether the processed fish at Akrotiri were a local product or imported. The elaborate system of fish processing, trade and consumption that was clearly in place in the southern Aegean and the broader Eastern Mediterranean region in this period has not been identified in the northern Aegean yet. This could be a matter of excavation chance, or it might be the result of factors such as the lack of an impetus to preserve the abundant aquatic resources, or the lack of participation in networks of knowledge or trade of preserved fish and shellfish. This issue clearly requires more focused research. Purple dye production Research on Bronze Age purple dye that could be produced from three Mediterranean shellfish, Hexaplex trunculus, Bolinus brandaris and/or Stramonita haemasotma, is currently mushrooming and leading to a fairly comprehensive understanding of this activity. 24 The early short reports on large concentrations of purple shells25 are now replaced by detailed analysis of such assemblages, by deliberations on the archaeological context of purple dye production and use and by employing analytical techniques.26 Purple shellfish are perhaps the most important marine animals in Bronze Age Aegean in terms of the economic and social impact of their processing. The origin of the art of purple dye production is not easy to track. The pigment bearing shellfish species in the Mediterranean are edible and have been consumed in the Aegean from as early as the Upper Palaeolithic and the Mesolithic,27 with their shells finding their way in the food wastes that are regularly recovered from archaeological excavations. It is still not always clear in which cases the archaeological purple shells result from the purple dye industry or from food consumption.28 The amount and fragmentation of purple shells are commonly used criteria, while lately, the archaeological context of the purple shells emerges as crucial.29


24

25

26 27

28

29

The following review is based on an annotated database by D. Reese (author’s working manuscript [2019]) which includes detailed presentation of relevant data by site, bibliography and critical commentary. The section of this data base that refers to eastern Mediterranean is published in D. REESE, “Murex use in eastern Mediterranean,” in D. MYLONA, T. BROGAN, M. IAKOVOU and M. EABY (eds), PORPHYRA. The materiality of purple dye production and use in Cyprus and the Aegean from Prehistory to the Late Roman period (forthcoming). References to those sites are given in the abovementioned publications. For example the alleged masses of “murex shells” reported by R.C. BOSANQUET on the slopes of Kastri Hill at Palaikastro, Crete (“Excavations at Palaikastro II,” BSA 9 [1902-03] 274-289) or on Kouphonisi (Leuke) Island off east Crete, ID., “An Early Purple-fishery,” British Ass. Report (1903). See discussion below. Indicatively J.C. SHACKLETON, Marine Molluscan Remains from Franchthi Cave. Excavation at Franchthi Cave, Greece, vol. 4 (1988); L. KARALI, “The seashells of Maroulas, Kythnos”, in A. SAMPSON, M. KACZANOWSKA and J.K. KOZLOWSKI (eds), The Prehistory of the Island of Kythnos (Cyclades, Greece) and the Mesolithic Settlement at Maroulas (2010) 147-149. In the last decade several attempts have been made to standardize identifications these activities e.g. M.E. ALBERTI, “Murex shells as raw material: The purple-dye industry and its by-products: Interpreting the Archaeological Record.,” Kaskal rivista di storia, ambiente e culture del vivino oriente antico 5 (2008) 73-90; C. ALFARO and D. MYLONA, “Fishing for purple shellfish (Muricidae) in ancient Greece: acquisition technology and first steps in purple dye production,” in C. ALFARO, M. TELLENBACK and J.ORTIZ (eds), Production and Trade of Textiles and Dyes in the Roman Empire and Neighbouring Regions (2014), 149-166; A. MACDONALD and H. PETERSEN, Murex-Purple Dye: The Archaeology behind the Production and an Overview of Sites in the Northwest Maghreb Region (2017). For the emphasis on archaeological context of purple shells MYLONA, BROGAN, IACOVOU and EABY eds (supra n. 24). Although use of such criteria is useful for recent of current excavations, the interpretation of old materials remains restricted by the limitations of older excavations and publications (see several instances in REESE [supra n. 24]). MYLONA, BROGAN, IACOVOU and EABY eds (supra n. 24).

PROCESSED FISH, MARINE DYES AND THE FISHING DOMAINE OF THE BA AEGEAN

119

Leaving aside certain chronologically marginal cases that date purple dye production in the Early Bronze Age30 it appears that the Middle Bronze Age (roughly 2100-1700 BC) saw the emergence of purple dye production and use as a widespread phenomenon that gradually expanded all through the Aegean and also in Eastern Mediterranean (Cyprus and the Levant). It is probably significant that these areas had already developed contacts with each other, amply documented archaeologically by traded items (e.g. pottery, seal stones) and artistic, political and other influences.31 The spread of the art of purple dye production was perhaps linked to this mobility within southern Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean with Crete at its center. The exact tracing of the development of purple dye production, especially its earlier stages within the Middle Bronze Age, is not possible yet, mostly because the relevant material is not published in detail and its dating is often not exact. It seems clear, however, that Crete was the hub of this production. Palaikastro, Mallia, Kommos, Karoumes and Chryssi on Crete appear to be production sites from as early as the Middle Minoan II (1800-1700 BC), and a few more (e.g. Monastiraki, Alatzomouri-Pefka, Papadiokambos, Mochlos) offer evidence for use of the dye or of the by-products of the purple dye production process, i.e. the fragmented shells. Other southern Aegean sites also offer data for the consumption and probably even production of purple dye in the later part of the Bronze Age. Kythera, Agia Irini on Keos, Akrotiri and Rhaos on Thera, and Eleusis are some of them. The north Aegean participated in this new activity from at least the end of the Middle Bronze Age (ca 1700 BC) with evidence for purple dye production and/or use at Magoula Pefkakia, Thessaloniki Toumba, Troy and probably Poliochni. The intensity of production, however, in the north was clearly lower (with the possible exception of Troy). In the Late Bronze Age, purple dye production and consumption in the whole Aegean seems to increase. More sites were involved in this industry, producing the dye or using it, in addition to the older sites on which this activity continued (sites with evidence that date from the Late Bronze Age I and later: Khania and Makrygialos on Crete, Agora in Athens, Agios Kosmas in Attica, Kolona on Aegina, Mitrou in the northern Euboean Gulf, Trianda on Rhodes, Miletos in the southern part of the western Anatolian coast). The purple dye itself or purple dyed textiles were objects of trade and this might have started early on. In the high status tomb at Tell Mishrife, Qatna, dated somewhere between 1700 to 1340 BC BC, which contained several imported prestige items, including Cretan pottery, purple stained sediments were found. These are thought to be residues of purple dyed textiles and it has been


30

31

Pyrgos-Mavroraki on Cyprus is said to have produced evidence for EBA-MBA purple dye [A. LENTINI, “The ancient colours of Pyrgos-Mavrorachi, Cyprus,” presented at the International Congress on Archaeological Sciences in the Eastern Mediterranean ad the Near East, Cyprus Institute, 2010, accessed at https://www.academia.edu/13541529/The_Ancient_Colour_of_Pyrgos_Mavrorachi_Cyprus (Jan. 2021). But for a critical approach see G. MUTI, “Following the fil rouge. Productive, economic, and social aspects of textile dyeing in Middle and Late Cypriot communities”, in L. BOMBARDIERI, M. AMADIO and F. DOLCETTI (eds), Ancient Cyprus, an Unexpected Journey. Communities in continuity and transition (2017) esp. 22-23. A claim that Kolona on Aegina produced evidence for EBA purple dye production (C. BECKER, “Did the people in Ayios Mamas produce purple-dye during the Middle Bronze Age? Considerations on the prehistoric production of purple-dye in the Mediterranean,” in H. BUITHENHUIS and W. PRUMMEL (eds.), Animals and Man in the Past. Essays in honour of Dr. A.T. Clason, Emeritus Professor of archaeozoology, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, the Netherlands, 122-134) is now refuted, see indicatively L. BERGER, G. FOESTENPOINTNER, E. KREUZ and J. WEILHARTNER, “Purpur im bronzezeitlichen Ägina. Archäologische und archäozoologische Evidenz für die frühe Herstellung von Purpurfarbstoff in Griechenland,” in L. BERGER, F. LANG, C. REINHOLDT, B. TOBER and J. WEILHARTNER (eds), Gedenkschrift für Wolfgang Wohlmayr (2020) 43-64. The literature on the documentation of these relations is vast; here indicatively P.P. BETANCOURT, “Minoan Trade”, in C.W. SHELMERDINE (ed.), The Aegean Bronze Age (2010) 209-229; M.H. WIENER and R.B. KOEHL, “Realities of power: the Minoan thalassocracy in historical perspective,” in E.B. KOEHL (ed.), АΜΙΛΛΑ. The Quest for Excellence. Studies in Honor of Guenter Kopcke (2013) 149-173. D. BENSHLOMO, E. NODAROU and J.B. RUTTER, “Transport stirrup jars from the southern Levant: New light on commodity exchange in the eastern Mediterranean,” AJA 115 (2011) 329-353.

120

Dimitra MYLONA

suggested that those could be Cretan imports.32 During the later part of the Bronze Age, production of purple dye was also adopted by several coastal sites in the eastern Mediterranean, such as Minet el Beidha and Ras Shamra on the Syrian coast, Tell Akko in Israel, Sarepta in Lebanon, andHala Sultan Teke on Cyprus. In this period, our evidence goes beyond archaeological finds. Linear B and Akkadian scripts refer to the art of making of purple dye, its management and its trade either as raw material or as dyed fabrics/garments.33 There is some discussion as to whether in Neopalatial Crete all stages of textile production (including animal raising, wool harvesting, dyeing) were controlled by palaces or just the last ones, and the degree in which textile production was decentralized.34Although this issue will not be further discussed here, it is obvious that it had a significant bearing on the value and outreach of the purple dye technology. The process of purple dye production turned certain species of common marine molluscs into a number of precious and useful products. The dye is the obvious desired outcome of the process. It is fast and brilliant and offers a wide range of hues starting from dark blue/purple and going through bright red to pale pink.35 It was used to dye raw wool or garments as testified by dyeing installations (e.g. Alatzomouri-Pefka on Crete, MB IIB) and texts.36 Occasional finds of the actual raw pigment in the form of lumps of dye37 and of chemical traces of the dye in transport vessels38 suggest that the dye


32

33

34

35

36

37

C. GILLIS, “The color purple,” in F. FAEGERSTEN, J. WALLENSTEN and I. ÖSTENBERG (eds), Tankemönster. En festskrift till Eva Rystedt (2010) 84-91; REESE (supra n. 26). For the trade in wool and textiles in Bronze Age Aegean and Near East see indicatively C. BRENIQUET and C. MICHELE (eds), Wool Economy in the Ancient Near East (2014). S. THAVAPALAN, “Purple Fabrics and Garments in Akkadian Documents,” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History 3 (2018) 163-190; for Linear B records indicatively: L. PALMER, The Interpretation of Mycenaean Greek Texts (1963) 163, 297, T.G. PALAIMA, “Maritime Matters in the Linear B Tablets,” in R. LAFFINEUR and L BASCH (eds), THALASSA. L’Égée préhistorique et la mer. Actes de la troisième rencontre égéenne internationale de l’Université de Liège, Station de Recherches sous-marines et océanographiques (StaReSo), Calvi, Corse, 23-25 avril 1990 (1991) 273-310; M.-L. NOSCH, “Red coloured textiles in the Linear B inscriptions,” in L. CLELAND, K. STEARS and G. DAVIS (eds), Colour in the Ancient Mediterranean World (2004) 32-39; T.G. PALAIMA, “Porphureion and Kalkhion and Minoan-Mycenaean purple dye manufacture and use,” in V. APOSTOLAKOU, T.M. BROGAN and P.P. BETANCOURT (eds), Alatzomouri Pefka. A Middle Minoan IIB workshop making organic dyes (2020) 123-128. Indicatively P. MILITELLO, “Wool Economy in Minoan Crete before Linear B. A Minimalist Position,” in C. BRENIQUET and C. MICHEL (eds), Wool Economy in the Ancient Near East and the Aegean: From the Beginnings of Sheep Husbandry to Institutional Textile Industry (2014) 265-282. R. HAUBRICH, “L’étude de la pourpre : histoire d’une couleur, chimie et expérimentations,” Preistoria Alpina, Suppl. 1, 40 (2004) 133-160. Application of modern analytical techniques on the composition of dye on fabrics or other applications have clarified the reasons and the chemical processes involved in the creation of different colour hues; indicatively A. CICCOLA, I. SERAFINI, F. RIPANTI, F. VINCENTI, F COLETTI, A. BIANCO, C. FASOLATO, C MONTESANO, M. GALLI, R. CURINI, P. POSTORINO, “Dyes from the ashes: discovering and characterizing natural dyes from mineralized textiles,” Molecules 25 (2020) 1417. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25061417, with a short review of the state of the art. For Alatzomouri-Pefka dying installations, V. APOSTOLAKOU, T.M. BROGAN and P.P. BETANCOURT (eds), Alatzomouri Pefka. A Middle Minoan IIB workshop making organic dyes (2020) and several papers therein. For textual records, PALAIMA 2020 (supra n. 33). Two examples come from LC I Akrotiri on Thera and MM III Iyalissos on Rhodes Island: I. KARAPANAGIOTIS, D. MANTZOYRIS, C. COOKSEY, M.S. MUBARAK and P. TSIAMYRTZIS, “An improved HPLC method coupled to PCA for the identification of Tyrian purple in archaeological and historical samples,” Microchemical Journal 110 (2013), 70-80. E. ALOUPI, Y. MANIATIS, T. PARADELLIS and L. KARALI YANNACOPOULOU, “Analysis of a purple material found at Akrotiri,’ in D.A. HARDY, C. DOUMAS, J.A. SAKELLARAKIS and P.M. WARREN (eds), Thera and the Aegean World III. Archaeology,Proceedings of the Third International Congress, Santorini, September 03-09, 1989 I Archaeology (1990) 488-490. Also S. SOTIROPOULOU, I. KARAPANAGIOTIS, K.S. ANDRIKOPOULOS, T. MARKETOU, K. BIRTACHA AND M. MARTHARI, “Review and new evidence on the molluscan purple pigment used in the Early Late Bronze Age Aegean wall

PROCESSED FISH, MARINE DYES AND THE FISHING DOMAINE OF THE BA AEGEAN

121

itself was an object of trade. The by-products, the wastes of purple dye production, were also systematically used and traded. In the late 14th/early 13th c. B.C. shipwreck of Ulu Burun thousands of purple shell operculi (ceratinous element used by the shellfish to seal the mouth of the shell) were found, being part of the cargo. They might had been used in medicine, perfume or incense manufacture. 39 Reese rightly believes that they were probably collected at some purple dye workshop.40 Small quantities of ground shells of these animals could have had similar applications41 but they were mostly used in bulk in construction, mixed with soil, packed under floors or plastered surfaces, to provide compactness.42 This is repeatedly observed archaeologically. Small concentrations of crushed purple shells that are found within settlements (e.g. Mochlos, Palaikastro, Kommos, Khania)43 could be seen as supplies for maintenance operations of such architectural features. Fragments of purple shells, especially of the Hexaplex trunculus variety, were also used as raw material for lime production.44 Chemical analysis and macroscopic examination of plaster from various sites has shown that lime of molluscan origin was often used.45 The demand in fragmented or complete purple shells for applications like the above can be traced on Chryssi island, a site where purple dye was systematically produced over a period of several decades (from Middle Minoan II to Late Minoan IB). There, one workshop, in the so-called Building B.1, has been fully excavated and at least two more have been identified.46 Accumulations of crushed shells littered the spaces between buildings at any given time (Pl. XVc), and a comparison of the nature of these deposits and the fragmentation of the shells within them, suggest that some sorting took place, and that the dumping of the shells was not haphazard. This sorting may reflect a demand for specific kinds/states of shells for specific applications. In Alatzomouri-Pefka, on the northern coast of Crete, not far from Gournia, a Middle Minoan II dyeing installation has been excavated with a number of


38

39

40 41

42

43 44

45

46

paintings,” Heritage 4 no. 1 (2021) 171-187. For example the MM IIB oval mouthed pithos from the dyeing installation at Alatzomouri-Pefka (see A. KOH, V. APOSTOLAKOU, M.N. PAREJA, A.M. CRANDALL and P.P. BETANCOURT, “Organic residue studies,” in APOSTOLAKOU et al. eds (supra n. 33). Muricidae operculi are used in traditional medicine and incense production (B.D. NONGMAITHEM, P. MOYATT, J. SMITH, D. RUDD, M. RUSSELL, C. SULLIVAN and K. BENKENDORFF, “Volatile and bioactive compounds in opercula from Muricidae molluscs supports their use in ceremonial incense and traditional medicines,” Scientific Reports 7/17404 [2017] 1-14). REESE (supra n. 26) where full references for this find. For such uses of ground purple shells in antiquity see M. BÉLIS, “Purple in cooking, medicine and magic,” in R. BUXTON (ed.) From Myth to Reason? Studies in the Development of Greek Thought (1999) 295-316 Crushed Hexaplex trunculus under the plastered surfaces of a MM IIB-MM III wine making installation at Palaikastro offer an example (C. KNAPPETT and T. CUNNINGHAM, Palaikastro Block M. The Proto- and Neopalatial Town [2012] esp. 85). See also D. REESE, “The Invertebrates,” in J.A. MACGILLIVRAY and L.H. SACKETT (eds), Palaikastro Building 1 (2019) 387-409. For full references see REESE (supra n. 24). Inland MMII Monastiraki and LM Kommos provide clear examples of crushed Hexaplex trunculus being used in lime production, in a small scale in the first case and larger scale in the second: A. CARANNANTE, “Purple-dye industry shell waste recycling in the Bronze Age Aegean? Stoves and murex shells at Minoan Monastiraki (Crete, Greece),” in C. ÇAKIRLAR (ed.), Archaeomalacology Revisited: Non-dietary use of molluscs in archaeological setting. Proceedings of the archaeomalacology sessions at the 10th ICAZ Conference, Mexico City, 2006 (2011) 918 and D. RUSCILLO, “Faunal Remains and Murex Dye Production,” in J.W. SHAW and M.C. SHAW (eds), Kommos V, The Monumental Minoan Building at Kommos (2006) 776-840, esp. 808. Indicatively A. BRYSBAERT, “Murex uses in plaster features in the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age,” MAA 7 (2007) 29-51. A synopsis of research on purple dye production and its context on Chryssi can be found in T.M. BROGAN, D. MYLONA, V. APOSROLAKOU, P.P. BETANCOURT and C. SOFIANOU, “A Bronze Age Fishing Village on Chryssi,” in K. CHALIKIAS and E. ODDO (eds), Exploring a Terra Incognita on Crete. Recent research on Bronze Age habitation in the southern Ierapetra Isthmus (2019) 97-109 and T.M. BROGAN, V. APOSTOLAKOU, P.P. BETANCOURT, M. EABY, D. MYLONA and C. SOFIANOU, “Purple Production on Chryssi island in the Bronze Age,” in MYLONA et al. eds (supra n. 24).

122

Dimitra MYLONA

shallow rock-cut basins, channels and a well. Purple dye was one among the dyes used in this workshop. This is documented by chemical analysis of several vessels which contained the dye and by a few hundred whole or fragmented Hexaplex trunculus shells.47 The fragments have been found either in small concentrations near the vats or collected within a vessel that was deposited in the well towards the end of the site’s life. It appears that there was scope for the collection of even the small amounts of purple shell fragments that were perhaps found in the purple dye solution. They were probably a valuable and desired product. The massive deposits of purple shells that are found on the eastern coasts of the Mediterranean of a later date and speak of large scale operations are missing from the Aegean. Here, leaving aside some early mentions of large concentrations which now cannot be located or quantified, most finds, even at production locations such as Chryssi or Karoumes, are of moderate amounts at best. This could be the result of the regular removal of the fragments for further use elsewhere (as discussed above) but it probably also has to do with the moderate scale of operations. At Chryssi Building B.1, the only fully excavated Bronze Age purple dye workshop, production was done using tools and vessels that are domestic in character but put to industrial use. It is likely that a large production was achieved by the parallel function of many small-scale workshops instead of a few large operations. This is a feature that is also observed in other industries in the Middle Bronze Age, especially on Crete and has been discussed in the context of the organisation and palatial control of artisanal production of luxury goods.48 The Linear B evidence concerning purple dye production and use suggests some degree of control of the production and the dye itself at least in the later part of the Bronze Age. It has been suggested that the Mycenean model as it emerges from Linear B documents from Knossos and Thebes could provide some useful analogy for the Minoan production and for the situation observed on Chryssi.49 The proposed Minoan root of the word po-pu-re-ja according to Palaima speaks for the early origins of this art on Crete and according to him the presence of palatial officials at the purple dye production sites, even in the Neopalatial period, seems likely. At Chryssi, the involvement of palatial agents is attested by the presence, in one of the excavated buildings (Building B.2), of a number of insignia of administration, control and power (nodulus sealing, ceremonial equipment, jewelry etc).50 What this interest (and control?) involved and how far it extended beyond the purple dye to the rest of the by-products of purple dye production is not yet clear. As in the case of fish processing, the extent of purple dye production and its economic and cultural impact in northern Aegean BA societies is little discussed. So far it is documented in detail in a small number of sites and it obviously forms a second promising field of future research. In place of conclusions Bronze Age fisheries in the Aegean were not uniform over space and time or in terms of preferred catch, of scale of operations or in regard to the amount of landed produce. It did not cater to a uniform type of consumers either. Fish and molluscan processing reflects this variability. It has recently been demonstrated, based on data from Neopalatial Mochlos, and complemented by data from elsewhere, that fishing, at least in southern Aegean, had two complementary aspects.51 Some fishing and shellfish gathering was done in the shallows near coastal settlements by anyone who had a basic familiarity with the sea. This was widespread and regular enough to leave a distinct trace in the zooarchaeological record. More technologically demanding fishing and shellfish gathering was also


47 48

49 50 51

Supra n. 44. For a review of this idea and detailed bibliography see BROGAN, APOSTOLAKOU, BETANCOURT, EABY, MYLONA and SOFIANOU (supra n. 46). PALAIMA 2020 (supra n. 33). BROGAN, APOSTOLAKOU, BETANCOURT, EABY, MYLONA and SOFIANOU (supra n. 46). MYLONA (supra n. 3) and EADEM, “Animal remains from Neopalatial Mochlos: exploring human-animal relations,” in J. SOLES (ed.), Mochlos IV. The Neopalatial Settlement (forthcoming).

PROCESSED FISH, MARINE DYES AND THE FISHING DOMAINE OF THE BA AEGEAN

123

taking place at the same time, producing a different set of catches, those of the deeper waters. This type of fishing was performed by professional fishers, specially trained for it. Anthropological research all over the world has highlighted the significance of fishing communities as nurturing domains that ensured the enskillment of its members, and the passing on of specialized fishing knowledge from one generation to the next.52 Such communities were found both in the north and the south Aegean, but not all of them seem to have followed the same paths as far as processing is concerned. Processing of marine animals was tightly linked to the professional type of fishing. When processing is systematic, it requires a steady and reliable supply of specific raw materials.53 The large processed fish at Akrotiri and the masses of purple shellfish at Chryssi and elsewhere are examples of it. The Minoan settlement on Chryssi provides perhaps the most comprehensive picture of a predominantly maritime community with the exploitation of marine resources being one aspect of it.54 For many of the inhabitants of Chryssi living and working on the island meant being members of a Minoan maritime and fishing community. Fishing activity on the island was multifaceted: a very large number of fish was caught for local consumption but probably for processing too, purple shellfish were gathered and processed for dye and their shells were collected, sorted and perhaps shipped elsewhere for use, triton shells were systematically captured, again for further processing elsewhere as were a number of other marine creatures.55 The administrative interest in these activities is documented on Chryssi, and the Linear B record on the issue of purple dye production and management, albeit postdated, offers an instructive analogy for the embeddedness of processing in the broader economy. The denser and clearest evidence for fish processing and purple dye production is found in the southern Aegean. The situation in the northern part is less well documented with only a few cases being identified and discussed/published in some detail. This leaves an open issue for further research into whether this imbalance is a reflection of epistemological biases, of a different social context in which processing would have taken place or if it is associated, in some way, with the abundance of marine resources there. However, whether we speak of the northern or of the southern Aegean, the processes that ensured the production and distribution of processed marine resources (not only fish and dyes, but also other molluscs, salt, seaweeds and others, which have not been discussed here) are a promising field of future research. Dimitra MYLONA



52

53

54

55

MYLONA (supra n. 3) with references; indicatively G. PÁLSSON, “Enskilment at Sea,” Man (1994) 901927. Domestic processing of fish and shellfish was probably also practiced. The archaeological visibility of such activities is very low but ethnographic and historical research offers a cross-cultural and diachronic documentation. For household purple dye production see ALFARO and MYLONA (supra n. 30) for fish preservation on domestic scale see https://youtu.be/zz1NT5rK5vc. The excavators of Cryssi suggest that the island harbored a “gateway community” which served as a production center and a node of exchange in high level palatial trade networks (BROGAN, APOSTOLAKOU, BETANCOURT, EABY, MYLONA and SOFIANOU [supra n. 46]). BROGAN, APOSTOLAKOU, BETANCOURT, EABY, MYLONA and SOFIANOU (supra n. 46).

124

Dimitra MYLONA LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Pl. XVa Pl. XVb Pl. XVc

The remains of a common dentex – Dentex dentex with its vertebral column removed and its flesh preserved in the volcanic ash. It was one of 6-7 fish that were found together at one spot at Akrotiti, Thera. It represents dried and probably salted fish (Akrotiri excavations photographic archive). Fish bones, scales and flesh preserved in a pithos at Akrotiri, Thera. They represent a cooked fish product with a long shelf life (Akrotiri excavations photographic archive) A typical accumulation of crushed and whole purple shells (Hexaplex trunculus) mixed with shells of Euthria cornea, Cryssi Island (Chryssi excavations photographic archive).

XV

a

b

c

BETWIXT AND BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES: AN ECOSOCIAL MODEL OF ANIMAL-HUMAN RELATIONS IN MINOAN AND CYCLADIC ANIMAL ART* Aegean art is renowned for depicting plants and animals in natural settings, but scholars face challenges face scholars when interpreting images of nature. Painted and relief decorations portray native flora and fauna mingling with exotic imports and artistic chimeras combining different species such as seen in the Monkeys and Blue Birds Fresco of the House of the Frescoes at Knossos (Pl. XVIa).1 Imported motifs suggest artistic connections abroad, particularly with Egypt and the Near East, while hybrid motifs of Aegean origin may signal artistic and divine creativity.2 Some images seem to celebrate life, supporting the persistent modern belief in the Minoan “love of nature” and its “mystic communion with the great Minoan Goddess of Nature.”3 This iconography of abundance informs a continuing nature vs. culture interpretive paradigm.4 Yet while animal iconography is consistent overall, little support exists for the idea that specific animals and hybrid creatures served as attributes of distinct deities; rather, dominance hierarchies emerge when two or more animals are depicted together (e.g., predator attacking prey).5 Additionally, artwork may have played important roles for the Minoan understanding of their environment 6 and for visualizing human-animal relations. 7 This investigation explores issues of rarity, marginality, and liminality in human experiences of animals depicted in Minoan and Cycladic art and the implications of these artistic choices regarding identity, value, and the conceptualization of the natural and supernatural realms. To facilitate analysis, we introduce an ecosocial model of animal-human interactions.


*

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

The authors would like to thank the organizers of the ZOIA conference for their kind invitation to participate and for persevering through the extraordinary conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020. We also are thankful to Fritz Blakolmer, Eric Cline, Karen Foster, and Jennifer Moody for their thoughtful and helpful comments on earlier drafts; all remaining errors are our own. On Aegean art in general, see S. HOOD, The Arts in Prehistoric Greece (1978); for Aegean painting, see S. IMMERWAHR, Aegean Painting in the Bronze Age (1990); A. CHAPIN, “Aegean Painting in the Bronze Age,” in J.J. POLLITT (ed.), The Cambridge History of Painting in the Classical World (2014) 1-65; for Theran painting C. DOUMAS, The Wall-Paintings of Thera (1992); for seals, O. KRZYSZKOWSKA, Aegean Seals. An Introduction (2005); J. CROWLEY, The Iconography of Aegean Seals (2013). The body of scholarship on Egyptian and Near Eastern influence is large; for recent discussions, see M. AMERI, S.K. COSTELLO, G. JAMISON, and S.J. SCOTT (eds), Seals and Sealing in the Ancient World. Case Studies from the Near East, Egypt, the Aegean, and South Asia (2018); on artistic creativity, see A. CHAPIN, “A Re-Examination of the Floral Fresco from the Unexplored Mansion at Knossos,” BSA 92 (1997) 1-24. IMMERWAHR (supra n. 1) 46. J.G. YOUNGER, “The ‘World of People’: Nature and Narrative in Minoan Art,” in G. TOUCHAIS, R. LAFFINEUR, and F. ROUGEMONT (eds), PHYSIS. L’environnement naturel et la relation homme-milieu dans le monde égéen protohistorique. Actes de la 14e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Paris, Institut National d’Histoire de l’Art, 11-14 décembre 2012 (2014) 211-215. F. BLAKOLMER, “Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo? Character, symbolism and hierarchy of animals and supernatural creatures in Minoan and Mycenaean iconography,” Creta Antica 17 (2016 [2018]) 97-183. V. HERVA, “Marvels of the system. Art, perception and engagement with the environment in Minoan Crete,” Archaeological Dialogues 13.2 (2006) 221-240. A. SHAPLAND, “Wild Nature? Human-Animal Relations on Neopalatial Crete,” CAJ 20.1 (2010) 109127.

126

Anne P. CHAPIN and Marie Nicole PAREJA

Living Local, Going Global: Trade Networks & Animal Iconography Eric Cline recently compared the internationalism of the Late Bronze Age (LBA) to today’s global economy.8 While Cline focused on the 13th-12th centuries B.C., his point about the interconnectedness of early cosmopolitan societies rings true for preceding periods (Pls XVIb and XVIIa-c). Trade and emulation are widely recognized as important factors in the rise of secondary cultures, including the Aegean. Recent genetic evidence further supports that transcontinental exchange networks existed from at least the Neolithic period, along which foods, raw materials, and even plagues travelled.9 The exploitation of such connections during the Neolithic period probably forged some of the passages used in later, extended Bronze Age networks. Bronze Age international exchange can be traced through the movement of metals and other materials.10 Evidence suggests such networks extended from the Aegean into Britain, Scandinavia, and well into southeast Asia.11 Although the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age (EBA) periods saw an explosive spread of foodstuffs and materials, the pursuit of metals and other raw materials sustained Aegean contact with far-flung places. Animals served variable roles in this early trade (both as live creatures and as products, e.g., skins, wool, fiber, ivory), and their likenesses were adopted visually in art. Understanding the interconnectedness of early cultures during the formation of local, regional, and international identities enables our deeper understanding of the movements of animals and goods, and perceptions of the natural world and its inhabitants in animal iconography. Towards an Ecosocial Model of Animal-Human Relations Artists rarely offer exact mirrors of the world, but rather select content for representation. As such, Aegean art does not employ visual canons, but conceptual canons. Such a view may contextualize why some animals were selected for representation and depicted with varying degrees of naturalism and abstraction.12 Importantly for this investigation, recognizable images of animals date to all phases of the


8 9

10

11

12

E.H. CLINE, 1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed. Turning Points in Ancient History (2014). E. WEISS, D. ZOHARY, “The Neolithic Southwest Asian Founder Crops: Their Biology and Archaeobotany,” Current Anthropology 52.4 (2011) S237-S524; N. RASCOVAN, K.-G SJÖGREN, K. KRISTIANSEN, R. NIELSEN, E. WILLERSLEV, C. DESNUES, S. RASMUSSEN, “Emergence and Spread of Basal Lineages of Yersinia pestis during the Neolithic Decline,” Cell 176 (2019) 295-305. For example, Kamares Ware imitations in Egypt and the Levant are tied to Crete, and Egyptianizing imports are found on Crete; the Byblos Montet Jar connects Mesopotamia and Egypt; the Uluburun Shipwreck reveals human relationships and goods in circulation by LM IIIA. High value crafted items found among the wreckage reflect a desire for finely crafted items made of exotic materials (T. DOTHAN, S. ZUCKERMAN, and Y. GOREN, “Kamares Ware at Hazor,” Israel Exploration Journal 50.1/2 [2000] 1-15; J. PHILLIPS, Aegyptiaca on the Island of Crete in Their Chronological Context: A Critical Review [2008]; O. TUFNELL and W.A. WARD, “Relations Between Byblos, Egypt and Mesopotamia at the end of the third millennium B.C. A Study of the Montet Jar,” Syria 43.3-4 [1966] 165-241; C. PULAK “The Uluburun Shipwreck: An Overview,” International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 27.3 [1998] 188-224). D. BERGER, J.S. SOLES, A.R. GIUMLIA-MAIR, G. BRÜGMANN, E. GALILI, N. LOCKHOFF, E. PERNICKA, “Isotope systematics and chemical composition of tin ingots from Mochlos (Crete) and other Late Bronze Age sites in the eastern Mediterranean Sea: An ultimate key to tin provenance?” PLOS ONE (2019) 1-46; J. VARBERG, B GRATUZE, F. KAUL, “Between Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Scandinavia: Late Bronze Age glass beads found in Denmark,” JAS 54 (2015) 168-181; J.M. KENOYER, “Trade and Technology of the Indus Valley: New Insights from Harappa, Pakistan,” World Archaeology 29.2 (1997) 262-280; J. ARUZ, Art of the First Cities. The Third Millennium B.C. from the Mediterranean to the Indus (2003); D. ZHAO “Etched Carnelian Beads Unearthed in China,” Chinese Archaeology 14 (2014) 176181; V. LINARES, M.J. ADAMS, M.S. CRADIC, E. FINKELSTEIN, O. LIPSCHITS, M.A.S. MARTIN, R. NEUMANN, P.W. STOCKHAMMER, and Y. GADOT, “First evidence for vanillin in the old world: Its use as mortuary offering in Middle Bronze Canaan,” JASR 25 (2019) 77-84. M.N. PAREJA, T. MCKINNEY AND J.M. SETCHELL, “Aegean Monkeys and the Importance of

ANIMAL-HUMAN RELATIONS IN MINOAN AND CYCLADIC ANIMAL ART

127

Bronze Age, but the most detailed depictions were produced during the Middle Bronze Age (MBA) IIILate Bronze Age (LBA) I, c. 1750/1720-1490/1470 B.C.13 We consider each artwork as a singular unit (animal, landscape, human figures, architecture, action/behavior together) in which every pictorial element (a motif or sign) gains meaning in relation to the other elements and composition. These relationships – the syntax – reveals the underlying structure of Aegean art’s visual language, which is key to unlocking deeper and more nuanced understandings of Aegean hermeneutics. The interpretation of animal imagery in the context of surviving archaeozoological evidence further allows the recognition of possible ideological canons underlying their representations. We produce here an ecosocial model of animal-human relations that correlates animals depicted in Minoan and Cycladic art with (1) artistic and ecological evidence for natural habitat and (2) human presence and activity in that habitat as understood from archaeological sources. We identify six areas for animal-human interaction: households, agricultural areas, wild hinterlands, Eastern Mediterranean locales, distant lands known from indirect exchange networks, and the metaphysical margins of the physical world (Pl. XVIIIa).14 The model is based on the assumption that individuals resided in households situated in the countryside, village, town, or city.15 Some people worked in agricultural, industrial, or economic zones (e.g., ports) connected by roads and trade routes with neighboring communities. Individuals ventured into the hinterlands for natural resources: pasturing herds, hunting game, fishing, harvesting timber and herbs, etc. These everyday eco-engagements, together with special participation in outdoor rituals, brought individuals into contact with wild and domesticated animals in habitats ranging from urbanized areas to agricultural zones to hinterlands. Animal-human interactions thus generally occurred outside the household in progressively more remote environments. For this reason, the ecosocial model organizes Minoan and Cycladic animal imagery according to each depicted animal’s social and ecological distance from the center of human life, the household. Animals native to foreign lands are most remote, but these too could enter Aegean awareness, as living animals or their images, via personal travel and/or (inter)national networks following direct and/or indirect exchange routes. Migratory species (particularly birds) penetrate and engage the ecosocial model with their seasonal movements. Finally, mythic hybrid creatures exist in the realm of the human psyche; their perceived habitat lies on the margins of the physical world. Each of the six ecosocial zones is permeable and subject to individual agency (defined as the ability to act with free will). Individuals and populations can move from one zone to another whether by excursion, trade, travel, or emigration. Animals also possess agency in addition to survival instincts. Wild fauna choose habitation areas and when and where to appear before humans. Prey animals often opt for refuge, whether by secrecy or flight. Even domesticates choose to remain with humans (and relative safety) or break free and run feral. Such movement is indicated in the model by the placement of animal icons across porous zone boundaries. By organizing information on image, animal, habitat and activity into six zones, the ecosocial model embraces both human and animal activity and acknowledges a diverse array of opportunities for animal-human contact and engagement across the various types of environments within each ecosocial zone. By collecting evidence from multiple sources, the ecosocial model is necessarily macroscopic in scale. Our goal is to better understand broad societal attitudes underlying and reinforcing the many relationships among humans, animals, and environments—attitudes that contribute to the perceived


13

14

15

Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration in Archaeoprimatology: A Reply to Urbani and Youlatos,” Primates 61.6 (2020) 770-774. Following J. RUTTER, Aegean Prehistoric Archaeology: Chronology Overview, https://www.dartmouth.edu/ ~prehistory/aegean/?page_id=67, accessed 20 July 2020. Our model is influenced by the ecosocial model of public health, which correlates biological and psychosocial factors contributing to disease development. Specifically, the six ecosocial zones identified for the Aegean are adapted by the authors from this model. See N. KRIEGER, “Theories for social epidemiology in the 21st century: an Eecosocial perspective,” International Journal of Epidemiology 30.4 (2001) 668-677. A Minoan palace is considered a household for the purpose of this model.

128

Anne P. CHAPIN and Marie Nicole PAREJA

Minoan “love of nature” yet also recognize that responses to animals and the environment are individual, situational, and guided by cultural norms. Zone 1. Household. The household lies at the heart of Aegean communal life.16 Evidence for household animals begins with pests. Small rodents thrived in the basements of Akrotiri homes, but cats, which were perhaps imported to Crete even before full domestication, are usually depicted hunting birds.17 Scorpions, spiders, and snakes probably infiltrated Aegean households in search of prey. Popular subjects of glyptic art, scorpions and spiders may have held apotropaic (protective) meaning. 18 Additionally snakes were identified by Sir Arthur Evans as evidence for a chthonic (underworld) aspect to the cult of the Minoan goddess.19 Other evidence for household animals includes a guard dog depicted on the gold discoid from Poros (Pl. XVIIIb-c).20 Some domesticates (e.g., a household sheep or goat) may have been kept nearby as a ready source of milk. Zone 2. Agricultural Areas. Fields outside communities offered land for crops, domesticated goats, sheep, cattle, pigs, equids, and possibly captive fallow deer; dogs were used for herding, hunting, and guarding.21 Cats and weasels (introduced animals) and snakes preyed on field mice, hares, and other rodents.22 Although agriculture is rarely depicted in Aegean art, many native creatures that forage for food in fields and pastures are also found in the wild hinterlands (butterflies, moths, bees, wasps, spiders and scorpions), their likenesses visible in glyptic art.23 In agricultural areas, humans with their domesticated


16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Outdoor household spaces, including yards, courtyards, alleys, and other adjoining spaces, are considered part of the household for the purposes of this model. Some slippage occurs between zones, particularly between 1-3, where we find the most domesticates (e.g., dogs traverse Zones 1-3). The model includes the most frequently depicted animals in Aegean art, but it is intentionally not exhaustive. Animals are sorted into zones in which they are depicted most frequently in art in an effort to reduce subjective placement within the ecosocial model. K. TRANTALIDOU, “The Animal World in Everyday Life and Ideology,” ALS 6 (2008) 41; for mice in wall painting, PM I, 537 fig. 390, 539. The study of cat domestication is complicated by the synanthropic relationship between wild cats and early human settlements; see C. OTTONI, W. VAN NEER, B. De CUPERE et al., The palaeogenetics of cat dispersal in the ancient world. Nat Ecol Evol 1, 0139 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0139. On cat imagery, J. PHILLIPS, “False Analogies: The Minoan Origin of Some So-Called ‘Egyptianizing’ Features,” in N.E. PAPADOGIANNAKIS (ed.), Pepragmena tou Z’ Diethnous Kritologikou Synedriou, Vol. A2: Tmima Archaiologiko (1995) 757-765. Scorpions appear on 47 seals and spiders on 89 seals (according to a CMS search). A scorpion, spider, and snake appear as possible apotropaic symbols on a gold amulet from Ayia Triadha (Crete) and possibly on an amulet from Juktas (if the 3rd invertebrate is an unfinished spider); see A. KARETSOU, “The Gold Amulet from Juktas,” in G. BALDACCI and I. CALOI (eds), Rhadamanthys. Studi di archeologia minoica in onore di Filippo Carinci per il suo 70º compleanno. Studies in Minoan archaeology in honour of Filippo Carinci on the occasion of his 70th birthday (2018) 211-222. On scorpions, A. VLACHOPOULOS, “The Ring of Nestor and the Quest for Authenticity,” in F. BLAKOLMER (ed.), Current Approaches and New Perspectives in Aegean Iconography (2020) 231-236. PM I, 508-509. Evans notes further that snakes were viewed as good domestic genii in Serbian folk traditions. N. DIMOPOULOU, “A Gold Discoid from Poros, Herakleion: The Guard Dog and the Garden,” in O. KRZYSZKOWSKA (ed.), Cretan Offerings. Studies in Honour of Peter Warren (2010) 89-100. Sheep, goats, pigs, cattle, and dogs were Early Neolithic introductions for food and raw material production; donkeys arrived by the Final Neolithic; horses appeared on Crete by the LBA; and fallow deer may have been repeatedly introduced; see J. MOODY, “Hinterlands and Hinterseas: Resources and Production Zones in Bronze Age and Iron Age Crete,” in G. CADOGAN, M. IACOVOU, K. KOPAKA, and J. WHITLEY (eds), Parallel Lives: Ancient Island Societies in Crete and Cyprus (2012) 233-271. Each of these imported animals constitutes a critical facet of the westward transcontinental spread of Neolithic and Bronze Age peoples and goods from eastern origins. MOODY (supra n. 21) 247; M. MASSETI, Atlas of Terrestrial Mammals of the Ionian and Aegean Islands (2012) 112-122; K.M. HARRIS, The Social Role of Hunting and Wild Animals in Late Bronze Age Crete: A Social Zooarchaeological Analysis (2014) Ph.D. diss, Univ. Southampton. CROWLEY (supra n. 1) 247-250.

ANIMAL-HUMAN RELATIONS IN MINOAN AND CYCLADIC ANIMAL ART

129

plants and animals engaged endemic flora and fauna in the classic human effort to control nature for the purposes of settlement. Zone 3. The Wild Hinterlands. Beyond field and town lie the hinterlands. Remote and lightly populated, these mostly unaltered areas were entered for hunting and gathering, and agrimia, rock doves and partridges were likely on prehistoric menus.24 Upland summer pastures for domestic herds, if not precisely remote, could be considered hinterlands, and feral cattle and pigs (or perhaps boar) probably foraged in these areas.25 In both agricultural areas and their hinterlands, domesticated animals played significant roles in food and raw material production. They were raised by people and – except for feral escapees – lived outside of the household but under human control. In contrast, resident wild animals are either synanthropic (adapting easily to human activity) or avoid human contact. The dung beetle, for instance, thrives alongside goat and sheep herds, and insect pollinators seek blossoms in fields managed by farmers. Agrimia, rock doves, and Cretan wild cats, however, prefer remote mountainous regions and cliffs, far from human settlement, then as now. These animals were probably neither domesticated nor (in the case of the rock dove) fully acclimated to Bronze Age urban life, but they do appear quite frequently in art. Coastal areas are also considered hinterlands. These undomesticated marine habitats provided important food and production resources, many of which are depicted in art, notably dolphins, octopus, argonauts, cuttlefish, tritons, sea urchins, starfish, cockle shells, crabs, flying fish, migratory dolphinfish, small tunnies or mackerel, and generic representations of fish.26 Critically, some animal habitats transcend boundaries of land and sea. Situated between three continents, many bird species depicted in Minoan and Cycladic art are migratory, including swallows, hoopoes, golden orioles, falcons, mallards, ferruginous ducks, geese, herons and cranes.27 These animals regularly cross the ecosocial model’s semi-permeable boundaries. Zone 4. Wild Animals from Regions of Direct Exchange. Sea trade brought island merchants and sailors in contact with other powerful Mediterranean cultures and opened lines of communication and exchange, including knowledge of exotic animals. Lions and fallow deer28 are both associated with prestige hunting and the Minoan ideal for elite male identity; these animals may have been imported to the islands.29


24

25

26

27

28

29

Isolated from Europe and Africa for 5 million years, Crete is home to numerous unique species of plants and animals, yet the only “native” mammal to regularly appear in Minoan art is the agrimi, the Cretan wild goat (Capra aegagrus creticus) introduced by Neolithic settlers; see MASSETI (supra n. 22), 159-167; MOODY (supra n. 21) 256. Similarly, the Cretan wild cat (Felis silvestris cretensis), which may appear in the landscape fresco from the Royal Villa of Ayia Triadha, Crete (P. MILITELLO, Haghia Triada I: Gli affreschi [1998] 107-115, 262-268, Pls 5, 6, G), was probably introduced during the Neolithic; MASSETI (supra n. 22) 128-132. To the Minoans of the LBA, these animals would have likely been regarded as native to the island rather than introduced by humans. For boar on Crete, see MOODY (supra n. 21) 247; a bull running wild in a rocky landscape is depicted on the ivory pyxis from Katsamba; see HOOD (supra n. 1) 121-122, fig. 111a-b. For ceramics, see P.A. MOUNTJOY, “The Marine Style Pottery of LMIB/LHIIA: Towards a Corpus,” BSA 79 (1984) 161-219; H.W. MÜLLER Ägyptische Kunstwerke, Kleinfunde und Glas in der Sammlung E. und M. Kofler-Truniger, Luzern (1997) 158-197. The common dolphin (Delphinus delphis), the migratory dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus), and small tunnies (Euthynnus alletteratus) or mackerel (Scomber scombrus) appear in Theran paintings; see L. MORGAN, The Miniature Wall Paintings of Thera (1988) 60-63; K. TRANTALIDOU, “Animal Bones and Animal Representations at Late Bronze Age Akrotiri,” in S. SHERRATT (ed.), The Wall Paintings of Thera. Proceedings of the First International Symposium, Petros M. Nomikos Conference Centre, Thera, Hellas, 30 August - 4 September 1997, vol. II (2000) 725. On falcons, see FOSTER (this volume); on birds, see J.K. BINNBERG, Birds in the Aegean Bronze Age, unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Oxford University (2018). Faunal evidence for red deer in the Aegean survives, but depictions of the creatures are found on mostly LM III Postpalatial seals (if the identification of the seal imagery is correct); see O. KRZYSZKOWSKA, “Cutting to the Chase: Hunting in Minoan Crete,” in TOUCHAIS et al. eds (supra n. 4) 343-344. On lions, MORGAN (supra n. 26) 44-49; N. THOMAS, “The Early Mycenaean Lion Up to Date,” in A. CHAPIN (ed.), Χάρις: Essays in Honor of Sara A. Immerwahr (2004) 161-206; F. BLAKOLMER, “Gab es Löwen und Affen im minoischen Kreta? Ein ikonographisches Problem,” in L. BERGER, L. HUBER, F.

130

Anne P. CHAPIN and Marie Nicole PAREJA

Gazelles/antelopes, which are featured in the large-scale paintings of Building Beta (Akrotiri, Thera),30 and perhaps pheasants appear in Minoan and Cycladic art as exotics.31 Zone 5. Wild Animals from Indirect Exchange Networks. Considering the accumulating evidence for prehistoric Afro-Eurasian trade networks to which Aegean cultures belonged, it is perhaps unsurprising that exotic animals from far-distant locales appear in Minoan and Cycladic art although no faunal remains survive. Aegean island art preserves evidence for the direct observation and possible importation of south Asian animals: peacocks/peahens (and their feathers), monkeys, and perhaps even sea snakes.32 The social value of distance is most extreme for these creatures, and indeed, monkeys and peacocks (and their feathers) appear in palatial art from Knossos.33 Zone 6. The Metaphysical Realm. Creatures of imagination are native to the realm of belief, beyond the physical world. Griffins, sphinxes, Minoan genii, dragons, minotaurs, gorgons, bird-women and animalmen originate in Egypt and the Near East.34 Hybrid creatures arguably constitute the most distant – and therefore most important and powerful – animals,35 as they exist beyond the boundaries of everyday human perception, on the margins of the real world. The social value of distance for elite display contributes an explanation for their repeated appearance in art. Note that the Aegean does not simply collect foreign monsters but adapts them to better suit local ideologies. Close Encounters of the Faunal Kind The ecosocial model organizes Minoan and Cycladic animal imagery according to each depicted animal’s social and ecological distance from the center of human life, the household. Important interpretive patterns become clearer when viewed from this perspective. The Wild Hinterlands – Gateway to the Liminal? The rugged coastlines, swampy wetlands, steep gorges, sheer cliffs, and remote mountain peaks of the hinterlands were – and still are – isolated from most human habitation and agricultural practice. Yet these remote transitional zones, together with their shy and elusive resident fauna, at times served as important, memorable settings for Aegean ritual life. Specifically,




30

31

32 33

34

35

LANG, and J. WEILHARTNER (eds), Akten des 17. Österreichischen Archäologentages am Fachbereich Altertumswissenschaften, Klassische und Frühägäische Archäologie der Universität Salzburg vom 26. bis 28. Februar 2018 (2020) 39-49. On fallow deer, MORGAN (supra n. 26) 54-56; MASSETI (supra n. 22) 144-150; for multiple introductions of fallow deer to the islands, see MOODY (supra n. 21) 245-246; on prestige hunting, SHAPLAND (supra n. 7). TRANTALIDOU (supra n. 26) 715 n, 15; on gazelles and elite consumption, see N. MAROM, A. YASUR-LANDAU, S. ZUCKERMAN, E.H. CLINE, A, BEN-TOR, and G. BAR-OZ, “Shepherd Kings? A Zooarchaeological Investigation of Elite Precincts in Middle Bronze Age Tel Hazor and Tel Kabri,” BASOR 371 (2014), 67, table 1. For possible representations of antelope on glyptic art, see CMS VS1B 018 and VS1B 303; for identification as agrimia, F. BLAKOLMER, “The ‘Minoanisation’ of the Arts in LC I Akrotiri and LH I Mycenae: Similarities and Differences,” in J. DRIESSEN (ed.), RA-PINE-U. Studies on the Mycenaean World offered to Robert Laffineur on his 70th Birthday (2016) 71. CHAPIN and PAREJA, “Peacock or Poppycock? Investigations into Exotic Animal Imagery in Minoan and Cycladic Art,” in B. DAVIS and R. LAFFINEUR (eds), NEΩTEPOS. Studies in Bronze Age Aegean Art and Archaeology in Honor of Professor John G. Younger (2020) 215-225. CHAPIN and PAREJA (supra n. 31); PAREJA, MCKINNEY, and SETCHELL (supra n. 12). CHAPIN and PAREJA (supra n. 31). Peacock feathers with blue eyes adorn the restored Priest-King Fresco’s waz-lily crown (PM II, 2, 777); the Saffron Gatherer Fresco from Knossos depicts monkeys (PM I, 265, pl. IV); and a fresco fragment from Knossos likely depicts a peacock (BINNBERG [supra n. 27] 150). A. SIMANDIRAKI-GRIMSHAW, “Minoan animal-human hybridity,” The Master of the Animals in Old World Iconography (2010), 93-106; N. NYS, The Sphinx Unriddled, Ph.D Diss. Ghent University (2018), Mesopotamia may be considered the Motherland of Monsters, as many of the earliest hybrids appear in their artwork during the Early Bronze Age; the Aegean also adopted select Egyptian hybrids. D. WENGROW, The Origins of Monsters. Image and Cognition in the First Age of Mechanical Reproduction (2013). F. BLAKOLMER, “Was the ‘Minoan Genius’ a God? An Essay on Near Eastern Deities and Demons in Aegean Bronze Age Iconography,” JAEI 7.3 (2015) 32, fig. 7; BLAKOLMER (supra n. 5) 164-169.

ANIMAL-HUMAN RELATIONS IN MINOAN AND CYCLADIC ANIMAL ART

131

certain landscape features served as embodiments of memory from at least the Neolithic period. Peter Tomkins suggests that caves and rock shelters on Crete served as natural ritual settings and physical constants – pillars of memory – in an otherwise changing social landscape.36 By at least the Protopalatial period, mountains and hills became reliable (and frequently repeated) settings for ritual. Peak sanctuaries on mountain tops, for instance, were located some distance from settlements yet were visited for centuries (Pl. XIXa).37 This short-lived visitation and subsequent departure is congruent with pilgrimage – a difficult journey requiring physical exertion, limited time at the location, and deposits of offerings as reminders of devotion. We suggest that resident animals of the hinterlands, like the landscape features themselves, became constants in a changing social world – present yet rarely seen by people who spent much of their lives in areas of human habitation. Evidence for this theory is arguably visible on the Sanctuary Rhyton from the Kato Zakros palace (Pl. XIXb), where it is not pious pilgrims commanding the attention of the artist, but rather, the animals of the high peaks – agrimia and birds – that inhabit the remote shrine, guardians of a sacred space. Only a branch laid on an altar serves as a reminder of past human presence.38 These artworks, when employed in palace ritual, would have evoked viewers’ memories of such visits and awarded them permanence, being (literally) carved in stone. Animal Agency. Like resident animals inhabiting remote areas, migratory animals possess a powerful trait: the ability to appear and disappear at will (Pl. XIXc). The sudden appearance of many bird species, for example, marks the arrival of spring; their disappearance heralds the return of autumn rains, and thus, creatures’ identities were bound to their habitats and patterns of movement regardless of changing human (social/economic/political) conditions. Such migratory behavior, which probably seemed mysterious to prehistoric people, awards these creatures some autonomy over human management. Perhaps a recognition of these animals’ agency contributed to the choice to depict some migratory species in largescale works of Neopalatial art, such as the swallows of the Spring Fresco from Akrotiri (Pl. XXa). Because migratory movements correlate with seasonality and (local and regional) times of vacillating scarcity and abundance, their imagery has been understood as indirect evidence of divine influence or involvement, likely alluding to the power of a nature deity. One might consider, however, alternatives to a theogenic landscape. If wild animals were understood as independent agents rather than liminal representatives of a deity, then they constituted powerful entities themselves. Acknowledging possible underlying animist and shamanic characteristics of Aegean art39 and the possible “epiphanic” nature of the animals depicted,40 then perhaps their images in prestige artwork contributed to nuanced, underlying notions of elite experience, access, and engagement. Such may be the case for the monkey. The Monkey: A Perceived Animal-Human Hybrid? Monkeys may serve as a conceptual link between the realm of supernatural hybrids and real animals depicted in Aegean art. They are visual imports, whether


36

37

38

39

40

P. TOMKINS, “Domesticity by Default. Ritual: Ritualization and Cave-Use in the Neolithic Aegean,” OJA 28 (2009) 125-153. B.C. DIETRICH, “Peak Cults and Their Place in Minoan Religion,” Historia. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 18.3 (1969) 257-275; A. PEATFIELD “Rural Ritual in Bronze Age Crete: The Peak Sanctuary at Atsipadhes,” CAJ 2.1 (1992) 59-87; C. BRIAULT, “Making mountains out of molehills in the Bronze Age Aegean: visibility, ritual kits, and idea of a peak sanctuary,” World Archaeology 39.1 (2007) 122-141. HOOD (supra n. 1) 146-147, fig. 140. This supports Blakolmer’s (supra n. 5, 107) notion of agrimia as markers of Minoan ritual landscapes (with shrine architecture and epiphany rituals) but not members of the metaphysical realm. HERVA (supra n. 6); C. TULLY and S. CROOKS, “Dropping Ecstasy? Minoan Cult and the Tropes of Shamanism,” Time and Mind: The Journal of Archaeology, Consciousness and Culture 8.2 (2015) 129-158. Animals’ power to reveal themselves may reinforce the theory that epiphany is critical to Aegean ritual experience; see N. MARINATOS, Minoan Religion: Ritual, Image, and Symbol (1993) 157-158. Defined as “belief in the bodily apparitions of the god,” (F. MATZ, Göttererscheinung und Kultbild in Minoischen Kreta [1958] 28), epiphany necessitates a visual sign or appearance of a deity, whether predicated on enacted ritual or by happenstance. Nilsson proposed that birds’ appearance indicates the presence of the divine (The MinoanMycenaean Religion and its Survival in Greek Religion [2nd ed. 1950] 330-331), a concept that applies to most animals in Aegean art by virtue of agency and rarity.

132

Anne P. CHAPIN and Marie Nicole PAREJA

Egyptian baboons, sub-Saharan vervets, or Indian langurs (Pl. XXb).41 Critically, Aegean people were not only aware that diverse fauna existed in disparate regions, but they purposefully chose monkeys for particular iconographic roles. Monkeys’ ritual activities and proximity to deities in the paintings of Akrotiri (Pl. XXIa-b) – approaching a shrine and deity(?) in Sector Alpha42 and offering saffron to the enthroned goddess of Xeste 3 – shows that they performed roles otherwise reserved for hybrids.43 Consider monkeys: human-like, intelligent, hairy, and wild. The description inherently combines human and animal features to reframe the animal as a composite creature that embodies the celebrated connection between humans and nature in the Aegean. The monkey, as (conceptually) a living hybrid, may have constituted the ultimate rare, exotic, and liminal observable creature in the Aegean. Animal Hierarchies. The ecosocial model supports other frameworks derived from the study of Aegean art. Fritz Blakolmer’s comprehensive analysis of animal imagery on glyptic art revealed dominance hierarchies that complement the ecosocial model’s measures of social and ecological distance from the individual and household. The mythic realm, farthest from the individual, houses the Aegean’s most dominant animals with the Minoan genius, a possible minor deity, at the top (Pl. XXIIa-c).44 The griffin occupies the second position; the sphinx, Minoan dragon, and monkey comprise the third tier; parthuman hybrids such as bird people and minotaurs rank fourth. Among animals, birds – occupying Zones 3-5 and including migratory species – together with fish/dolphins of Zone 3 and predatory cats rank above butterflies, scorpions, and spiders, which enter agricultural areas (Zone 2) and even the household (Zone 1).45 Prey animals of the hinterlands (Zone 3) form the lowest ranking tier: agrimia, boar, and bulls. The creatures exhibiting the most dominance are hybrids and monkeys, an observation that supports monkeys’ conceptual association with hybrids rather than other animals. The least dominant animals are the target of human predation, while the most powerful occupy spaces beyond human control. These two models of animal-human interactions are mutually reinforcing. John Younger recently asserted that art reflects human self-interest and control over the depicted environment,46 and the ecosocial model offers one explanation of that view by recognizing and defining zones of social and environmental hegemony. When the Aegean bestiary is considered, animal art reflects human efforts to manage the environment (Zones 1-2 and perhaps 3) and the power that animals possessed to appear/disappear in the wild despite attempted human control (Zone 3).47 The animals of


41

42

43

44 45

46 47

M.N. PAREJA, T. MCKINNEY, J.A. MAYHEW, J.M. SETCHELL, S.G. NASH, and R. HEATON, “A New Identification of the Monkeys Depicted in a Bronze Age Wall Painting from Akrotiri, Thera,” Primates (Online First) 05 December 2019, 1-10. Additional morphological and artistic details of the Monkeys Fresco from Building Complex Beta, Akrotiri, show that the animals depicted are most likely langurs due to overall physical proportion, depicted behavior, and tail carriage (including an extreme inverted-U tail posture known from langurs depicted on a preserved fragment that may be incorrectly positioned in the reconstruction). Art historical considerations also support the langur identification with color theory (to explain the blue pelage) and an understanding of Aegean artists’ foci and style; see PAREJA, MCKINNEY, and SETCHELL (supra n. 12). The Sector Alpha monkeys exhibit similar morphological features to those from Building Complex Beta, and they too may be langurs. If so, then Aegean art shows other cultures’ sacred monkeys (Egypt’s baboons and the Indus’ langurs) in Aegean sacred contexts and not “common” monkeys (i.e., vervets and macaques). As such, Aegean iconography seems to diverge from Egyptian tradition and align more closely with Mesopotamian art. Observed by BLAKOLMER (supra n. 5) 137; monkeys and genii share parallel developments and attributes: both begin in Pre-/Early Dynastic Egypt, pass through the Levant, and appear in Aegean art; both are associated with libations, abundance, luxury, and world order. Genii seem associated with death, monkeys with rebirth (Pareja in prep). BLAKOLMER (supra n. 5) diagram 19. Cretan wild cats roam the hinterlands, and before full domestication, domestic cats (Felis catus) lived near people but not with them, and likely hunted for prey – including birds, rodents, spiders, scorpions, and insects – in the hinterlands, agricultural areas, and around households (Zones 1-3). YOUNGER (supra n. 4). As demonstrated by the presence of peak sanctuaries, elite control extended into the hinterlands, which,

ANIMAL-HUMAN RELATIONS IN MINOAN AND CYCLADIC ANIMAL ART

133

Zones 4-6 – lions, gazelles, monkeys, peacocks, and mythical creatures – were adopted/adapted48 from older, eastern areas, and they almost certainly bore polyvalent identities: their appearance in art not only contributed to notions of the sacred, but also to notions of lineage, tethering elite islanders’ identities to long-established eastern elite identities.49 Their appearance in wall painting emphasizes their connection with social prestige, derived in part from their distant origins. Conclusions By observing and investigating the natural and depicted behaviors and habitats of animals depicted in Aegean art, it is possible to learn more about how Aegean people perceived, engaged with, and remembered animals and their environments. The ecosocial model presented above offers a comprehensive framework for investigating Aegean engagement of the natural world by incorporating social, economic, and ecological perspectives; information on animal-human interactions; and iconographic models for dominance hierarchies. The synthesis of this information in the ecosocial model suggests that Aegean people formed a cosmological framework that underpinned their conception of humanity’s place within the natural and metaphysical worlds. 50 Critically, animal imagery likely communicated notions of social identity grounded in the prestige value of distance and predicated on association, memory, movement, and emotion. The wild, untamed creatures of the ecosocial model – with their exotic natures, distinctive physical attributes, remote habitats, or seasonal occupations – share one condition: rarity. They reside at the margins of daily experience signaled by the household. Elite members of Minoan and Cycladic society appear to have maintained access and control of the creatures’ images in art, if not the live animals themselves. While the choice to depict any animal reflects its status in Aegean culture, it also represents a human’s power to coopt a creature’s image for individual and/or societal purposes. Anne P. CHAPIN Marie Nicole PAREJA





48

49

50

as the gateway to the liminal (transitional zone), are also where animal agency appeared most overt – perhaps spurring the choice to include these animals (such as rock doves) in art with the creatures from Zones 4-6 (such as monkeys; see Pl. XXIa). The latter group of animals would otherwise be unknown (as live imports/artwork) to “common” Aegean people, and so their depictions showcase the prowess of the person(s) who obtained and retained access to them. Real animals were probably adopted/imported, while hybrid animals were adapted in earlier periods (retaining important features for continued Aegean participation in a broader Mediterranean iconographic tradition). Alternatively, the islanders may not know/recognize/culturally remember/care that most of the depicted animals are not endemic, in which case our model is unaffected, as engagement with these animals remains rare. BLAKOLMER (supra n. 5) 173 convincingly argues for the existence of a broader Aegean cosmology. This framework encompasses local and regional (ideological/iconographic) variation, so that “inconsistency” is perhaps instead indicative of distinct origins and/or audiences for particular imagery (e.g., the Zakros Master seals).

134

Anne P. CHAPIN and Marie Nicole PAREJA LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Pl. XVIa

Reproduction by E. Gilliéron fils of a wall painting from the House of the Frescoes at Knossos depicting an exotic monkey in a rocky landscape with native crocus and dwarf iris, papyrus-reed artistic hybrids, and sacral ivy. British Museum 1929,0423.2. © The Trustees of the British Museum Creative Commons. Pl. XVIb Map showing original locations of animals that were imported to Crete and the broader Aegean Islands during the Neolithic Period. Adapted by M.N. Pareja from Google Earth. Pl. XVIIa Map showing the original locations of animals that were imported to Crete and the Aegean Islands during the Bronze Age via direct exchange. Adapted by M.N. Pareja from Google Earth. Pl. XVIIb Map showing the original locations of animals (in some cases perhaps only the iconography of those animals) that were imported to Crete and the Aegean Islands during the Bronze Age via indirect exchange. Adapted by M.N. Pareja from Google Earth. Pl. XVIIc Key to Pls XVIb, XVIIa-b and XIXc. Drawing by M.N. Pareja. Pl. XVIIIa Concept map of the ecosocial model correlating animals commonly depicted in Minoan and Cycladic art with (1) artistic and ecological evidence for their natural habitats and (2) human presence and activity as understood from archaeological sources. Diagram by A.P. Chapin. Pl. XVIIIb-c Gold discoid from Poros, Crete. Photograph: A.P. Chapin; drawing by M.N. Pareja after DIMOPOULOU (supra n. 20) 91, fig. 9.1. Pl. XIXa View of the Minoan peak sanctuary on Stavromenos, Crete. Photograph by A.P. Chapin. Pl. XIXb Sanctuary Rhyton from the Minoan palace at Kato Zakros. Photography by Lourakis. Wikimedia Creative Commons. Pl. XIXc Select migratory bird flyways. Adapted by M.N. Pareja from Google Earth. Pl. XXa Migratory swallows in the Spring Fresco, from Building Delta, Akrotiri, Thera. Photograph by Zde. Wikimedia Creative Commons. Pl. XXb The physical proportions, size, and tail carriage of the monkeys depicted in Room 6 of Building Complex Beta from Akrotiri, Thera more closely resemble Asian langurs (top) than African vervets (bottom). Illustrations by Stephen G. Nash. Pl. XXIa Line Drawing of Monkeys, Birds, and Seated Figure wall painting from the Porter’s Lodge, Sector Alpha, Akrotiri, Thera. Adapted by M.N. Pareja from Maria Kriga’s reconstruction in A. VLACHOPOULOS, “Disiecta Membra: The Wall Paintings from the ‘Porter's Lodge’ at Akrotiri,” in P.P. BETANCOURT, M.C. NELSON, and H. WILLIAMS (eds), Krinoi kai Limenes: Studies in Honor of Joseph and Maria Shaw (2007) Pl. 15.4. Pl. XXIb Offering to the Seated Goddess, wall painting in Xeste 3, Akrotiri, Thera. Drawing by M.N. Pareja after DOUMAS (supra n. 1) fig. 22. Pl. XXIIa Hierarchical positions and relations of animals and hybrid creatures to deities and humans. BLAKOLMER (supra n. 5) 166, diagram 19, 167. Pl. XXIIb CMS XI 208, which shows a lion and genius standing to either side of and facing a central human figure; the human figure faces the lion. Blakolmer’s (supra n. 5) dominance hierarchy is supported by his reading of the human and genius slaying the lion; additionally, the Genius may wait to transport the dead after the conflict, as it is not shown directly engaging with either figure. Drawing by M.N. Pareja. Pl. XXIIc CMS V Suppl. IB 153, which shows a genius carrying a deceased(?) person, supporting both Blakolmer’s (supra n. 5) identification of the Genius’ dominance over humans as well as the Genius’ transportation of the deceased. Drawing by M.N. Pareja.

XVI

a

b

XVII

a

b

c

XVIII

+
!,/,!')
,"#)


,*#/0'!0#"
+'*)/

,$
+'*)/
#-'!0#"
'+
'+,+
+"
5!)"'!
.0

')"
+'*)/

5 .'"/



  
 

  




'+,+
%#+''

'+,+
".%,+/

+'*) #+



.'$$'+/

 
  

-&'+4#/



#!,!(/







&#/+0/

 
 


 

  
 ',+/



,!(
",2#/

)),3
"##.

  


#.)
!00)#

00)#

&##-

%,0/

.%,+$)'#/

100#.$)'#/

*,0&/

!,.-',+/



##/
 3/-/

 



 


 


b

%.'*'
3')"
%,0/ #.)
-'%/

,.

3'+#

1+%
##0)#/

 
 

,./#/


   .0.'"%#/

0&#.
&5 .'"/

+0#),-#
6#))#/



-,00#" $#)'+#/

a

'." ,*#+

  

 


,+(#5/


-'"#./

 

+(#/

,%/

0/

,)-&'+/ )5'+%
'/&

.%,+10/

.'0,+/

'/&

100)#$'/& !0,-1/

c

XIX

a

b

c

XX

a

b

a

b

XXI

XXII

a

b

c

BULLS VS. RAMS: ICONOGRAPHIC REEVALUATION OF THE INLAID SILVER CUPS FROM ENKOMI, CYPRUS AND MIDEA, DENDRA* Probably the most iconic piece of the Cypriot Bronze Age and especially of the International era is the inlaid silver cup from Enkomi which dates to the early 14th century BCE (Pl. XXIIIa).1 The polychrome animal heads adorning the cup are inlaid with gold and a black substance often called niello which has been re-analyzed by Giumlia-Mair and identified as kuwano (an artificially black patinated copper alloy, similar to the Egyptian hmty km).2 In previous scholarship these heads are universally described as bovine.3 I would like to suggest that it is a case of mistaken identity and that the animal represented on this beautifully crafted vessel is a ram.


*

1

2

3

I would like to express my deep gratitude to a dear friend and former mentor Robert B. Koehl and my wonderful present mentor Thomas G. Palaima. Special thanks to Diamantis Panagiotopoulos, Eleni Konstantinidi-Syvridi, Nassos Papalexandrou, David Reese, Vassilis Petrakis and Irit Ziffer for their invaluable help. Silver cup (bowl) from Enkomi, French Mission, Tomb 2, no. 4207, Cyprus Museum, Nicosia; C.F.-A. SCHAEFFER, Enkomi-Alasia. Nouvelles Missions en Chypre, 1946-1950 (1952) 379-389, figs 116-117, Pl. sup. C-D, Pl. CXVI; on the International era and style: M.H. FELDMAN, “Luxurious Forms: Redefining a Mediterranean “International Style”, 1400-1200 B.C.E.,” The Art Bulletin, Vol. 84, No. 1 (March 2002) 629. This piece is also referred to as a bowl based on the shape’s affinity with the so-called White Slip Ware ‘milk bowls’. These bowls were subjected to residue analyses which indicated that they were used both as containers for food and as drinking cups for wine, see: V. KARAGEORGHIS, “Why White Slip?” in V. KARAGEORGHIS (ed.), The White Slip ware of Late Bronze Age Cyprus. Proceedings of an international conference organized by the Anastasios G. Leventis Foundation, Nicosia in honour of Malcolm Wiener, Nicosia, 29th-30th October 1998 (2001) 9-11. This luxurious silver vessel fits well into a palm of a hand and has a single handle, a common feature of drinking cups, thus it will be referenced henceforth as a cup. A. GIUMLIA-MAIR, “The Enkomi cup: niello versus kuwano,” in V. KASSIANIDOU and G. PAPASAVVAS (eds), Eastern Mediterranean Metallurgy and Metalwork in the Second Millennium BC: A conference in honor of James D. Muhly, Nicosia, 10th-11th October 2009 (2012) 107-14; also see a discussion of the metal inlaying techniques in: E.N. DAVIS, “Metal Inlaying in Minoan and Mycenaean Art,” in P. BETANCOURT (ed.), Temple University Aegean Symposium: A Compendium (2015) 5-8. These also are sometimes referred to as heads of oxen, signifying bulls which have been castrated to produce a milder, more manageable temperament; SCHAEFFER (supra n. 1) 379-389, figs 116-117, Pl. sup. C, D; J.-C.COURTOIS and E. LAGARCE, Enkomit et le Bronze Récent à Chypre (1986) 101; R. LAFFINEUR, “L’incrustation à l’époque mycénienne,” L’Antiquité Classique 43 (1974) 13 (no. 21), 19-22, 28-29; J.L. CROWLEY, The Aegean and the East. An Investigation into the Transference of Artistic Motifs between the Aegean, Egypt, and the Near East in the Bronze Age (1989) #509, 235, 500; A. GIUMLIA-MAIR (supra n. 2) 112; H. MATTHÄUS, Metallgefässe und Gefässuntersätze der Bronzezeit, der geometrischen und archaischen Periode auf Cypern. Mit einem Anhang der bronzezeitlichen Schwertfunde auf Cypern (1985) 121; I. VOSKOS and A.B. KNAPP, “Cyprus at the End of the Late Bronze Age: Crisis and Colonization or Continuity and Hybridization?” AJA 112 (2008) 663, 665 fig. 2; R. HIGGINS, Minoan and Mycenaean Art (2001) 150-151; V. KARAGEORGHIS, Cyprus. From the Stone Age to the Romans (1982) 80; E. KONSTANTINIDISYVRIDI, “Artisans in the Service of the Royalty at Dendra and their Role in the Formation of Fashion Trends,” in B. EDER, Social Place and Space in early Mycenaean Greece, International Conference held in Athens, September 2016 (forthcoming), special thanks to Dr. Konstantinidi-Syvridi for kindly sharing with me an advance copy of her manuscript; for the broader context of the site, see: P. DIKAIOS, Enkomi. Excavations 1948-1958 I (1969); ID., Enkomi. Excavations 1948-1958 IIIa-b. Plates (1969); ID., Enkomi. Excavations 19481958 II (1971); J.C. COURTOIS, “Enkomi-Alasia. Glorious capital of Cyprus,” Archaeologia Viva II (1969) 93-100; ID., “L’activité métallurgique et les bronzes d’Enkomi au Bronze Récent (1650-1100 avant J.C.),” in J.D. MUHLY, R. MADDIN and V. KARAGEORGHIS (eds), Early Metallurgy in Cyprus, 4000-500 BC

136

Michele MITROVICH

Let us examine the principal difference between rams’ and bulls’ heads. The iconographic depictions of the heads and ears of both animals in the Aegean and the Mediterranean can be largely identical and interchangeable due to stylization; either head can be sometimes manneristically elongated or stocky and wide. However, the main identifying characteristic is the horns. Taurine cattle (Bos taurus) were first domesticated in the Near East in the region of the Middle Euphrates Valley and the High Tigris Valley during the Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic period, 10,800-10,200 cal. BP from local wild species (aurochs).4 The following process of transportation by land and on boats, dissemination and recurrent introductions of wild and early domestic taxa in the Mediterranean region can be observed on the example of the pre-pottery site Shillourokambos on Cyprus.5 The horns of a male (bull) can range in shape depending on a particular species and age. These can be short and pointy or very long and curved but almost exclusively directed upward, sometimes forward to a varying degree, other times upward and curving out at the ends. All across the Aegean and the Mediterranean, images of bulls and bucrania, including bull leaping scenes on Crete, cow goddess Hathor in Egypt and abundant depictions throughout the Near East, are characterized by the physiologically correct upward or upward and forward oriented horns. However, ram’s horns are entirely different in shape, they are pointed back, downward and in, forming whorls, with the tips often reaching the sides of the muzzle. Ovis aries platyura aegyptiaca and Ovis aries paleoatlanticus are the earliest sheep species of quadrupedal ruminant ungulates that were present in Egypt, on Crete and in the Eastern Mediterranean.6 However, in addition to domesticated species, Cyprus was also inhabited by its own indigenous breed of wild sheep, exclusive to the island: Ovis gmelini ophion, also known as the Cypriot mouflon or Αγρινό, which is found in the fossil record starting from ca. 6000 BCE (Pl. XXIIIb).7 Prior to this period, sheep of at least two different unidentified domesticated breeds were brought over to Cyprus from the Levant in a few waves during the 10th millennium BCE.8 The Ovis gmelini ophion was previously thought to be a mouflon subspecies of the Ovis orientalis group, which is one of the ancestors of all modern domestic sheep breeds.9




4

5

6

7

8 9

(1982) 155-174; M. FORTIN, “La soi-disant forteresse d’Enkomi (Chypre) à la fin du Bronze Moyen et au début du Bronze Récent,” in R. LAFFINEUR (ed.), Transition. Le monde égéen du Bronze Moyen au Bronze Récent. Actes de la deuxième Rencontre égéenne internationale de l’Université de Liège (18-20 avril 1988) (1989) 239249; D. PILIDES, “‘Reconstructing’ the Enkomi tombs (British Excavations): an instructive exercise,” in V. KASSIANIDOU and G. PAPASAVVAS (eds), Eastern Mediterranean Metallurgy and Metalwork in the Second Millennium BC: A conference in honor of James D. Muhly, Nicosia, 10th-11th October 2009 (2012) 83-93; a very helpful overview and analysis of MC III-LC III pottery assemblages and quantitative comparison to other objects in Enkomi graves in: G. GRAZIADIO and E. PEZZI, “The Late Bronze Age Tombs at Enkomi (Cyprus): A Case Study,” in: E. BORGNA and P.C. GUIDA (eds), From the Aegean to the Adriatic: Social Organisations, Modes of Exchange and Interaction in Post-Palatial Times (12th-11th) Centuries BC (2009) 63-78. R. BOLLONGINO, J. BURGER, A. POWELL, M. MASHKOUR, J.-D. VIGNE and M.G. THOMAS, “Modern Taurine Cattle Descended from Small Number of Near-Eastern Founders,” Molecular Biology and Evolution, 29.9 (2012) 2101-2104. J.-L. VIGNE, I. CARRERE, F. BRIOIS and J. GUILAINE, “The Early Process of Mammal Domestication in the Near East: New Evidence from the Pre-Neolithic and Pre-Pottery Neolithic in Cyprus,” Current Anthropology, The Origins of Agriculture: New Data, New Ideas, 52, # S4 (2011) 255-271. K. KLEIBL, “The Background of the Cypriot Ram God’s Iconography,” in S. CHRISTODOULOU and A. SATRAKI (eds), POCA 2007: Postgraduate Cypriot Archaeology Conference (2010) 153; P.T. NICHOLSON and I. SHAW (eds), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology (2000) 269. K. KLEIBL (supra n. 6) 153; V.E. HADJISTERKOTIS, “Herkunft, Taxonomie und neuere Entwicklung des Zyprischen Mufflons (Ovis gmelini ophion),” Zeitschrift für Jagdwissenschaft 42 (1996) 104-110; ID., “Ernährungsgewohnheiten des Zyprischen Mufflons Ovis gmelini ophion,” Zeitschrift für Jagdwissenschaft 42 (1996) 256-263; D. SANNA, M. BARBATO, E. HADJISTERKOTIS, P. COSSU, L. DECANDIA, S. TROVA, M. PIRASTRU, G.G. LEONI, S. NAITANA, P. FRANCALACCI, B. MASALA, L. MANCA, P. MEREU and A. ACHILLI, “The First Mitogenome of the Cyprus Mouflon (Ovis gmelini ophion): New Insights into the Phylogeny of the Genus Ovis,” PLoS ONE 10 (12) (2015) p. e0144257e0144257. VIGNE et al. (supra n. 5) 262-267, figs 1-2, t. 1. S. HIENDLEDER, B. KAUPE, R. WASSMUTH and A. JANKE, “Molecular analysis of wild and

THE INLAID SILVER CUPS FROM ENKOMI, CYPRUS AND MIDEA, DENDRA

137

However, participants of the 6th World Congress on Mountain Ungulates and 5th International Symposium on Mouflon which took place in 2016 in Nicosia, Cyprus unanimously decreed taxonomic changes for the species based on the first complete sequence of its mitochondrial DNA and classified it as distinct from O. orientalis.10 Ovis gmelini ophion mitogenome did not match any of the domestic sheep haplogroups known today, hence, it is not a feral type of the domestic sheep, but a true wild species.11 The Cypriot mouflon has been used extensively in the Bronze Age and the animal became endangered around 1000 BCE.12 Fortunately, the breed did not become extinct and continues in smaller numbers until this day. These sheep are now rare but still classified as wild. Mature rams of the extensive and diverse genus Ovis are characterized by curved horns, which consist of a keratinous sheath overlying a bony core. The two most common types of horns distinguished by breeders are Homonymous (HH) (spiraling outward similar to a corkscrew, usually more than one revolution, of which two subtypes are distinguished: wide-spread or close-spread) and Supracervical (SH) (extending back behind the neck without a second curl at maturity, with two subtypes: Heart shaped and C shaped).13 The two earliest Egyptian sheep species Ovis aries platyura aegyptiaca and Ovis longipes palaeoaegyptiacus exhibited two identifiably different horn shapes: supracervical in the case of the former and homonymous widely spread, spiraling out, in the latter. Both varieties were represented in various Egyptian images of divinities. The earliest depictions of rams date to the Neolithic or early Predynastic period.14 Often the two types of horns of both species were combined in a single image which can be seen especially well in one of significantly later but very detailed depictions of a Ram-Headed God Khnum (Pl. XXIIIc). The corkscrew horns protruding straight out represent a standard iconographic tradition in Egypt but typically are not seen in the Aegean and the Near Eastern iconographies, while the C shaped supracervical horns are quite common. Since it appears that the homonymous-wide-spread-horned Ovis longipes palaeoaegyptiacus native to Egypt had a coarse wool and the wool of Ovis aries platyura aegyptiaca was soft and more fitting for textile production,15 the former was not proliferated outside of Egypt while the latter appears to have been successfully transplanted all over the Mediterranean and the Aegean. The supracervical horns of Ovis aries platyura aegyptiaca appear to have been positioned closely behind and around the ears and fairly close to the sides of the face and to have had curved ends. Images in various media, such as vessels and seals, which correspond to this species can also be seen in the Near East and in the Aegean (Pls XXIIIc and XXIVa). On Cyprus, the horns of the local Ovis gmelini ophion display a shape that is identified as perverted supracervical, extending further behind the neck and with wider arches further away from the face (Pl. XXIIIb). This heterogeneity is found in only two wild subspecies of mouflon in the world: Cypriot and Armenian.16


10

11 12 13

14

15 16

domestic sheep questions current nomenclature and provides evidence for domestication from two different subspecies,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (2002) 269 (1494) (2002) 893-904. E. HADJISTERKOTIS, D. SANNA, Μ. PIRASTU and P. MEREU, “A Short Note on the Recent Taxonomic Developments and Molecular Findings on the Cyprian Mouflon (Ovis Gmelini Ophion) and the Sardinian Mouflon (Ovis Gmelini Musimon),” Biomed JSci & TechRes 30 (2020). BJSTR. MS.ID.005013 (2020) 23739; E. HADJISTERKOTIS, “Lovari S Results and Resolutions of the 6th World Congress on Mountain Ungulates and 5th International Symposium on Mouflon,” in E. HADJISTERKOTIS (ed.), 6th World Congress on Mountain Ungulates and 5th International Symposium on Mouflon, Book of Abstracts (3rd ed.), Ministry of Interior, Nicosia, Cyprus (2016) 20-23; SANNA et al. (supra n. 7) p. e0144257. HADJISTERKOTIS et al. (supra n. 10) 23739. KLEIBL (supra n. 6) 153; HADJISTERKOTIS (supra n. 7). United Horned Hair Sheep Association, Inc., American heavy horned sheep breed standards: http://www.unitedhornedhairsheepassociation.org/heavyhornedregistrationrequirements.html (accessed: October 28, 2020). NICHOLSON and SHAW eds (supra n. 6) 269; P.F. HOULIHAN, “Animals in Egyptian Art and Hieroglyphs,” in B.J. COLLINS (ed.), A history of the animal world in the ancient Near East (2002) 98-99. NICHOLSON and SHAW eds (supra n. 6) 269. HADJISTERKOTIS et al. (supra n. 10) 23740.

138

Michele MITROVICH

The Enkomi cup Let us now turn our attention to the Enkomi cup’s imagery (Pl. XXIIIa). Examining closely the shape of the horns on the cup, we can notice how these horns have the unmistakable curvilinear characteristic of a ram. Each horn forms an almost perfect semi-circle. Another important detail is the surface texture. Bovine horns have a polished-like, smooth surface while the horns of male sheep have prominent growth rings, rough horizontal ridges running perpendicular to the horn’s length and diminishing gradually towards the tips. In addition, unlike bovine horns, rams’ horns are not perfectly circular in diameter but have protruding longitudinal edges. These give a horn an angular, irregular cross section. The horns of Ovis gmelini ophion have three distinct surfaces: orbital, frontal and nuchal which create edges at the joining lines: the fronto-nuchal edge is sharp and the fronto-orbital edge is rounded.17 The inlaid heads on the cup display three clear growth rings on each horn near the base which correspond to the appearance of the more pronounced, older and thicker growth rings near a ram’s head (Pl. XXIVbc). The extraordinary specificity in the shape of the growth ring depiction needs to be pointed out. The incised lines are not simply straight. Rather they have a wavy appearance, pinched in at the center to show the irregular surface of the horn where the rings go over the protruding longitudinal edges. The long lines depicted running lengthwise from the growth rings towards the tips of the horns clearly represent the characteristic delineation of the longitudinal fronto-nuchal edges. It is a remarkably accurate depiction of this distinctive zoological characteristic. As a continuation of this decorative theme, the incised wish-bone handle seems to be imitating ram horns’ growth rings as well (Pl. XXIIIa). Also, the pattern of attached arches near the bottom of the cup, known as the Arcade pattern, which surrounds the rosettes, echoes and amplifies the rams’ horns. Such arcades are a common motif on the Late Minoan IB pottery, which is most likely the original prototype of the arched pattern on the Enkomi cup. However, on Cretan pottery examples they appear in multiple rows, primarily in doubles; and they don’t have rosettes embedded inside. This altered form on the cup seems to be a type of a foreign adaptation.18 The overall proportions and the dappled appearance of the heads undoubtedly is reminiscent of the Aegean tradition for bulls’ heads depictions, so it is possible that this popular convention was borrowed and incorporated into the imagery of another species. This iconographic transference makes a good fit for a ram as its recipient. Visually, the incised curly hair on the foreheads and muzzles resembles the thicker, longer and curlier coats of sheep. The eyes of a ram are often bigger in proportion to the head than bull’s eyes; this detail also corresponds to the images on the cup. Based on the close examination of the animal heads and the supracervical wide curving horns with straight tips I would like to suggest that possibly these are local Cypriot Ovis gmelini ophion rams that are depicted on the Enkomi cup. In addition, the decorative dappling markings on the head inlays, possibly borrowed from the Aegean bull iconography, generally correspond quite well to the standard markings of the Cypriot mouflon’s facial pelage around the eyes and the muzzle. Also, given the traditional Cypriot shape of the vessel, rooted in the wishbone-handle White Slip Ware ‘milk’ bowl,19 these factors provide some support for proposing a Cypriot, rather than Minoan or Mycenaean manufacture.


17

18

19

Allgemein, Caprinae World, Mouflon (Ovis aries and Ovis gmelini), Ovis gmelini ophion, Species, 22 September (1968): https://www.wilddocu.de/cyprus-mouflon-ovis-gmelini-ophion/ (accessed: October 27, 2020). A place where we can see a similar single row of the Arcade with a decorative motif embedded inside is the much later metalwork of Eastern manufacture or influence of the so-called Orientalizing period which possibly can be an Eastern adaptation derived from the LBA Aegean examples; see a North Syrian bronze relief bowl from Abai (Kalapodi), 9th-8th century BCE, Museum Atalanti (A108.103.01) in: W.-D. NIEMEIER, “Greek Sanctuaries and the Orient,” in J. ARUZ and M. SEYMOUR (eds), Assyria to Iberia: Art and Culture in the Iron Age. The Metropolitan Museum of Art Symposia (2016) 235, fig. 1a-1b. P. ÅSTRÖM, The Late Cypriote Bronze Age architecture and pottery. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, Vol. IV/IC (1972); KARAGEORGHIS (supra n. 1) 9-11; K.O. ERIKSSON, The creative independence of late Bronze Age Cyprus: an account of the archaeological importance of white slip ware, SCIEM 2000 (Program), Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 38, Contributions to the chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 10 (2007) 63, 65, 149, 167, Figs 5 d-e, 7.

THE INLAID SILVER CUPS FROM ENKOMI, CYPRUS AND MIDEA, DENDRA

139

The Eastern qualities of the elements in the Enkomi cup become more apparent if we examine other decorative elements on this piece, such as the circular eight-petal rosettes, a prominent and oldstanding Near Eastern motif and an attribute of the goddess Ishtar/Inanna,20 and the upward and downward facing lotus flowers placed between the ram’s heads, an Egyptian motif in origins (Pl. XXIIIa). The Enkomi cup that adorns the cover of a popular textbook by Reynold Higgins entitled Minoan and Mycenaean Art was probably meant to represent both the finest example of Aegean art and its most iconic symbol, a bull.21 Ironically, it appears that this piece might be neither Aegean, nor represent a bull.22 The inlaid silver cup from Midea, Dendra A closely parallel piece to the Enkomi cup is the cup with “bulls’ heads” from the Tholos tomb at Midea, Dendra (Pl. XXVa), as described by its excavator Axel Persson in the original publication of 1931.23 The gold and silver cup was found among the burial gifts of “the queen”, placed as an especially treasured object between her bent right arm and her chest.24 It measures 15.7 cm in diameter (18.5 with the handle) and 5.5 cm high. The cup is made of two layers: the exterior layer of silver and the interior of thick sheet-gold, the edge of which is turned over the outer layer. The silver wish-bone handle is attached with a pair of three studs which are plated with gold. The outer surface is inlaid with gold and “niello”/kuwano (?) and represents five heads of horned animals. According to my own measurements, the heads are not exactly identical but vary slightly in size: 6.2-6.5 cm in width and 3.8-4 cm in height. Hence they may not have been drawn from a single template. Persson shares his opinion about the horns as depicted on the Dendra cup and rightfully notes their inconsistency with bull’s horns: “In spite of the naturalism apparent in the finely chased hair on the bulls’ heads, these give an impression of strong conventionalization, an effect enhanced by the long downward turning horns which are unnatural, though very effective from a decorative point of view. Comparison may be made with the bull’s head cup of the Vaphio type on the wall paintings of the tomb of Senmut, but there the horns are turned up.”25 Also, Janice Crowley in her work on the transference of artistic motifs between the Aegean and the East refers to the heads on the Dendra cup and the Enkomi cup as “Bull’s Heads with unusual down-curving horns”.26 It is clear that the problematic and incongruous nature of these horns has been noted by many scholars since the discoveries of these pieces. Nonetheless, probably the prevailing assumption that these animals must be bulls has left this misidentification unquestioned. Like the Enkomi cup, the Dendra vessel combines bull-like heads with boldly emphasized, supracervical wide-spread horns which display three growth rings each near the base (Pl. XXVa).


20

21 22

23

24 25 26

See a very informative history of this symbol in MICHAUX-COLOMBOT, “The royal Hittite title ‘My Sun’ and the Winged Sun Disk,” in Z. DILEK et al. (eds), 38. ICANAS, Religion, vol. 1, International Congress of Asian and North African Studies, Ankara 2007, Atatürk Kultür, Dil Ve Tarih Yüsek Kuramu Yaninlari 3/1 (2008) 329-353, especially, chapter ‘Rosette, Leadership and Divinity in the East’, 331-332. HIGGINS (supra n. 3) front cover. We are accustomed to a rather circular argument that if this piece is Aegean, these animals must be bulls, and if these are bulls, then the vessel must be Aegean (Diamantis Panagiotopoulos, personal communication). A.W. PERSSON, The Royal Tombs at Dendra Near Midea (1931) 38 (sec. 3.1), 48-50, Pl. I, XII-XV.1; see also: CROWLEY (supra n. 3), 235, 500, #509; R. LAFFINEUR, Les vases en métal précieux à l’époque mycénienne (1977) Catalogue #83; LAFFINEUR (supra n. 3) 13 (no. 20), 19-20, 28-29; Ch. PICARD, “De Midea à Salamis de Chypre : à propos de deux coupes d’or et d’argent”, Γέρας Άντ. Κεραμοπούλλου (1953) 1-16; for a discussion of the tombs and the burial rituals at Dendra, see: A.-L. SCHALLIN, “Rituals and Ceremonies at the Mycenaean Cemetery at Dendra,” in J.M. MURPHY (ed.), Ritual and Archaic States (2016) 76-99. PERSSON (supra n. 23) 38. PERSSON (supra n. 23) 49. CROWLEY (supra n. 3) 235.

140

Michele MITROVICH

Longitudinal ridges are either absent or no longer preserved. The wish-bone type handle is also decorated with growth-ring-like lines. However, the ends of the horns are distinctly different. Unlike the straight ends on the Enkomi cup, the Dendra rams display tips which curve outward. Two seal impressions from Kato Zakros with frontal rams’ heads can be seen as parallels: CMS II, 7 175 and CMS II, 7 176 (Pl. XXVb-c). CMS II, 7 175 is fragmentary but preserves the main components of the image: one nearly-complete horn, one base of a horn and most of the animal’s head, except for the lower part where a muzzle would have been located (Pl. XXVb).27 The ram displays two large and bulging eyes, protruding beyond the sides of the head, prominent brow arches and horizontally oriented pointy ears, which correspond to the depictions on the inlaid cups. The top of the head has a rounded cap-like shape with vertical dashes representing wooly pelage. The shape of the head is stylized and elongated. The horns display boldly accentuated, slightly wavy growth rings and are curved outward at the tip(s), corresponding to the iconography of Ovis aries platyura aegyptiaca in the Aegean and the Mediterranean as well as to the shape and texture of the horns on the Dendra cup. The second seal impression CMS II, 7 176 displays a very similar iconography (Pl. XXVc).28 It is also partially damaged, but one full horn and the entire head are visible, and only a part of the other horn is missing. As in the previous example, the fully visible horn bears highly emphasized wavy growth rings and a tip which curves outward. The other horn shows only two growth rings at its base, possibly the carving was unfinished before the impression was made. Three other seal impressions from Kato Zakros: CMS II,7 177, 178 and 183 were previously described as bucrania but due to the growth rings and characteristic curving out ends can be reidentified as heads of rams.29 Dr. Eleni Konstantinidi-Syvridi notes in her forthcoming work that despite its poorer state of preservation than the Enkomi cup, the Dendra cup displays finer technique in chasing of the details and setting of the inlays.30 Hence, she concludes that it is likely that the two pieces are not made by the same artisan. My own iconographic comparative evaluation confirms this conclusion. It is quite likely that they originate from the same workshop but were created by different hands. The abundant similarities between the two cups in their materials, technology, shape, size, type of the handle, decorative subject and concave base are quite obvious. Even the nodule on top of each handle bears the same decoration: a miniature rosette. However, the differences in the artists’ hands can be seen in multiple stylistic details. Notice, for example, the shape of the dappling spots of the animals. Some of the spots on the Enkomi cup, particularly around the eyes and between the horns, have sharply pointed edges while the corresponding spots on the Dendra cup have gently curving edges (Pls XXIIIa, XXIVc and XXVa). Also, the incised hair is finer and curlier on the Dendra cup, forming circular swirls on the animals’ foreheads. As previously discussed, the tips of the horns are straight on the Enkomi cup, and slightly curving out on the Dendra cup, in line with the common ram iconography in the Mediterranean and the Aegean (Pls XXIIIc, XXIVa and XXVa). In addition, the two masters clearly took a different approach to the composition of the secondary motifs: the Enkomi cup displays a highly elaborate approach to filling spaces between and below the animals’ heads with five distinctively different decorative elements: a dotted line, lotus blossoms, an arcade, rosettes and a solid line (Pl. XXIIIa). The Dendra cup favors a streamlined simplicity where two clean lines on the top and the bottom serve as a symmetrical frame which heightens the focus on the central figurative decoration and maximizes its size within the delineated register (Pl. XXVa). In the question of the cup’s origin Persson considered only two scenarios: Minoan manufacture from Crete and Mycenaean work from the Mainland. He made his conclusion in favor of the Mainland Argolis based primarily on the wishbone handle, although he acknowledged its connections to Cyprus.31


27 28 29 30

31

CMS 2.7 (2016) 198. CMS 2.7 (2016) 199. CMS 2.7 (2016) 199, 200, 203. KONSTANTINIDI-SYVRIDI (supra n. 3). I would like to express much gratitude to Dr. Eleni Konstantinidi-Syvridi for kindly arranging my study visit to the National Archaeological Museum in Athens to examine the Dendra cup and for sharing a copy of her pre-publication manuscript. PERSSON (supra n. 23) 49-50.

THE INLAID SILVER CUPS FROM ENKOMI, CYPRUS AND MIDEA, DENDRA

141

Ram imagery in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean The Late Bronze Age on Cyprus was characterized by extensive blending and hybridization of the local artistic and cultural traditions with those of the Aegean, the Levant and Anatolia.32 The subject matter of a ram’s head (rather than that of a bull) is more closely associated with Cyprus itself and the Near East in general than with the Aegean.33 The ram iconography seems to be historically important throughout the Levant and also further east, in Mesopotamia.34 One of the earliest animal-shaped vessels in the Near East comes from the Chalcolithic site of Gilat, from the culture known as Ghassulian, and it depicts a full figure of a ram carrying three cone-shaped drinking cups on its back.35 Possibly the earliest zoomorphic head vessel is a carved alabaster piece from ancient Mari, near the Euphrates River, dating to the end of the third millennium BCE.36 It is a beautifully detailed representation of a ram’s head. A fragment of a ram’s head vessel was also discovered in Megiddo as a part of a cultic vessel assemblage to the east of the stratum X temple.37 The largest number of the Late Bronze Age animal-head-shaped rhyta (Type III) found so far in the Aegean and the Mediterranean come from the site of Ras ShamraUgarit/Minet el-Beida, located just east of Cyprus, where all five of the discovered vessels depict a ram’s head.38 Such prevalence perhaps can be explained by “the importance of the ram in Canaanite cult practice”.39 While very rare on the Greek mainland, one Mycenaean-manufactured painted terracotta ram head rhyton was a part of the assemblage at Ugarit (Pl. XXVIa).40 The unfamiliarity of the Mycenaean craftsman with ram iconography can be inferred from the awkwardness of the animal’s modelling and proportions. Only the circular horns signify the fact that it is indeed a ram which is the intended depiction. The long, thin and pointy face with a flattened at the tip snout looks much more like that of a pig/wild boar or a canine: the subjects more common on the Greek mainland than a ram. Perhaps this Mycenaean export piece was based on the locally consumed zoomorphic styles but tailored specifically to the Canaanite market and their high demand for ram imagery by means of simply adding a pair of ram’s horns onto a head of another, more commonly depicted species. The blending of the bulllike heads with rams on the Enkomi and Dendra cups is similar in concept but far more competent and successful, in line with the spirit of the International style and the Cypriot renown for masterful cultural


32

33

34

35

36 37

38 39 40

VOSKOS and KNAPP (supra n. 3); M.H. FELDMAN, “The Ancient Near East and the Bronze Age Aegean,” in A.C. GUNTER (ed.), A Companion to Ancient Near Eastern Art, First Edition (2019) 565-583; HITCHCOCK, “Transculturalism as a Model for Examining Migration to Cyprus and Philistia at the End of the Bronze Age,” AWE 10 (2011) 267-280. R.B. KOEHL, “From the Near East to the Aegean, from Neolithic Times to the End of the Bronze Age,” in S. EBBINGHAUS (ed.), Animal-Shaped Vessels from the Ancient World: Feasting with Gods, Heroes, and Kings (2018) 76. See an interesting example of one of the most significant religious motifs in the Near East: animals flanking the Sacred Tree on a Mittanian seal with antithetical kneeling rams flanking a sacred tree in CROWLEY (supra n. 3) 246, 503, #523. KOEHL (supra n. 33) 48-49, fig. 2.2; O. BOROWSKI, “Animals in the Religions of Syria-Palestine,” in COLLINS ed. (supra n. 14) 420-421, fig. 15.2. KOEHL (supra n. 33) 59, fig. 2.15. I. ZIFFER, At that time the Canaanites were in the Land. Daily Life in Canaan in the Middle Bronze Age II 2000-1550 B.C.E. (1990) 84*, fig. 135; U. ZEVULUN and I. ZIFFER, “A human face from Tel Haror and the beginning of Canaanite head-shaped cups,” in S. BICKEL, S. SCHROER, R. SCHURTE and C. UEHLINGER (eds), Bilder als Quellen, Images as Sources, Studies on ancient Near Eastern artefacts and the Bible inspired by the work of Othmar Keel (2007) 34-35, fig. 19, special thanks to Irit Ziffer for supplying me with a copy of this article. Also see A. CAUBET, “Animals in Syro-Palestinian Art,” in COLLINS ed. (supra n. 35) 222; KOEHL (supra n. 33) 76. KOEHL (supra n. 33) 76. KOEHL (supra n. 33) fig. 2.34; U. ZEVULUN, “A Canaanite Ram-Headed Cup,” IEJ 37 (1987) 94, figs 1, 6, Pls 5-6.

142

Michele MITROVICH

fusion. One other parallel can be drawn between the rhyton and the cups: a delightful artistic dialog between the growth ring design on the horns and the same pattern evoked on the horn-like curved handle. The ram-headed god Khnum is one of the earliest-known Egyptian divinities. Creator of mankind and of all animals, Khnum was worshipped as a guardian of the source of the River Nile from the Predynastic period.41 In the New Kingdom the ram has a prominent and sacred position in connection with the ram-headed god Amun who is associated with farming and fertility within the families and in animal herds.42 Interestingly enough, locally made figurines of a ram-horned male divinity appeared on Cyprus in the beginning of the 6th century BCE and became a wide-spread trend. Its iconography is thought to be derived from the Egyptian Amun and altered to fit a local male fertility cult.43 While the direct connection with the Late Bronze Age Cypriot ram imagery is uncertain, the fact of the Cypriot historical affinity for the animal is curious. Another example of the Eastern ram iconography are the four ram’s head faience cups from the Uluburun shipwreck and a very similar cup from Enkomi (Pl. XXVIb), all dating to ca. 1300 BCE and representing a type that was characteristic of Syro-Canaanite tradition both in shape and in subject matter.44 Ram-headed clay vessels modelled in the Near Eastern sculptural tradition such as the cup from Mikhmoret and a sculpted ram’s head from Alalakh are entirely locallymade and display no Aegean influence.45 It appears that the ram iconography in the Near East can be historically linked to vessels designed for the offering and consumption of liquids, especially, drinking cups. This would also provide a logical rationale for the choice of the ram iconography on the Enkomi and the Dendra cups. A ram iconography is not at all common on Crete and the Greek mainland, especially in an ‘official’, public or religious context. The primary artistic medium which shows the biggest number of such depictions is the seal-carving, a highly personal medium and a visual vocabulary which is not always dominated by the state iconographic canons but is rather abundant with artistic experimentations, unique images and a wide range of motifs from the simplest to the most complex. An examination of all Aegean seals and sealings which have been identified as “Widder” and “Widder-Kopf”, including the ones labeled with a question mark, revealed eighty somewhat well identifiable images of rams which also include some reanalyzed seals and sealings previously identified as other horned ungulates (bulls and goats).46 This number of ram images is significantly smaller in comparison to depictions of bulls (1,537) and other common Aegean motifs.47 Often in the scholarship focused on animal iconography rams are not given their own distinct category but are grouped together with the genus Capra: domesticated goats and Cretan wild goat Agrimi.48 A systematic reexamination and a more finessed identification of horned quadrupeds in Aegean glyptic is a presently ongoing investigation. Among the eighty images of rams, three main, iconographically consistent groups can be distinguished. The first group consists of seventeen seals dating


41

42

43 44

45 46

47 48

H. te VELDE, “A Few Remarks upon the Religious Significance of Animals in Ancient Egypt,” Numen 27 (1980) 77. KLEIBL (supra n. 6) 162; L. KÁKOSY, “Prophecies of Ram Gods,” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Vol. 19, No. 3 (1966) 346-347. KLEIBL (supra n. 6) 145-64. ZEVULUN (supra n. 40) 88-104; J. ARUZ, K. BENZEL and J. EVANS (eds), Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millenium B.C. (2009) cat. no. 208a, 209, 340-43; COURTOIS and LAGARCE (supra n. 3) 152, 155; M. YON, “Rhytons zoomorphes et vases figuratifs au Bronze Récent,” in V. KARAGEORGHIS, R. LAFFINEUR and F. VANDENABEELE (eds), Four Thousand Years of Images in Cypriote Pottery. Proceedings of the Third International Conference of Cypriote Studies, Nicosia, 3-4 May, 1996 (1997) 54-56, Pl. XI-c; C. PULAK, “The Uluburun shipwreck: an overview,” IJNA 27 (1998) 204. ZEVULUN (supra n. 40) 88-104. According to the CMS, https://arachne.uni-koeln.de/browser/index.php?view[layout]=siegel (Accessed on December 29, 2020). Supra n. 46. F. BLAKOLMER, “Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo? Character, symbolism and hierarchy of animals and supernatural creatures in Minoan and Mycenaean iconography,” Creta Antica 17 (2016) 105-107.

THE INLAID SILVER CUPS FROM ENKOMI, CYPRUS AND MIDEA, DENDRA

143

to the MM II period.49 These depict a highly simplified and stylized frontal ram’s head with horns curling out at the tips similar to the Near Eastern “Hathor curls” (Pl. XXVd). The second iconographically consistent group is twelve LH II-III seals: five nearly identical in composition and seven close variations.50 The distinguishing motif is two overlapping antithetical rams depicted full-body in profile while facing in opposite directions away from each other (Pl. XXVe). This motif has a characteristic Mycenaean predilection to heraldic and symmetrical arrangement and is also used for other animal species, including lions and various horned quadrupeds. The third group of five seals is rather a subgroup of a larger iconographic class depicting a female (or females) in a flounced skirt carrying a horned animal to sacrifice, a clearly religious scene probably depicting a priestess (Pl. XXVf).51 These representations are not specifically tied to rams since they appear to be just one species out of various other quadrupeds being transported in a similar fashion. Among the remaining seals and seal impressions a significant number represents iconographically, stylistically and compositionally unique and one-of-a-kind images of rams. It is a known fact that lamb and mutton were common meat types and were widely consumed in communal banquets in the Aegean as the discarded sheep bones deposited together with olive pits, food bowls and hundreds of conical cups suggest.52 The Minoans and the Mycenaeans extensively farmed and exploited sheep for meat, milk and wool but they did not depict them in any significant and prominent way, neither in wall paintings, nor in prestigious gold or ivory objects. Wool textile production was a major industry on Crete during the Late Bronze Age. The D-series of the Linear B tablets from Knossos contains extensive records pertaining to sheep and lists an unusually large number of castrated rams which most likely were used for their wool.53 This makes the glaring omission of sheep from any major iconographic vocabulary in Minoan Crete even more puzzling, yet certainly deliberate. The possible reasons for this paradox was offered by Andrew Shapland in his insightful work on human-animal relations in Neopalatial Crete.54 He compiled extensive data regarding representations of various animal species in different media, and while sheep constitute almost 50% of all animal mentions in the Linear A


49

50

51

52

53

54

This group includes: CMS I 418c; CMS II,2 333; CMS II,8 036; CMS III 156b; CMS III 159a; CMS III 183a; CMS VS3 017b; CMS VI 030c; CMS VI 132; CMS VI 136; CMS VI 30/1910.232; CMS VI 136/1925.056; CMS VI 246; CMS IX 001b; CMS IX 023c; CMS XI 142a; CMS XII 012b. CMS I 048; CMS V 629; CMS VS1A 082; CMS VS1B 096; CMS VS1B 347; CMS VI 447; CMS VII 098; variations: CMS I 040; CMS I 113; CMS I 176; CMS IX 111; CMS XIII 007, 8. Y. SAKELLARAKIS, “Το θεμα της φερουσης ζωον γυναικος εις της Κρητομυκηναϊκήν σφραγιδογλυφία,” AEph (1972) 245-258, πίν. 94-95; BLAKOLMER (supra n. 48) 106, fig. 8; the group includes: CMS I 220, CMS I 221; CMS VS1A 369; CMS VS3 038; CMS XII 239. L. GIRELLA, “Feasts in ‘Transition’? An Overview of Feasting Practices During MM III in Crete,” in L. A. HITCHCOCK, R. LAFFINEUR and J. CROWLEY (eds), DAIS. The Aegean Feast. Proceedings of the 12th International Aegean Conference/12e Rencontre égéenne internationale, University of Melbourne, Centre for Classics and Archaeology, 25-29 March 2008 (2008) 169; K. HARRIS and Y. HAMILAKIS, “A Social Zooarchaeology of Feasting: The Evidence from the Ritual Deposit at Nopigeia, Crete,” in S. BAKER, M. ALLEN, S. MIDDLE and K. POOLE (eds), Food & Drink in Archaeology I: University of Nottingham Postgraduate Conference 2007 (2008) 163-64. For the D-series of the Knossos tablets, see: J.T. KILLEN and J.-P. OLIVIER, The Knossos Tablets, Fifth Edition (1989) 62-168. Knossos wool textile industry required ‘palatial’ flocks maintained at over 30 locations possibly with as many as 100,000 sheep in total: M. BENNET, “Palaces and Their Regions: Geographical Analysis of Territorial Exploitation in Late Bronze Age Crete and Greece,” in F. SERRA (ed.), PASIPHAE. Rivista di filologia e antichità egee 11 (2017) 163; also see: J.T. KILLEN, “The wool industry of Crete in the Late Bronze Age,” BSA 59 (1964) 1-15; ID., “The textile industries at Pylos and Knossos,” in T.G. PALAIMA and C.W. SHELMERDINE (eds), Pylos Comes Alive (1984), 49-63; ID., “The Linear B tablets and the Mycenaean economy,” in A. MORPURGO DAVIES and Y. DUHOUX (eds), Linear B. A 1984 Survey (1985) 241-305; P. HALSTEAD, “Missing Sheep: On the Meaning and Wider Significance of O in Knossos Sheep Records,” BSA 94 (1999) 145-166; ID., “Lost sheep? On the Linear B evidence for breeding flocks at Mycenaean Knossos and Pylos,” Minos 25-26 (1993) 343-365; special thanks to Dr. Vassilis Petrakis for sharing with me some of these helpful references. A. SHAPLAND, “Wild Nature? Human-Animal Relations on Neopalatial Crete,” CAJ 19 (2009) 109127.

144

Michele MITROVICH

records, they are represented on less than 1% of seals.55 He argues that the predominance of wild species, both native and exotic, and avoidance of domesticated animals in Minoan iconography can be explained by the predilection for showing creatures which stand in adversarial relationships with humans and/or outside of their control, hence, communicating power, conquest over danger, social status and prestige. One important exception to this principle is represented by the bull; but Shapland convincingly argues that by depicting this domesticated animal in the combative setting of bull-leaping, which is highly dangerous to the human participants, the bull’s wild and powerful nature is restored and emphasized.56 Significance of rams in ritual feasting and sacrificial activities in the Aegean and the Mediterranean The tradition of ceremonial feasts and public banquets was deeply rooted in Cypriot Bronze Age culture.57 In the Aegean as well as in the Eastern Mediterranean, feasts served various functions including religious festivals, ritual sacrificial activities, initiation rites, strengthening of economic relations between elites of different ethnic groups, promotion of political authority and social cohesion.58 Unlike the more inclusive Minoan communal food consumption custom59 (until the Mycenaean influence took root in the LM III period), the Cypriots made an emphasis on more restrictive feasting ceremonies for exclusive circles of the elites.60 The local Cypriot tradition of symbolic food consumption and wine drinking was heavily impacted by both mainland Greece and the Near East.61 The Mycenaean Linear B sealings from


55 56

57

58

59

60 61

SHAPLAND (supra n. 54) 116, 118, figs 4, 6. In addition to Shapland’s article (supra n. 54) an illuminating work on this subject by Fritz Blakolmer should be noted, where he discusses an unusual position of the bull in Aegean iconography, see: F. BLAKOLMER, “Hierarchy and Symbolism of animals and Mythical Creatures,” in E. ALRAMSTERN, F. BLAKOLMER, S. DEGER-JALKOTZY, R. LAFFINEUR and J. WEILHARTNER (eds), METAPHYSIS. Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age, Proceedings of the 15th International Aegean Conference, Vienna, Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Aegean and Anatolia Department, Austrian Academy of Sciences and Institute of Classical Archaeology, University of Vienna, 22-25 April 2014 (2016) 62-63 and BLAKOLMER (supra n. 48) 108-111. L. STEEL, “A Goodly Feast… A Cup of Mellow Wine: Feasting in Bronze Age Cyprus,” in J. WRIGHT (ed.), The Mycenaean Feast (2004) 287-90; Y. HAMILAKIS and S. SHERRATT, “Feasting and the consuming body in Bronze Age Crete and Early Iron Age Cyprus,” G. CADOGAN, K. KOPAKA, M. IACOVOU and J. WHITLEY (eds), Parallel Lives: Ancient Island Societies in Crete and Cyprus, (2012) 187-89, 194-202. E. BORGNA, “Aegean Feasting: a Minoan Perspective,” J. WRIGHT (ed.), The Mycenaean Feast (2004) 254-71; T.G. PALAIMA, “Sacrificial Feasting in the Linear B Documents,” Ibid. 217-46; STEEL (supra n. 57) 281-97; for Philistine feasting and parallels to feasting in the Aegean, see: L.A. HITCHCOCK, L.K. HORWITZ and MAEIR, “One Philistine’s Trash is an Archaeologist’s Treasure: Feasting at Iron Age I, Tell es-Sai/Gath,” Near Eastern Archaeology 78 (2015) 12-25; for initiation rites on Crete see R.B. KOEHL, “Ritual Context,” in J.A. MACGILLIVRAY, J.M. DRIESSEN and L.H. SACKETT (eds), The Palaikastro Kouros. A Minoan Chryselephantine Statuette and its Aegean Bronze Age Context (2000) 131-43; for food consumption in the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age Levant, see: D. BEN-SHLOMO, “Food preparation habits and cultural interaction during the Late Bronze and Iron Age in southern Israel,” in V. KARAGEORGHIS and O. KOUKA eds, On Cooking Pots, Drinking Cups, Loomweights and Ethnicity in Bronze Age Cyprus and Neighboring Regions. An International Archaeological Symposium held in Nicosia, November 6th-7th 2010 (2011) 274-79. GIRELLA (supra n. 52) 168-70, 173; HAMILAKIS and SHERRATT (supra n. 57) 192-94; also, J. Maran points out a contrast between Minoan palatial architecture, the layout of which accommodates impressively large gatherings of people, to the courts of Mycenaean palaces which “due to their small size and architectural restriction of access, are likely to have been intended only for small numbers of selected people,” J. MARAN, “Mycenaean Citadels as Performative Space,” in J. MARAN, C. JUWIG, H. SCHWENGEL and U. THALER (eds), Constructing Power. Architecture, Ideology and Social Practice (2006) 80. BORGNA (supra n. 58) 260; STEEL (supra n. 57) 290, 294. STEEL (supra n. 57) 294.

THE INLAID SILVER CUPS FROM ENKOMI, CYPRUS AND MIDEA, DENDRA

145

Thebes can give us an idea of a typical ceremonial feast menu on the Mainland. The tablets explicitly recorded that the sheep constituted the biggest number (16 total, 13 of which are rams) in proportion to goats (14), pigs (10) and cattle (2).62 It was an expensive undertaking, a luxury designed for select groups of people of high importance, to have such an amount of livestock slaughtered at once and served.63 On Cyprus faunal remains of sheep are abundant. At times it can be difficult to distinguish between ovis and capra bones but horn cores proved to be particularly helpful for this purpose.64 In the Cypriot Late Bronze Age sanctuary site Myrtou-Pigadhes a pile of rams’ horns was found together with antlers and goats’ horns and twelve Mycenaean drinking vessels which include two kraters, all placed near the altar for animal sacrifices.65 Besides the numerous domesticated ovis bones found at the sanctuary,66 remains of a wild Cypriot mouflon were also discovered.67 In the Near Eastern texts ceremonial activity is frequently accompanied by meals of sacrificed sheep.68 An Akkadian text explicitly specifies beheading of a ram: “He shall call a slaughterer to decapitate a ram, the body of which the masmasu-priest shall use in performing the kuppuru-ritual for the temple.” 69 In numerous Hittite accounts sheep seem to be an important type of sacrificial animal for almost any occasion; “Ritual Against Domestic Quarrel”, “Ritual before Battle”, “Removal of the Threat Implied in an Evil Omen”, “Ritual for the Erection of a New Palace” and others all describe the consecration of sheep.70 To grasp the significance of rams in Syro-Palestinian art, it is helpful to quote Annie Caubet: “As in the rest of the ancient Near East, caprids (sheep and goats) possessed a symbolic value. They symbolized


62 63 64

65

66

67 68

69 70

PALAIMA (supra n. 58) 222. PALAIMA (supra n. 58) 217-236. For ovis horn cores in Cyprus, see: N.-G. GEIVALL, “Animal Remains,” in A. FURUMARK and and C.M. ADELMAN, Swedish Excavations at Sinda, Cyprus: Excavations conducted by Arne Furumark 1947-1948 (2003) 130, AR. 48; L. JONSSON, “Animal and Human Bones from the Bronze Age Settlement at Hala Sultan Tekke,” in Hala Sultan Tekke 8 (1983) 222-46, Room 6, Pit II, Room 2, Well/Toilet fill; for various ovis remains from Late Bronze Age Palaepaphos, see: P. HALSTEAD, “Late Bronze Age Mammalian Faunal Remains,” in C. VON RÜDEN, A. GEORGIOU, A. JACOBS, and P. HALSTEAD eds, Feasting, Craft and Depositional Practice in Late Bronze Age Palaepaphos: The Well Fillings of Evreti (2016) 375-400; special thanks to David Reese for kindly sharing with me these helpful references. L.A. HITCHCOCK, “Architectures of Feasting,” in HITCHCOCK et al. eds (supra n. 52) 322; J.D.P. TAYLOR, Myrtou-Pigadhes: A Late Bronze Age Sanctuary in Cyprus. With contributions by J.M. Birmingham, H.W. Catling, D.H. Gray, M.V. Seton-Williams, and W. Taylor (1957) 18. D. REESE, “Faunal evidence: catalogues, worked bones, ivory, horn, shells,” in P. FISCHER and T. BÜRGE, Two Late Cypriot City Quarters at Hala Sultan Tekke. The Söderberg Expedition 2010-2017 (2018) 493563; ID., “Organic Imports from Late Bronze Age Cyprus (with special reference to Hala Sultan Tekke),” Opuscula Atheniensia 31-32 (2008) 191-209; F.E. ZEUNER, “The Persian fallow deer and other animal remains from the Sanctuary,” in J. DU PLAT TAYLOR, Myrtou-Pigadhes. A Late Bronze Age Sanctuary in Cyprus (1957) 97-100; F.E. ZEUNER, “Animal remains from a Late Bronze Age Sanctuary on Cyprus, and the problem of the domestication of fallow deer,” Journal of the Palaeontological Society of India 3 (1958) 131-135; special thanks to David Reese for sharing with me these helpful references. ZEUNER 1957 (supra n. 66) 97-98; ZEUNER 1958 (supra n. 66) 131, 133. A. SACHS (trans.) in J.B. PRITCHARD (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Third Edition with Supplement, 1969) 331: in the “Temple Program for the New Year’s Festivals at Babylon”, a ceremonial meal of sacrificed sheep is described: “…(pieces of meat) from (the slaughtered sheep offered) before the god Bel (are to be distributed as follows:) the tail to the metalworker, the breast to the goldsmith, the thigh to the woodworker, the rib(s) to the weaver.” Also, on pages 334-37 in the “Ritual to be Followed by the Kalu-Priest when Covering the Temple Kettle-Drum” a bull is used for the ceremonies but it is not eaten: “The kalamahhu-priest shall not eat any of the flesh of the above-mentioned bull…”, however, the rituals are accompanied by multiple sheep sacrifice and consumption: “You shall slaughter three white sheep and offer… the roasted meat.” SACHS (trans. supra n. 68) 333. SACHS (trans. supra n. 68) 347-58; although a later source, interestingly enough, the ‘ram’ is one of designations for leaders, princes and nobles in the Hebrew Bible (Exod 15:15; 2 Kgs 24:15; Ezek 31: 11), B.R. FOSTER, “Animals in the Literature of Syria-Palestine,” in COLLINS ed. (supra n. 14) 304.

146

Michele MITROVICH

fertility and wealth, signs that the gods were favorable. They could sometimes even represent the gods if the latter wished to appear before humans in their theriomorphic form.”71 She points out that the ram appears “to be the equivalent of the bull in its role as a producer” and its depictions are common in terracotta figurines and vessels, including a wooden dish from Jericho adorned with four ram’s heads.72 Figurines of rams in Syria-Palestine have been connected to sympathetic magic as an important practice to influence fertility.73 On Crete on the other hand, we have no evidence of any major divinatory meaning attached to sheep or rams and a relatively negligible amount in terms of visual representations. A bull served the primary religious function as well as, to some extent, the Cretan wild goat agrimi.74 It is likely that just as in the rest of the Near East, the rams (particularly the local Ovis gmelini ophion species) played a bigger ritual, divinatory and sacrificial role on Cyprus than on Crete or the Greek mainland. This would explain the rams’ heads which are so conspicuously depicted on the luxurious Enkomi and Dendra silver cups. Conclusion In conclusion, it is important to return to the question of the manufacture of the Enkomi and Dendra cups. There are three most likely scenarios of their origins. Generally speaking, the cups can be: (a) the products of two Greek mainland craftsmen who customized the imagery specifically for the Cypriot market; (b) Mycenaean immigrant artists working in Cyprus; or (c) local Cypriot craftsmen who received training in a workshop which employed both local and foreign metalworking techniques and iconographic elements from the Aegean and the Mediterranean. In my considered opinion, the Cypriot manufacture of the cups appears to be more likely. Even if alternative scenarios of their production are considered, a strong Cypriot involvement is undeniable. The Aegean iconography on these vessels has been widely accepted until now. It needs to be rethought and recalibrated to make room for local Cypriot and other Eastern connections. Michele MITROVICH



71 72 73 74

CAUBET (supra n. 37) 221-222. CAUBET (supra n. 37) 222. BOROWSKI (supra n. 35) 420-421. S. HILLER, “Potnia/Potnios Aigon. On the Religious aspects of goats in the Aegean Late Bronze Age,” in R. LAFFINEUR and R. HÄGG (eds), POTNIA. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference Göteborg, Göteborg University, 12-15 April 2000 (2001) 293-304; E.F. BLOEDOW, “The agrimi as a potnia theron motif in Minoan Glyptic,” JPR 15 (2001) 4-9; R. PORTER, “The Cretan wild goat (Capra aegagrus cretica) and the Theran ‘antelopes’,” in D.S. REESE (ed.), Pleistocene and Holocene fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (1996) 295-315; K. HARRIS and Y. HAMILAKIS, “Beyond the wild, the feral, and the domestic: lessons from prehistoric Crete,” in G. MARVIN and S. MCHUGH (eds), Routledge Handbook of Human Animal Studies (2014) 99-101, 103-108; SHAPLAND (supra n. 54) 122.

THE INLAID SILVER CUPS FROM ENKOMI, CYPRUS AND MIDEA, DENDRA

147

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Pl. XXIIIa Inlaid silver cup (bowl), Enkomi, F.E.T. 2/7 no. 4207, Cyprus Museum, Nicosia. Permission to publish the image has been granted by the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus. Pl. XXIIIb Cypriot mouflon (Ovis gmelini ophion). Image credit: https://cordelia.typepad.com/anastasia/2010/07/ the-cyprus-muflon.html Pl. XXIIIc Bust of a Ram-Headed God (Khnum ?), Egyptian, ca. 305-250 BCE (early Ptolemaic Period), Accession no. 22.330, The Walters Art Museum. Image credit: The Walters Art Museum. Pl. XXIVa Lentoid seal with rams’ heads, Amethyst, Vapheio, Inv. N. 1766, National Archaeological Museum, Athens, CMS I 257. Image credit: Heidelberg Corpus of Minoan and Mycenaean Seals. Pl. XXIVb Cypriot mouflon (Ovis gmelini ophion). Image credit: Holiday in Cyprus, http://www.holidayincyprus.eu/ site/cyprus-mouflon-2/ Pl. XXIVc Inlaid silver cup (bowl), detail, Enkomi, F.E.T. 2/7 no. 4207, Cyprus Museum, Nicosia. Permission to publish the image has been granted by the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus. Pl. XXIVd Cypriot mouflons (Ovis gmelini ophion). Image credit: Cyprus Tourism Organisation. Pl. XXVa Silver cup (bowl) with inlaid gold animal heads from the tholos tomb in Midea (Dendra) cemetery, NAM Inv. no. Π7336, National Archaeological Museum, Athens/Department of Collection of Prehistoric, Egyptian, Cypriot and Near Eastern Antiquities. Copyright: ©Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/Archaeological Receipts Fund. Pl. XXVb Incomplete impression of a lentoid seal with a ram’s head, Kato Zakros, CMS II,7 175, Heraklion Museum, HMs 69. Pl. XXVc Incomplete impression of a lentoid seal with a ram’s head, Kato Zakros, CMS II,7 176; Heraklion Museum, HMs 90. Pl. XXVd Three-sided prism seal, Steatite, Crete, MM II, CMS VI 030c, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, no. 1910.232. Pl. XXVe Lentoid seal with two rams, Jasper, Mycenae, Greece, Necropolis Asprochoma-Agriosykia, CMS I 048, National Archaeological Museum, Athens, Inv. no. 2315. Pl. XXVf Lentoid seal with a female carrying a ram, Carnelian, Vapheio, Tholos tomb, LH IIA, CMS I 221, National Archaeological Museum, Athens, Inv. no. 1765. All images courtesy of Heidelberg Corpus der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel. Pl. XXVIa Ram head rhyton, Mycenaean, LH IIIA:2, 14th-13th century BCE, painted terracotta, height: 21.5 cm (8 7/16 in.); diameter: 16 cm (6 5/16 in.), from Ras Shamra-Ugarit/Minet el-Beida (Syria), Musée du Louvre, Paris, AO 19932. Pl. XXVIb Ram head cup, Levantine, 14th-13th century BCE, faience, length: 11.3 cm (4 7/16 in.); diameter: 7.4 cm (215/16 in.), from Tomb 86 at Enkomi (Cyprus), the British Museum, London, Excavated by the Turner Bequest Excavations, 1897,0401.1212.

XXIII

a

b

c

XXIV

a b

c

d

XXV

a

d

c

b

e

f

XXVI

a

b

INTUITIVE THINGS: BOAR’S TUSK HELMETS, OXHIDE SHIELDS, IKRIA AND THE UNIQUENESS OF AEGEAN COMPOSITES* Introduction In an excellent recent study, Wengrow has associated the rise of representations of composite beings in the ancient world with conditions of emergent urbanism; his discussion includes Neopalatial Crete.1 Following others such as Boyer and Sperber, Wengrow discusses composites as having a distinctive status as “counter-intuitive” combinations of bodily elements derived from different species.2 In what follows I attempt to carve out a space for what I believe is a uniquely Aegean variety of composite entity. I identify three entities that embody this particular composite character: boar’s tusk helmets, oxhide shields, and ikria.3 For the sake of space, I focus on the helmet and on the period of MB III-LB II. My discussion involves three fundamental contentions and areas of problematization, considered in tandem as I proceed. The first is to recognize that these composites are drawing together elements not only from different animalian species, but also, and with equal significance, from particular types of objects, rendering the composites highly dynamic incorporations of human and nonhuman elements. Second, I advocate for embracing representations and representational media as equally real embodiments of these composite entities, with their own physical/material properties and affordances. Third, I argue that these composite entities are characterized by being highly intuitive in the drawing-together that they embody. I discuss this on two levels: in terms of the combined internal components of each composite entity, and concerning the external relationships the entities forge with other things, including each other. As I discuss these matters in relation to the boar’s tusk helmet, I stress how its embodiments are themselves creative spaces, in which intuitive links are actively generated.4 Part of this involves what I describe as “formal assonance,” a way in which renderings of the helmet echo other forms, inviting comparison and establishing fluid but stimulating connections.


*

1 2

3

4

My sincere thanks go to T. Palaima and R. Laffineur for their great creativity and generosity in bringing us together, and to the many scholars whose research I have had the privilege to work with here. I am especially grateful to P. Warren, A. Vlachopoulos, C. Doumas, J. Bienvenu, M. Anastasiadou, D. Panagiotopoulos and the CMS Heidelberg, Passion for Plantation, and Habelt Verlag. D. WENGROW, The Origins of Monsters: Image and Cognition in the First Age of Mechanical Reproduction (2013). Ibidem, citing, e.g. D. SPERBER, “Why are Perfect Animals, Hybrids, and Monsters Food for Symbolic Thought?” Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 8 (1996) 143-169; P. BOYER, “Functional Origins of Religious Concepts: Ontological and Strategic Selection in Evolved Minds,” JRAI 6 (2000) 195-214. Knappett’s new and superb examination of “combining” in Aegean art deals with composites: C. KNAPPET, Aegean Bronze Age Art: Meaning in the Making (2020). Blakolmer offers a rich discussion of Aegean composite creatures; he does not include these three entities in that category: F. BLAKOLMER “Hierarchy and Symbolism of Animals and Mythical Creatures in the Aegean Bronze Age: A Statistical and Contextual Approach,” in E. ALRAM-STERN, F. BLAKOLMER, S. DEGER-JALKOTZY, R. LAFFINEUR and J. WEILHARTNER (eds), METAPHYSIS. Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 15th International Aegean Conference, Vienna, Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Aegean and Anatolia Department, Austrian Academy of Sciences and Institute of Classical Archaeology, University of Vienna, 22-25 April 2014 (2015) 61-68. I believe many dimensions of my approach concur with Knappett’s, especially in expanding consideration of composites and the deeply creative potential of objects; he does preserve the idea that (Aegean) composites are “counter-intuitive,” marking a key point where or views diverge; KNAPPETT (supra n. 3) e.g. 98.

150

Emily S.K. ANDERSON

Vibrant Roots The Aegean boar’s tusk helmet has been the focus of strong scholarship over the years.5 Morris offers an incisive study of the biographical complexity of the helmet, focusing on the Mycenaean era. By problematizing its coming-into-being, she draws attention to the way in which the ongoing life of the helmet integrates not only activities of war but also of hunt, and argues that the skills acquired and honed during the pursuit and killing of boars may have been framed as preparatory for combat undertaken with other humans.6 In this light, the helmet emerges as a testament to the person’s process of maturation: crafting of a complete helmet necessitated tusks from some thirty to forty successful kills,7 and the finished object that emerged from this gradual accumulation of experience and material was a conspicuous and practical accoutrement of the warrior. Her observations correspond productively with Shapland’s insightful discussions of “traces” in Aegean imagery of animals.8 Morris’ study ultimately is focused on the boar’s tusk helmet as a symbol, which she describes as a “multi-referential” signifier that can “condense” complex meaning in its sometimes simple form.9 Her discussion here takes a crucial step by likening the boar’s tusk helmet to the oxhide figure-8 shield, a distinctly Aegean form itself, and drawing on several scholarly discussions concerning its symbolism.10 Morris rightfully sees the boar’s tusk helmet as sharing much with the shield, from their origins with animals and practical roles as objects of defense, to their symbolic meanings. Concerning the last subject, Morris’ discussion draws in the work of Morgan, bringing attention to the rich parallels that are sometimes seen between humans and animals. In this light, the Lion Hunt Dagger from Grave IV at Mycenae, with its detailed scenes, becomes a pivot point for Morris.11 She asserts that the rich symbolism associated with “iconographic images” should be extended to objects, in her words, “If an image can be used to express parallels or relationships between man and animal, why not an object?”12 I fully agree with Morris that the dynamics of an object can convey such meaning, and would add that they can actively create meaning, and vibrant sociocultural experiences, in concert with their environments. But I would also stress that images are never just images, somehow alone, they are always things themselves, with distinct materialities, so this division is somewhat false. That said, Morris’ point is that these two objects, helmets and shields, were also symbolically dense in their existence as practical objects in-the-round, and not only when they appeared in representational images. I wish to explore this further but also, ultimately, to return to representations of these things, recognizing greater depth in their materiality and thinking about them beyond symbolism.


5

6 7 8

9 10 11

12

E.g. A. XENAKI-SAKELLARIOU, “La représentation du casque en dents de sanglier, ” BCH 77 (1953) 46-58. A. VARVARIGHOS. Τό ὀδοντόφρακτον μυκηναϊκό κράνος (1981). C. MORRIS, “In Pursuit of the White Tusked Boar: Aspects of Hunting in Mycenaean Society,” in R. HÄGG and G. NORDQUIST (eds), Celebrations of Death and Divinity in the Bronze Age Argolid, Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 11-13 June, 1988 (1990) 149-156. P. REHAK, “The Mycenaean Warrior Goddess Revisited,” in R. LAFFINEUR (ed.), POLEMOS. Le contexte guerrier en Égée a l’Âge du Bronze. Actes de la 7e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Université de Liège, 14-17 avril 1998 (1999) 227-39. B. MOLLOY, “Martial Minoans? War as social process, practice and event in Bronze Age Crete,” BSA 107 (2012) 87-142. MORRIS (supra n. 5) 151-2; Morris suggests that the hunt may have been a rite of passage. Morris provides this estimate; MORRIS (supra n. 5) 155. A. SHAPLAND, “The Minoan lion: Presence and Absence on Bronze Age Crete,” World Archaeology 42.2 (2010) esp. 276. For engagement with Shapland’s ideas and further discussion see E. ANDERSON, “The Poetics of the Cretan Lion: Glyptic and Oral Culture in the Bronze Age Aegean,” AJA 124 (2020) 345379. MORRIS (supra n. 5) 155. MORRIS (supra n. 5), with references. MORRIS (supra n. 5). For another discussion by Morgan of parallelism, also relevant here, see L. MORGAN, “Of Animals and Men: The symbolic parallel,” BICS. Suppl. (1995) 171-184. MORRIS (supra n. 5) 153, 155.

BOAR’S TUSK HELMETS, OXHIDE SHIELDS, IKRIA

151

Many at Once To state the obvious (for reconsideration): a tusk is not a boar, and a helmet is not a tusk. Each of these entities, while intimately related to one another in their materiality and sociocultural identity, has its own distinct character and affordances. The tusk and swine are connected indexically and metonymically, and the helmet also has an indexical link first to the tusk and, through this trace, to the once living beast. But the helmet reworks, repositions and reformulates the trace. While the smooth plaques crafted of Sus scrofa tusk maintain some of the curved profile of the tooth, they change its dimensionality. Their repetitive arrangement, side-by-side in registered series, introduces a new and rhythmic order to the material. With this, the many pieces joined together take on the rounded form of a single head – but not the head of the animal from which they originated; instead they circumscribe the form of the human head. In this way the human animal is embodied in the helmet, as well, not only as an actor in its vibrant biography, but in its defining physical essence. The ontological status of the human component “within” the helmet is complex. In some senses, it is relatable to other discussions familiar to us in Greek archaeology, such as the “presence” of the seal in a clay impression it has stamped, or the relationship of a plaster cast to its “parent” object in the round. In the way that they more premeditate than remember the form of the human head, the helmets share something with masks that have been formed in order to be able to fit a human face. From another perspective, discussions of the deep relationship between the bodies of armor and human warriors in Homeric cultures is also relevant.13 In each of these situations, we recognize that there is more at stake than signification or a correspondence of physical forms. There is something uncanny in the heavy void of an object that implies another particular entity; the one accounts for, or, in a sense, longs for the other, while nevertheless being something separate. The helmet implies the human head by displacing the heft from the head to its circumscription – this is an inversion, but also an echo. The void of the helmet of course can temporarily be occupied by a living (or dead) human’s head, but the helmet itself possesses the greater permanence of its own form, which persistently, and in its very substance, carries with it the implied presence of the human cranium.14 The boar’s tusk helmet, in its immediate physical existence, thus incorporates, in one, the corpora of two species, Sus scrofa and homo sapiens. In this way, it is a dynamic composite entity. The two species are not put at odds, there is no disjuncture being emphasized. Matter and form integrate the nonhuman and human, as the tusks of boar are melded into the shape of the human head. This coming-together of the two species is formally and materially intuitive; it is also dynamic and creative. Both species are visibly present in the object, but the helmet is not simply a means of their combination, nor a straightforward result of it. As a type of object with its own attributes and affordances, the helmet is an equally consequential third party to this composite. A helmet is a worn thing and is defensive in its physiognomy. The firm density of its construction is distinctive, as is its conformity. With the boar’s tusk helmet’s registered construction, plaques are positioned in alternating rising rows set in leather, cloth, or metal, creating a dome. In some cases, the helmets also have cheek protectors (sometimes plaqued) that descend like mutton-chops. The boar’s tusk helmet regularly appears crowned with a knob, which can be the base for a crest or plume. This knob was likely formed as the leather or fabric lining of the helmet was gathered together at the top of its dome; the feature apparently persists in later bronze conical helmets as a skeuomorph, recalling the earlier helmet type.15


13

14

15

E.g. F. ZEITLIN, “Constructing the Aesthetic Body in Homer and Beyond,” Thinking the Greeks: A Volume in Honor of James M. Redfield (2018) 53-69. Foucault’s notion of heterotopias is relevant here: M. FOUCAULT, “Of Other Spaces,” Architecture /Mouvement/Continuité trans. Jay Miskowiec (1984) esp. 6-7. See M. MÖDLINGER, “From Greek Boar's‐Tusk Helmets to the First European Metal Helmets: New Approaches on Development and Chronology,” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 32 (2013) 403, who is citing H.-G. BUCHHOLZ, H. MATTHÄUS and M. WIENER, “Helmentwicklung und ein unbekannter altägäischer Bronzehelm,” in H.-G. BUCHHOLZ (ed.), Archaeologia Homerica 1, Kapitel E, Teil 3. Kriegswesen. Ergänzungen und Zusammenfassung (2010) 158, figs 74-75.

152

Emily S.K. ANDERSON

As a specific type of object, the helmet not only brings its own physical characteristics to its composition with human and porcine attributes; it also draws in a distinct array of relationships and similarities with other entities. Helmets appear not only in the context of hunt and war, but also sport. Logue, following Lorimer, has argued that this link in corporeal paraphernalia was part of a complex relationship between these types of action.16 Other types of martial helmet in the Bronze Age Aegean, beyond the boar’s tusk variety, seem to have had a similar registered design, consisting of stacked rows. These were likely constructed of leather bands and, on some, metal attachments were added.17 These objects are readily comparable not only in their roles and affordances, but also in their appearance, and it seems that the boar’s tusk helmet was sometimes imitated in other materials. This is notable in a bronze Mycenaean helmet in the collection of the Ashmolean Museum.18 It is striking that horizontal banding emerged as a key characteristic of the Aegean helmet’s identity, preserved even when practically unnecessary. It would seem that the boar’s tusk helmet, with its rich cultural status and elaborate registered design, was the most highly developed helmet form at this time, toward which more schematic renderings of helmets could refer. As Knappett discusses, skeumorphism like this is comparable to the creation of composites, as both actualize a linking of entities.19 That Aegean helmets were touched by this type of dynamism further indicates their status as integrative things. Re-presenting and Re-Embodying To appreciate the complexity of the boar’s tusk helmet as a composite entity, we must consider how “representational media” were part of people’s fundamental experiences of it. Many of the MB III-LB II boar’s tusk helmets recovered archaeologically are not fashioned of swine teeth, but instead are constituted by other materials, such as painted plaster, metal, and stone. Renderings of boar’s tusk helmets in these media should not simply be valued as a means of gathering details concerning the form of lost helmets in the round – as imperfect but helpful icons of “real” objects. Nor should they be understood only for their symbolic roles, as signifiers of non-material phenomena. We should extend to these media the same degree of problematization regarding their material/physical peculiarities as we do to worn helmets, recognizing the unique experiential dynamics these other embodiments of the boar’s tusk helmet afforded. These directly contributed to what the helmet actually was in the Aegean. I mean this in a very real sense – the boar’s tusk helmet was variably manifest, across materials with diverse properties and potentials. With this, the contexts of human engagement with the helmets developed, as did helmets’ relationships with other entities. In some situations, boar’s tusk helmets were embroiled within highly developed visual narrative structures, setting them in interesting juxtapositions. We see this strikingly in Room 5 at the West House in Akrotiri. Boar’s tusk helmets appear twice in this room, as part of the frescoed friezes positioned high up, around the upper zone of the walls. In the frieze of the south wall, a series of ships carry men across the sea. Carefully rendered boar’s tusk helmets hang from vertical beams above many of the seated passengers, apparently their personal accoutrements (Pl. XXVIIa). Poised above the human heads, the helmets form their own elevated series.20 In a couple of cases a helmet tops the beam of an ikrion that is positioned at the stern of the ship and shelters a single person of distinction. The material culture that accompanies these travelers indicates a militaristic identity, if not a militaristic intent.21 The helmets


16

17 18

19 20

21

W. LOGUE, “Set in Stone: The Role of Relief-Carved Stone Vessels in Neopalatial Minoan Elite Propaganda,” BSA 99 (2004) esp. 160-161, 167-171. H.L. LORIMER, Homer and the Monuments (1950) 220. A. SALIMBETTI, “The Greek Age of Bronze,” http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/helmets2.htm. See BUCHHOLZ, MATTHÄUS and WIENER (supra n. 15); MÖDLINGER (supra n. 15) esp. 401-403, and Ashmolean Review (2014/15) 10. KNAPPETT (supra n. 3) 98-129, esp. 108-110. This is clear on the garlanded fifth vessel from the left, which has dashing lions decorating its hull; see DOUMAS, The Wall-Paintings of Thera (1992) esp. 68 (fig. 35) and 74, 75-76 (figs 36 and 37). G. PRYTULAK, “Weapons on the Thera ships?” IJNA 11 (1982) 3-6.

BOAR’S TUSK HELMETS, OXHIDE SHIELDS, IKRIA

153

certainly fit within this narrative framework, enriching it. On the north wall a more fragmentary frieze images an assault on a settlement waged by troops arriving by sea. Rising up an incline from the coast is a line of armed warriors (Pl. XXVIIb). Their bodies are covered from shoulders to knees by rectangular “tower” shields.22 These shields have a white ground and are vividly dappled in uneven splotches, each with a different color, the convention for representing oxhide in polychrome Aegean art. The shields appear as bold units in an uninterrupted series. The warriors wear delicately painted boar’s tusk helmets on their heads. On the extant examples, a slender strap wraps below the wearer’s chin and a whispy plume emerges from its apex; stipples of paint loosely surround the helmet. Each of the warriors holds a long naval spear extending from one hand, while a tasseled scabbard is visible at the hip. As in the frieze of the south wall, the boar’s tusk helmets in the north frieze participate in a complex narrative vignette, now clearly involving martial activity; their presence in this context is again clear and logical. But there are other aspects to consider as the helmet is reembodied here in the medium of fresco. The scale of the helmet relative to the living human being has altered incredibly. The north and south miniature friezes of West House Room 5 both have heights of circa 0.45 meters. Each helmet is but a miniscule element of this, occupying less than a square centimeter. 23 This is a far cry from their size as worn defensive items, which would be closer to 17-18 cm in height for the cap alone.24 A person within Room 5 would crane her head upward and narrow her eyes in order to discern the helmets within the friezes. The fine scale means that painters formed the helmets with incredibly delicate brushstrokes – fine black outlines upon the bare white of the lime plaster. Given that their whiteness is simply borrowed from the background of the fresco, the helmets have a lightness within the surface of the paintings that is quite distinct from the tough, solid make of the leather-and-tusk helmet a living human would don. As small elements of large scenes, the helmets, preserved in groups, are also encountered alongside other series of objects, including shields and ikria. With their reembodiments within Aegean frescoes, the scale of boar’s tusk helmets can vary considerably, drawing in different characteristics. Elsewhere at Akrotiri, in Xeste 4, a series of boar’s tusk helmets were rendered at “larger than life size” in a vivid frieze (Pl. XXVIIc).25 Despite their dramatically altered size, again the helmets have a striking integration with their frescoed background. As in the West House, the white tusks of the Xeste 4 helmets are rendered simply as black outlines upon the base lime plaster.26 Yet in these helmets, substantial blue and black horizontal banding alternates with the rows of white plaques, relatable to the substructure of worn helmets. These bands echo the black and red bands that form the background of this area of the fresco and run parallel to the horizontal registers of the helmets. By drawing out and emphasizing the intervening bands of the helmets, the painters thus have powerfully reinforced the horizontality of the overall painting, dynamically incorporating the helmets into their frescoed ground. Here narrative is not actively at play, at least not within the painting itself. Instead, in this room, we see a complex rendering of forms in space, at once giving the illusion of the figural elements being both layered atop and collapsed into the background of the painted wall. The boar’s tusk helmet, the oxhide shield and the ikrion are alike in their practical roles, in their biographical complexity, and in their physical and material embodiments. Each is both intimately


22

23

24 25

26

Televantou’s reconstructions include 12 shielded/helmeted figures in this line; see C. TELEVANTOU, “New Light on the West House Wall Paintings,” in D. HARDY (ed.), Thera and the Aegean world III: Proceedings of the Third International Congress, Santorini, Greece, 3-9 September 1989 (1990) 309-324, esp. fig. 9 on p. 316. DOUMAS (supra n. 20) 58, 68 for heights of friezes; with these I have figured the helmet sizes at ca. 89mm. MÖDLINGER, (supra n. 15) esp. 395 fig. 5, 401-404. A. VLACHOPOULOS, “Detecting ‘Mycenaean’ Elements in the ‘Minoan’ Wall Paintings of a ‘Cycladic’ Settlement: The Wall Paintings At Akrotiri, Thera within Their Iconographic Koine,” in H. BRECOULAKI, J. DAVIS and S. STOCKER (eds), Mycenaean Wall Painting in Context: New Discoveries, Old Finds Reconsidered (2015) 50-54, fig. 12. A. VLACHOPOULOS, pers. comm. My thanks to Dr. Vlachopoulos for graciously discussing this with me.

154

Emily S.K. ANDERSON

connected to the single human body, as a means of protection in the round, and prominently incorporates a component of a nonhuman body into its physical form. Yet each also has a distinct identity as an object that cannot be reduced to either of these animalian components. Here we should consider that the shields, ikria and helmets also are related through their embodiments in vivid series in polychrome wall paintings. We have seen helmets, ikria and oxhide shields as repeated elements of the friezes of the south and north walls in Room 5 of the West House. Meanwhile the large ikria in Room 4 are comparable to the helmets of the frieze in Xeste 4 and share their vivid polychrome rendering of oxhide with the shields in the north frieze of Room 5 (Pl. XXVIId). Ikria and shields also are both represented in LB III wall friezes from the mainland and Crete, perpetuating and further developing their likeness.27 If we look beyond wall painting, we have evidence that such seriation was well established already in LB I. Some of the best examples come from the small surfaces of engraved seals and clay impressions stamped by them. Shields are especially well attested in this position. We have numerous examples of Cretan LM I seal motifs in which a row of shields is the central or sole element (Pl. XXVIIIa). In some case the shields are held by humans, as in CMS II.8.276, II.8.277 and II.8.278, impressions from Knossos. On CMS II.8.276, the human holding one of the shields within the row also wears a boar’s tusk helmet and clutches a spear. The central element of CMS II.3.32 is comprised of two large figure-8 shields set side-by-side; a boar’s tusk helmet positioned at the top of each, and protruding limbs, indicate that these shields are being worn by humans whose bodies are markedly inconspicuous. The presence of humans in these motifs suggests that the imaging of the shield in a series could have origins, in part, in impressive social scenarios in which the object was met as a repeated element in a collective mass of soldiers presenting for action. Certainly this would align with the contemporaneous examples of visual narratives in other media, in which we find both helmets and shields, such as in the north wall frieze of the West House at Akrotiri, and on the spectacular LH I silver Battle Krater and Lion Hunter Dagger (on the latter, only shields), both from Grave IV, Grave Circle A, at Mycenae;28 we should imagine that oral narratives simultaneously cultivated such scenes.29 We also have seal motifs from this period that image a series of shields alone, without humans. This is the case, for example, on CMS II.8.128 and II.8.129, also from Knossos. Yet earlier roots for the rendering of shields as elements of a series are indicated in Protopalatial soft stone seals (Pl. XXVIIIb). In CMS XIII.D1a, we see a crouched human partially surrounded by a ring of six figure-8 shields; in CMS III.54, five figure-8 shields fill the roughly triangular seal face in two rows. Evans believed LB III shield friezes in wall painting derived from the practice of hanging shields along walls for storage and display. This could be one of various threads of inspiration for such renderings. but the frieze develops novel characters and connections through its varied embodiments. Related dynamics are observable with the boar’s tusk helmet. We have seen that helmets can be an element of LM I glyptic motifs in which a series of shields form the focus; in CMS II.3.32, the helmet also is repeated, as is the case in some comparable scenes in other media. In these instances, the helmets appear worn by humans. But the helmet is also encountered in glyptic motifs from this period as an object apart from human bodies (Pl. XXVIIIc). We see this in numerous LB I-II motifs comprised solely of a single boar’s tusk helmet, where the object’s form is carefully detailed (e.g., CMS I.153, I.260, II.6.136, III.499). It is notable that the helmet’s position within an exceptional group of LM I glyptic underscores its independence from a human. At Kato Zakros, as Anastasiadou argues compellingly, composites were handled in a unique way within the Aegean, as variable permutations


27

28

29

M. SHAW, “Painted ‘Ikria’ at Mycenae?” AJA 84 (1980) 167-179. S. IMMERWAHR, Aegean Painting in the Bronze Age (1990) 138-141. F. BLAKOLMER, “The Silver Battle Krater from Shaft Grave IV at Mycenae: Evidence of Fighting ‘Heroes’ on Minoan Palace Walls at Knossos?” in R. LAFFINEUR and S. MORRIS (eds), EPOS. Reconsidering Greek Epic and Aegean Bronze Age Archaeology. Proceedings of the 11th International Aegean Conference, Los Angeles, UCLA – The J. Paul Getty Villa, 20-23 April 2006 (2007) 213-224. S. MORRIS, “A Tale of Two Cities: The Miniature Frescoes from Thera and the Origins of Greek Poetry,” AJA 93 (1989) 511-535. ANDERSON (supra n. 8).

BOAR’S TUSK HELMETS, OXHIDE SHIELDS, IKRIA

155

of “interchangeable parts” that defy standardization and often cohesion as corporeal beings.30 In this context, the helmet could replace a head as a primary “bodily” component, indicating that, here too, it held a distinct status – as a nonhuman whole unit in itself, free to be combined on its own (versus as an object of adornment), independent of a head. Not only does the helmet appear to have been treated as an entity with a potentially independent status, it also occurred as a unit in series (Pl. XXIXa). On CMS V.S3.331, a helmet forms the central element of a three-part linear series with two figure-8 shields. We see what is likely a series of helmets with cheek guards on CMS II.8.131. On CMS II.8.132, a helmet appears alongside a similarly-shaped object that has tentatively been identified as another type of helmet.31 Given their dynamically related profiles, the pairing of the shield and helmet in this motif is deeply intuitive, even without speculating on the specific symbolic meaning of each. The helmet’s pairing with the entity imaged in CMS II.8.132 potentially is also based in a perceived similarity, at least in terms of form, an idea I will return to shorty. Juxtaposition and Assonance Vlachopoulos has discussed how the presence of the boar’s tusk helmet in the Akrotiri wall paintings, both as the accoutrements of warriors in the West House scenes and as elements of a repetitive frieze in Xeste 4, has been involved in arguments identifying “Mycenaean elements” at the site (culture and/or social).32 Beyond identifying the helmet itself as a distinctly Helladic object, numerous scholars have associated the “excerpting” of figural elements from narrative contexts and their representation in repetitive friezes as a Mycenaean hallmark.33 These assertions often revolve around wall painting, where indeed we see a vibrant blossoming of such friezes in LB III. Within the corpus of entities represented in this way, Immerwahr further distinguishes a specific group, including figure-8 shields and ikria, as having a distinct “emblematic” status, versus others that seem more “purely decorative.”34 While the terminology and particular semiotic dynamics identified may vary, other scholars have likewise considered how these entities, and certain others, have a special symbolic status in the Aegean; the reasoning is often linked to such “excerpting.”35 Both Rehak and Molloy identify a distinct symbolic status for the figure-8 shield versus the tower shield (despite their related roles and positions in narrative scenes) in part because it appears repeatedly as an isolated unit.36 We have seen that Morris discusses the figure-8 shield and boar’s tusk helmet as being “symbolic” versus “emblematic”; she also refers to Sakellariou’s discussion, which explores the boar’s tusk helmet as an isolated extra-narrative element.37 Blakolmer reads the representation of animals as isolated subjects to indicate their emblematic status.38 Clearly isolation and seriation of entities have impacted how they are interpreted, both as individual phenomena and as a class – this is readily evident in readings of Mycenaean art. Whether we take such treatment of entities to indicate a symbolic, emblematic or decorative status, its roots demonstrably extend earlier in the Aegean, especially with our trio of composites. Whether we understand this to indicate something’s emblematic, symbolic, or decorative status, clearly its roots extend earlier in the Aegean, especially with our trio of composites.


30

31

32 33 34

35 36 37 38

M. ANASTASIADOU, “Wings, Heads, Tails: Small Puzzles at LM I Zakros,” in ALRAM-STERN et al. eds (supra n. 3) 77-85. I also thank M. Anastasiadou for discussions of this material, viva voce. Both the CMS record and J. Crowley’s IconAegean database suggest the reading of the second element as a helmet (in the CMS database, a question mark accompanies this identification). VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 25) esp. 47-50. E.g. IMMERWAHR (supra n. 27) 105-146, on form and implications of Mycenaean excerpting. IMMERWAHR (supra n. 27) 133-142, esp. 135 and 142, referring to Lang’s identification of a decorative “wall paper” effect; see M. LANG, The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia, Vol. II: The Frescoes (1969). SHAW, (supra n. 27), likening “emblematic” ikria and shields. REHAK (supra n. 5); MOLLOY (supra n. 5). MORRIS (supra n. 5) 154; A. XENAKI-SAKELLARIOU (supra n. 5). BLAKOLMER (supra n. 3) 61.

156

Emily S.K. ANDERSON

Not only do the wall paintings of Akrotiri embody ikria and helmets in provocatively early wall friezes, the seriation of our Aegean composites also finds yet earlier ancestries here, in ceramics. Vlachopoulos has examined MC vessels painted with figural imagery, some remarkably large, and argued convincingly that they are ancestral to the practice of painting the surfaces of walls. Among the vessels he discusses is a polychrome asaminthos painted with a series of large, vivid polychrome figure-8 shields situated behind a hunt scene (Pl. XXIXb).39 An area of red and dark banding is set “under” the shields, just as we see with the Xeste 4 helmets fresco. Rehak also traced the origins of Mycenaean painted friezes to earlier Aegean ceramic forms. While he argued for a Cretan origin of the shield frieze (highlighting the Minoan Alternating Style specifically),40 he stresses the importance of material from Cycladic sites, including Akrotiri. He cites numerous LM IA and IB vessels, such as a pair of jugs from Xeste 3 that were painted with a frieze of prominent figure-8 shields around their bodies.41 Here I would like to draw out another vessel discussed by Rehak. It is an LM IB “cup rhyton” discovered in the Cult Basement at Knossos (Pl. XXIXc). It was one of twelve vessels associated with a pithos, each of which was pierced on its base. The provocative assemblage suggests ritualized action and also included a pithoid “trick” amphora (fitted with an internal cone) painted with a series of shields.42 The figure-8 shield also appears in a frieze on the body of the cup-rhyton, but here it alternates with two other objects. The first of these, which appears three times, is a large tear-shaped entity, its body marked with horizontal bands from which stippling descends, effecting something like denticulation; at its apex a whispy plume rises and flows to the right. The second element of the frieze, appearing once, is a front-facing bestial face that has been identified as a “primitive gorgoneion.”43 This visage is remarkable in various respects. The head is round and wide, encircled by spikey hair. At the crown of the head, a tuft of hair wafts upward and to the right. The face is stippled all-over in short dark dashes. Two wide-open eyes, with sharp outward gaze, are unevenly ringed in paint. The top of the nose/mouth is formed by a semicircular downward-curved arc; while the upper edge of this arc is smooth, the bottom edge has short (and one long) vertical hashes. The area where the mouth would appear is obscured by a large, heavy crescent of paint. On the center of the forehead a dark wide ovoid is positioned; another, more uneven, descends perpendicularly from the first, between the eyes, forming a T-zone of thick paint across the top-center of the face. The frieze of this vessel is marked by what I would like to call formal assonance. This plays out both within the series of gathered elements and through links to other established contemporaneous forms. To begin, each element within this series – the figure-8 shield, the plumed tear-shaped entity, and the bestial head – are basically formed of thick round orbs; their positioning around the widest curve of vessel’s body emphasizes this shared character. Each element is covered by comparable stippling of short even dashes; as if to draw out this common feature, clusters of such dashes appear suspended between each element in the series. Finally each element is topped by a curving linear protrusion (the telamon of the shields, and the nearly identical whispy tufts extending from the head and the tear-forms). These shared characteristics generate a strong impression of similarity across the gathered elements as they are apprehended collectively on the vessel. The vessel, as a selection of elements and a selective and inventive rendering of them, creates this similarity, at least in part. Each element could be imaged differently than we see here, but instead they are encountered on the vessel as remarkably akin. This is not identicalness, but likeness. Here we can draw out the surface of the shield. As Rehak noted, the shields on the Knossos vessel depart from typical renderings of figure-8 shields that have large uneven splotches indicative of oxhide.44 Instead the surface of the shields on this vessel share the stippling of the other two elements collected in this series.


39 40 41 42 43

44

VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 25) for the asaminthos 53-55, incl fig. 13, and 60. REHAK (supra n. 5) esp. 123. REHAK (supra n. 5) 118 -119. P. WARREN, “Knossos: Stratigraphical Museum Excavations, 1978-1980. Part I,” AR 27 (1980) 73-92. WARREN (supra n. 42) 83; Warren describes this as a gorgoneion of a form similar to later renderings. Rehak preserves this identification: REHAK (supra n. 5) 117-118. REHAK (supra n. 5) 118, fn. 23.

BOAR’S TUSK HELMETS, OXHIDE SHIELDS, IKRIA

157

The identity of the third, tear-shaped form begs consideration. It repeats three times in the frieze of the vessel. Rehak describes these three things as “unidentified ovoid objects (gourds? squills? baskets?) topped by a plumelike tuft.”45 When I first saw them, I took them to be boar’s tusk helmets, but, with closer inspection, the slight curvature along the bottom edges made me question this. I was not alone in my uncertain initial view, though. Niemeier identifies them as possible boar’s tusk helmets and Warren, in his publication of the vessel, states that they, “may be stylized boar’s tusk helmets or, I now think more likely, bulbous plants like the large squill Urginea maritima” (Pl. XXXa).46 The entity’s layered formation in serrated horizontal bands, its doming shape, and its prominent plume – all the features that suggest an identity as a boar’s tusk helmet – fit extremely well with the tunicated squill, as does the gently rounded bottom. We can now revisit the seal impression of CMS II.8.132 and the identity of the second domed or tear-shaped object embodied there. While this entity remarkably echoes the form of the helmet with which it has been paired, so well that it has been identified as another helmet by some, certain features suggest it might instead be something vegetal. Three sets of strands issue from this entity. Unlike the topplume of the tear-shaped objects on the Knossos vessel, these strands issue from the widening end of the object’s body where they appear a great deal like the thin tubular roots of the squill. A squill’s roots flare dramatically from its base and are visible once the bulb is taken from the ground. Depending on the conditions of the squill’s growth and exposure, the layered formation of the bulb can be variably visible on its exterior (and certainly the tunicated nature of the bulb becomes apparent once the squill has been cut open, and this would be associated with the plant). The edges of the rough outer scales typically appear above the surface in jagged rows even as the squill sits in the ground. Sometimes the body of the squill can appear smoother and less ragged, especially once the bulb has been excavated, its roots then visible, and its drier, outer layers shed or removed. The object on CMS II.8.132 seems consistent with this latter view of a squill. While the leafy or flowering top stem does not appear attached to the bulb, it may be present in the motif. On the other side of the helmet, we see what appears to be a lone stalk, its curvature echoing that of the helmet’s arced plume, which it is set alongside. The helmet's plume is remarkably similar to this stem, both depicted with protrusions lining one edge, extending in the same direction. Indeed, poised between the hypothetical bulb and stem, the helmet seems something of a compilation of the separate (above and below-ground) elements of the plant set on either side of it. The positioning of the hypothetical squill in a frieze with figure-8 shields on the Knossos rhyton can be compared to the helmet’s positioning in series with figure-8 shields on seals and in other media, as discussed above. The direct pairing of a possible squill with a boar’s tusk helmet on CMS II.8.132, and their striking similarity in form and features in this context, seems to support the closeness of the entities and their potential relationships with the shield. How the squill fits in here is difficult to know, but its common physical and visual character with the helmet seems crucial. The tunicated nature of the squill bulb is indeed relatable to the segmented design of the helmet, and the squill’s composition of white scales that can be separated takes the comparison with the plaqued boar’s tusk helmet to another level. At the same time, it seems clear that such relatability is not only being drawn out but developed or even generated through these representational embodiments of the squill and helmet. This takes place in the individual rendering of each and also in the juxtapositions formulated – the pairing, in series, with each other and with the shield, an object that has a dynamic relationship with the helmet, both as defensive objects and in representational embodiments. In other words, the assonance of the squill and helmet, richly cultivated in representational spaces, seems to be a leading element in their relationship to one another, and with the shied.47


45 46

47

REHAK (supra n. 5) 117-18. WARREN (supra n. 42) 83-84, figs 33 and 34. W.-D. NIEMEIER, Die Palaststilkeramik von Knossos. Stil, Chronologie und historischer Kontext (1985) 125. Rehak (supra n. 5) refers to Niemeier’s interpretation and also cites another (later) publication by Warren concerning the squill: P. WARREN, “Of Squills,” Aux origines de l’hellénisme. La Crète et la Grèce : Hommage à Henri Van Effenterre (1984) 17-24. In a lengthier study, I examine other entities’ assonance with the helmet, e.g. tritons and sacral knots/cloths.

158

Emily S.K. ANDERSON

I turn now to a more conjectural discussion of the front-facing head that is also positioned in this frieze. This has been interpreted as a gorgoneion and compared broadly to later renderings.48 Gorgoneia and gorgons are attested in the Aegean, and Crete specifically, during the Neopalatial phase and earlier. However the heads/faces are typically more humanoid in their appearance, especially those from Crete.49 Beyond gorgons, the rendering of front-facing animals appears to have meaning in the Bronze Age Aegean. Morgan associates front-facing representation of beasts with a status as dead or dying.50 The head on the Knossos vessel has various peculiar characteristics that I believe strongly suggest an identification as a dead boar.51 The rhinal area, largely obscured by a painted blotch in the lower zone of the face, is visible along its upper edge in the form of a bold approximately semicircular downward turned arc. While this does not fit with the vertical ridge of a humanoid nose, it strongly suggests the curved snout of certain nonhuman animals, and especially the dramatically round and flat rostral plane of swine. The stippling that covers the face suggests a hairy coat like that of boars, and can be closely compared to the stippling of the front-facing boar’s head depicted on the dagger from MM III Anemospilia.52 Meanwhile the bristly ring that encircles the entire head forms a more dramatic feature consistent with the longer mane of male living boars. We can compare this feature of the head to renderings of swine from the Aegean Bronze Age that also show the head/shoulders characterized by a distinct ring of long spikey hair, for example, on a fragment of a stone relief vessel from LM I Palaikastro (Pl. XXXb); the frontal boar’s head on the Anemospilia dagger also shows a clear differentiation between the shorter hair covering the face and the ring of longer bristles that surrounds it. Three areas of the face on the Knossos rhyton are covered with distinct patches of solid paint. The two that form a rough T, at the middle of the forehead and descending between the eyes, mark precisely the area of the head that is targeted when killing swine. This is the area where the brainstem can be most directly reached, by a spear, bullet, or other weapon, rendering the beast stunned and easier to manipulate for the bleeding process. Depictions of boar hunting from the Aegean Bronze Age often show a spear directed at this point (e.g., on the Lasithi Dagger and CMS I.227 from Vapheio) (Pl. XXXc) and modern guides for slaughtering swine mark this spot with an “X.” Following the stunning head strike, the animal can be bled out in various ways, depending on the dictates of traditional practices and the interests of those undertaking the kill. In many cases, the carotid arteries are severed through cuts to the neck tissue. Cutting the throat can result in severing of the jugular veins, trachea and esophageal passage. Another method of bleeding aims the cut closer to the heart to sever blood vessels issuing from it.53 Through these processes, as the heart pumps, blood is projected out of the body rapidly. This can cause blood to issue from the mouth and nose of the dying beast. Thus on the head of the Knossos vessel, the positions of these two painted zones correspond precisely to areas of dramatic blood-flow during the killing of swine. Tusks would be located in this same darkened area of the snout (cf. the location of tusks on e.g. the Anemospilia dagger). If this head captures the moment of blood issuing from a dying swine’s snout, it could be compared to the effect of the contemporaneous boar’s head rhyta from Akrotiri. Liquid, perhaps dark, flowing from the opening in the muzzle of these rhyta could re-embody the loss of blood experienced in the dramatic moment of the beast’s death in


48

49

50

51 52

53

For the initial identification as a gorgoneion and a general association with later Greek manifestations, see WARREN (supra n. 42) 83. See A. LAZAROU, “Prehistoric Gorgoneia: A Critical Reassessment,” Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica 25 (2019) 353-385; for humanoid faces on objects from Crete, see e.g. 373, fig. 9 and 375, fig. 10. L. MORGAN, “Frontal Face and the Symbolism of Death in Aegean Glyptic,” in W. MÜLLER (ed.), Sceaux minoens et mycéniens. IVe symposium international, 10-12 septembre 1992, Clermont-Ferrand (1995) 135-149. For other renderings of disembodied swine heads, see CMS II.3.196, II.2.193, and the rhyta from Akrotiri. Y. SAKELLERAKIS and E. SAPOUNA-SAKELLARAKI, Archanes. Minoan Crete in a New Light (1995) 597-8 See M.H. ANIL, K. VON HOLLEBEN, “Exsanguination,” in M. DIKEMAN and C. DEVINE (eds), Encyclopedia of Meat Sciences (2014) 561-563. Also: https://thegrownetwork.com/preparing-pig-slaughter2/.

BOAR’S TUSK HELMETS, OXHIDE SHIELDS, IKRIA

159

human’s hands.54 The vessels from Knossos and Akrotiri seem to be manifesting the same vivid event. The plume that tops the head on the Knossos vessel is intriguing. It could be a rendering of a central line of longer bristles positioned along the top of a male boar’s body, extending from the head down its back (e.g., on CMS I.227, CMS I.276, CMS II.294). On biological boars, this ridge of bristles stands erect when the animal is upset or aggressive, becoming more visible as a protruding element.55 On the Knossos vessel, the plume contributes to the formal assonance of the elements of the frieze, by constituting a clear link with the squill. If the head is indeed that of a dead or dying swine, then the apparent relationship of the boar’s tusk helmet and the squill gains further depth in the context of this frieze, as the absent but alluded to crested helmet is also potentially implied by the swine head. The swine head – if that is indeed what we have – would have both a biographical and indexical link to the boar’s tusk helmet. The addition of a dramatic plume to the top of the swine head could also signal the telos of the killing of the animal: the production of a plumed helmet made of the beast’s tusks. By already imaging a conventional element of the helmet-to-be on the dying beast, the absent cultural object is again made present, as it is also by the visually assonant squill. The squill also gains significance if the head is that of a boar. Squills are notoriously hunted out by swine, and, in various language traditions, have names associated with the animal.56 They are toxic and were used both medicinally and as poisons in ancient Greece and elsewhere, as they are today. Swine are among the least affected by squills’ toxicity, which could inform the beast’s identity.57 Squills also have been considered apotropaic and were hung by both Pythagoras and Dioscroides as protective devices.58 As a potent object of defense, the squill gains rich connections to the shield and helmet. Through the frieze, we thus seem to be seeing a dynamic rendering of forms that are each, simultaneously, connected to observed features of entities in the round (vegetable, animal, inanimate object) and creatively linked to one another through their representational embodiments. Conclusion: Intuitive Things The boar’s tusk helmet combined, in its essence, elements of human and nonhuman animals and a distinctive object type. These were brought together fluidly, integrated into a composite whole whose form was fully reconciled and harmonious. Each prominently contributed to the helmet’s identity and each was informed by their combination. The boar’s tusk helmet, through its embodiments as a worn object and in representational media, also cultivated rich relationships with other entities. These were intuitive connections in form and nature that were both expressed and created by the manifestations of the helmet. Oxhide shields and ikria have strikingly similar dynamics and, I believe, aspects of the intuitiveness we see in these three entities are more widespread in Aegean material culture.59 Emily S.K. ANDERSON


54

55

56

57 58 59

Cf., on bull’s head rhyta: R. LAFFINEUR, “Fécondité et pratiques funéraires en Égée à l’Âge du bronze,” in A. BONANNO (ed.), Archaeology and Fertility Cult in the Ancient Mediterranean. Papers presented at the First International Conference on Archaeology of the Ancient Mediterranean, The University of Malta, 2-5 September 1985 (1986) 79-96. P. REHAK, “The Use and Destruction of Minoan Stone Bull’s Head Rhyta,” in R. LAFFINEUR and W.-D. NIEMEIER (eds), POLITEIA. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, University of Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut, 10-13 April 1994 (1995) 435-60. B. ALLWIN, N.S. GOKARAN, S. VEDAMANICKAM, et al., “The Wild Pig (Sus Scrofa) Behavior-A Retrospective Study,” Journal of Dairy, Veterinary & Animal Research 3.3 (2016) 115-125. E.g. in Arabic, Bassal-El-Khanzir, “wild boar’s onion”; see S.M. AL-TARDEH, Morphological and Anatomical Adaptations of the Perennial Geophyte Urginea maritima (L.) Baker (Liliaceae) to the Mediterranean Climate. PhD diss., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (2008) 27. AL-TARDEH (supra n. 56) 33-34. M. CHASE, “Notes on Squill in Antiquity,” Published on Academia.edu, document ID 11330919. I examine these ideas in far more depth in my book project concerning Aegean representations of animals.

160

Emily S.K. ANDERSON LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Pl. XXVIIa Pl. XXVIIb Pl. XXVIIc Pl. XXVIId Pl. XXVIIIa

Pl. XXVIIIb

Pl. XXVIIIc

Pl. XXIXa

Pl. XXIXb Pl. XXIXc Pl. XXXa

Pl. XXXb Pl. XXXc

Fifth vessel from left, from frieze of the south wall, Room 5, West House, Akrotiri. Image courtesy of C. Doumas and the Akrotiri Excavations, Archaeological Society at Athens. Line of soldiers from the frieze of the north wall, Room 5, West House, Akrotiri. Image courtesy of C. Doumas and the Akrotiri Excavations, Archaeological Society at Athens. Fragment of frieze of boar’s tusk helmets from Xeste 4, Akrotiri. Image courtesy of C. Doumas and the Akrotiri Excavations, Archaeological Society at Athens. Ikria from the south wall of Room 4, West House, Akrotiri. Image courtesy of C. Doumas and the Akrotiri Excavations, Archaeological Society at Athens. MB III-LB II glyptic imagery of shield series: 1. CMS II.8.276, Knossos (palace, “Doorway, south from the Hall of the Colonnades and beyond”), signet ring(?) impression; 2. CMS II.8.277, Knossos, (palace, “Room of the Warrior Seal”), signet ring impression; 3. CMS II.8.278, Knossos (palace, “Room of the Seal Impressions”), signet ring impression; 4. CMS II.3.32, Knossos (Mavro Spelio, Grabve VII, chamber B), serpentine lentoid; 5. CMS II.8.128, Knossos (palace, “Landing on Grand Staircase”), impression; 6. CMS.II.8.128, Knossos, signet ring(?) impression. Images courtesy of the CMS, Heidelberg. Protopalatial glyptic imagery of shield series: 1. CMS III.54b, Herakleion Museum (Mirabello?), Malia Steatite Group, steatite half-conid seal; 2. CMS XIII.D1a, unprovenanced (Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, Ann Arbor, Michigan), steatite 3sided prism seal. Images courtesy of the CMS, Heidelberg. LB I-II glyptic imagery of single boar’s tusk helmets: 1. CMS II.6.136, Aghia Triada (Pirgiotissis), seal impression; 2. CMS III.499, unprovenanced (Herakleion Museum), slate lentoid seal; 3. CMS I.260, Vapheio (tholos), carnelian (?) lentoid seal; 4. CMS I.153, Mycenae (Kalkani), agate prism seal. Images courtesy of the CMS, Heidelberg. LB I-II glyptic imagery of helmets in series: 1. CMS VS3.331, Rethymnon (Maroulas), slate lentoid seal; 2. CMS II.8.131, Knossos (palace, Eastern Temple Repository), cushion(?) seal impression (NB: I have rotated the image 180° CW from how it is shown in the CMS database); 3. CMS II.8.132, Knossos (palace, Eastern Temple Repository) impression by soft stone seal. Images courtesy of the CMS, Heidelberg. Two views of the Middle Cycladic “hunter’s asaminthos” from pillar pit 5 at Akrotiri. Images courtesy of C. Doumas and the Akrotiri Excavations, Archaeological Society at Athens. Cup Rhyton (note hole in base) from the Cult Basement at Knossos. Image courtesy of P. Warren. Views of the squill: Left: Leafing bulb emerges from ground; photo courtesy of Passion for Plantation (www.passionforplantation.com). Center. “Scilla maritima L. (Meerschwiebel),” in W. ARTUS, Hand-Atlas sämmtlicher medicinischpharmaceutischer Gewächse ? Oder naturgetreue Abbildungen nebst Beschreibungen in botanischer, pharmacognostischer und pharmacologischer Hinsicht. Zum Gebrauche für Apotheker, Aerzte und Drogisten, 2, 5th revised edition (1876) 638. Made available by the University Library Braunschweig. https://doi.org/ 10.24355/dbbs.084-200510210200-361. Right: The autumn-flowering stalk of the squill, rising above the Samaria Gorge; image courtesy of Jean Bienvenu, West-Crete.com. Fragment of a relief-decorated stone vessel from Palaikastro showing a boar. Photograph from B. KAISER, Untersuchungen zum minoischen Relief (1976) 21a. Image courtesy of Habelt Verlag, Bonn. Motif of CMS I.227, an LB I-II style chalcedony lentoid seal from Vapheio (tholos, LH IIA) showing human spearing forehead of a boar. Image courtesy of the CMS, Heidelberg.

XXVII

a

b

c

d

XXVIII

1

2

3

5 a

6

4

2

1 b

1

c

3

2

4

XXIX

2

1

a

b

c

3

XXX

a

b

c

ANIMALS IN CONTEXT: AN ICONOGRAPHICAL PERSPECTIVE ON MM II PHAISTOS* Introduction MM II Phaistos is one of the main iconographical sources of the Protopalatial period (c. 1900-1700 BCE) in Crete. The animal imagery as portrayed in various media, with crossover cases, plays a prominent and stimulating role in this.1 The Phaistian ‘bestiary’ that includes terrestrial animals along with marine fauna species began to take shape in the final Neolithic period, as is attested by some discoveries in the Palace’s hill area. These clay appliqués and quadruped figurines are actually relatively few in number,2 if compared to remarkable evidence from burial contexts in the Mesara plain where zoomorphic vases, figural seals and animal motifs begin to make their appearance in the Prepalatial period.3 The beginning of the Protopalatial period, with the emergence of a court-centered ceremonial building that conventionally we term ‘Palace’, followed by the flourishing of the centre during MM II witness the elaboration of said bestiary and its acme.4 The purpose behind the creation of these figurative repertoires mainly is in response to the needs of visual interactions expressed by élite groups, among themselves and towards the community. These groups that administered – or aspired to – economic and religious activities in the Phaistian hub, invested part of their resources in ceremonial public display and elitist rituals inside the Palace; in both animal imagery definitely played a role.5 The extraordinary quantity and quality of materials recovered at the site constitute a corpus whose potential is still largely unexplored. For this reason, this study presents a general


*

1

2

3

4

5

I am very grateful to Robert Laffineur and Thomas G. Palaima, the organizers of this conference, for their invitation. I would like to thank Giorgia Baldacci, Fritz Blakolmer, Ilaria Caloi, F. Carinci and D. Puglisi for discussing various aspects of this article with me, and the director of the Italian Archaeological School at Athens, prof. Emanuele Papi, for allowing me access to the Archive of the School. I also thank Doniert Evely for revising the language of this paper. Main iconographic repertoires for MM II Phaistos are: CMS II: Iraklion Archäologisches Museum 5. Die Siegelabdrücke von Phästos (1970); D. LEVI, Festòs e la civiltà minoica I (1976); A. SANAVIA, Ceramiche minoiche fini con decorazioni impresse e di imitazione di prototipi ceramici, PhD Thesis, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice (2014). See F 7688 from the House South of the ramp area in V. LA ROSA, “Le campagne di scavo 2000-2002 a Festòs,” ASAtene 80 (2002) 687, 700, figs 481-482 and L. VAGNETTI, “L’insediamento neolitico di Festòs,” ASAtene 50-51 (1972-1973) 41, 71, 90, figs 69, 29; 78, 26-27; 93, 6; 124, 2-3 for few sporadic figurines. See also the handle (F 6434) from a mixed deposit beneath the Central Court area with an appliqué shaped as a body/skin of a quadruped: LEVI (supra n. 1) 414, fig. 638 and the MM IA askos from Room XIX: L. PERNIER, Il Palazzo Minoico di Festòs I (1935) 136, fig. 59, 2. See S. XANTHOUDIDIS, The Vaulted Tombs of Mesarà (1924). No figurines or animal depictions come from Patrikies: N. BONACASA, “Paterikiès. Una stazione medio-minoica tra Haghia Triada e Festòs,” ASAtene 45-46 (1967-68) 7-54. See P. MILITELLO, “Emerging Authority: A Functional Analysis of the MM II Settlement of Phaistos,” in I. SCHOEP, P. TOMKINS and J. DRIESSEN (eds), Back to the beginning. Reassessing social and political complexity on Crete during the early and middle Bronze Age (2012) 236-272 and F. CARINCI, “Élites e spazi del culto nel Primo Palazzo di Festòs,” in L.R. CRESCI (ed.), Spazio sacro e potere politico in Grecia e nel Vicino Oriente (2014) 1-47. The term “elite” is used to refer to groups or individuals that actively attempt to distinguish themselves by establishing positions of power based on wealth, politics, or religion. See I. SCHOEP, “Looking beyond the first palaces: elites and the agency of power in EM II-MM II Crete,” AJA 110 (2006) 37-64 and MILITELLO (supra n. 4) 261-263.

162

Alessandro SANAVIA

review of the published and unpublished materials held in the storerooms.6 The overview is short, but still allows the presentation of new finds and thoughts for the Protopalatial (MM IB-IIB) and early Neopalatial (MM IIIA) periods on hierarchy, the role(s) and distribution of the evidence, and so to evaluate the contexts of the better preserved assemblages. Contextual analysis At Phaistos, the picture returned by the contexts of many archaeological finds is often intricate: evaluation of data can be hindered by the nature of many deposits, namely the frequently mixed fills, dumps and secondary deposits made in order to dispose of rubble when restoring rooms and wall structures after seismic episodes. In storerooms frequently the only reference is broadly topographical (e.g. “Room IL”), with no more precise stratigraphical location of finds available. The general scant information at our disposal does not allow us to interpret most deposits; so stylistic and typological evaluations are frequently the only approach to establish chronology. Contextual analysis in this study involves those findspots where there exist sufficient artifacts in some broader cultural contex, which may enable and reinforce their interpretation.7 An approach to animal iconographies at MM II-IIIA Phaistos A study of the Minoan bestiary in Crete, moving from the identification of type and species shown towards their economic, religious, and symbolic significance, appears a complex issue to address. For the extended period of the 3rd and 2nd millennia BCE, the main source of information remains the iconographic one, and the lack of adequate textual sources does not facilitate the study.8 As evidenced by the representational arts, the interest in the local fauna (e.g. wild goats, bovids) seems to play a leading role in and after the Prepalatial period, but an early appearance of exotic animals (e.g. lions, monkey) must also be observed. In the absence of faunal remains of these latter sets to document their living presence in the island, they must exist only as representational embodiements. Behind the presence of such ‘new’ animals in Minoan Crete, precise choices are at work, linked to the continuous charm such ‘exotics’ exerted, a multifaceted phenomenon that has flourished since EM II, and where cultural contacts come into play.9


6

7

8

9

G. BALDACCI, L’edificio protopalaziale dell’Acropoli Mediana di Festòs (Vani CV-CVII) (2017); I. CALOI, Festòs protopalaziale. Il quartiere ad Ovest del Piazzale I. Strutture e ritrovamenti delle terrazze mediana e superiore (2013); F. CARINCI and V. LA ROSA, “Le ceramiche e i nuovi dati di scavo,” in V. LA ROSA (ed.), I cento anni dello scavo di Festòs (2001) 477-524; IDEM, “Festòs: per un riesame della cronologia delle rampe minoiche,” ASAtene 80 (2002) 870-879; IDEM, “Revisioni festie I,” CretAnt 8 (2007) 11-119; IDEM, “Revisioni festie II,” CretAnt 10/i (2009) 147-300; L. GIRELLA, Depositi ceramici del Medio Minoico III da Festòs e Haghia Triada (2010); O. PALIO, I vasi in pietra minoici da Festòs (2008) and supra n. 1. M.B. SCHIFFER, Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record (1996) 13-23. For the topography of the Protopalatial site, see MILITELLO (supra n. 4) 241-248. As a reference study for ceramic and nonceramic materials functions, see D. LEVI and F. CARINCI, Festòs e la civiltà minoica II (1988), with an index of finds provenance by rooms (353-379). See D.S. REESE (ed.), Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (1996). For marine-inspired iconography in the Aegean, see M. GILL, “Some observations on representations of marine animals in Minoan art, and their identification,” BCH 11 (1985) 63-81. C.S. COLBURN, “Exotica and the Early Minoan Élite: Eastern Imports in Prepalatial Crete,” AJA 112 (2008) 203-224; J. PHILLIPS, Aegyptiaca on the Island of Crete in their chronological context: a critical review (2008); M.H. WIENER, “Contacts: Crete, Egypt, and the Near East circa 2000 B.C.,” in J. ARUZ, S.B. GRAFF and Y. RAKIC (eds), Cultures in Contact: From Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. (2013) 34-45. For a foray into exotic animal iconographies: A. CHAPIN and M.N. PAREJA, “Peacock or Poppycock? Investigations into Exotic Animal Imagery in Minoan and Cycladic Art,” in B. DAVIS and R. LAFFINEUR (eds), ΝΕΩΤΕΡΟΣ. Studies in Bronze Age Aegean Art and Archaeology in Honor of Professor John G. Younger (2020) 215-225 and F. CARINCI, “Scimmie egee,” in E. CINGANO, A. GHERSETTI and L. MILANO (eds), Animali tra zoologia, mito e letteratura nella Cultura classica e orientale (2005) 85-116.

ANIMALS IN CONTEXT: AN ICONOGRAPHICAL PERSPECTIVE ON MM II PHAISTOS

163

But how to interpret this imagery at MM II Phaistos? What is possible to be understood of the role(s) these depictions played? Animal imagery as represented in the material culture at the site finds an almost complete match with their physical remains recovered;10 this correspondence attests a close human-animal familiarity that took place at various levels (dietary habits, symbolic, religious and possibly magical). The introduction of foreign iconographical elements such as hybrid creatures (e.g. griffins, Minoan genii) or real ones like lions – connected symbolically to the sphere of royalty and power far and wide outside Crete – were meant as visual signs of distinction as expressed by more ambitious people.11 Recent research encourages a multidisciplinary approach to the study of animal representations, which played different roles that the Minoans used actively to convey information, rather than reflecting some passive ‘nature-loving’ interest in the natural world and its creatures.12 Protopalatial Phaistos (MM IB-IIB) has yielded various artefacts linked to the animal world: vases with painted, plastic and impressed decorations; figural or more vaguely zoomorphic vases and figurines of clay; seal impressions on a large group of administrative documents and clay objects (loomweights) and more rarely other small objects.13 These finds are distributed in domestic units in prominent areas, inside the Palace borders and those surrounding quarters. The site of Ayia Triada has likewise produced Protopalatial evidence: some bovid rhyta; a bird-shaped askos; a bird figurine and an MM III clay mould for seashell-like appliqués.14 Last but not least a fragment of an MM IB-IIA, not funerary, larnax preserves part of a stylzed fish motif painted on the interior.15 The approach to this body of evidence divides into two animal zones (terrestrial and marine) and several classes of artefacts. In a few cases finds of animals from different habitats are combined within the same class. Actual faunal remains will not be brought into the discussion, with a few exceptions that represent crossovers between ecofacts and artefacts and whose presence might be significant at a number of different levels. Terrestrial animal imagery Vase paintings The first terrestrial animal as a painted representation we can recognize in Protopalatial Phaistos is an exotic beast: the lion silhouette inside an MM IB bridge-spouted basin (Pl. XXXIa). As suggested in a


10 11

12

13

14

15

B. WILKENS, “Faunal Remains from Italian Excavations on Crete,” in REESE ed. (supra n. 8) 241-261. J. ARUZ, Marks of Distinction: Seals and Cultural Exchange between the Aegean and the Orient (ca. 2600-1360 B.C.) (2008). See, e.g., A. SHAPLAND, Over The Horizon: Human-Animal Relations in Bronze Age Crete, PhD Thesis, University College London (2009); IDEM, “Wild Nature? Human-animal relations on Neopalatial Crete,” CAJ 20.1 (2010) 109-127; F. BLAKOLMER, “Il Buono, il Brutto, il Cattivo? Character, Symbolism and Hierarchy of Animals and Supernatural Creatures in Minoan and Mycenaean Iconography,” CretAnt 17 (2016) 97-183. See also TOUCHAIS, R. LAFFINEUR and F. ROUGEMONT (eds), PHYSIS. L’environnement naturel et la relation homme-milieu dans le monde Égéen protohistorique. Actes de la 14e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Paris, Institut National d’Histoire de l’Art, 11-14 décembre 2012 (2014) for various papers. A preliminary catalogue on J. VANSCHOONWINKEL, “Les animaux dans l’art minoen,” in REESE ed. (supra n. 8) passim. See G. BALDACCI, Haghia Triada (Creta) nel periodo protopalaziale: la ceramica dagli scavi 1977-2011 dall’area dell’insediamento, Thesis, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice (2013): HTR 112-115 (rhyta); HTR 1700 (askos); HTR 1663 (clay mould); HTR 1681 (bird figurine). G. Baldacci has pointed out that rhyta fragments may be connected to rituals of defunctionalisation: G. BALDACCI, “Pottery and ritual activity at Protopalatial Hagia Triada: a foundation deposit and a set of broken rhyta from the Sacello,” CretAnt 15 (2014) 47-62. For the clay shell mould (Pl. XXXVIg): F. CARINCI, “Ceramiche con decorazione a rilievo da Festòs e Haghia Triada,” in Πεπραγμένα του Z´ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου (Ρέθυμνο, 25-31 Αυγούστου 1991) (1995) 105-109. F. CARINCI, “Un frammento di larnax da Haghia Triada e le raffigurazioni di pesci nella ceramica medio-minoica,” in R. GIGLI (ed.), Megalai Nesoi. Studi dedicati a Giovanni Rizza per il suo ottantesimo compleanno (2005) 65-77.

164

Alessandro SANAVIA

previous study this style definitely has its roots in some lion depictions on the EM III-MM IA Parading Lion Group seals.16 The uniqueness of the pictorial painted decorations proclaim that the vase once had a prominent role in some ceramic assemblage, but the dump context of the ‘Strada Nord’ does not offer any more clues. Clay appliqués and figurines Clay relief decorations in the shape of terrestrial animals have a long history in the Phaistos area that began before the First Palace was built and that achieved in some early Neopalatial representations their finest expression.17 A barbotine vase fragment from an early Protopalatial layer under the N bench deposit of Room IL shows a partially preserved appliqué in the shape of a probable dog (Canis familiaris), which may have been used as a handle.18 The quadruped appears as a recumbent stylized figurine, facing the mouth of the vase, with the legs spread apart.19 The only other early Protopalatial appliqué known is a bovine-head protome on a pithoid vase from a mixed fill in the ‘Strada Nord’.20 A small bird appliqué figurine with folded wings decorates the point of juncture of an MM IIB double vase from a mixed deposit on the area of Room LXXXVIII (House South of the ramp) (Pl. XXXIIa).21 From a secondary deposit known as ‘Grande Frana’,22 identified W of the Middle W Court (I), comes an MM IIB tall-necked jug with three fragmentary appliqué birds positioned on the neck, shoulder, and the body.23 From the same deposit come two clay snake appliqués, from an MM IIB/MM IIIA vessel, possibly a rhyton (Pl. XXXIIb).24 I have suggested that these figurines may portray the exotic horned viper, a reptile unknown in Cretan fauna. Again from the ‘Grande Frana’ comes an MM IIB fragment of a closed shape that preserves part of one more snake-like appliqué (Pl. XXXIIc).25 To find other terrestrial animal appliqués we must turn to the early Neopalatial period with the examples of the wild goat/agrimi (Capra aegagrus) both on a ceremonial bridge-spouted jar from the ‘Bastione Ovest’ (Pl. XXXIIIa) and the conical rhyton from a mixed fill in Room eta at Chalara S.26 The resemblance between these motifs and their types of appliqué, namely mould-fashioned as a clay


16

17 18

19 20 21

22

23

24

25 26

A. SANAVIA, “Painted Parading Lions on an MM IB ceremonial basin: a case of symbolic transference and remembrance of an emblem in early Protopalatial Phaistos,” in E. BORGNA, I. CALOI, F.M. CARINCI and R. LAFFINEUR (eds), MNHMH/MNEME. Past and Memory in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 17th International Aegean Conference. University of Udine, Department of Humanities and Cultural Heritage, Ca’Foscari University of Venice, Department of Humanities, 17-21 April 2018 (2019)743-747. See K. POLINGER FOSTER, Minoan Ceramic Relief (1982), passim. F 280: LEVI (supra n. 1) 56-57, fig. 57. For the context see: F. CARINCI, “Per una rilettura “funzionale” dell’ala sud-occidentale del Palazzo di Festòs: il caso dei vani IL-XXVII/XXVIII,” CretAnt 12 (2011) 75, fig. 53. For a catalogue of canine images: VANSCHOONWINKEL (supra n. 13) 363-364. Cf. the appliqué (possibly a depiction of a skin?) from Central Court area: LEVI (supra n. 1) fig. 638. F 7700: LA ROSA (supra n. 2) 723, fig. 823. LA ROSA (supra n. 2) 681, fig. 394. For a catalogue of bird images: VANSCHOONWINKEL (supra n. 13) 365-367. The deposit contains mainly MM IIB materials: V. LA ROSA, “Preliminary Remarks about the Pottery from the so-called Grande Frana at Phaistos,” in W. GAUSS et al. (eds), Our Cups Are Full: Pottery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age. Papers Presented to Jeremy B. Rutter on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (2011) 133-139. F 6723: LEVI (supra n. 1) 754, fig. 926. Birds appliqué figurines are used also as handles for lids, or attached on the rim of vessels, cf., e.g., from Quartier Mu at Malia: B. DETOURNAY, “Figurines et reliefs d’applique”, in B. DETOURNAY, J.-C. POURSAT and F. VANDENABEELE (eds), Fouilles exécutées à Malia. Le quartier Mu II. Vases de pierre et de métal, vannerie, figurines et reliefs d’applique, éléments de parure et de décoration, armes, sceaux et empreintes (1980) 114, figs 161, 162. A. SANAVIA, “Per un ‘bestiario’ minoico: divagazioni intorno a due appliques a serpente da Festòs,” in G. BALDACCI and I. CALOI (eds), Rhadamanthys. Studi di archeologia minoica in onore di F.M. Carinci per il suo 70° compleanno (2018) 49-59. SANAVIA (supra n. 24) 50, fig. 2. Respectively, F 5509: LEVI (supra n. 1) 571, Pls 198f, LXXVIII and F 4029: LEVI (supra n. 1) 693, Pls 218e, LXXXIb.

ANIMALS IN CONTEXT: AN ICONOGRAPHICAL PERSPECTIVE ON MM II PHAISTOS

165

medallion-like cutout, has led people to argue for their production in a single workshop.27 To this group we could add a third vase from the ‘Grande Frana’: a large bridge-spouted jar with an agrimi figurine on the rear (Pl. XXXIIIb).28 Despite being badly preserved, the profile was clearly recognizable as a standing quadruped facing right, looking slightly downward, with the characteristic back-curving horn. A rocky landscape painted in red and outlined in white possibly suggests a mountain setting or a cave. Again from Chalara S, L. Girella has published an MM IIIA body fragment of a closed vase that preserves part of a quadruped. The author interprets the figure as a feline (lion?) in a flying gallop pose, with an unusual tail lacking the tuft at the end.29 The vase finds parallels with similar ceremonial vessels in Neopalatial Crete and with an MM IIIA specimen from the Phaistos area: a small fragment of a vase from a mixed dump S of the Middle W Court (I), which preserves part of forelegs and hooves of a bovine figure fixed in a running motion.30 It should be noted here, given its strong relationship with the Phaistos palace, that vases with appliqué bovine figurines (MM II-III), possibly votive offerings, were also recovered in the Kamares cave.31 Solid clay figurines in the corpus of terrestrial animal from Protopalatial Phaistos are numerous, but problematic to define due to the nature of the find-contexts. Nearly all the MM II specimens are standing figurines of bovids/bulls, with the exception of two MM IIIA creamy-white coated figurines of a dog and a boar. From the Palace, we recognize an MM II figurine of an unspecified quadruped from Room LII and an MM IIB stylized figurine from Room 25.32 Others examples were excavated in secondary deposits and mixed dumps with materials that possibly originate from the Palace area: these are the MM II bovid figurines from the ‘Grotta M’ and the nearby ‘Cava N’33, and some four examples from the ‘Grande Frana’.34 Other specimens, variously preserved, are those from the ‘Strada Nord’,35 from a secondary fill in Room IC,36 from the House South of the ramp,37 from Room CV-CVII at the ‘Acropoli Mediana’,38 from Room chi2 area at Ayia Photini,39 from Rooms csi2 and Room lambda areas at Chalara N, with possibly some MM III specimens.40 A bull’s head comes also from the Kouloura III.41 From a mixed fill in Room LXXIV on the southern slope of the Palace comes an MM IIIA head of a white-coated boar with red painted details.42 The interpretation proposed by P. Militello for another item is doubtful: a bull’s horn


27

28 29

30 31

32 33 34 35 36

37

38

39 40 41 42

Cf. A. SIMANDIRAKI, “The Agrimi in the Minoan Ceramic Relief,” in Πεπραγμένα Θ´ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου (Ελούντα, 1-6 Οκτωβρίου 2001) A Προϊστορική Περίοδος 1 A1 (2006) 95-108 for specimens from Alonaki and Ai Lias area (Knossos). An MM III example attached on a conical rhyton comes from Ayia Triada: GIRELLA (supra n. 6) 175, no. 345, Pl. LXXXVI. CARINCI and LA ROSA 2009 (supra n. 6) 283, fig. 154. L. GIRELLA, “Un frammento con rappresentazione di felide da Chalara (Festòs)?,” CretAnt 10.2 (2009) 441-461. GIRELLA (supra n. 29) 443-444, fig. 4A-B. L. MARIANI, “Antichità cretesi: Note sulla ceramica cretese, 1. Vasi di Kamares,” MonAnt 6 (1895) coll. 334, 340, Pl. X, nos 20, 22, 24; R.M. DAWKINS and M.L.W. LAISTNER, “The Excavation of the Kamares Cave in Crete,” BSA 19 (1912-1913) 31. See A. VAN DE MOORTEL, “The Phaistos Palace and the Kamares Cave: A Special Relationship,” in GAUSS et al. eds (supra n. 22) 306-318. Respectively, F 551: LEVI (supra n. 1) 156 and F 1103: LEVI (supra n. 1) 397. Respectively, F 2006: LEVI (supra n. 1) 453, fig. 695 and F 2477: LEVI (supra n. 1) 455, fig. 700. F 5432; F 5010a-b; F 4961a-b: LEVI (supra n. 1) 591, fig. 956. F 5816: LEVI (supra n. 1) 325. A head fragment possibly MM IB-II. F 5522; F 5543a: LEVI (supra n. 1) 555, Pl. 162e and CALOI (supra n. 6) 258, nos SF 10-12, Pl. XLI, from an MM IB fill. F 4926; F 5187: LEVI (supra n. 1) 498, note 9. From MM III floor deposits on rooms LXXXVI and LXXXVIII. F 6450: an MM II quadruped figurine from Room CV: LEVI (supra n. 1) 609, 611, fig. 981 and F 6125: an MM III creamy-white coated figurine of a dog: LEVI (supra n. 1) 629, Pl. 220a-c; GIRELLA (supra n. 6) 97, pl. XXV. Two MM II bovid figurines (F 2531; F 1056c): LEVI (supra n. 1) 651, fig. 1056. F 3515a-e and F 3824: LEVI (supra n. 1) 662, Pl. 220d; F 4400: LEVI (supra n. 1) 679, note 18, Pl. 220k. F 3972: LEVI (supra n. 1) 354, Pl. 220b; GIRELLA (supra n. 6) 82. F 2554: LEVI (supra n. 1) 443, Pl. 220l; GIRELLA (supra n. 6) 87.

166

Alessandro SANAVIA

relief motif amongst some fragments of an MM II-III wall-painting panel from the Kouloura III, originally belonging to the palatial building.43 Zoomorphic shaped vessels: askoi and rhyta At Protopalatial Phaistos, two types of animal-shaped vases can be distinguished: the askoi44 and the As far as askoid vases are concerned that shape shows a Prepalatial beginning as proved by an MM I (A?) type from the deposit beneath the floor pavement of Room XIX, that vaguely recalls a squatting quadruped.46 From the Palace we can catalogue only a bird-shaped askos from an MM II fill in Room LII.47 A mixed dump contex in Room LXVI has returned an MM IIB bird-shaped specimen48 and a similar deposit in the Middle W Court (I) area an MM IB tortoise-shaped vase in Barbotine ware.49 From Room LXXXIV comes an MM II bird-shaped askos.50 From the ‘Grande Frana’ we may add an MM IIB example in the shape of an elongated bird with a white scaly motif and two plastic curling wingappliqués.51 Finally from the Room epsilon in Chalara S is an MM IB-II fragment of a bird-head spout.52 A side-spouted jar of MM II from Room XVI has an eccentric cut-off spout that looks like a stylized head of a dog or equid.53 From the Protopalatial period rhyta appear in the shape of bovids fashioned either as a complete figure54 or as the head alone type.55 The distribution of the first group inside the Palace remains are limited to the MM IIA bulls from the fill of the N bench in Room IL.56 Outside the Palace area, we find: from a secondary context in the area W of the geometric Room AA an MM II head of a bull,57 from a mixed fill in Room XLVI an MM IIB head of a bull with a wide muzzle and large protruding eyeballs58 and from the S-W Quarter area W to Middle W Court (I) an MM IB bull’s head.59 From the ‘Strada Nord’ we could add the following MM IB fragmentary rhytoid-askoid examples: the back part of three bulls;60 a bull’s forepart and a bull’s head, with incised details.61 From Rooms CV-CVII at the ‘Acropoli Mediana’ have been recognized the fragments of some three MM IB-IIA bovids,62 and from the Chalara S area come an MM IB-II head of a bovid and from Room iota an MM II (A?) head of similar type.63 rhyta.45


43

44 45

46

47 48 49

50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59

60 61 62

P. MILITELLO, “Wall-painting and vase-painting: Τhe case of Middle Minoan III Phaistos,” in A. VLACHOPOULOS (ed.) Chrosteres/Paintbrushes. Wall-painting and vase-painting of the second Millennium BC in dialogue (2018) fig. 5. LEVI and CARINCI (supra n. 7) 252-253. The type disappears in MM III period. R.B. KOEHL, Aegean Bronze Age Rhyta (2006). Cf. also V. LA ROSA, “‘Rhytoid’ digressions from the Mesara,” CretAnt 11 (2010) 23-44 for a study that focuses on examples, mainly MM III, from Phaistos and Ayia Triada. PERNIER (supra n. 2) fig. 156. Cf. some bird-shaped vases from Koumasa: XANTHOUDIDES (supra n. 3) Pl. XXVIII. F 589: LEVI (supra n. 1) 158, Pl. 148a, c, e; LEVI and CARINCI (supra n. 7) 252, Pl. 107b, c. F 2383: LEVI (supra n. 1) 146, Pl. 162f; LEVI and CARINCI (supra n. 7) 252, Pl. 107d, e. F 4557: LEVI (supra n. 1) 333, Pl. 32e; LEVI and CARINCI (supra n. 7) 253, pl. 107a. A similar vase from Koumasa is related to a prepalatial rhyton: XANTHOUDIDES (supra n. 3) 13 no. 4146, pl. 20. F 4955: LEVI (supra n. 1) 518, Pl. 162g. F 5120: LEVI (supra n. 1) 569, fig. 912, Pl. XLVIa; LEVI and CARINCI (supra n. 7) 252, Pl. 107g. F 4276: LEVI (supra n. 1) pl. 220f. HM 5820: PERNIER (supra n. 2) 267, Pl. XXIX. KOEHL (supra n. 45), Type I Figural: bull = GIRELLA (supra n. 6) 308-309, Type 6. KOEHL (supra n. 45), Type III Head-shaped: bull = GIRELLA (supra n. 6) 309-310, Types 7-8. F 21, 27-28: LEVI (supra n. 1) 53, Pl. 161a-f; LEVI and CARINCI (supra n. 7) 141, Pl. 64d. F 2361: LEVI (supra n. 1) 480, Pl. 162d. F 2378: LEVI (supra n. 1) 424, Pl. 162b. CARINCI and LA ROSA (supra n. 6, 2007) 75, fig. 75, similar to those from the N bench of Room IL (cf. supra n. 56). F 7754; F 7783; F 7801: LA ROSA (supra n. 2) 722, 732-733, figs 796, 944, 969. F 7793; F 7802: LA ROSA (supra n. 2) 722, 733, fig. 800. F 6451: LEVI (supra n. 1), fig. 1022 = BALDACCI (supra n. 6) nos. 689-690, Pls 64, 104; F 6273: LEVI

ANIMALS IN CONTEXT: AN ICONOGRAPHICAL PERSPECTIVE ON MM II PHAISTOS

167

In the MM IIIA period, we encounter on both full-figural and head-shaped types a peculiar surface treatment, a creamy-white coating: a thick engobe frequently polished and overpainted with red/black decorations to emphasize anatomical details and possibly to recall the spotted skin of special breed. Various scholars have underlined a probable inspiration from precious (silver?) metal prototypes.64 From the area S of Rooms XCI-XCIII comes part of an MM IIIA creamy-white-coated bull rhyton and a better preserved MM III example, with a dotted decoration in red paint, comes from the paved ramp ascent to the Middle W Court (I); both items are from secondary mixed deposits.65 We note also the appearance by the MM IIIA period of new animals as figural types, such as the swine-shaped rhyton (?) from the road to Ayia Photini66 (cf. infra also the dog and boar heads figurines, not rhyta, both dated on stylistic grounds to MM IIIA). Head-shaped zoomorphic rhyta have occured at Phaistos since MM IIB as attested by the wheelmade specimen from the channel N-E of Room LXXIII: a head of a calf (to judge by its short horns), the oldest of the type at Phaistos.67 It comes from a mixed secondary deposit but the decoration dates on stylistic grounds to the Protopalatial period. From a dump area W of the Geometric Room AA a newly recovered fragment of an MM IIIA handmade white-coated head-shaped bovid shows traces of red trefoil/quatre-foil-like motifs (Pl. XXXIId),68 usually to be seen around the eye area as on some examples from a mixed fill in the ‘Acropoli Mediana’ area.69 From the same deposit D. Levi reports also a possible deer-head-shaped rhyton.70 Seals and sealings The large amount of cretulae with seal-impressed motifs from the deposit under Room 25 represents the largest repertoire of terrestrial animal depictions at MM II Phaistos.71 These show new pictorial motifs in different stylistic depictions and the introduction of a natural setting where animals, old and new, take a more prominent role than the few anthropomorphic figures from the same context.72 The main interest of the seal-craftsmen and their patrons is visibly addressed to animal representations, for the depiction of which they reserve the precious metal-rings.73 The Room 25 assemblage is the main MM IIB in-situ deposit, but other sealings with animal (marine) depictions are recovered also from Rooms LI, LIII-LV and under Neopalatial Room 11. In terms of the popularity of terrestrial animals on sealings from Room 25, we identify: lions (13);74 agrimia (12);75 dogs (6);76 hybrid creatures with animal compounds (5);77 birds


63

64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

72 73

74

75

(supra n. 1) fig. 1021 = BALDACCI (supra n. 6) no. 692, Pl. 64 and BALDACCI (supra n. 6) no. 691, Pl. 64. Respectively, F 4617: LEVI (supra n. 1) 699-700, fig. 1132 and F 4380: LEVI (supra n. 1) 699-700, Pl. 162a. KOEHL (supra n. 45) 35. Respectively: F 7503: LA ROSA (supra n. 2) 663, fig. 202 and F 6547: LEVI (supra n. 1) 311, fig. 485. F 920a: LEVI (supra n. 1) 651, Pl. 220g = KOEHL (supra n. 45) 18-19, 78, no. 39, Pl. 6. F 2592: LEVI (supra n. 1) 437, Pls 162c, LXVIIIa, c = KOEHL (supra n. 45) no. 349. MS col. 58/6: L. pres. 8.5 - H. pres. 5.8 cm. F 1019a, b and F 6228: LEVI (supra n. 1) 243, 597-598, Pl. LXVIIIb, d. LEVI (supra n. 1) 598. See CMS II 5; P. MILITELLO, “Amministrazione e contabilità a Festos, II. Il contesto archeologico dei documenti palatini,” CretAnt 3 (2002) esp. 55-62. See also F. BLAKOLMER, “At the Dawn of Minoan Iconography: The ‘Archivio di cretule’ at MM IIB Phaistos,” in F. BLAKOLMER (ed.), Current Approaches and New Perspectives in Aegean Iconography (2020) 47-70. BLAKOLMER (supra n. 71) 48, 53, 57-58. As noted in BLAKOLMER (supra n. 71) 56, none of the seal impressions with human figures derive from metal rings. CMS II 5, nos 270-275, nos 278-283, 286. Lions are depicted as standing or squatting figures, often with open mouth. A Prepalatial ‘Parading Lions Group’ seal, possibly an heirloom, impressed no. 281 (cf. supra n. 16). We must possibly add to the group also two look-alike sealings of collared quadrupeds in a flying gallop pose (nos 276-277), whose head-shapes and the absence of manes might argue them to be representations of lions/dogs. CMS II 5, nos 253-264, as a single figure in a standing or squatting pose, and possibly in hunt scenes (nos

168

Alessandro SANAVIA

(5);78 insects (5);79 bovids (4);80 a stylized monkey;81 a wild boar82 and other indistinct and fragmentary depictions of quadrupeds (9).83 A sealing from Room LV preserves a weak impression of a standing, possibly winged, quadruped interpreted as a sphinx.84 An unprovenanced stone ‘button’-seal from Pernier’s excavations carries the image of a stylized agrimi facing right: the intaglio image does not match with any of the sealings depicting wild goats from the Room 25, but the seal type and style make them contemporary.85 A stylized ram’s head is suggested for a stone seal from an MM IIB context in Room LXXXV,86 and the depiction of three birds in a radial scheme on a discoid seal from the passage between Protopalatial Rooms L and IL.87 From a mixed fill in the area of the ‘Cava N’ on Lower W Court (LXX) comes a seal, stylistically dated to MM IIB, with the depiction of a stylized scorpion.88 Cretan scripts During MM II, animals were also represented as possible iconic script signs in two undeciphered Minoan scripts, the Linear A and the Cretan Hieroglyphic.89 An iconic link with terrestrial and marine animals appears also on the Phaistos Disc.90 Among the 45 different impressed signs on the last we recognize some silhouette figures and parts of animals: two types of birds, one in flight (N. 31) and the other, possibly a dove (N. 32) in a standing pose.91 Two heads of quadrupeds: a ram (N. 30) and the other interpreted as a cat (N. 29) with pointed ears, similar to those on dog figures impressed on vases (cf. infra), but with the short muzzle typical of felines (cf. infra the lion-head ivory piece from Room LI). Parts of animals seems to be represented in sign N. 28, a bovine leg with hoof, with parallels in a group of protopalatial seals92 and an MM IIB ivory piece from Room LI (cf. infra) and on sign N. 27, a possibly animal skin. Sign N. 26 seems to represent the upturned-tip bovid horn93 and on sign N. 34 is a bee.94


76

77 78 79 80 81 82 83

84 85 86 87 88 89

90

91 92

93

94

258-259). CMS II 5, nos 276-277; nos 258, 284 (hunt scenes); nos 299-300 as heads in profile with open mouth and pointed ears. The last one (dog/wolf?) with parallels at Knossos (CMS II 8, no. 37) shows an aggressive attitude, underlined by two vivble rows of pointed teeth, between which the tongue hangs out. CMS II 5, nos 317-319, 321-322. Respectively, three griffins and two Minoan genii images. CMS II 5, nos 307-311, birds with long beaks (nos 308-309) seem to belong to marshy habitats. CMS II 5, nos 312-316, possibly representations of spiders (nos 312-313) and bees/wasps (nos 314-316). CMS II 5, nos 265-269, two look-alike sealings (nos 268-269) has been interpreted as raging bull scenes. CMS II 5, no. 297 and possibly no. 298. CMS II 5, no. 287 as a schematic standing figure with a row of pointed bristles on the back. CMS II 5, nos 288-296. They might be identified by some details (e.g. ungulate paws) as goats or bovids (nos 290, 292, 295), or possibly lions (nos 289, 294, 296). CMS II 5, no. 320. CMS II 2, no. 21. F 6698: LEVI (supra n. 1) 523, fig. 812, Pl. 229i; MILITELLO (supra n. 71) 71-73, 90, no. 15, figs 33-34. F 7358: MILITELLO (supra n. 71) 87, no. 2, figs 19-20. F 2847: LEVI (supra n. 1) 455, Pl. 229h; MILITELLO (supra n. 71) 89, no. 10, fig. 28. The question whether pictographs should be regarded as filling motifs or if they might convey meanings remains debated: J.G. YOUNGER, “The Cretan Hieroglyphic Script: A Review Article,” Minos 31-32 (1999) 387. See now M. ANASTASIADOU, “The Phaistos Disc as a genuine Minoan Artefact and its Place in the stylistic Milieu of Crete in the Protopalatial Period,” CretAnt 17 (2016) 13-57. Cf. some incised representations on the MM II stone’s offering table from Room IX (infra n. 104). P. YULE, Early Cretan Seals: A Study of Chronology (1980) 95-96. Cf. CMS V Suppl. 3, no. 320 from Apodoulou (MM IIB); CMS II 1, no. 296 from Platanos (MM IB-II) and CMS IV, no. 91 from Kamilari tomb (MM IB-II). Cf. for the horn type the bovine appliqué on the MM IIIA Archanes/Anemospilia pithoid jar: Y. SAKELLARAKIS and E. SAPOUNA SAKELLARAKI, Archanes. Minoan Crete in a New Light (1997) 584562. See ANASTASIADOU (supra n. 90) 45, fig. 24 e-f, for a parallel with the Linear A sign AB 39.

ANIMALS IN CONTEXT: AN ICONOGRAPHICAL PERSPECTIVE ON MM II PHAISTOS

169

From the marine world, we can recognize the depiction of a fish (N. 33) with a vaguely elongated upper jaw as a swordfish (Xiphias gladius),95 and on sign N. 20 a Dolium shell (Tonna galea) or possibly a triton shell (with truncated apex?). Pottery impressions From the 200 or so signs that constitute the corpus of the impressed fine wares from MM II Phaistos and Ayia Triada we can recognize some animal representations.96 These were made with a single stamping device in repeated sequences directly on vase surfaces: a squatting dog figure on a spouted jar from a fill deposit on the ‘Canale Minoico’ (Pl. XXXIVa);97 an agrimi on the rim of a spouted jar from a secondary context in the Lower W Court (LXX) (Pl. XXXIVb);98 two schematic bucrania motifs impressed on a jug from the ‘Grande Frana’ and on a rounded cup from a fill in Room delta at Chalara N (Pl. XXXIVc-d);99 two look-alike bovine figures from different vessels: on the rim of a table of offering from Room VIII and on a rounded cup from a dump in the ‘Tempio Ellenico’ area (Pl. XXXIVe).100 All finds may be dated on stylistic grounds and by their contexts to the MM IIB period. Animal motifs share the same style groupings: a stylized silhouette figure with a few naturalistic details. The agrimi appears to be slightly inclined downwards, perhaps to suggest some movement, in a similar way as to the later MM IIIA appliqué figurines. The two look-alike bovid motifs appear more detailed, with the indication of the hooves, horns, ears and a large eye, probably because of the larger size of the stamps.101 Some of these find contexts, such as the ‘Canale Minoico’, but also the ‘Grande Frana’ deposit, represent possible layers of discarded and mixed materials (largely MM IIB) from the Palace; while the offering table from a floor deposit in Room VIII represents an in situ find in a ritual context.102 A few animal depictions appear also on clay loom-weights: a faint seal impression of a ram’s (?) head is repeated several times on an MM II specimen from a secondary context in Room IL and the impression of a standing bird with a curved beak is preserved on a loom-weight from a final MM IIB deposit in Room LXIV.103 Incised and carved decorations Here we may recognize a bird figure on a chlorite table of offering from the floor deposit on Room IX.104 The schematic and approximate image of a standing collared dove (Columba palumbus) was repeated four times with slight differences in design and scheme.105 An incised bird image with an up-turned tail, possibly another dove, on a serpentine spouted bowl from an MM IIB secondary context in Room IL is broadly comparable.106


95 96

97 98 99

100 101

102

103

104 105 106

Possibly a distinctive feature of a swordfish, cf. CMS XIII, no. 100 (LM I on stylistic basis). SANAVIA (supra n. 1) and A. SANAVIA, “An overview of the Protopalatial Impressed Fine Ware from Phaistos and some comparisons with the Phaistos disc,” ASAtene 95 (2017) 81-103. SANAVIA (supra n. 96, 2017) 89, fig. 17a. SANAVIA (supra n. 96, 2017) 89, fig. 16a. Respectively: SANAVIA (supra n. 96, 2017) fig. 7b and SANAVIA (supra n. 1) no. 464. Two MM IIB vases impressed with the same bucranium motif come from Ayia Triada: BALDACCI 2013 (supra n. 14) nos 277, 962. Respectively, CMS II 6, no. 252 and SANAVIA 2017 (supra n. 96) 89, fig. 21a. SANAVIA 2017 (supra n. 96) fig. 21a-b. Impression on vase: L. pres. 3.5 cm; on table offerings: 2.64 x 2.0 cm. PERNIER (supra n. 2) 225-230 and G.C. GESELL, Town, Palace, and House Cult in Minoan Crete (1985) 120124. P. MILITELLO, Festòs e Haghia Triada. Rinvenimenti minori I: Materiale per la tessitura (2014) 84, 90, nos 270 and 320 (= F 6725a), Pls XIII.1-4, XIV.3. PALIO (supra n. 6) 150, 199, no. 716, Pls 1.1b, 71. On the meaning of doves in Minoan religion, see A. EVANS, The Palace of Minos IV.2 (1935) 405 ff. PALIO (supra n. 6) 119, 199 no. 586, Pls 1.1a, 25.

170

Alessandro SANAVIA

One of the most fascinating carved objects from the Phaistos excavations is the possible MM II shell plaque from the eastern edge of the palace area (Rooms 63-64).107 It shows in relief a frieze of four processing and fairly roughly executed animal and bird-headed figures wearing long robes with tasselled belts, holding in their raised right hands a long stick with a curved upper end. The four animal heads represented are, from right to left: a bird with a prominent curved beak; a wild goat with a rounded snout; a boar with curved tusks and a flattened snout and at the end of the sequence a head of a quadruped, with an elongated muzzle and slightly pointed ears, possibly a representation of a dog. For the marine sphere we must add to the catalogue an MM III globular jug from Room LXXV, with two stylized graffiti of paper nautili (Argonauta argo) on the shoulder.108 Small finds Room LI at Phaistos represents surely one of the most prominent spaces of the S-W Quarter of the Palace.109 From the first floor, probably a specialized storage area, come a quadruped-shaped steatite pendant110 and two remarkable finds, reported as made of ivory, with traces of gold foil coverings (Pl. XXXVa-b).111 The first one is in the shape of a lion’s head and the second one of a bovine hoof. These items, both recovered inside a cylindrical clay tumbler, are related to each other as personal prestige objects and perhaps also by their function, tentatively interpreted as ‘game pieces’ by D. Levi.112 No inspection was possible of the base that would represent the seal face, if they were intended as sphragistic (unfinished?) tools. Traces of perforation are preserved on the top of the bovine hoof, which appears slightly narrowing towards the base with two protruding dewclaws on the back area. Some parallels with Prepalatial figural seals, e.g. for the lion’s head, are undoubted, but styles and find-context confirm an MM II date.113 The lion’s head shows details of skilful craftsmanship: the massive neck sports a mane with mirrored arched incisions for the hair and a protruding ridge from top to base. The head has a squared muzzle with the hint of the nose, two slightly raised rounded ears, and below bulging eyes with arched folds.114 A possibly MM II flat-based lentoid pebble from the ‘Grande Frana’ deposit shows traces of incised decorations: two circles for the eyes and four oblique dashes near the base, as if paws, bestow on the pebble a lively zoomorphic appearance (Pl. XXXVc).115 This item could be a multifunctional object – a weight, a smoothing tool or a pestle – related to some artisanal activity; its simple transformation may be interpreted as an expression of personal property.


107

108

109

110 111

112

113

114

115

Measures: 0.75 x 0.42 cm. See: F. CARINCI, “Western Mesara and Egypt during the Protopalatial Period: A Minimalist View,” in A. KARETSOU (ed.), Kriti-Aigyptos, Politismikoi desmoi trion chilieton, Meletes (2000) 35, figs 1-2. F 3650: LEVI (supra n. 1) fig. 708 = GIRELLA (supra n. 6) 92. For the motif: VANSCHOONWINKEL (supra n. 13) 371 and I. BRADFER, “Nautile ou argonaute? Remarques sur un motif égéen,” RA (1998) 107-118. LEVI (supra n. 1) 209-218. The central sector of the S-W Quarter includes a number of rooms with differentiated functions, all within a ritual complex: F. CARINCI, “Circolazione interna e funzoni del settore sud dell’ala occidentale del Primo Palazzo di Festòs,” in Πεπραγμένα Θ´ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου (Ελούντα, 1-6 Οκτωβρίου 2001) A Προϊστορική Περίοδος 1 A2 (2006) 27-29. F 562: LEVI (supra n. 1) 82, Pl. 246u. F 477b-c: LEVI (supra n. 1) 218, Pl. 181c-d. Being of soft whitish materials, they might also be of bone, boar’s tusk or white paste. For seals in the shape of bovine hooves, see supra n. 92. It is interesting to note, according to MILITELLO (supra n. 71) 77, that seals are rarely found in the Palace and town areas, but instead they followed their owners to the tomb. Cf. E. ANDERSON, “The Poetics of the Cretan Lion: Glyptic and Oral Culture in the Bronze Age Aegean,” AJA 124 (2020) 350, fig. 6. Cf. for similar skin folds and bulging eyes: CMS XI, no. 17 from Rhodos (?); CMS IX, no. 32 unprovenanced; CMS III, no. 20 from Malia. They are stylistically dated to MM II. F 8138: Phaistos, storeroom 3, box no. 340. H. 3.4 - L. 5.2 cm.

ANIMALS IN CONTEXT: AN ICONOGRAPHICAL PERSPECTIVE ON MM II PHAISTOS

171

Marine animal imagery Vase paintings Phaistian potters and their patrons also chose sea creatures as subjects for painted depictions on spouted jars and cups, ceremonial vases and clay objects. Among the depictions from the Palace area are a stylized paper nautilus on an MM IIB amphora from a doulapa in Room IL116 (Pl. VII) and a tuna fish image (Thunnus thynnus) four time repeated on a pitharaki from Room LXIV, dated to the MM IIB phase (Pl. XXXVII).117 One of the most privileged marine subjects during the MM II remains the octopus (Octopus) – which shares its typical arms with the paper nautilus – with some painted examples more reliably identifiable, e.g. those on MM IIB bridge spouted-jars from from Room 11 and the ‘Grotta M’ (Pl. XXXVII).118 These are followed by a few depictions of fishes such as that on a bowl from the Lower W Court (LXX), possibly another image of a tuna fish (Pl. XXXIb; XXXVII).119 This remarkable bowl probably goes with the aforesaid pitharaki from Room LXIV, and could argue for a late MM IIB ceremonial set employed in this Palace area. An amygdaloid clay plaque from the ‘Grotta M’ fill preserves the back part of a Light-on-Dark silhouetted fish with the representation of dorsal and ventral sides fins, the caudal fin, and white strokes on the side that possibly evoke scales (Pl. XXXIc; XXXVII).120 Both the painted subject and its unusual shape are of interest: arguably it is a votive (offering table?) or a cultic implement, with a symbolic reference to the sea world. Another stylized fish appears on the exterior of the aforesaid early Protopalatial basin from the ‘Strada Nord’: a large white-silhouetted fish in a threatening posture, with its mouth open (Pl. XXXIa).121 The aggressive-looking toothed jaws distinguish also one of the painted fishes on the pitharaki from Room LXIV, and mark them as dangerous species.122 A fully silhouetted white painted fish is depicted on an MM II teapot fragment from the ‘Grande Frana’. The style, with no parallels at Protopalatial Phaistos, finds comparisons on some East Cretan vases, so perhaps it is an import.123 The aquatic sphere also includes sweet and freshwater habitats (lakes, rivers, marshes). Evidence for such landscapes around prehistoric Phaistos has emerged.124 Animals associated to these liminal habitats


116 117 118

119

120

121 122 123 124

CARINCI (supra n. 18) 76-78, fig. 55. LEVI (supra n. 1) 227, fig. 354, Pls LXXIII, 168b. V. LA ROSA, “Le motif du poulpe dans la céramique de Camarès à Phaistos,” in I. BRADFERBURDET, B. DETOURNAY and R. LAFFINEUR (eds), KRHΣ TEXNITHΣ. L’artisan crétois. Recueil d’articles en l’honneur de Jean-Claude Poursat, publié à l’occasion des 40 ans de la découverte du Quartier Mu (2005) 139151. To a Phaistian workshop we must add the MM IIA spouted jar from the Kamares Cave: DAWKINS and LAISTNER (supra n. 31) Pl. X. One of the first Octopus representations is on the EM III-MM IA figural ivory seal from Moni Odigitria: CMS V Suppl. 3, no. 139. VANSCHOONWINKEL (supra n. 13) 367-370. F 8137 (MS col. 75/16, D. rim 25 cm): A. SANAVIA “Una nuova coppa con raffigurazioni di pesci da Festòs: alcune osservazioni su iconografia e uso rituale,” CretAnt 15 (2014) 19-40. MS col. 44/4, L. pres. 4.7 - W. pres. 5.8 - Th. 1.4 cm. For the context see: F. CARINCI, “L’attività dell’Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia, nell’anno 2013. Indagini nell’area a S e a SW del Palazzo: aree e vani K, L, M, N, I, R/1, R/2, S, S/1,” ASAtene 93 (2015) 212-220. The deposit has been studied by M.E. Masano, which confirms an MM IIB date with few earlier specimens. Similar stylized depictions appear on an MM IB-IIA larnax from Ayia Triada: CARINCI (supra n. 15) figs 1-3 and on a spouted jar from the Kamares Cave: DAWKINS and LAISTNER (supra n. 31) 15, Pl. V. SANAVIA (supra n. 16) 744, Pl. CCXLVa, c. As for dolphins, perceived as a dangerous predator: BLAKOLMER (supra n. 12) 123. F 5462b: LEVI (supra n. 1) 571, fig. 918; CARINCI (supra n. 15) 72. V. AMATO et al., “Geoarchaeological and Palaeoenvironmental Researches in the Area of Ancient Phaistos (Crete, Greece): Preliminary Results,” in TOUCHAIS et al. eds (supra n. 12) 129-140 and S. TODARO, “The challenge of living in the marshes between the 5th and the 3rd Millennium BC: a view from Phaistos,” CretAnt 19 (2018) 323-352.

172

Alessandro SANAVIA

appear rarely in Minoan arts: perhaps a silhouetted frog is shown on an MM IIB amphora from Room XV.125 The interpretation as a frog, despite similarities with crab images, is supported by the depiction of four legs, each terminating with four digits.126 Other details are the protruding eyes on the side of a triangular shaped and blunt ‘head’ and a hint of a tail, both sticking out the rounded body; the tail defines the amphibian as probably in the late stage of the metamorphosis into a mature frog. Appliqués and skeuomorphic objects of art Appliqué decorations of marine creatures appear in Phaistos, albeit but rarely, from the early Protopalatial period.127 On an MM IIA barbotine ware teapot from excavations to the S of the Palace, we detect a row of protruding shell-like motifs with rows of tiny prickles (Pl. XXXVIa).128 A basin rim fragment from the secondary deposit of the so-called ‘Bastione II’ shows a similar white slipped appliqué on the lobed rim (Pl. XXXVIb; XXXVII).129 From the same deposit a fragment of a rounded vase, possibly a hybrid shape, shows an elaborated appliqué decoration in a partially preserved plaque attached to the rim (Pl. XXXVIc; XXXVII).130 We clearly recognize a white slipped cockle shell, with typical radial ribs, and parts of two other small sea creatures: a possible octopus or paper nautilus preserved only in a small curved arm with tiny protruding dots as suckers, and even a crab figure, part of whose right side walking legs are preserved. Parallels with similarly decorated MM IIB cups and scoops from Malia and other East Cretan sites, appear undeniable.131 Stylistic details such as the type of foliate band employed and the use of a red-purple paint could better indicate an early stage of the Polychrome ware; if so, this vase may represent a forerunner for similar MM II-III ‘Marine style’ decorated vessels.132 Definitely MM IIB in style is a rim fragment of a small bowl from a mixed dump under House O, in the area of the paved Ramps (Pl. XXXVId; XXXVII).133 The upper side of the rim is embellished with a tiny conical top-shell (Monodonta sp.) modelled in the round with a spiral-like development. White painted decoration – a row of dots on the rim and part of arched festoons on the cup’s interior – help to confirm an MM IIB date.134 The most superb examples of marine appliqué reliefs are those from early Neopalatial MM IIIA contexts: the cylindrical stand from the House South of the ramp, which combines high relief dolphins in


125 126

127 128 129

130 131

132

133 134

PERNIER (supra n. 2) 264, Pl. XXVIII. For frog depictions, see VANSCHOONWINKEL (supra n. 13) 374 and also CMS IX, no. 24a and a frogshaped MM IA-IB seal from the Ag. Charalambos cave (CMS V Suppl. 1A, no. 40). See for the subject: POLINGER FOSTER (supra n. 17) 100-103. F 3081: LEVI (supra n. 1) 444, Pl. 30d. MS col. 77/6, L. pres. 10.4 - H. pres. 5.4 cm. Pottery finds from the deposit are under study by I. Caloi, for a preliminary report: I. CALOI, “Ristrutturando il Primo Palazzo di Festòs. Materiali di scarto dallo scarico del Bastione II,” in F. LONGO, R. DI CESARE and S. PRIVITERA (eds), DROMOI. Studi sul mondo antico offerti a Emanuele Greco dagli allievi della Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene (2016) 426-436. MS col. 76/14. D. rim 10.3 - H. pres. 3.5 cm. Cf. DETOURNAY (supra n. 23) 120-122, figs 170-174. Cf. also MM III specimens from Knossos, so naturalistic that it has been supposed that moulds was taken from actual animals: A. EVANS, The Palace of Minos I (1921) 521-522, fig. 380. Evans suggested that they was part of a large basin, while B. Kaiser wondered if they were instead independent dedicatory offerings: B. KAISER, Untersuchungen zum minoischen Relief (1976) 249. This group, with crabs, limpets and cockle shells, in a barnacle-decorated ground show traces of white paint. For crab depictions, see YULE (supra n. 92) 136, motif 14. Cf. CARINCI (supra n. 14) and P.P. BETANCOURT, “A Marine Style Gold Ring from Hagios Charalambos Ossuary: Symbolic Use of Cockle Shells in Minoan Crete,” in P.P. BETANCOURT and S.C. FERRENCE (eds), Metallurgy: Understanding How, Learning why. Studies in Honor of James D. Muhly (2011) 117-123. MS col. 53/10. D. rim 7.5 - H. pres. 2.0 cm. Cf. DETOURNAY (supra n. 23) 128 nos 179a-b, figs 180-181 and for similar shells type nos 180a-b, figs 182-183.

ANIMALS IN CONTEXT: AN ICONOGRAPHICAL PERSPECTIVE ON MM II PHAISTOS

173

a rocky seascape with shell-encrusted rocks;135 a rim basin with almost two cockle shells appliqués on the downturned rim, from the aforesaid deposit under House O (Pl. XXXVIe; XXXVII);136 the triton shell appliqué on a basin fragment from the ‘Acropoli Mediana’ area137 and a rim basin from an unknown findspot with a low-relief paper nautilus (Pl. XXXVIf).138 All these appliqués are mouldmade and coated in a creamy-whitish paint, as matches the colour of the shells in nature. From the ‘Grotta M’, near the Protopalatial façade, a fragmentary handmade four-armed star represents an object that could be linked to Marine world (Pl. XXXVd; XXXVII). The curious find, covered with a whitish slip, may be an appliqué decoration, but also a stylized figurine (offering/votive?) of a starfish.139 Certainly not an appliqué element is a large clay skeuomorph of an exotic Giant clam (Tridacna) from a mixed dump in the area W of the Geometric Room AA (Pl. XXXVe).140 This unique piece of art, made of extremely fine clay with traces of a creamy-whitish slip on both sides, could be related to an MM II specialized production meant for display.141 From the Lower W Court (LXX), a full-size triton tip of clay has been reconstructed from the ‘Grotta M’ and a mixed dump in the nearest area of Geometric Room L (Pl. XXXVf; XXXVII).142 Painted decorations with white and red slashes on a black ground assure an MM IIB or possibly MM IIIA date. Clay sealings Marine animals and shell-like motifs occur, but seldom as main subjects on Protopalatial seals, and had also been represented as figures since the late Prepalatial period.143 At Phaistos we recognize a group, in the S-W Quarter, with the same subject on three different sealings impressed by metal rings: from Room 11 and from Rooms LI, LIII-LV.144 All these sealings depict triton shells, the one impressed on a clay roundel from Room LI has an elongated type with a multi-arched lip, flanked by two branches; that from the sottoscala between Rooms LIII-LV, applied on a jar spout, shows two tritons placed in opposing directions and a branch on the field; the last one from soundings under Neopalatial Room 11 shows the more detailed depiction with the operculum and two wavy lines around the shell that may symbolize a seascape. From the Archivio in Room 25, we can moreover identify three depictions of stylized octopus/cephalopods and possibly a fish on a single oval-shaped sealing.145


135 136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144 145

F 4822: LEVI (supra n. 1) 502, Pls 219a,d; LXXIX. MS col. 51/30. Dim. appliqué 4.0 x 4.0 cm. Cf. for similar MM IIIA decorations from Ayia Triada: CARINCI (supra n. 14) for a clay mould (HTR 1663) (Pl. XXXVIg) and GIRELLA (supra n. 6) 189-190 no. 442, Pl. 90 (HTR 2617). F 1020: LEVI (supra n. 1) 598, fig. 964. Cf. a triton shell on a basin from Knossos: EVANS (supra n. 131) 523, fig. 381. F 7321. Dim. 9.3 x 3.3 cm. Cf. similar appliqués from Kouloura 2 at Knossos: A. EVANS, The Palace of Minos IV.1 (1935) 128-29, fig. 97, Pl. XXXD. MS col. 44/4. Dim. 4.3 x 3.3 cm. The motif appears also on MM II glyptic at Phaistos, see e.g. CMS II 5, no. 118. MS col. 58/12. L. pres. 9.9 cm. For a Tridacna shell replica in malachite from the Throne Room Complex at Knossos, see EVANS (supra n. 105) 933, fig. 905. Cf. Neopalatial marine-inspired objects of art, from ‘Temple Repositories’ at Knossos, interpreted as votive/dedicatory offerings: M. PANAGIOTAKI, The Central Palace Sanctuary at Knossos (1999) 78-81. A. SANAVIA, “How to improve on nature: some Middle Minoan triton shells from Phaistos (Crete),” in TOUCHAIS et al. eds (supra n. 12) 544, Pl. CLXXIVa. Cf. YULE (supra n. 92) 137 (Motif 16), Pl. 11. As shell-like shaped seals cf., e.g., the ivory seal CMS II 1, no. 475 (EM III-MM IA) from Mochlos and CMS VI, no. 143 from Pediados (MM II). CMS II 5, nos 304-306. For the contexts, see MILITELLO (supra n. 71) 62-63, 66. Respectively: CMS II 5, nos 301-302 and no. 303, interpreted as an octopus/insect, and CMS II 5, no. 248.

174

Alessandro SANAVIA

Impressions on pottery A dolphin (Delphinus delphis) figure appears impressed on two different vases, using the same stamping device: on the upper rim of a jar from the ‘Saggi a Sud del Palazzo’ (Pl. XXXIVf) and on a rounded cup fragment from soundings on the area W to the ‘Rampa Ellenistica’, both contexts are secondary deposits with mixed materials.146 Despite the small size of the impression the marine mammal is depicted in a naturalistic leaping pose and details showing the rostrum, the pectoral flippers, the dorsal fin and the bifurcated tail flukes are expressed. Marine imagery represents a favourite subject on another type of impressed ware, typical of the late MM IIB phase, characterized by embossed decorations on the surface.147 In this group of vases, usually cups and bridge-spouted jars, many specimens display shell-like patterns, intended to represent bivalve shells with ridges in a radiating (Cockle shell/Pectens), less often in concentric scheme (Venus shell), or in an ‘artistic’ way which combines the types (Pl. XXXIVg).148 Examples come from various secondary deposits in the Palace and town areas.149 Certainly the ceremonial hydria stands out, due to the type of vase and the prominent context, within the group from the MM IIB floor deposit at Room LV, with two rows of shell-like impressed motif of hybrid type (Pl. XXXVII).150 Other marine-related motifs show depictions of limpets (Patella sp.) and top-shells (Monodonta sp.), such as the MM IIB carinated cup from the ‘Grotta M’, with a row of protruding top-shells, as seen from above, with radiating ridges (Pl. XXXIVh; XXXVII).151 Faunal remain as symbolic objects An iconographical perspective involves the representational arts, but it must also be pointed that some actual faunal remains, shells, and fossils may embody an iconic role. We must attribute, according to I. Caloi, a special meaning to the wild goat skull, with its partially preserved horns, recovered in the N bench fill deposit (MM IIA in date) of the Room IL, possibly linked to a sacrifice during a ceremonial feasting.152 The presence of real marine shells at Protopalatial Phaistos may of course be related to dietary habits and other purposes: as raw materials for the tool industry, inlays and furniture decorations or used as containers.153 Rare cases involving their transformation into an artefact may be correlated to ceremonial and religious practices, such as offerings, or may embody a symbolic meaning during some visual display.154 This latter appears a suitable explanation for two actual Triton shells with carved decorations from Room IL (Pl. XXXVII), where similar remains represent possible evidences for a workshop in shell implements.155 At the site, MM IIB Triton shells come from floor deposits in the


146 147 148 149

150 151 152

153

154 155

SANAVIA 2017 (supra n. 96) 89, notes 52-53, fig. 18a, b. SANAVIA 2017 (supra n. 96) 84-85. Usually concentric circles, retorted spirals and shell-like motifs. Evans dubbed this composite motif as ‘Venus-pecten’: EVANS (supra n. 138) 118, fig. 84a-b. SANAVIA (supra n. 1). Examples come from: Room LV [cf. infra n. 150] (1); Room XIX [= C 5797] (1); House South of the ramp (1); Lower W Court (LXX) area (4); ‘Saggi a Sud del Palazzo’ (1); ‘Grande Frana’ (5); Ramps area S of the Middle W Court (I) (2). One rounded cup comes from an MM IIB floor deposit on Room XCIV [= F 5017]. F 1041: LEVI (supra n. 1) 101, fig. 128, Pl. 77a. Respectively: SANAVIA (supra n. 1) no. 669, Pl. 36 and no. 643, Pl. 34. I. CALOI, “Memory of a feasting event in the First Palace of Phaistos: preliminary observations on the bench deposit of Room IL,” CretAnt 13 (2012) 41-59. For a role as hunting trophy, see LEVI and CARINCI (supra n. 7) 293. For preliminary reports: B. WILKENS, “Faunal Remains from Italian Excavations on Crete,” in REESE ed. (supra n. 8) 241-261; V. LA ROSA, “Fish and shellfish at Phaistos and Ayia Triada (Crete): between representation and consumption,” in N. XIROTIRIS, A. MATALAS and N. GALANIDOU (eds), Fish and Seafood: Anthropological Perspectives from the past and the Present, 28th ICAF proceedings (2009) 221-235. L. KARALI, “Marine Invertebrates and Minoan Art,” in REESE ed. (supra n. 8) 419. SANAVIA (supra n. 142) 543-546; A. SANAVIA and J. WEINGARTEN, “The transformation of tritons: some decorated Middle Minoan tritons shells and an Anatolian counterpart,” in E. ALRAM-STERN, F.

ANIMALS IN CONTEXT: AN ICONOGRAPHICAL PERSPECTIVE ON MM II PHAISTOS

175

‘shrine’/Room VIII, from Room XXVII (Pl. XXXVII) and from the ‘Bastione Ovest’ area: all specimens could carry a special significance due to the prominent findspots and associated finds.156 Others examples come from domestic contexts and dumps, such as that one from Ayia Photini and those from the ‘Grande Frana’.157 The presence of some fossil marine shells could be explained by the captivating nature of such objects and would see them interpreted as ritual paraphernalia. This is possibly the case for two finds from the floor deposit in Room LV, (Pl. XXXVII) near the passage to Room LXII: a large Conidae shell and another specimen described by D. Levi as a starfish but probably a Clypeaster sp., a large Miocene echinoid (Sea urchin) quite common at the site (Pl. XXXVg).158 Other marine faunal remains are less readily explainable: thus, a ‘whale’ vertebra, from the MM levels of a trench-pit opened within Neopalatial Room 28, in the N-W Quarter of the Palace.159 It is probable that the whale, rather than being captured in the sea, was beached on the seashore and was given a symbolic meaning by the Mesara people who consequently decided to keep the vertebrae as amulets. Final remarks At Protopalatial Phaistos representational evidence related to animals presents pivotal evidence for iconographical studies in Minoan Crete. Species of both habitats, terrestrial and marine, have a broad match with the evidence of the early Neopalatial period (Table 1). Imagery appears conveyed through various media involving a heterogeneous range of motifs and styles: abstraction and stylization represent the current aesthetic categories, but we also detect attempts of a more naturalistic expression. In this regard the MM IIB sealings deposit from Room 25 represents the most privileged source for a figurative tradition – related to a larger sphragistic koine at the site – in which the Phaistos Disc and impressed fine wares belong.160 Plastic representations by MM IIIA display an undeniable trend towards ‘naturalism’, though signs for this already appear in MM IIA marine style appliqués from ‘Bastione II’.161 Our knowledge on Phaistian MM II-III workshops is still limited and in progress, but it appears clear that such a varied and unstandardized corpus of artefacts was the result of flexible workshop




156

157

158

159

160

161

BLAKOLMER, S. DEGER-JALKOTZY, R. LAFFINEUR and J. WEILHARTNER (eds), METAPHYSIS. Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 15th International Aegean Conference, Vienna, Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Aegean and Anatolia Department, Austrian Academy of Sciences and Institute of Classical Archaeology, University of Vienna, 22-25 April 2014 (2016) 335-338. Respectively: PERNIER (supra n. 2) 215-216, fig. 82; CARINCI (supra n. 18) 83-88, fig. 68; CARINCI and LA ROSA 2009 (supra n. 6) 196. The ‘Bastione Ovest’ has been interpreted as a ceremonial building by MM II, for rituals enacted on the Middle W Court (I). Two red ochre-paint decorated Ch. nodifera specimens from the Central Court (XXIII) area confirm an enduring connection, in operation since the final Neolithic period, of these large shells with ceremonial assemblages at the site: S. DI TONTO and S. TODARO, “The Neolithic Settlement of Phaistos Revisited: Evidences for Ceremonial Activity on the Eve of the Bronze Age,” in V. ISAAKIDOU and P. TOMKINS (eds), Escaping the labyrinth. New Perspectives on the Neolithic of Crete (2008) 186-187, fig. 11.7. LEVI (supra n. 1) 651, Pl. 247b. Cf also two specimens in: A. SPEZIALE, “Il MM II: la casa LXXXI– LXXXV, XCIV-XVC,” in LA ROSA ed. (supra n. 6) 159. Tritons from the ‘Grande Frana’ have been preliminary studied by the author and amount to almost five specimens (Ch. Sequenzae). F 1081a-b: LEVI (supra n. 1) 101, figs 131-132. The fossil sea urchin on Pl. XXXVg comes from the ‘Grande Frana’. PERNIER (supra n. 2) 87-88, fig. 28 (D. 22 cm). To our knowledge it was never analyzed by an archaeozoologist. For the MM II/III Messarian glyptic tradition, see now M. ANASTASIADOU, “The Seals from Tholos A and the Mesara Tradition of seal Engraving in Protopalatial and Neopalatial Crete,” in L. GIRELLA and I. CALOI (eds), Kamilari. Una necropoli di tombe a tholos nella Messarà (Creta) (2019) 510-513. See also SANAVIA 2017 (supra n. 96). Cf. the ‘Plastic Style’ in eastern Crete: R.C. BOSANQUET and R.M. DAWKINS, The Unpublished Objects from the Palaikastro Excavations 1902-1906 (1923) 12, Pls VI.D, VII. This style is contemporary with MM IBIIA at Knossos: J.A. MACGILLIVRAY, Knossos: Pottery Groups of the Old Palace Period (1998) 103.

176

Alessandro SANAVIA

practices where artisans, of different degrees of craftmanship, worked for different patrons in Palace and/or town contexts. Some specimens (e.g. impressed figures on pottery) attest also to a close interrelation among different materials and manufacturing processes, with a likely exchange of expertise and models.162 In pottery workshops in particular it is also probable that artisans usually specializing in one class of items (e.g. tablewares) occasionally turned their hands to the creation of different objects, such as clay figurines or appliqués decorations.163 As far as the patterns of distribution are concerned, the contexts of MM II artefacts have returned a scattered picture with no clear distinctive trends, with possibly a concentration on marine imagery from the S-W Quarter of the Palace (cf. infra). For the MM II period, animal-subject representations occur both in the Palace area – for the most part – and in town houses, in a picture substantially consistent with the general one that has emerged for the high quality pottery.164 Some MM II finds, such as those from the ‘Grande Frana’ and others reported from dumps in the Lower W Court (LXX), may be originally come from inside the Palace area. The following MM III period saw the repair, after the final destruction at the end of MM IIB, of only some areas of the Palace and the construction or reuse of only some of the major houses around, such as the House South of the ramp.165 In this transitional phase the animal iconographies register a progressive contextual shift towards domestic quarters nearby, which may be explained by the fact that the Palace was in the midst of a rebuilding, after the eartquake damages at the end of the MM IIB. New large ceremonial vases now comprise the major evidence of highly skilled plastic decorations from an already known repertoire connected to the sea (dolphins, shells), to the religious sphere (agrimia, bovids) and to the sphere of power (felines). Products of this type have been found at Chalara, ‘Acropoli Mediana’ area, at the ‘Bastione Ovest’ and from the House South of the ramp and might be to do with an interest in ritual equipment by people living around the Palace, as personal status symbols and also for the legitimizing of power by emerging elite groups.166 It must be stressed that from a diachronic perspective the same MM II animal imagerys persist in MM IIIA. An apparent continuity through the symbolic use of such motifs may be being deliberately sought by new groups that managed now the ceremonies.167 Some subjects appear more involved in the now standardized process as attested by similar appliqué figures, e.g. the agrimia, and shell appliqués, as the MM III mould from Ayia Triada may also demonstrate (Pl. XXXVIe). Agrimia, in particular, appear as one of the most represented animals of Cretan wild fauna, with a ritual function unanimously accepted. The recurrence of this animal on rocky landscapes underlines its religious relevance as an attribute of a possibly female divinity connected with the fertility.168 Bird (mostly doves) images, carved on stone vases of offering or attached as plastic decoration on jugs and specialized vessels, play a similar role inside the sacral domain as iconic signs symbolically connected to rituals.169 Until the Protopalatial period the use and manipulation of such imagery was chiefly the prerogative of leading groups responsible for administering priestly and bureaucratic activities inside the Palace (cf. e.g. sealings). The corpus of motifs on the impressed fine ware at MM II Phaistos, mainly geometric and


162 163 164 165 166 167

168

169

See MILITELLO (supra n. 43) 107-117 and SANAVIA 2017 (supra n. 96) 86. As suggested for snake appliqués from the ‘Grande Frana’: SANAVIA (supra n. 24) 53. MILITELLO (supra n. 4) 250-251. See: CARINCI and LA ROSA 2009 (supra n. 6) 223-288. GIRELLA (supra n. 6) 136-137. As noted by BLAKOLMER (supra n. 71) 62 despite the historical turning point between MM II and MM III, we hardly detect any break in the development of the arts. See R. PORTER, “The Cretan Wild Goat (Capra aegagrus cretica) and the Theran “Antelopes”,” in REESE ed. (supra n. 8) 297 and E. BLOEDOW, “The Significance of the Goat in Minoan Culture,” PZ 78 (2003) 1-59. See J. BINNBERG, “Like a duck to water-birds and liquids in the Aegean Bronze Age,” BSA 114 (2019) 41-78 for connections with pouring vessels. For MM III bird appliqués on double vases from the Kamilari tomb, see L. GIRELLA, “Gruppi e forme ceramiche del MM III,” in GIRELLA and CALOI eds (supra n. 160) 253-254. The author implies a connection with the sacral sphere during purification rituals.

ANIMALS IN CONTEXT: AN ICONOGRAPHICAL PERSPECTIVE ON MM II PHAISTOS

177

ornamental in character, includes a few animal depictions that raise questions about their role(s). Were they also decorative, as the serial placement around the surface might suggest, or were they a means of conveying information about contents, contexts of consumption, or ownership? We could possibly imagine that a sort of hierarchy was attached to these vases, which were probably linked to prominent people in the Phaistian society, and the recurrence of tableware shapes would reflect consumption during ceremonial dining and feastings.170 In these supposed contexts, animal depictions might have acted as visual devices for clan/personal ‘badges’ or to promote religious imagery and elite activities. The reason to display a vase such as the pithoid basin with painted lions from the ‘Strada Nord’ might have been the wish to convey an idea of power, symbolically transferred from an earlier Prepalatial seal, that may have been intended to enhance elite group cohesion or competition.171 The dog motif impressed on a vase, to take another example, represents an animal with a special place in early Cretan social and economic life: as hunters of prey and as companions to shepherds.172 A few MM II animals with an openly aggressive attitude, emphasized by wide toothed jaws as seen in some painted fish images or with a few dogs and lions on sealings, could have played also a magical/apotropaic role as guardian and protector for containers and contents.173 Finally, in the light of the data collected so far in the area of the S-W Quarter, it must be noted that there is a consistency in the body of visual and physical evidences connected with the marine world, mostly dated to the so-called ‘Fase dei Sacelli’ (Phase of the Shrines) in the final MM IIB period.174 The marine animals most frequently depicted were probably also eaten (e.g. marine shells). However, in any of the archaeological contexts that have yielded marine imagery, we note the presence of large amounts of faunal remains, so the link appears chiefly of a representational kind.175 Alongside the presence of some triton shells as actual specimens in Room IL and as iconic signs on sealings from Rooms LI, LIII-LV and 11,176 it is tempting to remark upon the recurrence of objects of arts inspired by the seaworld in this sector of the Palace facing the Lower W Court (LXX) (Pl. XXXVII). Some of these specimens were excavated in mixed layers near the Protopalatial façade that possibly originated as collapsed deposits or dumps/fills from clearing the rubble inside rooms of the S-W Quarter. Concerning the imagery represented by this evidence, a distinctive meaning could have underlain some strongly individualised depictions on vases, such as tunas, whose fishing requires skills and perhaps social position, which could be embodied through such images.177 Triton shells as well may have acted as “markers of power”, as attested by their presence on impressions of metal rings, property of the bureaucratic élites. During the MM II period, these large gastropods could have represented also an economic resource for a workshop, attached to the Palace, to be processed into ritual (carved specimens, plaques) or secular (ladles, spoon) implements.178


170

171 172

173

174 175 176

177

178

Cf. the pottery hierarchy proposed for an MM IB deposit on Early Magazine A at Knossos: C. MACDONALD and C. KNAPPETT, Knossos Protopalatial Deposits in Early Magazine A and the South-West Houses (2007) 161-165. For the lion imagery, see ANDERSON (supra n. 113) 345-379. A. KARETSOU and R. KOEHL, “The Minoan Mastiffs of Juktas,” in TOUCHAIS et al. eds (supra n. 12) 333-340 and J. HICKMAN, “The Dog Diadem from Mochlos,” in BETANCOURT and FERRENCE eds (supra n. 132) 95-96. For magical and apotropaic functions attributed to some MM II Phaistian appliquéd figurines, see P. MILITELLO and F. CARINCI, “Aegyptiaca in Context: Amulets and magic in Pre- and Protopalatial southern Crete,” in Proceedings of the 12th International Congress of Cretan Studies, Heraklion, 21-25.9.2016 (2018) esp. 5-8. For the ‘Phase of the Shrines’, see MILITELLO (supra n. 4) 239. See also SANAVIA (supra n. 119) 31-32. It is possible that this type of faunal remains was discarded and poorly considered. MILITELLO (supra n. 4) 254. The author hypothesizes that administrative documents from the S-W Quarter, different in typology and iconography, are possibly the results of external rather than internal movements of goods or information. D. MYLONA, “Catching tuna in the Aegean: biological background of tuna fisheries and the archaeological implications,” Anthropozoologica 56.2 (2021) 23-37. SANAVIA (supra n. 142) 544-545, Pl. CLXXIVb-c. On consumption and modification of marine

178

Alessandro SANAVIA

Despite the inconsistent picture gained and the lack of information about the contexts of use of a large part of the artefacts, the amount of finds recovered at Protopalatial Phaistos attests to a formidable impact of the animal world at various levels. The animal-focused imagery, as a tool for expressing symbolic-meanings rather than mere decorative choices, certainly remained at centre-stage also in early Neopalatial Phaistos, with a basic continuity in the selection of motifs, if now accompanied by a shift towards naturalistic depictions. The approaches to decoding such evidence at Phaistos here examined attest to how promising the study of animal iconographies is as a means by which social, religious and political structures – in addition to craftmanship too – can be tentatively evaluated. Alessandro SANAVIA



resources during LM I, also as a means for social competition, see: D. MYLONA, “Marine Resources and Coastal Communities in the Late Bronze Age Southern Aegean: A Seascape Approach,” AJA 124 (2020) esp. 205-207.

ANIMALS IN CONTEXT: AN ICONOGRAPHICAL PERSPECTIVE ON MM II PHAISTOS

179

Table 1. PHAISTOS – Palace and surroundings area: Classes of materials with animal representations MM IB-IIB (Protopalatial)

Pottery paintings Pottery impressions Phaistos Disc* Loom weights (LW) Pottery appliqués

Administrative documents (seals and sealings)

Marine fauna Fish (5), Octopuses (4), Paper nautili (1), Frogs (1)

Terrestrial fauna

Bivalve shells (17), Limpet shells (2), Top-shells (2), Dolphins (1)

Bovids (2), Bucrania (2), Agrimia (1), Dogs (1), Rams (LW) (1), Birds (LW) (1)

Shells (4), Crabs (1), Octopus? (1)

Dog? (1), Bovids (1), Birds (2)

Triton shells (3), Octopuses (3), Fish? (1)

Incised and carved decorations Clay solid figurines Note: some quadrupeds figurines may pertain to askoid-rythoid vessels

Triton shells (1), Starfish? (1)

Small finds




Lions (13), Agrimia (13) Quadrupeds (9), Dogs (6), Birds (6), Hybrid creatures (5), Insects (5), Bovids (4), Monkeys (1), Boars (1), Sphinx? (1), Ram’s head? (1), Scorpions (1) Birds (3), Agrimia (1), Dogs (1), Boars (1) Bovids (17), Quadrupeds (5)

Birds (4), Quadrupeds (2), Turtle? (1) Lion head-piece (1), Bovine hoof (1), Quadrupeds (2)

Askoid vases

Physical remains with symbolic significance

Lions (1)

Bovids/figural (16), Bovids/head (1)

Clay rhyta

Triton shells (4), Fossil shells (2), Whale vertebra (1)

Transitional MM IIB-IIIA / MM IIIA (early Neopalatial) Marine fauna Terrestrial fauna

Agrimi skull (1)

Shells* (1), Fish* (1)

Dolphins (1), Shells (2), Triton shells (1) Paper nautili (1)

Bovids* (2), Birds* (2), Quadruped/skin* (1), Agrimia/head* (1), Cats/head* (1), Bee* (1) Agrimia (3), Snakes (2), Felines? (1), Bovids (1)

Paper nautili (1)

Tridacna shells (1)

Bovids (2), Dogs (1), Boars (1) Bovids/head (4), Bovids/figural (2), Swines/figural (1), Deer head? (1)

180

Alessandro SANAVIA LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Pl. XXXIa Pl. XXXIb Pl. XXXIc Pl. XXXIIa Pl. XXXIIb Pl. XXXIIc Pl. XXXIId Pl. XXXIIIa Pl. XXXIIIb Pl. XXXIVa Pl. XXXIVb Pl. XXXIVc Pl. XXXIVd Pl. XXXIVe Pl. XXXIVf Pl. XXXIVg Pl. XXXIVh Pl. XXXVa Pl. XXXVb Pl. XXXVc Pl. XXXVd Pl. XXXVe Pl. XXXVf Pl. XXXVg Pl. XXXVIa Pl. XXXVIb Pl. XXXVIc Pl. XXXVId Pl. XXXVIe Pl. XXXVIf

Basin rim fragment from the ‘Strada Nord’ at Phaistos [F 5497] (photos by the author; drawing by G. Merlatti). Bowl from the Lower W Court (LXX) area at Phaistos [F 8137] (photo by the author; drawing by G. Merlatti). Amygdaloid clay plaque from the ‘Grotta M’ at Phaistos (photos by the author; drawing by G. Merlatti). Bird appliqué figurine from the House South of the ramp at Phaistos [F. 7698] (photos by the author). Two clay snake (horned vipers?) appliqués from the ‘Grande Frana’ at Phaistos (photos by the author; drawings by G. Merlatti). Snake-like appliqué from the ‘Grande Frana’ at Phaistos (photo by the author; drawings by G. Merlatti). Fragment of a white-coated head-shaped bull rhyton from the area W of the Geometric Room AA at Phaistos (photo by the author). Bridge-spouted jar with agrimi appliqué from the ‘Bastione Ovest’ at Phaistos [F 5509] (photo courtesy of the Italian Archaeological School at Athens). Bridge-spouted jar with agrimi appliqué from the ‘Grande Frana’ at Phaistos (photos by the author; drawing by G. Merlatti). Jar rim fragment from the ‘Canale Minoico’ at Phaistos (photo by the author; drawing by G. Merlatti). Jar rim fragments from the Lower W Court (LXX) at Phaistos (photos by the author; drawing by G. Merlatti). Jar side fragment from the ‘Grande Frana’ at Phaistos (photo by the author; drawing by G. Merlatti). Cup side fragment from Room delta at Chalara N, Phaistos (photo by the author; drawing by G. Merlatti). Cup side fragment from the ‘Tempio Ellenico’ area at Phaistos (photo by the author; drawing by G. Merlatti). Jar rim fragment from the ‘Saggi a Sud del Palazzo’ at Phaistos (photo courtesy of the Italian Archaeological School at Athens). Selection of shell-like impressed motifs, intended to represent bivalve shells, at Phaistos (drawings by G. Merlatti). Carinated cup with shell-like impressed decorations from the ‘Grotta M’ at Phaistos (photo by the author; drawings by G. Merlatti). Lion’s head ivory piece from Room LI at Phaistos [F 477b] (photo courtesy of the Italian Archaeological School at Athens). Bovine hoof ivory piece from Room LI at Phaistos [F 477c] (photo courtesy of the Italian Archaeological School at Athens). Zoomorphic stone pebble from the ‘Grande Frana’ at Phaistos [F 8138] (drawing by G. Merlatti). Creamy-white coated four-armed clay piece from the ‘Grotta M’ at Phaistos (photos by the author; drawing by G. Merlatti) Creamy-white coated clay Tridacna shell from the area W of the Geometric Room AA at Phaistos (photos by the author). Triton shell clay tip painted in the Kamares style from the Lower W Court (LXX) area at Phaistos (photo by the author; drawing by G. Merlatti). Fragment of a fossil sea urchin (Clypeaster sp.) from the ‘Grande Frana’ at Phaistos (photo by the author). Teapot rim fragment with protruding shell-like motifs from the ‘Saggi a Sud del Palazzo’ at Phaistos (photo courtesy of the Italian Archaeological School at Athens). Basin rim fragment with appliquéd shell-like motif from the ‘Bastione II’ at Phaistos (photo by the author). Rounded cup rim fragment with appliquéd marine decorations from the ‘Bastione II’ at Phaistos (photo by the author; drawings by G. Merlatti). Rounded bowl rim fragment with appliquéd top-shell (Monodonta sp.) from the area of the paved Ramps (photo by the author; drawings by G. Merlatti). Basin rim fragment with shell-like appliqués from the area of the paved Ramps (photos by the author). Creamy-white coated low-relief paper nautilus appliqué from Phaistos [F 7321] (photo by the author).

ANIMALS IN CONTEXT: AN ICONOGRAPHICAL PERSPECTIVE ON MM II PHAISTOS

181

Pl. XXXVIg Clay mould for shell-like appliqué, and modern cast, from Ayia Triada [HTR 1663] (photos by the author). Pl. XXXVII The S-W Quarter and the Lower W Court (LXX) area at Phaistos with the indication find-spots of some MM II visual and physical evidences connected with the marine world (after F. TOMASELLO, “L’Architettura. Considerazioni preliminari sull’articolazione degli spazi,” in LA ROSA ed. [supra n. 6] fig. 3; adapted by the author).

XXXI

a

b

c

XXXII

a

b

c

d

XXXIII

a

b

XXXIV

a b

d

c

f

e

g

h

XXXV

b

a

c

d

e

f

g

XXXVI

a

b

c

d

f

e

g

XXXVII

MINOAN TAXONOMY: ART ORDERS FAUNA Introduction Cretan art is largely recognized for its numerous animal representations in various media and formats. Early on, studies on the Minoan iconographic style have led to various interpretations. A notable example being the existence of a goddess of nature,1 implying a cult of fauna and flora, which not only considers each species as having equal importance, but also believes in a peaceful and mystical cohabitation between man and animal.2 The development of archaeozoological excavation data in recent years has made it possible to take another look at these interpretations by filling the few gaps with an interdisciplinary study approach. Despite the lack of contemporary epigraphic sources, the synthesis of iconographic and zoological elements for the period from EM III to LM II confirms the attraction of the Minoans for the animal world, but it also makes it possible to put forward new hypotheses of interpretation. Without being fully innovative, this method still shows us a certain classification of species, although not phylogenetic, the existence of an order of importance and a differentiation of animals alluding to their usefulness in society. The chronological phases from M III to LM II allow us to perceive how the human-animal bond changes over time. The study of animal representations underlines several goals: to illustrate the animal as a food source and as tools of survival; to illustrate the animal as a symbol, ritual or political; and finally, to use the animal as a simple decorative instrument. In this paper, I will use the funding from my PhD dissertation on which this paper is based, “Un bestiaire minoen : étude iconographique des animaux dans le monde minoen”, and I will put forward how this interdisciplinary method makes it possible to approach the Minoan way of thinking by synthesizing data from art and archaeozoology. Animal Use in Daily Life The very first iconographic reproductions of animals are very schematic, and up to MM II, images are principally of bovidae3 on figurines, tableware, and seals. Apart from a few birds designed on jewellery pieces,4 other species represented have only been found on seals, and consist of insects, snakes, and, in a few instances, monkeys.5 Through these representations, it is now possible to challenge the assumption of equal representation and treatment of all species. Minoan craftsmen were already prioritizing the animals depicted, as all the marine fauna were absent from the iconography, as well as other species endemic to Crete. It seems that the emphasis was placed on portraying animals domesticated by man. Bovidae, goats, sheep, oxen or bulls, were all animals either present in the herds or hunted by the Minoans.6 Hunting


1 2

3

4 5 6

N. MARINATOS, Minoan Religion. Ritual, Image, and Symbol (1993). V.P. HERVA, “Flower Lovers, after all? Rethinking Religion and Human-Environment Relations in Minoan Crete,” World Archaeology 38.4 (2006) 586-598; C. STARR, “Minoan Flower Lovers,” in R. HÄGG and N. MARINATOS (eds), The Minoan Thalassocracy, Myth and Reality. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 31 May-5 June, 1982 (1984) 9-12; N. MARINATOS, Minoan Sacrificial Ritual. Cult Practice and Symbolism (1986). The Bovidae comprise the biological family of cloven-hoofed, ruminant vertebrates that includes antelopes, sheep, goats, muskoxen, and cattle. CMS II,1 112, 438. M. PAREJA, Monkey and Ape Iconography in Aegean Art (2017); CMS II,1 435. O. KRZYSZKOWSKA, “Cutting to the Chase. Hunting in Minoan Crete,” in G. TOUCHAIS, R. LAFFINEUR, and F. ROUGEMONT (eds), PHYSIS. L’environnement naturel et la relation homme-milieu dans le monde égéen protohistorique. Actes de la 14e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Paris, Institut National d’Histoire de l’Art

184

Alizée LEGENDART

scenes are depicted on some seals, and the association of herd and men is also found on the Palaikastro bowl.7 This human influence can be seen on seals decorated with insects, which can also be depicted alone, but in some cases, they are also associated with a human figure.8 The appearance of other species in what could be designated an iconographic bestiary, chiefly begins during MM II. This period is marked by important social changes,9 and artistic criteria evolve.10 Commercial exchanges intensify and bring with them a taste for exoticism.11 An artistic acculturation transpires when craftsmen begin to copy or draw inspiration from the creations of neighbouring societies. Thus, new methods of artistic realization appear associated with new themes. New terrestrial species are depicted, such as cats, dogs, pigs, and more easily identified birds such as hoopoes or columbids. LM I marks an artistic climax with the development of the famous marine style12 and the appearance of a large number of new species. When examining this development in art, it is important to highlight that the animals depicted in the first artistic works are those that are still predominantly present in the next phases of the Cretan art. Even in the marine style, fishing scenes were created to accentuate the mastery of man over this environment. In other words, the addition of new species does not alter the impression of order created by Minoan craftsmen, who appear to have illustrated in greater numbers the animals they mastered in their daily lives. The iconography and the archaeozoological remains discovered during these periods in Crete will allow us to support this axiom. Numerous food wastes have been unearthed on various Cretan sites from the EM periods to the beginning of MM I. The sites of Phaistos, Knossos, Haghia Triada and Prinias,13 show a high concentration of goats in the different inhabited areas of the island. It is difficult to distinguish




7 8 9

10

11

12

13

(INHA), 11-14 décembre 2012 (2014) 341-347; B. WILKENS, “Hunting and Breeding in Ancient Crete,” in E. KOTJABOPOULOU et al. (eds), Zooarchaeology in Greece. Recent Advances (2003) 85-90; D. HUGHES, “Hunting in the Ancient Mediterranean World,” in L. KALOF and B. POHL-RESL (eds), A Cultural History of Animals (2007) 47-70 and 205-208. J. REID, Minoan Kato Zakro. A Pastoral Economy (2007) 73-74 (Heralion Museum 2903). CMS III 173b. C. BROODBANK, “Colonization and Configuratin in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegean,” P. HALSTEAD (ed.), Neolithic Society in Greece (1999) 15-41; I. SCHOEP, P. TOMKINS, and J. DRIESSEN (eds), Back to the Beginning. Reassessing Social and Political Complexity on Crete during the Early and Middle Bronze Age (2012). R. LAFFINEUR and J.L. CROWLEY (eds), EIKΩN. Aegean Bronze Age Iconography: Shaping a Methodology. Proceedings or the 4th International Aegean Conference, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia, 6-9 April 1992 (1992); P. DARCQUE and J.-C. POURSAT (eds), L’iconographie minoenne. Actes de la Table ronde d’Athènes, 21-22 avril 1983 (1985). J. PHILLIPS, Aegyptiaca on the Island of Crete in their Chronological Context: a Critical Review (2008); M. NICOLAKAKI-KENTROU, “Artists exchanging Vocabularies: the Dot-rosette Motif on Ceramics and Textiles of 2nd Millennium BC in Egypt and the Aegean,” in S. ANTONIADOU and A. PACE (eds), Mediterranean Crossroads (2007) 361-385. P.P. BETANCOURT, “Further Observations on the Marine Style,” AJA 81 (1977) 561; P.A. MOUNTJOY, “Attributions in the LIM IB Marine Style,” AJA 81 (1977) 557-560; P.P. BETANCOURT, “A Marine Style Gold Ring from the Haghios Charalambos Ossuary: Symbolic Use of Cockle Shells in Minoan Crete?,” in P.P. BETANCOURT and S.C. FERRENCE (eds), Metallurgy: Understanding How, Learning why. Studies in Honor of James D. Muhly (2011) 117-123; N. DIMOPOULOURETHEMIOTAKI, “The Marine Style Ewer from Poros,” in P.P. BETANCOURT, V. KARAGEORGHIS, R. LAFFINEUR and W.-D. NIEMEIER (eds), MELETEMATA. Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He enters his 65th Year (1999) 217-226. M. JARMAN, “Human Influence in the Development of the Cretan Mammalian Fauna,” in D.S. REESE (ed.), Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and its first Settlers (1996) 211-229; A. GARDEISEN, “Les assemblages archéozoologiques de mammifères,” in C. KNAPPETT et al. (ed.), Deux dépôts MM IIA dans le secteur Pi de Malia, BCH 141 (2017) 535-538; D. MYLONA, “The Fish Remains,” in J.A. MACGILLIVRAY and L.H. SACKETT (eds), Palaikastro. Building 1 (2019) 373-386; S. WALLCROWTHER, “The Animal Bones,” in MACGILLIVRAY and SACKETT eds, Ibidem 425-434.

MINOAN TAXONOMY: ART ORDERS FAUNA

185

sheep from goats in the wildlife remains discovered;14 as a result, in many archaeological reports the two are often presented in a single category called ‘ovis vel capra’. Quantitatively, the domestic pig is the second most represented species on Minoan sites. The sus scrofa domesticus had an appearance like that of the wild boar, the differentiation between the two animals is determined by the size of the bones. Indeed, the domesticated pig is about ten centimeters smaller than its feral cousin.15 In smaller quantities, the osteological remains of both taurus oxen and bulls are present at all man-made sites on the island.16 Traces of cuts were present on the bones discovered, leaving no doubt as to their consumption. For the EM I to MM I period the convergence of osteological data with the representations confirms the preference of the craftsmen to depict the animals they were breeding as a priority. However, a discrepancy in the proportion of the species depicted and those consumed is visible. Contrary to the iconography, the greatest number of osteological remains were not from bulls or oxen, but ovis capra, while the highly consumed scrofa sus scrofa was only rarely represented. The osteological classification is therefore different from that of the iconographic bestiary. Some sites have revealed the remains of small mammals such as mice, weasels, and martens. Traces of the existence of dogs were also visible,17 and some faunal remains with traces of man-made cuts were marked by canine bites.18 Additionally, many fish and mollusc remains have been found at various sites on the island. These bones have mainly come from contexts close to dwellings, dumps, mixed with ceramic remains and mammalian bones.19 This confirms the desire of the craftsmen to order nature according to their desires or needs by excluding certain animals from their representations even if those animals were present in daily life. While animal representations became more diverse from MM onwards, there have been no drastic changes observed in the zoological remains of that period. Some bones, however, have made it possible to determine the process of domestication from MM II more clearly. One must keep in mind that the presence of animal bones in a habitat is not a formal indication of domestication in all cases: only changes in the animal skeleton provide evidence of true domestication. This phenomenon applies when a small number of animals are isolated from the wild species, the animal population thus extracted might experience a microevolutionary phenomenon by adapting to the conditions of breeding.20 The comparison of iconographic and osteological data highlights one of the human-animal relationships in Minoan society. This is the attraction for domesticated, consumed, and non-hazardous species for humans, which could also help them in certain tasks, such as cattle for farming. The choice of species represented demonstrates the unequal treatment of animals and poses the first criticism of the


14

15

16

17 18 19

20

M.A. ZEDER and H.A LAPHAM, “Assessing the Reliability of Criteria Used to Identify Postcranial Bones in Sheep, Ovis, and Goats, Capra,” Journal of Archaeological Science 37.11 (2010), 2887-2905. P. ROWLEY-CONWY, D. SERGEANTSON, and P. HALSTEAD, Economic Zooarchaeology: Studies in Hunting, Herding and Early Agriculture (2017). WALL-CROWTHER (supra n. 13); B. WILKENS, “The Fauna from Italian Excavation on Crete,” in REESE ed. (supra n. 13) 241-261; ID., “I Resti Faunistici Di Haghia Triada (Creta) in Età Neo e Postpalaziale. Nota Preliminare,” Atti e Memorie del Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia 3 (1996) 1511-1520; F. CHAPOUTHIER, P. DEMARGNE, and A. DESSENNE, Fouilles exécutées à Mallia. Quatrième rapport. Exploration du palais, bordure méridionale et recherches complémentaires (1929-1935 et 1946-1960) (1962). WILKENS (supra n. 6). WILKENS 1996 (supra n. 16). MYLONA (supra n. 13); M. NIKOLAIDOU and E. ELSTER, “Hunting, Fishing and Gathering at Sitagroi and Beyond: Strategies of Wild Resource Use in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age,” in TOUCHAIS et al. eds (supra n. 6) 305-314; T. THEODOROPOULOU, “Fishing in Dark Waters: A Review of the Archaeological and Archaeozoological Evidence of the Exploitation of Aquatic Resources in the Greek Early Iron Age,” in A. MAZARAKIS AINIAN (ed.), The ‘Dark Ages’ Revisited. Acts of an International Symposium in Memory of William D.E. Coulson, University of Thessaly, Volos, 14-17 June 2007 (2011) 1039-1057. L. GIRDLAND-FLINK, “Archaeological, Morphological and Genetic Approaches to Pig Domestication,” in S. COLLEDGE (ed.), The Origins and Spread of Domestic Animals in Southwest Asia and Europe (2013) 27-48.

186

Alizée LEGENDART

hypothesis of symbiosis between man and nature. Wild species appear in the bestiary during MM II, sometimes even dangerous to man, such as the snake or the lion. These appear in media and in contexts that are mostly charged with symbolic connotations. Animals as symbols Representations of nature in Minoan iconography have made it possible to establish the bestiary of the species represented. It is possible to subdivide this bestiary with our modern vision of animals by classifying the species according to their habitats: the sky, the earth, and the sea. However, this classification is biased because although it facilitates the analysis of the representations, it distorts in a certain way, the Minoan vision. Perhaps this society did not perceive the animal world in this manner. Indeed, this classification implies a scientific observation of nature, with the aim of listing and transmitting information about the beings depicted in the images. In the first classification attestations known in history,21 the aim was to draw up a census of beings to establish their usefulness, their nuisance, or their dangerousness. Archeozoological data coupled with iconography shows us a dissonance between art and nature. The presence of animals in art is not representative of reality. There are scenes of animals that do not seem to inhabit the island, such as the monkey or the lion, of which no zoological remains have been found.22 There is also the issue of the imaginary and hybrid animals such as the griffon or species known as genii,23 that have been depicted. The existence of these representations therefore implies a purpose different from the scientific census. The aim of art is to disseminate, its message is not only naturalistic, but it also rests in additional indirect information distilled in some figures. The animal is emphasized for its usefulness in the life of the Minoans, but it seems that some species also have a symbolic function. A symbol is a mediator between our physical and tangible world and the world of thought. It is a sign, a material object serving as a mark of recognition between initiates. In the case of Minoan art, representations that are charged with a certain symbolic value, are represented by an object, a form, a material, or even a colour, and include the point of view of Minoan culture. The symbol invites us to discover a layered reality, scratching under the most external appearances and meanings. It is a language that depends on the culture and the context in which it is used. The role of art as a visual code of communication was long examined by Panofsky,24 who proposed the term ‘iconography’ to describe this branch of art: the history and study of the meanings of works of art rather than their form. Tilley continued to promote the perception of material culture associated with its iconography as a means of communication.25 The information contained in art functions as vehicles through which complex ideas are communicated to others.26 Determining a work as being symbolic presents virtually no risk of interpretation. However, establishing just what that symbol represents can very quickly interfere with its study. In order to justify the interpretation of images, it is important to establish a ‘critical visual methodology’, which takes into account representations in terms of cultural meaning and social practices.27 Studies on material culture owe much to semiotic theory, which considers all cultural processes


21 22

23

24 25 26

27

Pliny, NH IX. M. BALLINTIJN, “Lions Depicted on Aegean Seals. How Realistic Are they?,” in W. MÜLLER (ed.), Sceaux minoens et mycéniens. IVe symposium international, Clermont-Ferrand, 10-12 septembre 1992, (1995) 23-37; L. BARTOSIEWICZ, “A Lion’s Share of Attention: Archaeozoology and the Historical Record,” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 60.1 (2009) 275-289; C. GREENLAW, The Representation of Monkeys in the Art and Thought of Mediterranean Cultures. A new Perspective on Ancient Primates (2011). E. HALLAGER and J. WEINGARTEN, “The Five Roundels from Malia with a Note on Two New Minoan Genii,” BCH 117 (1993) 1-18. E. PANOFSKY, Studies in Iconology. Humanistic Themes in the Art of the Renaissance (1972). C. TILLEY, Metaphor and Material Culture (1999). I. HODDER, “Contextual Analysis of Symbolic Meanings,” in I. HODDER (ed.), The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings (1987) 1-10. G. ROSE, Visual Methodologies. An Introduction to the Interpretation of Visual Materials (2007) xiv-xv.

MINOAN TAXONOMY: ART ORDERS FAUNA

187

to be those of communication;28 and proposes fundamental concepts for making visible, the codes embedded in objects, and in art objects. Thus, symbolism can be expressed in different ways. When it comes to the performance of a ritual, for example, an object used or the context in which artefacts and representations are found, allow us to identify this symbolism. The zoomorphic decorations present on objects dedicated to the performance of rituals are therefore suffused with metaphorical importance. The best examples are the rhyta:29 either zoomorphic in form or decorated with animals, these vessels were specifically used in the performance of rituals. Even if the purposes of these rituals are unknown to us, their function is not in doubt. In these cases, it is not the species specifically represented that is a symbol but its presence on a ritual object that places it at a different level of importance to other species. The same applies to objects discovered in ritual contexts, in identified cult areas, such as peak sanctuaries, palace or domestic sanctuaries and necropolises. In this case, the object on which the fauna is depicted returns its symbolism to the animal. The same applies to certain objects that only exist in ritual contexts, for instance, zoomorphic figurines that have been found in very large numbers in peak sanctuaries.30 Their workmanship and materials are not of great quality, but their presence in these places shows their importance in Minoan thought. By specifically examining the species represented on these objects or in sacred contexts, it becomes very clear that not all the animals existing in Crete have been illustrated in this context. Once again, a selection of the animals present in the art was made. The vast majority are cattle, species present only in ritual contexts such as the snake, the tortoise,31 non-endemic, or foreign species such as the lion and the monkey. This further intensifies the importance given by Minoans to specific animals, in addition to their strong representations, they also enjoy a certain privilege by being associated with the performance of rituals. Symbolism is not only ritual, but it can also be associated with power. This idea is reflected in the decorations of Cretan seals. Studies carried out have made it possible to differentiate the use of these objects. Some of them have an administrative function, and others were talismanic, while some still remain uncertain32. For each specific use of these seals, the presence of an animal associates the species with the usefulness of the object; therefore, the seal integrates the symbolism of the depicted animal. Indeed, whether the object is a representation of the power of its owner, a jewel or an apotropaic piece, the object has a symbolic value. It is difficult to determine the exact scope of the data that these animal representations are supposed to disseminate in this context. Yet, it is important to note the presence of certain species found only on seals. Spiders and scorpions, for example, are only depicted in images on these media, and this from the EM era. In contrast to the other animals depicted, these arachnids could well be an instance of purely symbolic animals: it would no longer be the medium that gives it its importance, but rather the animal that gives the object its symbolism. The only other examples of animals bringing their symbolic power charge concern specific staging: when man is associated with the animal in the representations. These scenes can be seen on the seals, and on a few frescoes. The theme represented is mainly the hunting of bovidae or wild boar, and sometimes the lion, but also representations of the mastery of animals.33 This last motif consists of a man or a woman


28

29 30

31 32

33

U. ECO, A Theory of Semiotics (1977) 8-9; G. RETHEMIOTAKIS, “Images and Semiotics in Space: The Case of the Anthropomorphic Figurines from Kophinas,” KretChron 34 (2014) 147-162. R.B. KOEHL, Aegean Bronze Age Rhyta (2006); G. KARO, “Minoische Rhyta,” JdI 26 (1911) 249-270. D.W. JONES, Peak Sanctuaries and Sacred Caves in Minoan Crete. A Comparison of Artifacts (1999); A. KARETSOU, “The Peak Sanctuaries of Mt. Juktas,” in R. HÄGG and N. MARINATOS (eds), Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the First International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens 12-13 May 1980 (1981) 137-153; G. KORDATZAKI, “Supplying the Peak Sanctuary at Vrysinas with Pottery: A Plethora of Fabric-Families as Fingerprint of Cultural Complexity,” in N. ZACHARIAS et al. (eds), Praktika 5 Simposiou Hellenikis Archaiometrikis Hetairias, Athina 2008 (2012) 443-458; E. KYRIAKIDIS, Ritual in the Bronze Age Aegean. The Minoan Peak Sanctuaries (2003). B. RUTKOWSKI, Petsophas. A Cretan Peak Sanctuary (1991) figs 1-5. J.G. YOUNGER, “Aegean Seals of the Late Bronze Age: Masters and Workshops,” Kadmos 22 (1984) 109-132; E. ANDERSON, Seals, Craft, and Community in Bronze Age Crete (2016). J.L. CROWLEY, “The Aegean Master of Animals: The Evidence of the Seals, Signets and Sealings,” in D.B. COUNTS and B. ARNOLD (eds), The Master of Animals in Old World Iconography (2010) 75-91.

188

Alizée LEGENDART

carrying animals at arm’s length, mostly bovidae. The most widespread representation of animal control is still bull leaping, which is portrayed on many media. Once again, we notice that these images are mostly of animals from the herd, further intensifying a difference in treatment between the different animals, with greater importance accorded to domestic species. In the specific case of the iconography of seals, the image approaches archaeozoological data with a great propensity for representations of wild boars, which are highly consumed. The numerous representations of hunting scenes or of taurokathapsia on seals imply a power dynamic with the animal, not an egalitarian and peaceful cohabitation. It is a message of mastery of nature that is distilled in artistic representations. Art therefore mainly depicts everyday animals and gives them varying degrees of importance. Animal as decor Art is, as we have mentioned, a means of expression and communication, but it is also a search for beauty. Certain artistic standards seek a balance in representation, by filling in gaps or creating frames in the image. If we look at Minoan illustrations, we notice the creation of a quadrat:34 the elements depicted are not made in a corner of the support. They are usually centered or accompanied by ornamental elements such as lines or dots. It seems that certain representations of animals in specific cases were therefore also purely aesthetic. This does not detract from the animal’s symbolic potential in other illustrations. As art is constantly evolving, Minoan motifs have undergone a stylistic evolution which has caused each work to lose or gain in symbolic value. The evolution of the sea urchin is a very good example of this. Represented only as a species in the marine style, it began to be used as an aesthetic motif like a rosette and ended up being used in decorations that no longer considered it as a sea urchin but as simply an ornament. The gold pendant in the shape of a duck discovered in Knossos,35 the frog-like pearl from Koumasa 36 or the one depicted on a vase from Phaistos, 37 could be examples of decorative representations. The same applies to the earthenware shells from the shrine of Knossos38 and shells applied to certain vases as a decorative frieze.39 Their realizations were intended to showcase artistic talent. Of course, this does not take away the symbolic significance of these animals when they are put into situations in other contexts. To conclude, iconography provides us with the necessary clues to understand Minoan culture, but the interpretation of this coded language must be constantly reevaluated by integrating as much archaeological and archaeozoological data as possible into the study. Zoological art is an open window on the Minoan bestiary and allows us to perceive the importance that some species had in comparison to others. This shows that Minoan society was not focused on peaceful cohabitation with all the species of the living world. The choice to represent only a few animals to the exclusion of others that were present in their daily lives, highlights a choice of classification. The animal that is mastered is more significant and deserves more attention from artists. Alizée LEGENDART


34

35 36 37 38 39

This artistic denomination is inspired by the hieroglyphic quadrat, a virtual rectangle or square that guides the hand of the scribe, nothing being drawn outside of this square. See R. SCHUMANNANTELME and S. ROSSINI, Illustrated Hieroglyphics Handbook (1998) 13-14. G.A. CHRISTOPOULOS and I.K. BASTIAS (eds), Prehistory and Protohistory (1974) 204. J.-C. POURSAT, L’art égéen I (2008) 176, fig. 155. G. WALBERG, Kamares. A Study of the Character of Palatial Middle Minoan Pottery (1976) 67, fig. 48.25. M.L. MOSS, The Minoan Pantheon. Towards an Understanding of its Nature and Extent (2005) 55. C. DAVARAS, “The “Cult Villa” at Makrygialos,” in R. HÄGG (ed.), The Function of the ‘Minoan Villa’. Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 6-8 June, 1992 (1997) fig.8, 118.

C. HYBRID AND FANTASTIC CREATURES































CONJOINED ANIMALS ON AEGEAN SEALS*




This paper aims to discuss images of similar animals joined together in one device that are encountered in Aegean glyptic. The images will be first defined and then discussed based on examples from the various periods in the Aegean Bronze Age with the aim of comprehending their significance for the societies that produced them. The term ‘conjoined animals’ The term ‘conjoined animal’ is used here to refer to a composite iconographical device put together by two or more similar animals or animal body parts that are fused at the same part of the body (Pl. XXXVIIIa). The concept of multiplication and symmetry is central to the creation of these devices: their constituent elements usually belong to the same species or have at least the same general form (e.g. two quadrupeds); and each plays a similar role in the final composite which is symmetrical (e.g. arm of a whirling device). The constituent elements are shown in the same depth on the seal face and are fused directly to one another so that the resulting device may be seen as one composite body. It is perceived as a tightly bound single unit put together by more than one secondary unit: e.g. two bulls sharing a frontal head (primary unit) = bull in profile + bull in profile (secondary units). Conjoined animals versus animals combined in ornamental or other schemes Not all images of similar animals/animal parts that appear in some kind of physical contact are categorised here as conjoined animals (Pl. XXVIIIa). Many animal combinations are best seen not as fused to one primary unit but as syntheses of two or more primary units. Animals joined with each other by way of elements that do not constitute part of their bodies, such as short lines and circular elements, are not categorised as conjoined because their bodies are not literally fused (e.g. Pl. XXXVIIIb: X 294). Animal parts combined with each other in schemes that are typical of conjoined animals but not directly joined, such as two antithetical dog foreparts emanating from the waist of a boar (?)-man outwards, could represent conjoined animals meant to be shown behind the central figure; or animal foreparts joined to the central motif; or even complete animals whose hindquarters are hidden behind the central motif (e.g. Pl. XXXVIIIb: VII 126). Due to this complication in understanding them, they are not taken into consideration in this contribution. Many closely adjacent animals/animal parts whose contours are clearly delineated at the points where they abut are not seen as conjoined when the final effect of the image is that of separate bodies touching one another as opposed to that of one composite body (e.g. Pl. XXXVIIIb: VS1A 326a). Animals with parts of their bodies overlapping in a manner that suggests that one is shown in front of the other are also not categorised as conjoined. Τwo antithetical horned quadrupeds, for example, are read as two animals combined in a heraldic composition when their horns are simply crossing each other, because it is evident from the execution of the device that the horns are not fused but shown in different depths (e.g. Pl. XXXVIIIb: XI 197). However, they are considered as conjoined animals when their heads are fused above the eyes, preventing an explicit recognition as clearly separate units (e.g. Pl. XXXVIIIb: II,3 133). Finally, images of interaction between dissimilar animals, such as animal attack scenes, in which one of the animals appears to be fused with the body of the other are not relevant to the term as
*







I want to thank Robert Laffineur and Thomas Palaima for asking me to contribute with a paper to this volume and giving me the opportunity to write on a subject that had not been handled in scholarship up to know. Diana Wolf proofread my English, for which I am grateful.

192

Maria ANASTASIADOU

used here because they do not aim to depict animals joined into one body, but are abbreviations of scenes involving animal interaction (e.g. Pl. XXXVIIIb: XII 59b). Conjoined animals versus other Aegean composites Conjoined animals differ markedly from other Aegean composites, such as the griffin or the Minoan Genius, which are identified as hybrid creatures and are also created by the combination of animal parts into a coherent body. These latter are composed by different body parts that belong to different animals which are combined in one unit. In this each plays a unique role: e.g. head of a bird of prey (one head) + body of a lion (one body) + wings of a bird of prey (two wings) = griffin.1 In contrast to conjoined animals, such composites appear as strictly single individuals (one unit = one individual). Types of conjoined animals More than one hundred devices of conjoined animals have been recorded at the CMS but a few more are also known from other publications and some may possibly remain unpublished (Pls XXXIX-XL).2 They are most commonly put together by combinations of quadrupeds. Lions and dogs/lions are most frequent whereas bovines/bulls follow with notably fewer examples. Other horned quadrupeds that may possibly be identified as goats, rams, and perhaps deer are encountered more rarely (e.g. Pl. XL: XI 143c). In one case, quadrupeds with rear-parts which take the form of a loop are also represented (e.g. Pl. XL: II,6 281). Waterfowl and arachnids, the scorpion and the spider, are sporadically attested (e.g. Pl. XXXIXa: IX 25c). Body parts range from sole animal heads with necks (e.g. Pl. XL: VII 253a); to animal foreparts (e.g. Pl. XL: II,2 78c), or less frequently, rear parts (e.g. Pl. XL: VS3 20); and also headless animals (e.g. Pl. XL: II,2 104a). When whole animals are fused, they share a body part, which is most commonly a frontally rendered head (Pl. XXXIXa). In several of these cases, the animal heads can be observed in two manners, either shown in profile, if only half of the head is observed, or frontally, if the totality of the head is looked at (e.g. Pl. XXXIXa: I 46). Animal parts rarely share a part, such as the muzzle in the case of three radially combined frontal animal heads (Pl. XXXIXb: III 44). Most often, they are fused at the point in which they have been separated from the animal’s body, e.g. the waist in case of foreparts/rear-parts and the neck/shoulder in case of headless animals. As a rule, the constituent elements of conjoined animals extend behind the point in which they are fused. In an unusual exception to this, two dogs/lions combined in a swastika scheme are fused at their waist and their bodies extend to either side of it (Pl. XXXIXa: VI 45c). This is, however, a device on the cusp of the identification as conjoined. The animals may be seen as fused at the waist (conjoined); or as one shown in front (‘on top’) of the other as is the case with other animals of the same type encountered in similar configurations.3 Depending on whether the constituent elements of the device are bilaterally symmetrical (frontal/dorsal view, view from above/below) or asymmetrical (profile view) and the manner in which they are joined, the resulting motifs may be bilaterally, radially, or (solely) rotationally symmetrical. Bilaterally symmetrical devices are created by the antithetical combination of two constituent elements
For the form of the Minoan Genius, see for example M.A.V. GILL, “The Minoan « Genius »,” AM 79 (1964) 1-21; J. WEINGARTEN, The Transformation of Egyptian Taweret into the Minoan Genius. A Study in Cultural Transmission in the Middle Bronze Age (1991). For that of the griffin, see for example C. DELPLACE, “Le griffon créto-mycénien,” AntCl 36 (1967) 49-86 (49); E. SHANK, “The Griffin Motif – An Evolutionary Tale,” in A. VLACHOPOULOS (ed.) Χρωστήρες / Paintbrushes. Wall-Painting and Vase-Painting of the Second Millennium BC in Dialogue (2018) 235-241 (235-238). As for example the device in O. KRZYSZKOWSKA, “Further seals from the cemetery at Petras,” in M. TSIPOPOULOU (ed.) Petras, Siteia. The Pre- and Proto-palatial Cemetery in Context. Acts of a Two-Day Conference Held at the Danish Institute at Athens, 14-15 February 2015 (2017) 143-157 (148, Fig. 4 no. PTSK14.2242c). E.g. CMS II,5 no. 283; II,6 no. 225.

1

2

3




CONJOINED ANIMALS ON AEGEAN SEALS


193

that results in one being the mirror image of the other with reference to their point of fusion. Images of two whole profile animals that share a frontal head, but also those of animal foreparts joined at the waist, are commonly created in this manner (Pl. XXXIXa-b: mirror). Radially symmetrical devices are created by the combination of three or more symmetrical constituent elements that are evenly arranged in rotation angles within a circle: e.g. three elements in 120° and four in 90° rotation. A device of four spiders arranged in a cross configuration and sharing a head is a good representative of this device type (Pl. XXXIXa-b: radial). Bilaterally and radially symmetrical devices are static in their essence but, depending on the body part in which their constituent elements are fused, they may create a centrifugal (e.g. waist) or centripetal (e.g. head) impression. Rotationally symmetrical devices are created by the combination of two or more bilaterally asymmetrical elements that are depicted in the same profile and are symmetrically arranged in various rotational angles within a notional circle: e.g. two elements in 180° rotation, three elements in 120° rotation (Pls XXXIXa-b and XL: rotation). Such devices are most often put together by animal parts but rare exceptions of whole animals such as that of bovines sharing one head are also attested (e.g. Pl. XXXIXa: XI 249). The number of constituent elements in rotationally symmetrical devices usually ranges from two to four but a whirl of six ram heads is also attested (Pl. XL: II,8 35). Whirls of ‘beaked’ heads with necks that are common in Protopalatial seals may have as many as eight heads but these are not taken into consideration here because they may belong to either humans or animals.4 Rotationally symmetrical devices are motioned images as they create the impression that they are rotating in one direction. The constituent elements of the devices are not always absolutely identical. In the case of the swastika of dogs/lions discussed above, for example, two arms of the swastika have a different shape than the other two because of the unusual circumstance that the animals are fused (?) at the waist and their bodies continue to either side of it in their natural form (Pl. XXXIXa: VI 45c). As a result of this, both the fore- and the rear-parts of the quadrupeds function as swastika arms. One arm in a fourarmed whirl of quadrupeds is configured as a head whereby all other arms take the form of animal bodies (Pl. XL: II,2 299c). This is probably the result of miscalculation of the available space for engraving a fourth body. In some devices the combined quadrupeds have a somewhat different body posture in that, for instance, one looks to the front and the other to the back (Pl. XL: II,3 221). On a few occasions, two quadrupeds of different species, such as a lion and a bovine, are combined (Pl. XXXIXb: VS1B 142). Despite such asymmetries in the constituent elements in all above devices, a basic general symmetry is preserved. The swastika of dogs/lions is, for example, rotationally symmetrical because both types of body parts that constitute the swastika arms have a similar size and curve in the same direction. The conjoined lion and bovine device is, in its essence, a bilaterally symmetrical motif because the bodies, postures, and size of the animals are similar. Conjoined animals in time The first image of conjoined animals is attested on seals of the late Prepalatial (EM III-MM IA) Parading Lions Group.5 This is a rotational device of three headless lions that is contained within a border (Pl. XL: VS3 324). It differs from later devices of this type in that two of the animals are fused neck-to-back as opposed to the same part of the body. Two lions on another seal face of the same group are also combined neck-to-back in a rotational motif, but these may not be seen as conjoined because the neck of each animal seems to continue under the body of the other and extend beyond it.6
For this device, see M. ANASTASIADOU, The Middle Minoan Three-Sided Soft Stone Prism. A Study of Style and Iconography (2011) 204 Motif 67: ‘Beaked’ bust; and the relevant devices in for example p. 315 Repetition compound 15: Four-armed whirl; p. 316 Repetition compound 17: Whirl. For this group, see P. YULE, Early Cretan Seals. A Study of Chronology (1980) 208-209; K. SBONIAS, Frühkretische Siegel. Ansätze für eine Interpretation der sozial-politischen Entwicklung auf Kreta während der Frühbronzezeit (1995) 89-99; E.S.K. ANDERSON, Seals, Craft and Community in Bronze Age Crete (2016). CMS II,1 no. 225a.

4

5

6







194

Maria ANASTASIADOU

Three lion foreparts on another Parading Lions seal are combined with each other in a rotational configuration typical of conjoined animals but they are not physically fused with each other.7 Such devices may attest to the first experimentations with the multiplication of animal parts for the purpose of creating ornamental devices made up by representational parts. A whirl of animal heads is engraved on a signet found, according to its excavator, in a MM IA context in Gournia (Pl. XL: VS1A 51). The shape of the seal and its general style would, however, suggest a later dating as the imagery of the piece is strongly reminiscent of that encountered on Protopalatial seals (e.g. Pl. XL: II,2 235a). It is, therefore, possible that this piece is not as early as the excavator suggests. In the Protopalatial period, a large number of conjoined animals are attested on seals of the Malia/Eastern Crete Steatite Group.8 Forty-two such devices out of a total forty-three recorded by the CMS for this period belong to the group (Pls. XXXIX-XL: MM II, except for Pl. XXXIXa: III 43 [Malia Workshop Subgroup]). These devices are usually attested alone on the seal face and thus define its theme.9 Characteristic is the variability of both the forms they take and the constituent parts of which they consist. Common is a large variety of ornamental schemes that are well-known from the group’s iconographical repertoire. Rotating devices constitute the majority: among them Z-, S- and two-armed whirls of animals are most popular but multiple-arm whirls and swastikas are also encountered (Pls XXXIX-XL: rotation-MM II). Mirror symmetrical and radial devices, such as the joined foreparts of two scorpions and a cross of four spiders joined at the head are fewer (Pl. XXXIX: radial-MM II, mirror-MM II). Most common constituent elements are dogs/lions but horned quadrupeds, waterfowl, spiders and scorpions are also encountered. The animals are usually represented by their body parts (most often foreparts) and only rarely as whole creatures (Pl. XXXIX: rotation-MM II). The exact date of two rotary devices represented by their seal impressions at Knossos cannot be ascertained (Pl. XL: II,8 35; II,8 532). One is a whirl of six ram heads engraved on a round flat seal face and the other a Z-whirl of waterfowl bodies fused at the neck cut on a round convex seal face. Both devices stand alone on the seal face and define its theme. Whirls of heads are common in the Protopalatial period but the manner in which the ram heads have been engraved in the piece here is somewhat reminiscent of animal and human heads encountered on MM II/III discoids.10 Conjoined waterfowl bodies are characteristic of the Malia/Eastern Crete Steatite Group but the fact that the image in question is cut on a convex hard stone seal face distances it from the group. ‘Naturalistic’ waterfowl are mainly encountered in Proto- and Neopalatial seals and therefore the piece should not be later than LM I.11 Conjoined animal devices meet a sharp decline in the Neopalatial period. A few are attested among the so-called fantastic combinations of Kato Zakros but these differ from their Protopalatial counterparts in that they are bilaterally symmetrical as opposed to rotary devices (Pl. XXXIXa: II,7 200; XXXIXb: II,7 165-66, 168). They are put together by whole feline quadrupeds, flamingo (?) foreparts and feline (?) heads. These devices may stand alone or be combined with other motifs on the seal face but they always play a central role in the image and define its theme. Two soft stone lentoids dated by the CMS to LM I/II on the basis of stylistic considerations are engraved with conjoined animals. One displays a singular bilaterally symmetrical device of a spider with two foreparts standing alone on the seal face (Pl. XXXIXa: II,3 93). The other is a device of lion foreparts, one of which is looking in front and the other to the back, combined along the lines of 180°
CMS II,1 no. 300a. For the group, see M. ANASTASIADOU, “Drawing the Line: Seals, Script, and Regionalism in Protopalatial Crete,” AJA 120.2 (2016) 159-193 (160-163 with more bibliography in p. 160 n. 10). But see the exceptions on Pls XXXIXa: III 43; XL: III 174b. E.g. CMS II,8 no. 40. For the restricted animal repertoire of LBA II-III glyptic, see O. KRZYSZKOWSKA, Aegean Seals. An Introduction (2005), 208, 258.

7 8

9 10 11




CONJOINED ANIMALS ON AEGEAN SEALS


195

rotational symmetry and fused at the waist (Pl. XL: II,3 221). This latter is combined with a human figure on the seal face. A resurgence of conjoined animal devices is noted on LBA II-IIIA1 seals from both Crete and the Helladic Mainland (Pls XXXIX-XL: LBA II-IIIA1). With 17 examples recorded in the CMS, the total number of images from this period is, however, well behind that of the Protopalatial period. Significantly restricted is now the variation in both the type of devices encountered and the animals that take part in these. Common are bilaterally symmetrical devices put together of whole animals sharing a frontal head, but a few animal foreparts fused at the waist are also encountered. A rare device shows two antithetical pairs of animals, one of smaller and the other of larger ones, placed back to back and sharing one frontal head (Pl. XXXIXa: IX 137). Rotational devices are infrequent. They are represented by a device put together by a three-armed whirl of bovines sharing one head and two bovine foreparts combined along the lines of 180° rotational symmetry and fused at the waist (Pls XXXIXa: XI 249; XL: III 509b). The animals that take part in these images are, in accordance with the restricted animal repertoire in the glyptic of this period, solely quadrupeds. Among them, the lion and the bovine/bull predominate, a circumstance that would be expected, given the prevalence of the two creatures on LBA II/III glyptic.12 The foreparts of these two creatures are even fused together at the waist in one occasion (Pl. XXXIXb: VS1B 142). Less common is the involvement of goats in such devices (e.g. Pl. XXXIXa: III 509a). Conjoined animals in this period function as main motifs and always define the theme of the image in which they take part. They may be encountered on the seal face alone; with fillers; with smaller motifs that are well-known Minoan/Aegean symbols, such as the sacred knot, the figure-ofeight shield and the bucranion; and rarely with another main motif, which is in one case the upper part of a man (e.g. Pls XXXIX: XIII 25, VS1B 142, VS2 102; XL: III 509b). Two lions sharing a frontal head in one image step on a biconcave altar, a symbolic element that is employed both as a symbol and a functional object that places the animals in a physical setting (Pl. XXXIXa: I 46). The motifs with which conjoined animals are combined are in some cases duplicated in the image ‘together’ with the constituent elements of the composite device. This is the case with two plant motifs repeated under the legs of two lions sharing a frontal head for example; and also the upper parts of a male figure which are each combined with one of two bovine foreparts fused at the waist and turned 180° with regard to each other (Pls XXXIXa: VS1B 353; XL: III 509b). The CMS has recorded three LBA IIIA1 conjoined animal devices and seven that date to LBA IIIA2/B (Pls XXXIX: LBA IIIA1, LM IIIA2/B1, LH IIIA2/B; XL: LH IIIA2/B). From LBA IIIA1 onwards whole animals stop functioning as constituent elements of conjoined animal devices. Common are now images of animal foreparts fused at the waist. These are in their vast majority mirror images but a single rotational device is also attested on a seal of the Mainland Popular Group (Pl. XL: V 33). Hoofed quadrupeds, mostly goats, are most commonly involved in such representations but lions are also encountered (Pl. XXXIXb: II,4 288). As in the previous period, the devices may stand alone on the image or together with fillers, symbols or other motifs that may be duplicated in the image together with their constituent elements. On a Minoan soft stone seal the foreparts of a lion are duplicated together with the leg of a hoofed animal shown in front of them (Pl. XXXIXb: II,4 288). This is an excerpt of the well-known LM IIIA2/B1 iconographical topos of a standing lion with the leg of a hoofed animal in front of it.13 The latter is probably an abbreviation of a killed (?) hoofed quadruped.14


KRZYSZKOWSKA (supra n. 11). E.g. V Suppl. 3 no. 353. Compare V Suppl. 1B no. 285.

12 13 14







196

Maria ANASTASIADOU

Natural creatures, fantastic creatures, or ornamental devices? Natural creatures that are usually born into individual bodies are in rare cases born joined at one part of their body, such as the waist; or sharing part of it, such as the head (Pl. XXXVIIIc-d). Aegean societies would have certainly, albeit seldomly, encountered the phenomenon. There is no way of knowing whether such births may have acted as an inspiration for the creation of conjoined animal images on seals. In singular examples of devices that do not appear to have a pronounced decorative effect, the possibility that natural occurrences of conjoined creatures are depicted cannot be ruled out. This is the case for the MM II conjoined foreparts of scorpions and the LM I/II spider that appears to have two foreparts (Pl. XXXIX: II,3 93, VI 76c). In most other cases of conjoined animals, however, and regardless of the exact cause of inspiration for such devices, the primary aim does not appear to be that of depicting natural occurrences of conjoined creatures. The consistently symmetrical configuration of the images suggests an increased interest in the creation of an ornamental effect. Fantastic creatures, that is images of living organisms that only exist in the realm of the imagination, are well-known from Aegean imagery. Among the most outstanding are the griffin and the Minoan Genius. These creatures are created in ways that allow the human mind to imagine they could move and breathe in a manner similar to that of creatures that are commonly encountered by humans in the natural world. Each is put together of parts that are necessary for navigating in the physical world: eyes for seeing, mouths for eating, legs for walking, wings for flying. These parts are combined in a sequence expected in natural creatures: the head is placed on top/to the fore; it sits on a body; the legs are supporting the body; the wings are placed at the back. These rules do not abide for conjoined animals whose form and composition are highly variable. Their shapes may range from an S-/-Z-/C- and M-shape to whirls and crosses; and they can be made up by a large variety of constituent elements: dogs/lions, goats, bovines/bulls, waterfowl, whole creatures, foreparts, rearparts, headless bodies, heads with necks. Furthermore, several devices cannot move in a manner that would be perceived by the human mind as natural for living creatures. Multiple-arm whirls, for example, can only rotate in the manner that is conceptually common for ornamental devices and natural phenomena (whirlwind). The symmetrical configurations of conjoined animals imply that the main purpose of these depictions is to acquire aesthetically pleasing forms. Rotary devices must have been intended to create a strong decorative effect of swift motion. Bilaterally symmetrical devices are static and as such they appear heavier than rotational devices. Images involving frontal, and thus confrontational, heads have an added emblematic character that is intensified when the heads are placed in the centre of the devices. There is no reason to doubt that the animals that take part in conjoined animal devices would have retained the symbolism they carried for Aegean societies. Taking the above into account, the prime aim of such images on Aegean seals appears to have been the transmission of animal symbolism via its subordination to ornamental or emblematic schemes. Multiplication may have conceivably made animal symbolism stronger. Protopalatial versus LBA II/III cognition Protopalatial devices display a light, rather playful character that betrays an interest in ornamentation via variability. Their rotational forms, the manner in which their parts curve/bend to form C-, S- or Z-shaped stems/arms, as well as the variability in their configurations and constituent parts creates a general impression of ‘easiness’. This differs markedly from representations created from LB II onwards. The standardisation of forms and constituent elements but, most importantly, the combination of strong and heavy animals, bovines/bulls and lions, in static configurations in LBA II/IIIA1 images create heavy emblematic devices. The frontal heads add to an ‘absolutistic’ impression that may be translated as a pronounced interest in the expression of power. The combination of such devices with well-known Aegean religious/power symbols in the images of this period further underlines their emblematic significance which must be connected with strong animal




CONJOINED ANIMALS ON AEGEAN SEALS


197

and religious/power (?) symbolism.15 Devices produced from LBA III onwards continue on the traces of their LBA II/IIIA1 predecessors. They are, however, less direct, and thus less emblematic/ powerful, than them because they only involve animals shown by their foreparts and in profile. Given both their different manners of configuration and their temporal distance, it is well possible that LBA II/IIIA1 conjoined animals owe little to their Protopalatial counterparts. Since animal foreparts are commonly employed in Protopalatial devices, it is possible that LBA II/IIIA1 representations made up by such motifs betray some kind of transmission of ideas down the centuries from that period. Antithetical combinations, on the other hand, are uncommon in the Protopalatial devices and for this reason the roots for this manner of composition should be searched elsewhere. Bilaterally symmetrical representations of two animals sharing a frontal head find a good parallel on a device of felines sharing a frontal head on a seal from Kato Zakros (Pl. XXXIXa: II,7 200). It may be no chance that conjoined animals made up of antithetical animal foreparts are also encountered at this site (Pl. XXXIXb: II,7 165, 166, 168). This could suggest that Final Palatial devices of conjoined animals owe somewhat to the neopalatial Kato Zakrian glyptic. Since mirroring plays a major role in conjoined animals dated to LBA IIIA1 and LM IIIA2/B, there can be no doubt that these attest to a continuation of configurations from the previous period. The absence of whole animals and frontal heads, however, suggests less direct interest in the expression of power via these devices. Maria ANASTASIADOU





For an earlier attempt to understand bicorporates in similar configurations but differing from the ones in question here in that they are often put together as hybrids (human heads and animal bodies), see W. SLOMAN, Bicorporates. Studies in Migrations and Revivals of Art Motifs (1967) (book only known to the author by its reviews: H.A. GROENEWEGEN-FRANKFORT, “Wilhelm Sloman, Bicorporates. Studies in Revivals and Migrations of Art Motifs,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 28.4 [1969] 285-286; A. PARROT, “Wilhelm Sloman, Bicorporates. Studies in Revivals and Migrations of Art Motifs,” Syria 46.1-2 [1969] 119-121).

15







198

Maria ANASTASIADOU LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Pl. XXXVIIIa Pl. XXXVIIIb Pl. XXXVIIIc

Pl. XXXVIIId Pl. XXXIXa Pl. XXXIXb Pl. XL







Examples of conjoined animals on Aegean seals. Images courtesy of the CMS Heidelberg. Syntheses of animals combined in ornamental or interaction schemes that may not be seen as conjoined on Aegean seals, with the exception of II,3 133 where the two goats are conjoined. Images courtesy of the CMS Heidelberg. Near-term harbour seal fetal twins conjoined at the abdomen and thoracolumbar spine. Image from B.J.K. OLSON, J.K. GAYDOS, T. MCKLVEEN, R. POPPENGA, K. WICINAS, E. ANDERSON and S. RAVERTY, “Conjoined Fetal Twins in a Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina),” Journal of Wildlife Diseases 52.1 (2016) 173-176 (174, Fig. 1). Pig conjoined at the chest and head. Image from L.A. SELBY, A. KHALILI, R.W. STEWART, L.D. EDMONDS and C.J. MARIENFELD, “Pathology and Epidemiology of Conjoined Twinning in Swine,” Teratology 8.1 (1973) 1-9 (5, Fig. 4). Images of conjoined animals put together by whole animals published at the CMS. Images courtesy of the CMS Heidelberg. Images of conjoined animals put together by animal parts published at the CMS (see also continuation on Pl. XL. Images courtesy of the CMS Heidelberg. Images of conjoined animals put together by animal parts published at the CMS (see also Pl. XXXIXb). Images courtesy of the CMS Heidelberg.

XXXVIII

a

b

c

d

XXXIX

a

b

XL

THE FABULOUS FIVE: MONKEY, LION, GRIFFIN, DRAGON, GENIUS* Abstract Images of animals in Aegean Bronze Age art are prolific but the local fauna provides only part of the subject matter. There are also some real non-indigenous animals like the monkey and lion and there are some animal hybrid fantastic creatures like the griffin, dragon and genius. Enquiries into each of these creatures, including their possible origin in lands to the East, have already been made. However, with more seal evidence now available, the iconographic description of each can be refined, noting their first appearance, their trajectory across fifteen centuries through Minoan and into Mycenaean art, and the diagnostic details that are favoured in each period. Mindful of this, we can move to their iconographic interpretation and posit what each creature might signify in the Aegean and why their grouping may further elucidate their roles as they play, walk, stomp, prance or fly through the ages.

Exotic Animals and Fantastic Creatures Animalia in Aegean Bronze Age art is a favourite topic, yet the local fauna provides only a part of the subject matter. There are some real animals that are not indigenous and there are many animal hybrids and fantastic creatures that do not, cannot, live in this world but are creations of the fertile imagination. Of these, five creatures (the exotic monkey and lion and the fantastic griffin, dragon and genius) come to the fore of our attention because of the frequency of their depiction and the longevity of their floruit. By the Late Bronze Age these creatures have become thoroughly aegeanized. They look out from frescoed palace walls, are worked in fine pieces in gold, niello and ivory, and even take their place in monumental stone with the great Lion Gate at Mycenae. How did these eastern immigrants come into the Aegean and why did they become so strongly represented in art? This ZOIA Conference provides a welcome opportunity to re-visit some of the themes in my book on interconnections, The Aegean and the East, which, I note with some sense of shock, is now 30 years published.1 In the intervening years much new material has come to light 2 and a further investigation of the transferences is timely, certainly to consider these five creatures as a group. In this paper I shall draw on the extensive discussions on animalia in the Aegean by Andrew Shapland and Fritz Blakolmer 3 while concentrating on the evidence of the seals 4 which provide the richest revelation of the appearances and activities of these exotic animals and fantastic creatures.


*

1

2

3

I should like to thank Thomas Palaima and Robert Laffineur for their kind invitation to contribute to the ZOIA Conference. We all value the Aegaeum Conferences and so much regret that we could not assemble in person this time to debate the topic and celebrate Aegean Bronze Age research. J.L. CROWLEY, The Aegean and the East: An Investigation into the Transference between the Aegean, Egypt, and the Near East in the Bronze Age (1989). The basic findings in this volume are still accepted in this paper though some comments on the timing of the transferences needs updating. The record of our expanded knowledge of interconnections since 1989 is now voluminous, everything from site excavations such as those at Tell Kabri and Tell el-Dab‘a to textual identifications to animal research. Two publications take us in decade-long strides forward. The Cincinnati Conference honouring Helene Kantor assessed the advances to date, E.H. CLINE and D. HARRIS-CLINE (eds), The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium. Proceedings of the 50th Anniversary Symposium, Cincinnati, 18-20 April 1997 (1998). Transferences facilitated by glyptic art were examined by J. ARUZ, Marks of Distinction: Seals and Cultural Exchange between the Aegean and the Orient (ca 2000 to 1360 B.C.) (2008). Both essays provide extensive documentation and statistical evidence. A. SHAPLAND, Over the Horizon: Human-Animal Relations in Bronze Age Crete (2009). F. BLAKOLMER, “Il Buono, il Brutto, il Cattivo? Character, Symbolism and Hierarchy of Animals and Supernatural Creatures in Minoan and Mycenaean

200

Janice L. CROWLEY

Consider the kaleidoscope of possible influences from the East. The lion, giraffe, monkey, hippopotamus, crocodile, vulture and falcon are African fauna. Did Aegean travellers see this wildlife living then in Egypt, perhaps during journeys repeated each generation? Or were they amazed by the art showing lush vistas of Nile marshes and hierolglyphs carved or painted on the walls and monumental statuary? Or did the influence come back home with them in the form of souvenir amulets and scarabs or even living souvenirs of pet monkeys and lion cubs? Think of the Asiatic wildlife like lions and eagles that Aegean traders and travellers may have seen – were people hunting with great eagles then as they do now in Mongolia? Certainly the lion and the eagle deeply entered the Mesopotamian artistic tradition, producing marvellous hybrids to guard palace gates and cover palace walls as at Mari where texts include inventories of Minoan luxury goods.5 Yet most influence may have come from the cylinder seals, carried home to show gods with flowing streams, winged creatures, long necked monsters and magnificent heroes struggling with lions. So, now with more material available we must ask again how these Easterners came to the Aegean. Is it through art 6 or trade or travellers’ tales or in souvenir pieces 7 or is there more to this transference? Interrogating the Seal Images Of all the new evidence available on the monkey, lion, griffin, dragon and genius, this paper concentrates on the seals since they give the widest range of iconographic detail and the best lontitudinal study of their acceptance in the Aegean. Each creature is discussed separately, noting when they first appear in the visual record, how their physical shape changes over time and who/what is associated with them. The Aegean seal tradition encompasses fifteen centuries of seal design which begins in EM II, c. 2700 BCE, with the earliest seals cut in soft stone and hippopotamus ivory, works through the adoption of the fixed lapidary lathe enabling the cutting of hard stone seals in protopalatial Crete, moves past the cessation of the cutting of hard stone seals following the final destruction of the Knossos Palace and goes down to the end of seal use with the destruction of the mainland palaces at the end of LH IIIB, c. 1200 BCE. CMS research has been able to assign a stylistic date to each seal which is the date used here.8 The iconographic sequence moves in five phases. The Early Seal Period comprises seals stylistically dated EM II to MM II. The Experimentation Period begins with the Phaistos Sealings of MM II and continues into LM IA and so comprises seals dated MM III and MM III-LM I. The Minoan High Art Period covers covers the development in LM IA and LM IB, ending with the LM IB destructions, and includes seals made in Crete and the Mainland at that time, seals dated LM I, LB I-LB II and LH I. The Legacy Period of the Mycenaean ascendancy


4

5 6

7

8

Iconography,” Creta Antica 17 (2016) 97-183. In making my own assessment of the significance of the seal evidence I do not think I have trespassed their insights. I should like, at this point, to pay tribute to the work of the CMS over these past 60 years and to thank Directors for their kind permission to use the CMS images, past Directors, Ingo Pini and Walter Müller, and the present Director, Diamantis Panagiotopoulos. All seal images provided in Plates XLI-XLV are drawings of the seal impression and are listed by their CMS number and their designated stylistic date. K. FOSTER, “Mari and the Minoans,” Historisch Tijdschrift Groniek 217 (2018) 343-362. For a comparison of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Aegean artistic traditions and a tribute to the early researchers into interconnections, Helene Kantor and William Stevenson Smith, see J.L. CROWLEY, “Iconography and Interconnections,” in CLINE and HARRIS-CLINE eds (supra n. 2) 171-182, XVIIXX. For Egyptian items see J. PHILLIPS, Aegyptiaca on the Island of Crete in their Chronological Context: A Critical Review (2008). For near eastern cylinder seals with rich iconographic content see CMS II.2 29, V 657, VS 1B 332. With much more comparative material now available through careful excavation over recent years the CMS Team has been able to assign to each seal a stylistic date which is set by evaluating all the main features of the seal: material, shape, size, manufacturing technique and image. This date is posted in the CMS record in the Arachne Database. For problems in dating seals see O. KRZYSZKOWSKA, Aegean Seals (2005) 10-11, 57-59, 120-121.

THE FABULOUS FIVE: MONKEY, LION, GRIFFIN, DRAGON, GENIUS

201

comprises seals dated LM II, LM IIIA, LB/H IIIA1 and LB/H IIIA2. The Late Period covers seals dated LM IIIB and LB/H IIIB.9 The evidence for this discussion involves seals from the first four sequences.The seals are essentially a Minoan creation and one needs to stress the length of the formative Early Seal Period, a thousand years of iconographic creation when Minoan society was shaping itself and its beliefs. For the Iconographic Vocabulary used in this paper, the terms used to discuss the images are those of the IconAegean Vocabulary defined in The Iconography of Aegean Seals.10 This discussion advances the argument using the evidence of the seal images presented in Plates XLI-XLV. Additional evidence may be cited by reference to the IconA Databases posted on the CMS Website.11 Readers will make their own links to comparable images in the other media from tiny artifacts to grand frescoes. Monkey African monkeys of the Chlorocebus genus (particularly the vervet and green monkeys) and baboons of the Papio genus (particularly the hamadryas baboon), were known in ancient Egypt and carefully distinguished in the art there. Either, or both, are thought to be the inspiration for monkey images in the Aegean, though a new source has recently been argued, the Hanuman langur from the Indian sub-continent, Semnopithecus, with Mesopotamia as an intermediary.12 When simian like images appear in the Early Minoan seal designs and as the seal shape itself, 13 such differentiation is not certain and the term monkey is used here for all such representations. Monkey images continue to the time of the LM IB destructions. Image Description Early Seal Period: The seal images 1 to 4 show the monkey upright and seated in a variety of poses. The long tail is always a feature and the profile rendition becomes the norm. Some of the depictions already suggest human-like characteristics as in 4. Experimentation and Minoan High Art Periods: The monkey continues to be shown in its animal state, sitting among rocks and playing as in 5 to 7. However it increasingly is shown interacting with human figures. The monkey helps a woman pick crocuses in 10 and, in a possible linked image, is shown as a sole subject in the midst of crocus flowers in 9.14 The monkey gives the hands high gesture as it is tethered to a male VIP (Very Important Person) in a flower field in 11, salutes a male VIP in 12 and accompanies a woman to a female VIP in 13.15 The latter image is composed in the VIP granting audience icon and in 14 this same icon is used but the monkey is now seated in the VIP position as a woman approaches. Also assigning importance to the monkey is its enlarged size in 8 where it is greeted by a woman. In 15 and 16 the antithetical group compostition shows the monkey in the role of attendant to special objects like the vase and the curved altar. Legacy Period: After the LM IB Destructions the monkey does not feature in seal design.


9

10 11

12

13 14 15

The iconographic sequence and the important pivot of the Phaistos Sealings is discussed in J.L. CROWLEY, “Reading the Phaistos Sealings: taking the Textbook Approach of Iconographic Analysis,” in F. BLAKOLMER (ed.), Current Approaches and New Perspectives in Aegean Iconography (2020) 19-46. J.L. CROWLEY, The Iconography of Aegean Seals (2013). CMS Website https://www.uni-heidelberg.de/fakultaeten/philosophie/zaw/cms/index.html. Search the IconAegean Database on the term in the appropriate field e.g. search monkey, lion, griffin, dragon, genius in the Element field. The new source has been argued with reference to the Late Minoan frescoes in M. PAREJA et al. 2019, “A new identification of the monkeys depicted in a Bronze Age wall painting from Akrotiri, Thera,” in Primates, Japan Monkey Centre, Springer Nature (2019). For figural seals in monkey shape see ARUZ (supra n. 2) 57-58. Not all scholars accept that the florets are crocus. Search the IconAegean Database on hands high gesture, flower field and VIP in the Element field.

202

Janice L. CROWLEY

Interpretation The monkey behaves both as an animal and as a creature with symbolic duties. Its playful animal persona obviously delights the Minoans but they also formally present it as the guardian of cultic objects like the vase and the curved altar. They are also aware that it has many human characteristics which can make it both an alter ego for a human worshipper and a chameleon creature that can move as intermediary into the world of the anthropomorphic gods. Reading the VIP, Very important Person, as a deity and assigning the title of Lady to female VIPs and Lord to male VIPs,16 we see the monkey as server to the Seated Lady who is also the Great Lady and to a Lord. Moreover, the images in 8 and 14 appear to take the monkey roles to a new level. At first the monkey in 8 looks like a worshipper giving the hands high gesture to a female figure who gives the greeting gesture in return. However, the female figure carries none of the extra features which might declare her a Lady, and the monkey is of enormous size in relation to her. Both these aspects suggest that it is the monkey that is being worshipped by a woman. In the case of 14 the deification is even clearer. The monkey is seated on a stool with a human approaching – a classic VIP granting audience icon which usually has the Great Lady seated on one of her identifying seats, greeting a woman who approaches, gesturing. Moreover, the monkey has a footstool and a papyrus flower plant arching over, details which raise its status further. It is hard to escape the conclusion that, at times, the monkey can take the place of the goddess herself. We should thus see the monkey as a semi-divine being able to move between this world of humans and the supernatural world of the gods. In summary, the monkey, which has been with us since the beginning and which has developed symbolic and even deified roles, disappears at the time of the Mycenaean ascendancy. Was it too closely identified with Minoan ritual and with the Great Lady? Lion The lion, Panthera leo, was known in north Africa, the Asiatic lands and Balkans in ancient times 17 and it is a regular subject in the Egyptian and Mesopotamian art traditions. Though absent as a living animal from Crete, it is an early starter in Minoan seals, both as an image and as the seal shape itself.18 Its presence in mainland Greece in the Bronze Age provides first hand experience to Mycenaeans at home and to Minoans visiting. Lions are one of the favourite subjects in all periods through to the end of our survey. Image Description Early Seal Period: In the earliest seals, 17 to 20, most lion characteristics are already set. The body is substantial, the long tail is regularly curled at the end and the mane is a distinct feature being regularly shown with crosshatching or a leaf design. Lions are usually presented standing or walking in the statant pose as in the animal file in 17 which uses the seal perimeter as a groundline. By the MM II seals, 21 to 24, the lion has become rather more feline in body. It may be shown as the sole subject,


16

17

18

The author argues that the VIPs are the deities of the Aegean world, J.L. CROWLEY, “In Honour of the Gods – but which Gods? Identifying Deities in Aegean Glyptic,” in L. HITCHCOCK, R. LAFFINEUR and J. CROWLEY (eds), DAIS. The Aegean Feast. Proceedings of the 12th International Aegean Conference/12e Rencontre égéenne internationale, University of Melbourne, Centre for Classics and Archaeology, 25-29 March 2008 (2008) 75-87, Pls XI-XIV. Further discussion of VIPs, Ladies and Lords is given in CROWLEY (supra n. 10) 361-364, figs 17-18. For the lion in the Aegean see N. THOMAS, “A Lion’s Eye View of the Greek Bronze Age,” in G. TOUCHAIS, R. LAFFINEUR and F. ROUGEMONT (eds), PHYSIS. L’environnement naturel et la relation homme-milieu dans le monde égéen protohistorique. Actes de la 14e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Paris, Institut National d’Histoire de l’Art (INHA), 11-14 décembre 2012 (2014) 375-389, Pls CXIII-CXV and also this volume. For figural seals in lion shape see ARUZ (supra n. 2) 58-59.

THE FABULOUS FIVE: MONKEY, LION, GRIFFIN, DRAGON, GENIUS

203

may enjoy animal life within a landscape or may be posed heraldically in a symbolic rendering. Experimentation and Minoan High Art Periods: The lion continues to have a feline shape, the shaggy mane is a feature and the tail is now thickened at the end, even to being a knob. Shown in its animal role, the lion courses through a palm-studded landscape in a flying gallop in 25. It can be the sole subject of the seal design as in 26, where the agony of the great beast is revealed as it contorts its body, scratching at the lethal missile. In echoes of earlier patterning, the same lion flying leaps create an interlocking spiral design in 27, while four frontal lion heads split the circle in a four division in 28. In its animal life, it is a great predator. The action-filled animal attack scenes show it overwhelming its prey, especially in the classic icon of crunching as with the stag in 29 and where it feasts on the carcass of a huge bull that has already fallen victim to its ferocious onslaught in 30. Sometimes, it falls prey to a more powerful predator, the griffin, as in 48, and occasionally it can best the griffin, as in 50. Yet, the great lion predator is always vanquished when it meets the human hunter, though it should be noted that the hunter is often grievously wounded. These lions are of immense size. They stand up to the man and are not easily subdued. In 31 a huge lion rears up and claws the arm of the hunter trying to dispatch it with his sword. Eventually the successful hunters bind the lion carcass as in 32. The last four images show symbolic representations of lions. In 33 and 34 the images are composed in the VIP with familiar icon where the lion identifies a female and a male VIP. Antithetical group compositions present lions as as attendants of a Mistress of Animals in 35 and as guardians of a grand pillar in 36. Legacy Period: Suckling scenes are now depicted where the male lion, complete with shaggy mane, is also endowed with female dugs as in 37. The mix of male and female characteristics does not seem to worry the artist or the viewer and presumably the lion cubs are born live in the mammalian way. The animal attack and hunt scenes remain favourites, the lions always huge and ferocious and the warriors ever braver, wrestling them now with bare hands as in 38 and 39. The Lion Mistress and the Lion Master, as in 40, continue to be shown. New motifs, the lionman and lionwoman hybrid humans appear briefly.19 Interpretation In summary, the lion is one of the most frequently depicted animals, there from the beginning and vastly popular at the end. In its animal life it is a worthy sole subject, posed calmly statant or sejant or exploding in flying gallops. It shares in suckling scenes and in animal attacks. It gradually morphs into being the great predator of other animals and being the meet adversary of the great human hunter for whom it becomes the test of ultimate bravery.20 Its symbolic life allows it guardian roles where it is the attendant of grand pillars and curved altars. It identifies Mistresses and Masters as their attendants and deities like the Lion Lady and the Lion Lord as their familiars. Griffin The Aegean griffin is a fantastic creature having the body of a lion and the head and wings of a bird of prey. Various lion-eagle hybrid creatures exist in both the Mesopotamian and Egyptian traditions. In Egypt the lion body and eagle wings form the sphinx and the griffin which are representations of Pharaoh, and thus male, with the sphinx head having the visage of Pharaoh. The wings are not opened out but are shown folded along the lion body and so the lion shape remains the artistic outline. In the Mesopotamian tradition two early creatures share a mix of eagle and lion features. The powerful storm bird, Imdugud (Sumerian)/Anzu (Akkadian), has the head of a lion and eagle wings and talons and the fearsome snakedragon, Mushushshu (from Akkadian times), has a lion body, the wings and talons of an eagle and as well as the scales of a snake and small horns. In the artistic rendition of these two fantastic creatures the wings


19 20

A lionwoman as in CMS XI 330 and a lionman as in CMS VI 302 and CMS I 77, all LB II-LB IIIA1. For the significance of the hunt see O. KRZYSZKOWSKA 2014, “Cutting to the Chase: Hunting in Minoan Crete,” in TOUCHAIS et al. eds (supra n. 18) 341-347, Pls CVI-CVII.

204

Janice L. CROWLEY

are raised and spread and play a great role.21 In the Aegean the griffin is depicted from earliest times through to the end of our seal survey. Image Description Early Seal Period: In Minoan seal designs the griffin is seen in the Early Seals but it has often been mislabelled a lion. However, careful observation of the carved detail on these early seals, particularly the ivories, distinguishes between the two as in 41 and 42. Griffin heads show a pointed face as for an eagle’s beak, whereas lion faces are flat. Griffin wings are handled as a “hump” rising from the back with crosshatched or diagonal patterning, whereas the lion has its mane in a line with the back and its patterning comes round the neck. The representation of early griffins becomes more regularised in MM II when the wings are shown elevated and the crest has distinct detail as in 43 and 44. For the most part the lion body and tail are clear but there is still some doubt as to how to handle the legs – with lion paws or bird talons. Experimentation and Minoan High Art Periods: The griffin now becomes a formidable force. The best griffin depictions show to advantage the lithe leonine body, the spread wings with tapering curls along the wing bone and the flowing crest. When the griffin is acting as a living animal it is usually posed couchant or statant when at rest and in a flying gallop when active as in 45 to 49. The wings are mostly shown elevated where only the raised front wing is seen in full or, in a new pose, displayed, where the body is turned to allow both wings to be raised and spread as in 47. Sometimes the griffin is represented as female, with dugs as in 46 and in 47, where there are also two juveniles shown as small griffin shapes but there do not seem to be any griffin suckling scenes. To consider whether griffin young emerge through a mammalian birth or from an egg is presumably not a problem that the artists contemplated. However, the griffin’s great animal role is to be an archpredator. All its leonine strength is multiplied by the power of its wings to crunch into prey. It can fight lions as in 48, who sometimes bite back as in 50, and, as the victorious hunter can be seen carrying off its catch as in 49. However, in the seals, the griffin does not become an adversary of the human hunter. The griffin may also act in symbolic roles. It stands before a palm tree in 52 while antithetical group syntax organises an animals at the tree of life icon in 52 where griffins rear up as attendants at a tree shaped like a large papyrus plant. It is the attendant to a Mistress of Animals as in 56 and to Masters as well. The griffin identifies VIPs, enjoying a close relationship with them as their familiar. A male VIP holds a griffin on a leash in 53, two griffins are the chariot steeds for a male VIP in 54 and in 55 a female VIP propels a grand boat which is shaped like a griffin complete with wings folded close and a feathery crest. It also has a triple bud prow. In the papyrus landscape of 74 a live griffin familiar is carried by the male VIP over his shoulder.22 Legacy Period: The griffin continues as a powerful image. It poses regally with lions in 57 and guards a grand pillar placed on a curved altar in 58. It continues as attendant to Mistresses and Masters. It accompanies a female VIP in 59. Look how tenderly she cuddles her familiar. The animal attack hierarchy is recorded in 60 where a griffin attacks a lion which attacks a mammalian prey, a stag. Interpretation Though the griffin is known very early, its iconographic source is not so clear. In the Aegean, the wings are fully exploited artistically, their elevated and displayed poses giving a different shape to those of the Egyptian griffin and one more aligned to the winged creatures of the Mesopotamian repertoire. It is a notable detail that some early Minoan griffins appear to have talons thus linking it closer to the Mesopotamian creatures. Yet it may be, after all, the bird raptors that inspire artists to combine air-borne ferocity with leonine menace. Both Egyptian and Mesopotamian traditions feature


21 22

For images see CROWLEY (supra n. 1) Pls 9, 12, 109 and for discussion on the transferences see 40-53. The griffin is not dead as often interpreted. This is not a carrying the catch icon because the griffin is not shown slumped and lifeless, certainly not with tongue hanging out. The hind legs and tail do hang down but the head is looking forward and the wings are raised, all details looking as if the griffin is relaxed being carried over his master’s shoulder.

THE FABULOUS FIVE: MONKEY, LION, GRIFFIN, DRAGON, GENIUS

205

such great wingspans but the Aegean too has eagles.23 Observation of local eagles hunting may have inspired the displayed wing pose which becomes an Aegean favourite. The griffin, while not as frequently depicted as the lion, can almost be seen as its alter ego. It has similar experiences of animal life and it is a magnificent predator and a symbol of the power of the gods. In animal attack scenes the griffin overpowers the animals of this world, agrimi and stag and bull, and carries them off. It also attacks lions and, in one case is crunched by one. In symbolic presentations the griffin guards grand pillars and trees of life. It is the attendant of the Griffin Mistress and the Griffin Master. It consorts with VIP deities.24 It is the identifying familiar of the Griffin Lady and the Griffin Lord. When needing to travel, she is carried along by a griffin grand boat and he drives a chariot drawn by his pair of griffins whose strength and speed are portrayed by the flying gallop and the elevated wings. Its magnificent power is fully appreciated by the Mycenaeans who present it as a statement of their own ferocious aggression. Dragon The Minoan dragon is a fantastic creature having a long stout body with a tail, short strong legs, a long neck and a smallish “beaked” head. It is difficult to source the features. Imagination could hybridise Egyptian animals to join the heavy hippopotamus or elephant body with the long neck and small pointed head of a giraffe. Egyptian art does have long-bodied fantastic creatures but the closest match for the Minoan dragon is on the Narmer Pallete which also incorporates Mesopotamian motifs. In Mesopotamian art there are hybrid creatures that are called dragons (as noted for Mushushshu in the griffin discussion above) but the closest match to the Minoan creature appears to be the primordial sea dragon, Tiamat, with her tubular scaly body, long neck and small head.25 However, new evidence from Thera on the pre-eruption climate suggests a much wetter local scene.26 This could mean that a fantastic creature living in watery marsh lands was a creature of the Aegean imagination. Minoan dragons are known in the Early Seals and their floruit ends soon after the LM IB destructions. Image Description Early Seal Period: The representations show a creature sufficiently different from a lion and a griffin that it is clear another beast is intended as in 61 to 64. All the features are there in embryo from across the examples. By MM II the shape is clearer and the variation of the feathery tail has also appeared as in 64. Experimentation and Minoan High Art Periods: The dragon has now settled its appearance with the long tubular body, strong short legs and an extended neck as in 65 to 72. The head ends in a long, sometimes beak-like, snout and may have ears. The skin on the body is often dappled with spots or lines as in 67 to 69. The tail, usually shown raised, may be smooth and thick as in 67 and 71 or may be of the feathered sort as in 65 and 72. The dragon, too, behaves like an animal but does not participate in animal attacks or suckling scenes. It may be the sole subject posed appropriately as in 65 and 67 to 70 or simply as a dragon head as in 66. It may recline couchant or stand/walk statant. Its habitat, when shown, comprises plants of different sorts, even palm plants as in


23 24

25

26

The golden eagle, aquila chrysaetos and Bonelli’s eagle, aquila fasciata. For the griffin’s association with anthropomorphic figures see V. DUBCOVÁ, “Mastering a griffin. The agency and perception of Near Eastern images by the Aegean Bronze Age elite,” in Proceedings of the International Conference Ancient Communities and their Elites from the Bronze Age to Late Antiquity (Central Europe – Mediterranean – Black Sea), Part I. Dedicated to the 25th anniversary of the re-established Trnava University in Trnava and the 20th anniversary of Department of Classical Archaeology, Trnava, 6th-8th October 2017 (2019) 163-178. Yet the closest match to the Minoan dragon may be an Akkadian alabaster mythological group from Tell Asmar, CROWLEY (supra n. 1) Pl. 132. See A. VLACHOPOULOS and L. ZORZOS 2014, “Physis and Techne on Thera: Reconstructing Bronze Age Environment and Land-Use Based on New evidence from Phytoliths and the Akrotiri Wallpaintings,” in TOUCHAIS et al. eds (supra n. 18) 183-197, Pls LVI-LXVII.

206

Janice L. CROWLEY

68 and papyrus flowers as in 70, and a watery abode is indicated by the waveline below as in 69. However the dragon also has a symbolic role to play. It may be surrounded by plant and sky symbols like the sunbursts in 71 and 72. It is placed within plants and branches in just the same way as the vase, ewer and double horns are set. A birdwoman appears to have a dragon head in 76. A sturdy dragon provides the mount for the female VIP who rides it side-saddle in 73 and 74. A female VIP is carried along in a grand boat with a crocus triple bud prow and a dragon-shaped stern, a parallel to the griffin grand boat mentioned above. Legacy Period: Early in this period, a seal shows a female VIP mounted on her familiar. Interpretation In summary, the dragon is there from the Early Seals, with its shape settling later. It lives a peaceful animal life but its main role is symbolic as a creature linked to water, plants and sky symbols and as the identifying familiar of the Dragon Lady. The particular relationship with her familiar that is most attested is for her to ride the dragon seated sidesaddle. All the dragon characteristics are on view in 74. In a papyrus landscape the Dragon Lady rides her familiar, this time a feathery-tailed dragon, while enjoying the company of a striding Griffin Lord carrying his familiar. Many of the classic representations come from Minoan High Art sealings of late-palatial Crete. The dragon does not continue with any vibrancy under the Mycenaean ascendancy. Was it, like the monkey, too aligned with the Minoan Great Lady to appeal to Mycenaean tastes? Genius The Minoan genius is a fantastic creature of hippopotamus shape with a distinctive cape attached to its back. It is always shown with upright posture often holding a ewer and eventually comes to show the wasp waist of a Minoan man. The source of inspiration is the Egyptian hippopotamus goddess Thoueris.27 The genius enters the iconographic repertoire a little later than the other four but is there, closely imitating its Thoueris prototype, by the end of the Early Seal Period. Thereafter its influence grows to add new roles, finishing in strong favour under the Mycenaean ascendancy. Image Description Early Seal Period: The genius appears in seal designs in MM II where all the features are already present except the Minoan waist. The truly hippopotamus shapes of these early geniuses reveals their ultimate origin in Egypt with the hippopotamus goddess Thoueris. Indeed, we have one of the very items that helped transmit the image from Egypt to Crete in the Egyptian scarab of Dynasty 11-12 found at Platanos in Tholos B. The design on this scarab, illustrated in 81, shows the upright hippopotamus shape with the back appendage carrying another creature, the crocodile. Examples 82 to 84 show that the genius has already begun to hold the ewer out in front and to be associated with foliate symbols. Experimentation and Minoan High Art Periods: The developed genius still has echoes of its Thoueris hippopotamus antecedents. The upright stance remains but the swelling belly is now cinched in at the waist to give a Minoan man’s silhouette and this may be an indication that we should view the genius as male. The crocodile cape has become a knobbed appendage down the back as in 85 which sometimes widens to look like a shell partly encompassing the body as in 86. The head at times looks more leonine. It usually has ears and sometimes there is a forehead curl. The genius does not act like


27

See the pioneering studies, M.A.V. GILL, “The Minoan ‘genius’,” AM 79 (1964) 1-21 and “Apropos the Minoan ‘genius’,” AJA 74 (1970) 404-406 and J. WEINGARTEN 1991, The Transformation of Egyptian Tawret into Minoan Genius. A Study of Cultural Transmission in the Middle Bronze Age (1991). Additional seal evidence is discussed in P. REHAK, “The ‘Genius’ in Late Bronze Age Glyptic: The Later Evolution of an Aegean Cult Figure,” in W. MÜLLER (ed.), Sceaux minoens et mycéniens. VIe Symposium international, 10-12 septembre 1992, Clermont-Ferrand (1995) 215-231.

THE FABULOUS FIVE: MONKEY, LION, GRIFFIN, DRAGON, GENIUS

207

an animal and by Minoan High Art it is fully established as a creature with specific symbolic roles. The original task as bearer of the ewer is still its main duty as seen in 85, 86 and 89, one with a particularly fine ewer having water flows shown on each side as running spirals. A new role sees the genius as a victorious hunter in 87. Just like the human hunter it is shown bravely spearing a great bull that rears up to be a meet adversary. Note that the genius steadies itself for its forward lunge by standing on rocky ground. Further, he is shown as a guardian spirit to a lion hunter in 88, holding his arms round the hunter’s sword scabbard in a clever variation of the original ewer-holding pose. The antithetical group compositions of 89 and 90 pose a genius on each side of man-made symbols, plants springing from double horns set on a curved altar, and also show the genius as a Lion Master of Animals. The images in 91 and 92 are created in the VIP with familiar icon. Instead of the male VIP holding a bull by its horn or a leash, we have a large genius holding a bull and, here in 91, a cow. In 92 a large genius holds a lion standing quietly beside. Legacy Period: At this time the genius appears to be in even more favour. Its primary role of ewer bearer is seen 93 where it stands beside an orb rod. Antithetical group compositions show the genius attending a grand pillar in 94 and as a Master of Animals with attendant hounds in 97. Continuing in the successful hunter role, the genius carries a dead bull over his shoulder in 95 and, presented in the same iconographic formula, he carries a dead man in 96. The Mistress of Animals in 99 is attended by bulls while a genius is added as a server on each side. Returning to its original role as ewer bearer, the genius serves a male VIP standing on double horns in 98 and a quartet of geniuses is seen bearing ewers to a female VIP seated beside an orb rod in 100. A geniusman hybrid human appears briefly.28 Interpretation The genius, of course, never really had an animal life. It always performed a symbolic role. That primary role was to hold the ewer, a water bearing vessel which provides the link between its Thoueris origin in the wide Nile marshes and its new domicile in Crete of the narrow mountain stream. This nurturing, fertility role (a role also enacted by Thoueris) sees the genius associated with plants and altars and as an extension as protector of the grand pillar. The genius then assumes the role of successful hunter, either by directly spearing the quarry or by protecting a human hunter or by carrying off the catch. This is the regularly used icon of carrying the catch seen previously with the successful human hunter or the lion/griffin predator holding the dead agrimi, bull or stag. However the genius now can carry a dead man, his body slumped and hanging down. Does the protection offered to the live human hunter continue in death as the safe conduct to the afterworld? As so often with Aegean iconography we are left to wish that we had some text to explain! Then, through iconographic substitution the genius takes on the roles of the deity, as Master of Animals, Bull Lord and Lion Lord. In all these roles the genius gravitates to the male persona. This is seen in its early modification to have a Minoan male wasp waist, in its predilection to hunting activities and protection of male humans and to serving, and even substituting, male deities. There are two late exceptions to this male-oriented curriculum vitae, where the genius acts as server to a Bull Mistress (in itself exceptional) and a Great Seated Lady. These latter two, as female recipients, are exceptional for genius iconography and seem to mark a shift in meaning as the Mycenaean ascendancy progresses. Overall, the multifarious roles enacted by the genius give Fritz Blakolmer a cause to claim for the genius the status of “minor deity”,29 with which I agree. Indeed, I see the elevation of the genius role beyond server/helper/guardian into the higher sphere of taking the place of the deities themselves as further confirmation of this. In summary, adding to its original ewer-bearing persona which survived to the end, the genius became the successful predator, protector of human hunters, server to deities, Master of Animals and surrogate Lion and Bull Lord.


28 29

A geniusman as in CMS VII 126, LB II-LB IIIA1. BLAKOLMER (supra n. 3) 166 and Diagram 19.

208

Janice L. CROWLEY

Other Immigrants from the East There are other immigrant motifs from the East that complement the evidence of the five creatures just discussed and all come over in the Early Seal Period, many at the very beginning in EM III-MM I. From the Mesopotamian sphere influencing images include the Master of Animals, tree of life, palm tree, rosette, and the artistic conventions of the animal file, heraldic poses and antithetical group. From the Egyptian sphere, influencing motifs include the sphinx, crocodile, palm tree (thus perhaps doubling the effect of the Mesopotamian infusion), palmette and papyrus.30 The close investigation of seal images reveals that these Egyptian details deserve further note. The sphinx, with body of a lion and human head, stands for the Pharaoh and is thus male and this may be the case with the Aegean sphinx also. The Aegean sphinx has long, Hathor-like curving tresses in the MM II example 79 but in later examples it wears the plumed hat usually worn by males as in 80. Interest in the sphinx consolidates in the Mycenaean ascendancy, suggesting that images of dominant power found favour with Mycenaean rulers. A series of long, bodied creatures with very short legs covered in spikes or scales is likely to be a crocodile, a somewhat misunderstood Crocodylus niloticus, as in 78.31 These two creatures deserve a brief mention in the interests of a complete rollcall of eastern fantastic and exotic creatures even though they do not become deeply imbedded in the repertoire. However, there are other motifs that do. In the early floral and foliate seal designs the palmette and palmette patterns are regular inclusions as is the papyrus flower. By the Minoan High Art Period the palm tree has become a symbol in its own right and papyrus flower plants signify a special landscape where deities and dragons play. Even if one allows that a native Cretan palm and an endemic tufted flower are part of the inspiration for these motifs, it is clear that the eastern date palm 32 and the papyrus thickets of the Nile marshes must also have played a part. At this same early time the composition and shape of some seals point to an Egyptian source. Hippopotamus ivory 33 is a favoured material for carving these fine pieces and in many cases parts of the original tooth actually form the seal shape. A horizontal cross section yields a seal with two faces, one slightly smaller than the other while the top of the tusk makes a dome-shaped seal with one face.34 Then there are the figural seals carved in the shape of monkeys and lions.35 The effort required to access the hippopotamus tusk raw material and its use to create a prestige item both indicate that the link to Egypt was important. The Fabulous Five At the beginning of our survey we had a list of five creatures, the exotic monkey and lion and the fantastic griffin, dragon and genius, which had come to the fore of our attention because of the frequency of their depiction and the longevity of their floruit in Aegean art. At the end of our survey we can see that the five creatures need to be considered as a group, not simply because they are


30

31 32 33

34

35

Refer to individual motifs discussed in CROWLEY (supra n. 1) and to Pls 4, 5, 31-34, 61-63, 93, 109-112, 113, 132, 149-154, 173, 185-187, 209-214, 421. For a discussion of crocodile and dragon transferences see CROWLEY (supra n. 1) Pls 54 to 57. The date palm also belongs to the Mesopotamian sphere. For discussion of the materials see O. KRZYSZKOWSKA, “Early Cretan Seals. New Evidence for the Use of Bone, Ivory and Boar’s Tusk,” in W. MÜLLER (ed.), Fragen und Probleme der bronzezeitlichen ägäischen Glyptik. Beiträge zum 3. Internationalen Marburger Siegel-Symposium, 5.-7. September 1985 (1989) 111-126 and also Ivory and Related materials: an Illustrated Guide (1990). This aggressive dangerous animal has two tusks in each jaw, the larger lower ones may grow to about 60cm. See hippopotamus tusk seals, section CMS II.1 252, 260, 382, 497 and dome-shaped II.1 58, 228, 231, 241, 387. For the hippopotamus ivory monkey shaped seals see CMS II.1 249, 435, III 2 and for a hippopotamus ivory seal fashioned as a lion mauling a man see CMS II.1 130. There is also a reclining lion in carnelian, CMS III 19, and one in paste, a white piece, CMS IV D7. The hard stone figural seal, CMS IV D32, is in the shape of the foot of a lion and its seal design is quite a convincing rendition of a crocodile.

THE FABULOUS FIVE: MONKEY, LION, GRIFFIN, DRAGON, GENIUS

209

creatures ultimately of eastern origin that have become thoroughly aegeanized but because they all arrived so early into Minoan Crete and because they became the identifiers of the Minoan supernatural world. Finding an appropriate title for this group of rather disparate individuals is solved by turning to their origins and naming them “The Fabulous Five” when the word “fabulous” is used in its original definition of “told about in fables” and so not founded necessarily on fact but sourced in stories about supernatural or extraordinary persons or incidents. It is the supernatural and the extraordinary that are the key words for the role played by the Fabulous Five in Aegean art and thought and perhaps we have never fully faced up to the fact that they define the supernatural world. It is true that the monkey and lion are living animals but they do come from lands far away from Crete and so their essential character is readily aligned with that of the three fantastic creatures that also come from a distant world, albeit the world of the gods. There is, of course, a parallel universe in Aegean art where daily human activity and indigenous fauna are the subjects. The agrimi, stag, boar, bull and ram are favourite motifs and humans perform ceremonies, tend their herds, go hunting and fight battles. These images do incorporate ideas of pious worship, animal fertility and human courage but all these concepts are tied into life as it is lived daily. There is also an intermediary state where hybrid humans suggest a fusing of power. The hybrid humans that emanate out of the known every-day world are the birdwoman, bullman, agrimiman and stagman, and they suggest a spirit level to the interaction of humans with indigenous animals. They are paralleled by the relatively few hybrid humans linked to our Fabulous Five, the lionwoman, lionman and geniusman. However, the iconography clearly distinguishes the earthly abode from the supernatural realm where the Fabulous Five epitomise power. Indeed their power is so strong that they can, at times, cross the boundary into the world of humans and make their power manifest. As great predators, the lion and griffin can attack indigenous prey like the agrimi, stag and bull, thus bringing supernatural power to achieve hunting dominance. The lion as quarry becomes the ultimate test for male bravery as it is raised to great stature to become a meet adversary of the human hunter. As intermediary and protector, the monkey and the genius guide and help humans meet deities. The Fabulous Five identify the deities in their role of familiar, none more so than the dragon which carries the Great Lady seated side-saddle. In all these ways it is clear that the Fabulous Five define the supernatural realm in which anthropomorphic gods display their power and numinous forces exert their control, personifying mighty strength, powerful aggression, successful hunting and the fecundity of the herds. All Five allow humans access to the supernatural through their roles as guardians of potent symbols. The monkey and the genius enjoy a semi-divine status. Returning to the proposals made at the beginning of the paper as to how these creatures may have migrated into the iconography, we may accept that all the avenues proposed may have had some effect.36 However, once one accepts the momentous role of the Fabulous Five in establishing concepts of the supernatural world, a mix of art, travel, trade and souvenirs does not seem to provide a sufficient base for such all-encompassing influence. It becomes necessary to face the fact that there may be more to immigrant success than just knowing of the taxonomy of the living animals or having some familiarity with artistic renderings in their home artistic traditions of the East. There are links to Egyptian fauna and Egyptian art, especially the monkey, lion and genius. At the time first indications of these links are seen in art, seals were made of hippopotamus ivory, seal shapes were hippopotamus tusks and monkeys and lions while the iconographic repertoire also invested in palm, palmette and papyrus designs. All this suggests that there may have been a wave of early settlers bringing with them memories of their Egyptian homeland only to have the memories coalesce around the Fabulous Five to create a metaphysical world for Aegean beliefs. Yet this is not all. The earliest depictions of lions show them of solid build and walking in animal file, a standard early Mesopotamian motif, as are winged creatures and long-necked quadrupeds. These source images for lions, griffins and dragons may have come to Crete as peoples from Syria or beyond pioneered early travel routes that were expanded in


36

See the historical overview of the early interconnections, ARUZ (supra n. 2) 8-48.

210

Janice L. CROWLEY

Middle and Late Bronze times. We know that migrants from the East came to Crete long before we can trace their influence in art but now there is reason to review the timing and the routes. The seal evidence suggests that peoples from Egypt and Syria did come to Crete in the third millennium (or earlier) and that they brought with them their own metaphysical concepts. Only this can explain why these exotic and fantastic creatures could take such a hold of metaphysical imagery so early and so thoroughly in the Aegean. The timeline of the Fabulous Five floruit encompasses some fifteen centuries of seal design from the arrival of the first four in the Early Seals Period in EM, through the establishment of the iconographic repertoire of the whole five by the end of MM, to the heady life of display and influence in the Experimentation/Minoan High Art Periods, and down into the Legacy and Late Periods. On the way, interest in the animal life that these creatures might have had waned and the symbolic representation of the metaphysical world became their pre-eminent role. All five exotic animals and fantastic creatures are there in the Early Seal Period allowing a thousand years to settle the immigrants into Minoan thought and Minoan art before the time of the Second Palaces. The Fabulous Five members interact with ritual symbols, guard buildings, become violent and successful hunters, help humans, identify gods as their familiars and even, sometimes, stand in the deity’s place. Two, the monkey and the dragon, are lost to the last sequences presumably being too close to the Great Lady of the Minoans to survive under the Mycenaean ascendancy. The other three live a lusty life to the end, the lion and the griffin becoming emblems for the violence and aggression of their human counterparts and the genius transforming itself into a benevolent spirit guardian for humans and a favoured server to the gods. So, our investigation into the seal images has presented us with three inescapable facts. 1.
The exotic and fantastic Fabulous Five create the visual statement of the Minoan metaphysical world (and some images are retained by the Mycenaeans). 2.
The Fabulous Five comprise the most significant transference from the East even as they come with other motifs and materials thus magnifying their influence. 3.
The Fabulous Five‘s immigration begins very early. Its manifestation in art begins in the EM III seal images and is complete as to the full complement of creatures and the detail of their depiction by the end of MM II. Yet this is simply the date that we can visually track the existence of this supernatural world. It may have existed in the thought processes of the Cretan peoples long before. In summary, the Fabulous Five arrive early, stay late and together help create a fantastic otherworld where the Aegean mind can explore concepts of fertility, renewal, power and aggression and where the humble mortal can safely access the numinous. Janice L. CROWLEY


THE FABULOUS FIVE: MONKEY, LION, GRIFFIN, DRAGON, GENIUS

211

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Seal Description, Provenance, Stylistic Date, CMS Number) Pl. XLI 1 Pl. XLI 2 Pl. XLI 3 Pl. XLI 4 Pl. XLI 5 Pl. XLI 6 Pl. XLI 7 Pl. XLI 8 Pl. XLI 9 Pl. XLI 10 Pl. XLI 11 Pl. XLI 12 Pl. XLI 13 Pl. XLI 14 Pl. XLI 15 Pl. XLI 16 Pl. XLI 17 Pl. XLI 18 Pl. XLI 19 Pl. XLI 20 Pl. XLII 21 Pl. XLII 22 Pl. XLII 23 Pl. XLII 24 Pl. XLII 25 Pl. XLII 26 Pl. XLII 27 Pl. XLII 28 Pl. XLII 29 Pl. XLII 30 Pl. XLII 31 Pl. XLII 32 Pl. XLII 33 Pl. XLII 34 Pl. XLII 35 Pl. XLII 36 Pl. XLII 37 Pl. XLII 38 Pl. XLII 39 Pl. XLII 40 Pl. XLIII 41 Pl. XLIII 42 Pl. XLIII 43 Pl. XLIII 44 Pl. XLIII 45 Pl. XLIII 46

Bone figural seal in the shape of a reclining bull, Platanos Tholos A, EM III-MM IA, CMS II.1 253. Hippopotamus ivory pear shaped seal, Mochlos Grave II, EM III-MM IA, CMS II.1 473. Steatite three sided prism, unknown provenance, MM II, CMS VII 6b. Clay sealing, Phaestos Palace Room 25, MM II, CMS II.5 297. Clay sealing from a lentoid, Knossos Palace Hieroglyphic Deposit, MM III-LM I, CMS II.8 286. Clay sealing from a soft stone? lentoid, Chania Kastelli, MM III-LM I, CMS V 233. Clay sealing from a soft stone? signet ring bezel, unknown provenance, LM I, CMS.II.6 282 Clay sealing from a soft stone lentoid, Kato Zakros House A, LM I, CMS II.7 24. Clay sealing from a soft stone lentoid, Agia Triada, LM I, CMS II.6 73. Silver coloured alloy lentoid, Sitia?, LM I, CMS III 358. Carnelian amygdaloid, Prassa?, LM I, CMS III 357. Clay sealing from a hard stone lentoid, Pylos Palace south-west slope, LB I-LB II, CMS I 377. Gold signet ring, Kalyvia Tomb of the Nobles, LM I-LM II, CMS II.3 103. Clay sealing from a soft stone lentoid, Knossos Palace Room of the Egyptian Beans, LM I-LM II?, CMS II.8 262. Carnelian lentoid, Phaestos?, LM I, CMS III 377. Clay sealing from a hard stone lentoid, Agia Triada, LM I, CMS II.6 74. Bone cylinder stamp seal, Platanos Tholos A, EM III-MM IA, CMS II.1 248a. Hippopotamus ivory cylinder stamp seal, Mesara Marathokephalo Flur Kambelitouria Tholos, EM III-MM IA, CMS II.1 224a. Bone stamp seal, gift of Richard Seager, EM III-MM IA, CMS XII 8a. Hippopotamus ivory pyramidoid stamp seal, Agia Triada Tholos A, EM III-MM IA, CMS II.1 55. Steatite three sided prism, Kato Metochi chance find, MM II, CMS II.2 245c. Clay sealing, Phaestos Palace Room 25, MM II, CMS II.5 270. Amethyst ring stone, Kato Zakros single find, MM II-MM III?, CMS VS 1B 331. Agate discoid, gift of Richard Seager, MM II-MM III, CMS XII 135a. Clay sealing from a metal signet ring bezel, Knossos, LM I, CMS II.8 298. Clay sealing from a hard stone lentoid, Agia Triada, LM I, CMS II.6 91. Jasper lentoid, unknown provenance, LM I, CMS X 250. Clay sealing from a lentoid, Kato Zakros, LM I, CMS II.7 76. Carnelian lentoid, from Athens?, LH I-LH II, CMS XI 42. Clay sealing from a hard stone lentoid, Kato Zakros House A, LM I, CMS II.7 102. Gold cushion, Mycenae Grave Circle A Grave III, LH I, CMS I 9. Clay sealing from a hard stone cushion, Kato Zakros House A, LM I, CMS II.7 33. Clay sealing from a metal? signet ring bezel, Agia Triada, LM I, CMS II.6 35. Clay sealing from a metal? signet ring bezel?, Knossos Palace Eastern Temple Repository, LM I, CMS II.8 237. Carnelian lentoid, Mycenae Kalkani Chamber Tomb Grave 515, LB I-LB II, CMS I 144. Gold signet ring, Mycenae? Tysczkiewicz Collection, LB I-LB II, CMS VI 364. Lapis lacedaimonius lentoid, Mycenae lower city Chamber Tomb Grave 68, LB II, CMS I 106. Agate lentoid, Dendra Midea Tholos Pit 1, LB II-LB IIIA1, CMS I 185. Clay sealing from a metal signet ring bezel, Pylos Palace Archive Room 8, LB II-LB IIIA1, CMS I 307. Agate lentoid, neighbourhood of Chania? Evans 1894, LB II-LB IIIA1, CMS VI 312. Hippopotamus ivory cylinder stamp seal, Platanos Tholos A, EM III-MM IA, CMS II.1 250a. Hippopotamus ivory figural seal in the shape of a sitting monkey, Platanos Tholos A, EM III-MM IA, CMS II.1 249. Clay sealing, Phaestos Palace Room 25, MM II, CMS II.5 317. Serpentine eight sided stamp seal, unknown provenance, MM II-MM III, CMS XI 6. Steatite or serpentine lentoid, Knossos Kato Jypsades, LM I?, CMS II.3 79. Agate cushion with gold mounting, Pylos Flur Rutsi Tholos Grave 2, LB I-LB II, CMS I 271.

212 Pl. XLIII 47 Pl. XLIII 48 Pl. XLIII 49 Pl. XLIII 50 Pl. XLIII 51 Pl. XLIII 52 Pl. XLIII 53 Pl. XLIII 54 Pl. XLIII 55 Pl. XLIII 56 Pl. XLIII 57 Pl. XLIII 58 Pl. XLIII 59 Pl. XLIII 60 Pl. XLIV 61 Pl. XLIV 62 Pl. XLIV 63 Pl. XLIV 64 Pl. XLIV 65 Pl. XLIV 66 Pl. XLIV 67 Pl. XLIV 68 Pl. XLIV 69 Pl. XLIV 70 Pl. XLIV 71 Pl. XLIV 72 Pl. XLIV 73 Pl. XLIV 74 Pl. XLIV 75 Pl. XLIV 76 Pl. XLIV 77 Pl. XLIV 78 Pl. XLIV 79 Pl. XLIV 80 Pl. XLV 81 Pl. XLV 82 Pl. XLV 83 Pl. XLV 84 Pl. XLV 85 Pl. XLV 86 Pl. XLV 87 Pl. XLV 88 Pl. XLV 89 Pl. XLV 90 Pl. XLV 91 Pl. XLV 92 Pl. XLV 93 Pl. XLV 94 Pl. XLV 95 Pl. XLV 96

Janice L. CROWLEY Clay sealing from a hard stone lentoid, Agia Triada, LM I, CMS II.6 101. Clay sealing from a metal signet ring bezel, Kato Zakros House A, LM I, CMS II.7 96. Jasper cushion, Koukounara Gouvalari Tholos 1, LB I-LB II, CMS V 642. Clay sealing from a metal signet ring bezel, Knossos Domestic Quarter, LM I, CMS II.8 359. Clay sealing from a metal signet ring bezel, Kato Zakros House A, LM I, CMS II.7 87. Clay sealing from a hard stone amygdaloid, Agia Triada unknown location, LM I, CMS II.6 102. Jasper lentoid, Vaphio Tholos cist in the chamber floor, LB I-LB II, CMS I 223. Clay sealing from a metal signet ring bezel, Knossos Palace Eastern Temple Repository, LM I, CMS II.8 193. Clay sealing from a metal? signet ring bezel, Agia Triada Villa, LM I, CMS II.6 20. Carnelian lentoid, from a villager to Evans during an early visit to the Psychro Cave, LB I-LB II, CMS VI 317. Clay sealing from a metal signet ring bezel, Pylos Palace Corridor 95 and Room 99, LB II-LB IIIA1, CMS I 329. Agate lentoid, Mycenae Chamber Tomb Grave 58, LB II-LB IIIA1, CMS I 98. Agate plate of exceptional shape, Tiryns lower town Room 218, LB II-LB IIIA1, CMS VS 1B 429. Agate amygdaloid, Phylaki Flur tis tripas t’armi Tholos, LB IIIA1, CMS VS 1A 202. Hippopotamus ivory cylinder stamp seal, Platanos Tholos B, EM III-MM IA, CMS II.1 295a. Hippopotamus ivory cylinder stamp seal, Platanos Tholos B, EM III-MM IA, CMS II.1 295b. Steatite three sided prism, bought at Candia by Evans in 1894, MM II, CMS VI 52b. Steatite three sided prism, unknown provenance, MM II, CMS X 245a. Hard stone discoid, unknown provenance, MM III-LM I, CMS XI 291a. Agate? three sided prism amygdaloid shaped seal faces, Armeni Grave 47, LM I, CMS V 268a. Jasper lentoid, Mycenae Flur Loupouno Chamber Tomb VII, LB I-LB II, CMS VS 1B 76. Serpentine or schist lentoid, Crete, LM I, CMS VI 362. Clay sealing from a metal signet ring bezel, Sklavokambos Villa Room 1, LM I, CMS II.6 262. Clay sealing from a metal signet ring bezel, Agia Triada, LM I, CMS II.6 34. Carnelian lentoid, Mesara, LM I, CMS IV D42. Agate amygdaloid, gift of Richard Seager, LM I, CMS XII 290. Clay roundel sealing of a signet ring bezel?, Agia Triada Room 13, LM I, CMS II.6 33. Haematite cylinder seal, Agia Pelagia?, LM I-LM II, CMS VI 321. Gold signet ring (now missing), Mochlos burial above Grave IX, LM I, CMS II.3 252. Steatite or serpentine lentoid, Knossos Kato Jypsades, LM I, CMS II.3 77. Agate lentoid, Mycenae Clytemnestra Tholos single find, LB II-LB IIIA!, CMS I 167. Steatite three sided prism, Crete?, MM II, CMS VI 59b. Jasper petschaft, found near Archanes?, MM II, CMS VI 128. Gold signet ring, Mycenae Panajia Chamber Tomb Grave 91, LB II-LB IIIA1, CMS I 129. Egyptian scarab, Platanos Tholos B, Dynasty 11-12, CMS II.1 283. Clay sealing, Phaestos Palace Room 25, MM II, CMS II.5 321. Clay sealing, Phaestos Palace Room 25, MM II, CMS II.5 322. Clay sealing from a soft stone cushion, Knossos Palace Hieroglyphic Deposit, MM II-MM III, CMS II.8 195. Haematite amygdaloid, gift of Richard Seager, LM I, CMS XII 212. Agate amygdaloid, Vaphio Tholos cist in the chamber floor, LB I-LB II, CMS I 232. Clay sealing from a hard stone lentoid, Kato Zakros House A, LM I, CMS II.7 31. Agate barrel, Kakovatos Tholos, LB I-LB II, CMS XI 208. Agate lentoid, Vaphio Tholos cist in the chamber floor, LB I-LB II, CMS I 231. Haematite? lentoid, Mycenae Acropolis single find, LB I-LB II, CMS I 172. Agate lentoid, purchased in Athens said to be found in Crete, LB I-LB II, CMS VI 304. Carnelian lentoid, Melos?, LB I-LB II, CMS VI 306. Agate amygdaloid, Karpophora Flur Nichoria Tholos, LB II-LB IIIA1, CMS V 440. Hard stone lentoid, Crete?, LM II-LM IIIA1, CMS VIII 65. Agate lentoid, Montigny Collection purchased 1887, LB II-LB IIIA1, CMS IX 129. Lapis lacedaimonius lentoid, Patras-Voudendi Flur Amygdalia Grave 4, LB II-LB IIIA1, CMS VS 1B 153.

THE FABULOUS FIVE: MONKEY, LION, GRIFFIN, DRAGON, GENIUS Pl. XLV 97

Clay sealing from a hard stone lentoid on a vessel, Mycenae House of the Oil Merchant, LB IIIA1-LB IIIA2, CMS I 161. Pl. XLV 98 Lapis lacedaimonius lentoid, Pyrgos Psilonero? purchased 1931, LH II-LH IIIA1, CMS V 201. Pl. XLV 99 Clay sealing from a metal signet ring bezel, Pylos Palace south-west slope, LB II-LB IIIA, CMS I 379. Pl. XLV 100 Gold signet ring, Tiryns found in a dwelling in the lower city, LB II, CMS I 179.

213

XLI Monkey Early Seal Period

1. monkey, lion (II.1 253/EM III-MM IA)

2. monkey (II.1 473/EM III-MM IA)

3. monkey (VII 6b/MM II)

4. monkey (II.5 297/MM II)

Monkey Experimentation and Minoan High Art Periods

5. monkey (II.8 286/MM III-LM I)

9. monkey (II.6 73/LM I)

13. monkey, woman, VIP (II.3 103/LM I-LM II

6. monkey (V 233/MM III-LM I)

7. monkey (II.6 282/LM I)

10. monkey, woman (III 358/LM I)

11. monkey, VIP (III 357/LM I)

14. monkey as VIP, woman (II.8 262/LM I-LM II?)

15. monkeys, vase (III 377/LM I)

8. monkey, woman (II.7 24/LM I)

12. monkey, VIP (I 377/LB I-LB II)

16. monkeys, curved altar (II.6 74/LM I)

Lion Early Seal Period

17. lion, spider (II.1 248a/EM III-MM IA)

18. lions (II.1 224a/EM III-MM IA)

19. lions (XII 8a/EM III-MM IA)

20. lion, VIP II.1 55/EM III-MM IA)

XLII Lion Early Seal Period (cont.)

21. lion (II.2 245c/MM II)

22. lion (II.5 270/MM II)

23. lion (VS 1B 331/MM II-MM III?)

24. lion (XII 135a/MM II-MM III)

Lion Experimentation and Minoan High Art Periods

25. lions (II.8 298/LM I)

29. lion, stag (XI 42/LH I-LH II)

33. lion, VIP (II.6 35/LM I)

26. lion (II.6 91/LM I)

30. lion, bull (II.7 102/LM I)

34. lion, VIP (II.8 237/LM I)

27. lions (X 250/LM I)

31. lion, hunter (I 9/LH I)

35. lions, Mistress (I 144/LB I-LB II)

28. lion heads (II.7 76/LM I)

32. lion, hunters (II.7 33/LM I)

36. lions, grand pillar (VI 364/LB I-LB II)

Lion Legacy Period

37. lion, cub (I 106/LB II)

38. lion, bull (I 185/LB II-LB IIIA1)

39. lions, hunters (I 307/LB II-LB IIIA1)

40. lions, Master (VI 312/LB II-LB IIIA1)

XLIII Griffin Early Seal Period

41. griffins (II.1 250a/EM III-MM IA)

42. griffin, lion (II.1 249/ EM III-MM IA)

43. griffin (II.5 317/MM II)

44. griffin (XI 6/MM II-MM III)

Griffin Experimentation and Minoan High Art Periods

45. griffin (II.3 79/LM I?)

49. griffin, stag (V 642/LB I-LB II)

53. griffin, VIP (I 223/LB I-LB II)

46. griffin (I 271/LB I-LB II)

50. griffin, lion (II.8 359/LM I)

54. griffin chariot, VIP (II.8 193/LM I)

47. griffins with young (II.6 101/LM I)

48. griffin, lion (II.7 96/LM I)

51. griffin, palm tree (II.7 87/LM I)

52. griffins, tree of life (II.6 102/LM I)

55. griffin grand boat, VIP (II.6 20/LM I)

56. griffins, Mistress (VI 317/LB I-LB II)

Griffin Legacy Period

57. griffin, lion (I 329/LB II-LB IIIA1)

58. griffins, grand pillar (I 98/LB II-LB IIIA1)

59. griffin, VIP (VS 1B 429/LB II-LB IIIA1)

60. griffin, lion, stag (VS 1A 202/LB IIIA1)

XLIV Dragon Early Seal Period

61. dragon (II.1 295a/EM III-MM IA)

62. dragon (II.1 295b/ EM III-MM IA)

63. dragon (VI 52b/MM II)

64. dragon (X 245a/MM II)

Dragon Experimentation and Minoan High Art Periods

65. dragon (XI 291a/MM III-LM I)

69. dragon (II.6 262/LM I)

73. dragon, VIP (II.6 33/LM I)

66. dragon (V 268a/LM I)

70. dragons (II.6 34/LM I)

74. dragon, griffin, VIPs (VI 321/LM I-LM II)

Dragon Legacy Period

Crocodile

77. dragon, VIP (I 167/LB II-LB IIIA1)

78. crocodiles (VI 59b/MM II)

67. dragons (VS 1B 76/LB I-LB II)

71. dragon (IV D42/LM I)

68. dragon (VI 362/LM I)

72. dragon (XII 290/LM I)

75. dragon grand boat, VIP (II.3 252/LM I)

76. birdwoman (II.3 77/LM I)

Sphinx

79. sphinx (VI 128/MM II)

80. sphinx (I 129/LB II-LB IIIA1)

XLV Genius Early Seal Period

81. scarab (II.1 283/Dynasty 11-12)

82. genius (II.5 321/MM II)

83. genius (II.5 322/MM II)

84. genius (II.8 195/MM II-MM III)

Genius Experimentation and Minoan High Art Periods

85. genius (XII 212/LM I)

89. genius (I 231/LB I-LB II)

86. genius (I 232/LB I-LB II)

90. Master, lions (I 172/LB I-LB II)

87. genius, bull (II.7 31/LM I)

91. genius, cow (VI 304/LB I-LB II)

88. genius, hunter, lion (XI 208/LB I-LB II)

92. genius, lion (VI 306/LB I-LB II)

Genius Legacy Period

93. genius (V 440/LB II-LB IIIA1)

97. Master, hounds (I 161/LB IIIA1-LB IIIA2)

94. genius, grand pillar (VIII 65/LM II-LM IIIA1)

98. genius, VIP, agrimi (V 201/LH II-LH IIIA1)

95. genius, bull (IX 129/LB II-LB IIIA1)

99. genius, VIP, bull (I 379/LB II-LB IIIA)

96. genius, man (VS 1B 153/LB II-LB IIIA1)

100. genius, VIP (I 179/LB II)

THE MINOAN GENII, THE PALM TREE AND SOLAR CULT (WITH SOME EGYPTIAN AND NEAR EASTERN PERSPECTIVES) Abstract The object of this paper is to explore the iconography of the Minoan genii as ministrants of solar cult and as custodians of the palm tree. Close comparisons between second Millennium (Middle Bronze Age I-II) Syrian seals and Minoan glyptic scenes will help better to understand the riddle of the solar palm as a tree of life and fertility and explain why it is guarded by genii. In Minoan art, the latter have the additional role of regulating seasons and constellations.

A brief history of ideas The Minoan genius is an upright male lion wearing a varied attire consisting of a tortoise shell or a striped shell which sometimes has spikes in the New Palace period. A brief history of ideas will illustrate that scholars in the past, as well as in the present, have almost exclusively focused on the genius’ role in nature and fertility cult and (with the exception of Sir Arthur Evans) have been less attentive to his celestial habitat and his association with the sun and stars. Evans was, in fact, the pioneer in identifying the genius as a vegetation and fertility demon in his groundbreaking long article on sacred trees and pillars.1 Later, he elaborated further on the subject stressing its relation to Egyptian Taweret: on this subject more be said later. The fertility and vegetation theories were embraced also by Martin Persson Nilsson who added, however, that the genius was essentially a wild nature divinity sometimes engaged in hunting rather than fertility.2 The vegetation theory was adopted in the thorough study of Margaret Gill, and she added that the hunting scenes and the relation of the genius to Egyptian Taweret suggest a broader role for him.3 Spyridon Marinatos accepted the fertility theory of Evans and the affinity of the genii with Egyptian Taweret, but added that the carrying of a stag on a seal in the Ashmolean CMS XI, 38 (see Pl. XLVIa) suggests a foreshadowing of the Athenian festival of deer-hunting (elaphebolion) in the month of February/March.4 Judith Weingarten focused on the affinity between the Minoan genius and the Egyptian Taweret and showed the significant evolution and mutation of the Minoan genius from the Old to the New Palace period. This development followed the evolution of Taweret in Egypt: there too the demon developed from a child-birth deity to an apotropoaic one.5 Stella Chryssoulaki dealt with the iconography of the genius as a carrier of a lifeless body and she identified him as a carrier of souls.6 In a more recent years, Fritz Blakolmer accepts Nilsson’s idea that the genii are minor divinities in themselves and have multiple roles. As for utilizing Near Eastern/Egyptian patterns for understanding the Minoan scenes, Blakolmer remains skeptical of the method because each culture has its own idioms and imitation does not
1 A.J. EVANS, “Mycenaean Tree and Pillar Cult and its Mediterranean Relations,” JHS 21 (1901) 101. 2 3

4

5

6

M.P. NILSSON, Minoan and Mycenaean Religion and its survival into Greek Religion (1950) 378-381. M.A.V. GILL, “The Minoan Genius,” AM 79 (1964) 5-9; EAD., “Apropos the Minoan Genius,” AJA 74 (1970) 404-406. Sp. MARINATOS, “ΠΟΛΥΔΙΨΙΟΝ ΑΡΓΟΣ,” in Proceedings of the Cambridge Colloquium of Mycenaean Studies (1966) 265-274. J. WEINGARTEN, The Transformations of Egyptian Taweret into the Minoan Genius: A study in cultural Transmission in the Middle Bronze Age (1991) 3-20. St. CHRYSSOULAKI, “A new approach to Minoan Iconography- an Introduction: the Case of the Minoan Genii,” in P.P. BETANCOURT et al. (eds), MELETEMATA. Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He enters his 65th Year (1999)111-117.

216

Nanno MARINATOS

necessarily mean similar understanding of concepts.7 A most recent article on the genii by Sharon Stocker and Jack Davis consists of the publication of a new seal from Pylos which shows two genii flanking a palm tree. Between them is a large solar disc, and the excavators rightly speak about sun symbols and sacrifice.8 At this point, I would like to return to Evans to discuss a major observation in the last volume of the Palace of Minos where he argued that the Minoan genius played a part in regulating the constellations in analogy to Egyptian Taweret. Evans attempted to explain two Cretan glyptic scenes, a lentoid in the Ashmolean and an impression from Knossos (Pls XLVIa and c). On the Ashmolean seal, a genius is carrying a subdued stag on his shoulders (this is the piece that gave Sp. Marinatos the idea about a stag hunting festival). The scene, however, is framed by two stars which may well be indications that the genius was imagined in the starry sky (Pl. XLVIa). The second piece is a seal-impression from the area of the “Daemon seals” at Knossos, which represents a genius accompanied by an upright standing lion-man; both creatures face two disjointed animal fore-legs at the right edge of the lentoid (Pl. XLVIc).9 What is the significance of these animal legs and how do they relate to the function of the genius and his companion, the lion-man? Evans made a bold suggestion by utilizing the prism of Egyptian New Kingdom imagery of astronomical ceilings, where the hippopotamus demon Taweret features. On the ceiling of the Ramesseum, Taweret/Ririt is shown among stars (rendered as circles) and holds a sword (Pl. XLVIb).10 At her feet, we see an upright subjugated crocodile which Taweret grabs by its snout. She is facing an oval shaped constellation msk
tyw, which means the bull fore-leg of Seth. This constellation was considered by the Egyptians a sinister cluster of stars, which they imagined as a bull’s leg with a bull head and which they feared could get out of control. Taweret menaces it, thus acting as a protectress and ally of the young god Horus, and assists him in defeating the threatening enemies of order. As well, she makes a clear place in the heavens for the birth of Horus.11 Returning now to Evans, he wrote: It seems to be certainly worth recalling a suggestive analogy presented by the astronomic scenes … [of Egyptian temples and tombs] in which Taurt – ex hypothesi – the prototype of the Minoan daemonsregularly appears in connexion with the youthful Horus, whom she assists against the hostile power of Set… We have seen that these astronomic schemes had left their mark on the Minoan seal types in which the Genii figure. The stars beside the stag-bearing daemon … are especially suggestive, as is the oxleg...12 Evans, then, was the first to suggest that the Minoan genius’s role went beyond fertility and encompassed a broader cosmic order in which not only the goddess played a part but also the young male god. Genius and Solar Cult The ensuing discussion will continue in the spirit of Evans’ observation that the genius had a role in the maintenance of the cosmic/astral order of the cosmos. Going beyond Evans, I will also be highlighting the association of genius and palm and will be discussing the latter as a bearer of the solar
F. BLAKOLMER, “Was the Minoan Genius a God? An Essay on Near Eastern Deities and Demons in Aegean Bronze Age Iconography,” in P.P. CREASMAN and R.H. WILKINSON, Ancient Mediterranean Interconnections. Papers in Honor of Nanno Marinatos. Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 7 (2015) no. 3, 3335. S.R. STOCKER and J.L. DAVIS, “An Early Mycenaean Wanax at Pylos? On Genii and Sun-Disks from the Grave of the Griffin Warrior,” in F. BLAKOLMER (ed.), Aegis Current Approaches and New Perspectives in Aegean Iconography (2020) 293-295. A. EVANS, PM IV (1935) 441, Fig. 365. R.H. WILKINSON, “New Kingdom Astronomical Paintings and Methods of Finding and Extending Direction,” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 28 (1991) 153, Fig. 3. WILKINSON (supra n. 10) 149-154. EVANS (supra n. 9) 463-464.

7

8

9 10

11 12




THE MINOAN GENII, THE PALM TREE AND SOLAR CULT

217


disc. There is, indeed, strong Minoan iconographical evidence linking the genius to solar cult: this evidence can be enriched with comparanda from Egypt and the Syro-Palestinian coast. The first piece of testimony that the genius is associated with the solar disc in Creto-Mycenaean art, is the famous Tiryns ring (Pl. XLVId) which depicts a procession of four genii carrying spouted jugs and proceeding towards a female deity seated on a folding chair/throne. Attached to the back of her throne is a hawk. The Egyptians considered the hawk a solar bird, a manifestation of the god Horus, and the same is true of the bird in Syrian glyptic of the second millennium.13 This parallelism is not proof that deity whom the genii serve is a solar one, of course; but it is worth keeping this detail in mind. Even more important is this: the upper field of the ring is dedicated to the celestial sphere consisting of the sun, moon and sheaves which appear to be star-clusters or comets. The deity whom the genii serve is thus likely a solar deity- at least she is enthroned in a celestial palace. The second piece of evidence connecting the genii to the sun is a ring impression from Pylos (Pl. XLVIe), which shows a goddess wearing a crown adorned with the so-called ‘snake frames’ and sacral horns. For our purposes, the important feature is that the sun disc is situated at the center of the crown and that the goddess is flanked by two genii (of which only the left one has been well preserved). Each of the demons holds a sword and is accompanied by a wild goat.14 The third piece of evidence is the already mentioned lentoid seal from the Griffin Warrior’s Grave in Pylos, Messenia (Pl. XLVIf).15 Two genii holding libation jugs symmetrically flank an altar with a small tree on top; this tree appears to be a young palm. Above the palm is the sun disc. As Sharon Stocker and Jack Davis note, the iconography is very reminiscent of the gem from Vapheio (CMS I, 231), the main difference being the absence of the sun disc on the latter. We must remember too that the genius is primarily a lion-demon with an overcoat, and it is natural that he would worship the sun similarly to regular lions. Examples of the formula lion + sun is a lentoid from Knossos where two symmetrically arranged lions resting their forepaws on an incurved altar, flank a sun disc (Pl. XLVIg; note that I. Pini at CMS II 8, 326, insists that they are dogs). The animals avert their faces from the sun, which may be a sign of awe towards the deity. On another seal from the Ashmolean (Pl. XLVIh) two lions are chasing one another along the circumference of the seal. Note that two rayed stars are at the edges which remind of the two stars flanking the genius on the Ashmolean seal (Pl. XLVIa). In sum, both lions and lion-genii are associated with solar/astral signs. Concluding this section now, the thesis has been proposed that both the genius and the lion engage in sun-worship or serve solar deities. It is to be noted that lions and lion-demons are guardians of the sun also in Egyptian and Syro-Levantine art.16 On these grounds, it will be proposed that astral theology is a common feature in East Mediterranean religious iconography. Genius and Palm in Minoan Art The genius has a special connection with the palm tree in Minoan art, as I have argued in my previous work,17 and this association is especially evident on the Vapheio and Pylos seals already mentioned above – there are others as well, which need not be enumerated here once again. I distinguish between two basic schemes: 1. The palm (even in abbreviated and highly stylized form) is part of the landscape in which the genii operate (Pl. XLVIa); 2. The palm is the focus of the cult and is flanked by
B. TEISSIER, Egyptian Iconography on Syro-Palestinian Seals of the Middle Bronze (1996) 150-151. For the so-called snake frames see N. MARINATOS, “A Minoan Riddle: Suggestions about the Religious Standard on a Fresco from Xeste 4, Akrotiri,” in F. BLAKOLMER (ed.), Current Approaches and New Perspectives in Aegean Iconography (2020) 191-204; for the sun disc see STOCKER and DAVIS (supra n. 8) 294295. STOCKER and DAVIS (supra n. 8) 294, figs 1-3. R.H. WILKINSON, “A possible Origin for the ‘Shoulder Ornaments’ in Egyptian Representations of Lions,” Varia Aegyptiaca 5 (1989) 59-71; ID. (supra n. 10) 96; TEISSIER (supra n. 13) 132, 189. N. MARINATOS, “The Date-palm in Minoan Iconography and Religion,” Opuscula Atheniensia 15 (1984) 115-122.

13 14

15 16

17







218

Nanno MARINATOS

a pair of genii, as on the Vapheio ring (CMS I, 231) and the Ashmolean and Pylos seal (Pls XLVIf-g). Another example of the palm as a focus of cult occurs on a bronze handle of a hydria from Kourion, Cyprus, where no less than four pairs of genii flank a long pillar-like object with bulbous irregularities. Evans mistakenly identified the object as crocodile skin, but Gill corrected him noting that it is a palm trunk with a scaly surface.18 The rough trunk occurs also on a red carnelian seal in the Ashmolean (CMS VI, 310) which shows two genii flanking a stylized palm (Pl. XLVIg). The latter example has another feature, namely a rayed disc at the top of the palm’s crest. What does the disc signify? Is it a stylized version of the efflorescence “sprouting blossoms”, as identified by Gill?19 The CMS entry provides a similar description, identifying the disc as “a plumb bud” (CMS VI, p. 491). A comparison between the palm on the Ashmolean seal with a palm painted on the short side of a larnax from Kalochorafitis, Crete (Pl. XLVIh) is enlightening since in both cases, there is a disc at center near the crest of the tree. On the larnax, it is dotted and has petals which remind of a rosette.20 Is this the efflorescence of the palm? The latter tends to have a conical shape, however. Could it be that it alludes at both the efflorescence and sun disc, namely that it is polysemic? If so, the palm tree in Minoan religious iconography is not only associated with fertility- its wellknown role- but also with solar cult and this has already been hinted at on the Pylos seal discussed above (Pl. XLVIf). A first conclusion then, is that the crest of the palm was a bearer of the sun disc which blended visually with its efflorescence: it is not an unreasonable idea since the sun is the ultimate source of all life and the palm is the fertility tree par excellence. Returning to the genii, a statistical remark must be made. One fifth of the total of representations of demons collected by Gill depict the palm together with the genius.21 Another observation is that the genius carries a spouted jug, and it is reasonable to deduce from this that he maintains the well-being of the tree by providing water or some other liquid. The libation jugs, or cups, shows that they are designed to keep the palm moist and nourished. The Solar Palm Tree in Egyptian Art and on Egyptianizing Syro-Levantine seals In Egypt, the palm tree is the source of life and nourishes the hungry and thirsty dead. It is also the tree of Hathor, who is a mother goddess but also a solar deity who carries the sun disc between her cow horns. An Egyptian spell, which aims at aiding the dead in their journey to the underworld, specifies: “I will have the power and I will eat under the branches of the tree of Hathor my mistress”.22 The Egyptologist Erik Hornung23 translates it slightly differently specifying that the tree of Hathor is a palm: “Zweigen der Palme von Hathor”. In another spell, the dead addresses “her who lives in the date palm”.24 although a variant translation is “those who live in the wine made by the date palm”.25 In either rendition, the palm is the tree of life which sustains the dead in the underworld. As for the Near East, the sacred role of this tree is well known in iconography since Hélène Danthine’s essential study about the palm as the tree of life and fertility.26 But what interests us here
EVANS (supra n. 9) 456-458; GILL 1964 (supra n. 3) 9, Pl. 3. GILL 1964 (supra n. 3) 9. A. KARETSOU and L. GIRELLA, Kalochorafitis, two Chamber Tombs from the LM III A2-B Cemetery. A Contribution to Postpalatial Funerary Practice in the Mesara, with contributions by M. ANASTASIADOU, I. ANTONAKAKI, A. NAFPLIOTI and E. NODAROU (2015) 62, Fig. 3. The number has increased with recent finds, such as the Pylos seal published by STOCKER and DAVIS (supra n. 8); GILL 1964 (supra n. 3) Pl. 1, 1; Pl. 2, 1, 2, 5; Pl. 3; Pl. 4, 2; Pl. 5, 6; Pl. 6, 3. R.O. FAULKNER, The Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead (1993) Spell 82, p. 80. E. HORNUNG, Das Totenbuch der Ägypter (1990) 169. HORNUNG (supra n. 23) no. 179, 379. FAULKNER (supra n. 22) 177. H. DANTHINE, Le palmier-dattier et les arbres sacrés dans l’iconographie de l’Asie occidentale ancienne (1937) 325-344, 362, 371-373, Pl. 63.


18 19 20

21

22 23 24 25 26




THE MINOAN GENII, THE PALM TREE AND SOLAR CULT

219


most is the presence of the winged solar disc atop palms in Syrian glyptic which strengthens the hypothesis that also Minoan palms are solar trees. The formula palm + solar disc is especially evident on Egyptianizing Syrian seals of the second millennium BCE. Usually, the tree in question is flanked by two persons, human or divine, or by demons (Pls XLVIIc-e). It is topped by the solar disc or rosette (the latter with or without wings).27 Most of these seals are categorized as Old Syrian and date to the Middle Bronze age, the end of which overlaps with the beginning of the New Palace period in Crete. Note, however, that synchronization between the two cultures is still problematic. Only a few examples will be discussed here because of lack of space.28 On one example (Pl. XLVIId), two distinct scenes with palms are represented. On the right, the tree is stylized but recognizable as a palm by its scaly trunk and curvy leafage; it is flanked by two griffin demons. Above the tree is a winged rosette which is without a doubt an Egyptianizing version of the sun disc.29 The griffin demons touch the palm with one of their paws and hold the Egyptian ankh in the other. The ankh supports the notion that the palm toped by the sun/rosette is the tree of life. On the left, there is a similar scene except that the flanking figures are a male and female, probably a ruler and his half-naked patron deity. Instead of the solar disc, the palm is topped by the lunar emblem (Pl. XLVIId).30 I suggest that day and night are represented and that the palm has a symbolic role as a pillar joining earth and sky in both the diurnal and nocturnal sphere. When the Syrian seal is compared with a Minoan one in the Ashmolean, the similarity in their respective syntax is unmistakable (Pls XLVIIc-d; for detail see Pl. XLVIIf). The analogy of syntax suggests that the rayed circle atop the palm of the Ashmolean seal is very likely a sun disc and not the efflorescence of the tree, unless the ambiguity is deliberate. On another Old Syrian seal from period IIB of the Middle Bronze Age (Pl. XLVIIe),31 we see another stylized palm topped by a winged solar disc; this time the guardians of the tree are leonine sphinxes with human heads and wings. Note that two goat heads and two rabbits flank the tree, the latter being traditionally connected with fertility in Syrian art. Another possibility, however, is that they may be constellations since ancient astronomers often projected animals on the nocturnal vault of heaven. On the left of the scene, we see a guilloche pattern below which there is a lion; above the guilloche is a wild goat. The entire scene is framed by two stars which likely represent the evening and morning stars. On this seal, then, we have hints of a cosmological sign language, the depiction of a world replete with animals, constellations and two stars: symmetry prevails throughout. In this scene, the palm is equivalent to the central axis of the cosmos, the axis mundi as the anthropologist of religion Mircea Eliade called it. Eliade defines the axis mundi as a pillar which connects the upper and lower worlds and divides the horizontal parts of the cosmos into east and west: “Such a cosmic pillar can be only at the very center of the universe, for the whole of the habitable world extends around it”.32 Eliade’s perspective as an anthropologist of religion opens new possibilities for understanding the role of the Minoan palm and its placement between two guardians. If it is an axis mundi, this explains why it invites symmetry and why it bears the sun disc at its top acting as a pillar which divides the cosmos in two symmetrical units. This cannot be discussed further here, but let it be said that the genii, who tend the tree, also have a cosmic role in Minoan/Mycenaean mythology. Looking at another Syrian seal now, the association of the palm and a double solar Hathor invites further reflections on symmetry. The stylized palm is topped by a sun disc and flanked symmetrically by two identical goddesses who mirror Egyptian Hathor with the sun disc on her head (Pl. XLVIIf). On the
U. WINTER, Frau und Göttin. Exegetische und ikonographische Studien zum weiblichen Gottesbild im Alten Israel und in dessen Umwelt (1983) no. 123. In addition to what is discussed below see TEISSIER (supra n. 13) 81, no. 140; 87, no. 163; 99, nos. 191192. TEISSIER (supra n. 13) 156-158. TEISSIER (supra n. 13) 99-100, no. 193. TEISSIER (supra n. 13) 121, no. 268. M. ELIADE, The Sacred and the Profane. The significance of Religious Myth, Symbolism, and Ritual within Life and Culture (1959) 36-42 at quote at 37.

27 28

29 30 31 32







220

Nanno MARINATOS

side is a griffin preying upon a fleeing rabbit, whereas a vulture carries what seems to be a lifeless stag (admittedly the drawing on the Syrian seal is a bit confusing). If the animal is a stag, then the vulture of this Syrian seal reminds of the genius carrying the stag on the Ashmolean seal (Pl. XLVIa). Béatrice Teissier comments on this scene: “As well as being solar, the tree was a tree of life or fecundity. … The winged sun disc is primarily a sky symbol in Egypt”.33 A fourth Syrian seal shows the encounter of a naked goddess with a god (Pl. XLVIIIa). Between the divinities is a palm-tree topped by the sun/moon-crescent. The goddess, who may be identified as Ishtar by the star above her, stands on a podium and raises her hand either because she sends a blessing, or because she greets the young god. He, in his turn, stands on a twin-peak mountain and is in the process of spearing down a large dragon. To the left of the goddess is a horizontal line which may represent the horizon. Above the line is a griffin and below we see a row of three human males advancing in procession towards the right. Where are they headed? Presumably, they are visiting the cult place where the divine couple meets and which is marked by the solar palm.34 In this scene, the palm is the focus of the meeting of the divine couple. Since the tree is topped by the sun/moon disc, it is also a cosmic symbol appropriate to the encounter of the gods (note that the Ishtar figure is naked: a sign of her fertility).35 Reviewing all the scenes together, the syntax of the Syrian seals compares remarkably well with that of the Minoan scenes (Pl. XLVIIIb-c). Each culture has its own hybrid demons, but some creatures overlap, as for example the sphinxes framing the solar palm in both Minoan/Mycenaean and Syrian glyptic (Pl. XLVIIId-e). In all cases, the impression is that the palm, or palm-pillar, is an axis mundi because of the symmetry associated with it. Further, it is proposed that the similarity of iconography between Minoan and Syrian most likely reflects similarities in ideas about the cosmos.36 It is no accident that a palm was painted next to the throne in the homonymous fresco in the palace of Knossos. In the most recent study on the subject, the authors having examined the fragments in the Ashmolean museum, have improved on Evans’ and the Gillierons’ restorations. They show that the palm tree with white efflorescence to the left of the throne had a symbolic meaning: “the … palm trees positioned next to focal objects in ritual scenes may have been more commonplace than previously thought”.37 The Absence of the Genii from the Landscape of the Dead What is noticeable is the absence of genii in funerary iconography of Cretan larnakes whereas the palm is present. Let us begin with the palm tree in Egyptian funerary scenes because it plays a major role nourishing the dead. In the New Kingdom tomb of Sennedjem, a palm grove is painted on its East wall.38 In the tomb of Pashedu (New Kingdom, 19th Dynasty), the deceased is depicted as drinking water from a pond under a palm tree.39 The same image occurs on Egyptian funerary papyri, as on the papyrus
TEISSIER (supra n. 13) 101. WINTER (supra n. 27) 168-69, Fig. 123; O. KEEL, Das Recht der Bilder Gesehen zu werden. Drei Fallstudien zur Methode der Interpretation altorientalischer Bilder (1992) 213, 250, Fig. 233; N. MARINATOS, Minoan Kingship and the Solar Goddess (2010) 180-81. KEEL (supra n. 34) 213; for an interpretation of a divine couple on a Minoan ring see G. RETHEMIOTAKIS, “The Divine Couple Ring from Poros and the Origins of the Minoan Calendar,” AM 131/132 (2016/2017) 1-30. MARINATOS (supra n. 34).
Y. GALANAKIS, E. TSITSA and U. GÜNKEL-MASCHEK, “The Power of Images: Re-examining the Wall-Paintings from the Throne Room at Knossos,” BSA 112 (2017) 83. A.G. SHEDID, Das Grab des Sennedjem. Ein Kunstler Grab der 19. Dynastie in Deir el Meidneh (1994) 27, 30 with figs 17; 80-81, 85. E. BRUNNER-TRAUT, Ägypten (19824) 670.

33 34

35

36 37

38

39




THE MINOAN GENII, THE PALM TREE AND SOLAR CULT

221


of Ani (Pl. XLVIIIf) where the deceased and his wife are depicted in the underworld drinking water from a pond under a palm tree.40 Palms occur with some frequency also in Minoan funerary scenes, especially on larnakes of the LM III A period where they often constitute the principal theme of the short sides. I mention here three published pieces, two by Giorgos Rethemiotakis from Kavrochori and Klema respectively41 and one from Kalochorafitis, published by Alexandra Karetsou and Luca Girella.42 In none of these cases, is there a genius present. The absence of genii on the larnakes (so far at least) is interesting. Although Stella Chryssoulaki has suggested that the lifeless body of a humanoid carried by a genius from a seal found in an LH III cemetery signifies that the genius carries one who is deceased and that the genius is an “escort of souls”,43 the evidence reviewed above does not support this hypothesis. Because had the genius been a carrier of souls, we would expect to find him on clay larnakes close to the palms. Perhaps the carrying of the humanoid body is analogous with the carrying of the lifeless stag (Pl. XLVIa) and has to do with astronomical images and conceptions about constellations.44 I conclude, then, that the role of the genius is to care for the tree of life, the solar palm, which is also an axis mundi. The genius’ habitat is on earth and heaven together with the solar disc and the stars, as Evans perceived in 1935. However, the genius is never represented in the depths of the sea, the watery underworld of the Minoans. Nanno MARINATOS





FAULKNER (supra n. 22) 67; HORNUNG (supra n. 23) 129, fig. 30. G. RETHEMIOTAKIS, “Λάρνακες και Αγγεία από το Καβροχώρι Ηρακλείου,” ArchDelt 34, Meletai B2 (1979) 228-259; MARINATOS (supra n. 34) 147, fig. 11.4; G. RETHEMIOTAKIS, “Μινωική Λάρνακα από το Κλήμα Μεσαράς,” AEph 1995, 169. KARETSOU and GIRELLA (supra n. 20) 62, Fig. 3. 11; 66, fig. 3. 15 with discussion at 74-75; see also Pl. 6, 2. CHRYSSOULAKI (supra n. 6) 116-17. See E. KYRIAKIDIS, “Unidentified Floating Objects on Minoan Seals,” AJA 109 (2005) 137-54; RETHEMIOTAKIS (supra n. 35).

40 41

42

43 44







222

Nanno MARINATOS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

All CMS drawings courtesy of Diamantis Panagiotopoulos, CMS Archives, Heidelberg. Pl. XLVIa Pl. XLVIb Pl. XLVIc Pl. XLVId Pl. XLVIe Pl. XLVIf Pl. XLVIg Pl. XLVIh Pl. XLVIIa Pl. XLVIIb Pl. XLVIIc Pl. XLVIId Pl. XLVIIe Pl. XLVIIf Pl. XLVIIIa Pl. XLVIIIb Pl. XLVIIIc Pl. XLVIIId Pl. XLVIIIe Pl. XLVIIIf




Seal in the Ashmolean, CMS XI, 38. Egyptian astronomical ceiling from the Ramesseum (19th Dynasty). After WILKINSON (supra n. 10) 153, fig. 3. Seal impression from Knossos. CMS II 8, 200. Gold ring Tiryns. CMS 1, 179. Impression from Pylos. CMS I, 379. Seal from Pylos. STOCKER and DAVIS (supra n. 8) 294, fig. 2. Courtesy excavators, the Department of Classics University of Cincinnati, and the artist, Tina Ross. Seal from Knossos CMS II 8, 326. Seal in the Ashmolean Museum. CMS VI, 354. Seal in the Ashmolean Museum. CMS VI, 310. Short side of a LH III clay larnax from Kalochorafitis. After KARETSOU and GIRELLA (supra n. 20) p. 62, fig. 3 (Courtesy Alexandra Karetsou). Seal in the Ashmolean Museum. CMS VI, 310. Old Syrian seal of the Middle Bronze Age. After TEISSIER (supra n. 13) 99, no. 193 (Courtesy B. Teissier and Othmar Keel). Old Syrian Seal of the Middle Bronze Age. After TEISSIER (supra n. 13) 121, no. 268. Old Syrian Seal of the Middle Bronze Age with Hathor Goddesses flanking palm topped by winged sun disc. TEISSIER (supra n. 13) 69, no. 94. Old Syrian Seal. After KEEL (supra n. 34) 250, fig. 233. Minoan seal in Ashmolean CMS VI, 310. Old Syrian Seal. TEISSIER (supra n. 13) 99, no. 193. Gold ring from Mycenae CMS I, 87. Old Syrian Seal after TEISSIER (supra n. 13) 121, no. 268. Sketch from the Papyrus of Ani (New Kingdom). After HORNUNG (supra n. 23) 129 fig. 30.

XLVI

a

c

b

d

f

e

g

h

XLVII

b

a

b

d

c

e

f

XLVIII

a

c

b

e

d

f

MESSAGES FROM ANOTHER WORLD? A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE HYBRID CREATURES IN AEGEAN BRONZE AGE ICONOGRAPHY* Our understanding of supernatural creatures in the Aegean Bronze Age, as conveyed by the iconography, is problematic and far from clear. Although these hybrid, fantastic beings possess highly conspicuous morphological features, typologically, they are remarkably few in number and their iconographic contexts allow us to assign them a mostly insignificant, less specific meaning in the metaphysical imagination of Minoans and Mycenaeans. Therefore, based on previous studies on Aegean hybrid creatures by the author,1 this contribution focuses on the following questions: what was their meaning and did they really possess a clearly defined semantic profile? What did people of the Aegean associate with them and do they permit us to define any mythological narratives? Thus, do composite creatures in the Aegean inform us about any belief in another, fantastic parallel world? Griffin, sphinx and Minoan dragon When we try to give a short overview of the hybrid creatures in the Aegean Bronze Age, the griffin, borrowed from the Syro-Levantine region, occupies the top spot as it was represented most frequently.2 In iconography it takes the role of a predator and a guardian of deities3 but, in by far the majority of depictions on seals, the griffin occurs as an isolated emblem or in antithetical position (Pl. XLIXa).4 Being


*

1

2

3 4

I wish to thank Robert Laffineur und Tom Palaima, the organizers of this “Aegaeum conference that never existed at all”. I am grateful to Sarah Cormack for revising the language of this paper. F. BLAKOLMER, “Hierarchy and symbolism of animals and mythical creatures in the Aegean Bronze Age: a statistical and contextual approach,” in E. ALRAM-STERN, F. BLAKOLMER, S. DEGERJALKOTZY, R. LAFFINEUR and J. WEILHARTNER (eds), METAPHYSIS. Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 15th International Aegean Conference, Vienna, Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Aegean and Anatolia Department, Austrian Academy of Sciences and Institute of Classical Archaeology, University of Vienna, 22-25 April 2014 (2016) 61-68; IDEM, “Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo? Character, symbolism and hierarchy of animals and supernatural creatures in Minoan and Mycenaean iconography,” Creta Antica 17 (2016) 97-183; IDEM, “Zum Charakter der Mischwesen im minoischmykenischen Griechenland,” in F. LANG and W. WOHLMAYR (eds), 50 Jahre Archäologie an der Pari Lodron-Universität Salzburg, Workshop Salzburg, 14. Dezember 2016 (2017) 11-21. H. FRANKFORT, “Notes on the Cretan griffin,” BSA 37 (1936) 106-122; Ch. DELPLACE, “Le griffon créto-mycénien,” AntCl 36 (1967) 49-86; J.-C. POURSAT, Les ivoires mycéniens. Essai sur la formation d’un art mycénien (1977) 64-68; L. MORGAN, The Miniature Wall Paintings of Thera. A Study in Aegean Culture and Iconography (1988) 49-54; EADEM, “An Aegean griffin in Egypt: the hunt frieze at Tell el-Dab‘a,” Egypt and the Levant 20 (2010) 303-323; BLAKOLMER 2016 (supra n. 1) 128-132; A. VLACHOPOULOS, “Winged hybrid creatures of the Prehistoric Aegean. Animal - man - monster,” in P. SOUCACOS, A. GARTZIOU-TATTI and M. PASCHOPOULOS (eds), Hybrid and Extraordinary Beings. Deviations from “Normality” in Ancient Greek Mythology and Modern Medicine, Univ. of Ioannina (2017) 15-21; V. DUBCOVÁ, “Mastering a griffin. The agency and perception of Near Eastern images by the Aegean Bronze Age elite,” in Proceedings of the International Conference Ancient Communities and their Elites from the Bronze Age to Late Antiquity (Central Europe – Mediterranean – Black Sea), Part I. Dedicated to the 25th anniversary of the re-established Trnava University in Trnava and the 20th anniversary of Department of Classical Archaeology, Trnava, 6th-8th October 2017 (2019) 163-177. MORGAN (supra, n. 2, 2010) 313-314. BLAKOLMER 2016 (supra n. 1) 127-132.

224

Fritz BLAKOLMER

a ‘royal monster’, it also took the position of a ‘protector of the throne’.5 In animal attacks, the griffin took the highest rank and even could dominate the lion.6 In contrast to the Near East, in the Aegean, the griffin was not perceived as hostile to anthropomorphic figures but possessed a positive connotation.7 Despite its morphological relationship to the griffin, the sphinx occurs rather seldom in the Aegean and mostly in isolated form or in heraldic position.8 It mainly constitutes a static emblem-like motif and only occasionally was depicted in association with a divine figure.9 Sphinxes on a leash, in connection with a column or a palm tree or in crouching position are common motifs also on late Mycenaean ivory plates (Pl. XLIXb). 10 Although the so-called Minoan dragon, inspired by the Babylonian snake-dragon, occurs only seldom in Aegean iconography, it reveals a semantic profile associated with a papyrus landscape and a female divine figure (Pl. XLIXc).11 In the latter pictorial contexts, its role is that of a riding animal, i.e. other than the flanking and protecting position of griffin and lion. Accordingly, a seal image showing a griffin attacking a Minoan dragon demonstrates the lower position of the dragon.12 The Minoan genius: a particular case The so-called Minoan genius forms the hybrid creature that occurs most often in narrative scenes in Aegean seal-images as well as in many other artistic media.13 This most fantastic theriomorphic composite


5

6

7 8

9 10

11

12 13

A. TAMVAKI, “The seals and sealings from the Citadel House Area: a study in Mycenaean glyptic and iconography,” BSA 69 (1974) 289; J. WEINGARTEN, “Aspects of tradition and innovation in the work of the Zakro Master,” in P. DARCQUE and J.-C. POURSAT (eds), L’iconographie minoenne. Actes de la table ronde d’Athènes (21-22 avril 1983) (1985) 168. MORGAN (supra n. 2, 1988) 52-54; EADEM, “Of animals and men: The symbolic parallel,” in Ch. MORRIS (ed.), Klados. Essays in Honour of J. N. Coldstream (1995) 173; EADEM (supra, n. 2, 2010) 318-321; F. BLAKOLMER, “Vom Thronraum in Knossos zum Löwentor von Mykene: Kontinuitäten in Bildkunst und Palastideologie,” in F. BLAKOLMER, C. REINHOLDT, J. WEILHARTNER and G. NIGHTINGALE (eds), Österreichische Forschungen zur Ägäischen Bronzezeit 2009. Akten der Tagung vom 6. bis 7. März 2009 am Fachbereich Altertumswissenschaften der Universität Salzburg (2011) 68-69; IDEM 2016 (supra n. 1, Il buono ...) 105, 128-129. See MORGAN (supra n. 6, 1995) 173; BLAKOLMER 2016 (supra n. 1) 131-132, 152, 167. A. DESSENNE, Le sphinx. Étude iconographique I. Des origines à la fin du second millénaire (1957); N. MARINATOS, Minoan Religion. Ritual, Image, and Symbol (1993) 196; MORGAN (supra n. 6, 1995) 177. MARINATOS (supra n. 8) 196. POURSAT (supra n. 2) 59-64; A. PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS and N. PAPADIMITRIOU, “Deiras, Argos: The Mycenaean cemetery revisited in the light of unpublished finds from W. Vollgraff’s excavations,” in A.-L. SCHALLIN and I. TOURNAVITOU (eds), Mycenaeans up to date. The Archaeology of the North-Eastern Peloponnese – Current Concepts and New Directions (2015) 456, fig. 12. D. LEVI, “Gleanings from Crete,” AJA 49 (1945) 270-280; IDEM, “Una gemma cretese-micenea,” ArchEph 1953-1954, III (1961) 49-58; M.A.V. GILL, “The Minoan dragon,” BICS 10 (1963) 1-12; J.-C. POURSAT, “Notes d’iconographie préhellénique : dragons et crocodiles,” BCH 100 (1976) 461-474; H. PALAIOLOGOU, “‘Minoan dragons’ on a sealstone from Mycenae,” in Ch. MORRIS (ed.), Klados. Essays in Honour of J. N. Coldstream (1995) 195-199; J. PHILLIPS, Aegyptiaca on the Island of Crete in their Chronological Context: A Critical Review I (2008) 211-213; BLAKOLMER 2016 (supra n. 1) 133-134. CMS XII, no. 291. M.A.V. GILL, “The Minoan genius,” AM 79 (1964) 1-21; Ch. SAMBIN, “Génie minoen et génie égyptien,” BCH 113 (1989) 77-94; J. WEINGARTEN, The Transformation of Egyptian Taweret into the Minoan Genius: A study in cultural transmission in the Middle Bronze Age (1991); P. REHAK, “The ‘Genius’ in Late Bronze Age glyptic: the later evolution of an Aegean cult figure,” in I. PINI and J.-C. POURSAT (eds), Sceaux minoens et mycéniens. IVe symposium international, 10-12 septembre 1992, Clermont-Ferrand (1995) 215-231; F. BLAKOLMER, “The “Minoan Genius“ and his iconographical prototype Taweret. On the character of Near Eastern religious motifs in Neopalatial Crete,” in J. MYNÁROVÁ, P. ONDERKA and P. PAVÚK (eds), There and Back Again – the Crossroads II. Proceedings of an International Conference Held in Prague, September 15-18, 2014 (2015) 197-219; IDEM, “Was the “Minoan Genius” a god? An essay on Near




HYBRID CREATURES IN AEGEAN BRONZE AGE ICONOGRAPHY

225

creature of Egyptian origin, with its typical, formula-like arm pose of holding a jug, possessed a remarkably high and continuous popularity from MM IIB until LH IIIC. By LM I, he changed his pictorial form (Pl. XLIXd), his sex and his semantic meanings. The iconographic contexts that show the genius in human activities are extremely versatile and complex. He is presented as leading a bull or lion, killing a bull with a lance, or carrying quadrupeds (Pl. XLIXe) (and a male human?14) to the offering. In heraldic compositions Minoan genii are depicted as flanking a deity, such as on seal impressions from Pylos that show the duplicated motif of a genius with a slaughtering knife and a bull (Pl. XLIXf).15 The Minoan genius also was depicted as being flanked himself by lions, dogs and even male figures and thus being presented in the position of a ‘Potnios theron kai anthropon’. As a consequence, as can be judged by iconography, we can hardly do otherwise than interpret the Minoan genius as the only nonanthropomorphic deity in the Aegean, perhaps a kind of subordinate, minor divine figure.16 Animal-men and bird-woman In addition to these four ‘canonical’ supernatural creatures of the Aegean, a further group of hybrid figures consists of a human lower part and the upper part of selected animals. The most popular variants of these animal-men are the bull-man (Pl. La), the agrimi-man and the ram-man (Pl. Lb), but there occur also examples of lion-man, stag-man and genius-man,17 whereas any Aegean Spiderman, Batman or Catwoman yet remain to be found. The contorted pose of these animal-men might be due to the lentoid form of the seal-stones, but the connection with the acrobatic posture of bull-leapers equally was assumed in scholarship.18 Although these hybrid animal-men morphologically conform to the ‘demons’ in Near Eastern iconography,19 they mostly were depicted in isolated form. The few examples of an animal-man in confrontation with other beings mirror the same hierarchy as in Aegean animal attacks: a lion-man attacks a bull-man,20 a stag-man,21 an agrimi22 or a boar.23 On a seal-stone from Kato Symi a running ram-man (with two ram-heads) appears in association with a walking ram (Pl. Lb).24


14 15

16 17

18

19

20

Eastern deities and demons in Aegean Bronze Age iconography,” in R. WILKINSON (ed.), Festschrift for Nanno Marinatos (2015) 29-40. CMS V Suppl. 1B, no. 153. CMS I, no. 379; I. PINI, Die Tonplomben aus dem Nestorpalast von Pylos (1997) 7-8, no. 12, Pl. 4; F. BLAKOLMER, “Mycenaean iconography: dependency, hybridity and creativity,” in P.P. IOSSIF and W. VAN DE PUT (eds), Greek Iconographies: Identities and Media in Context. A Seminar organized by the Netherlands Institute at Athens and the Belgian School at Athens (2016) 33-35; IDEM, “CMS I no. 379,” CMS Homepage, Seal of the month March-April 2019 (https://www.uni-heidelberg.de/fakultaeten/philosophie/zaw/cms/ monthlySeal/monthlySeal.html). GILL (supra n. 13) 5, 7, 11; SAMBIN (supra n. 13) 92; BLAKOLMER 2015 (supra n. 13). N. SCHLAGER, “Minotauros in der ägäischen Glyptik?,” in I. PINI (ed.), Fragen und Probleme der bronzezeitlichen Glyptik. Beiträge zum 3. internationalen Marburger Siegel-Symposium, 5.-7. September 1985 (1989) 230-235; V. DUBCOVÁ, “The Near Eastern “hero” and “bull-man” and their impact on the Aegean Bronze Age iconography,” in MYNÁROVÁ, ONDERKA and PAVÚK eds (supra n. 13) 234-237; K.P. FOSTER, “Animal hybrids, masks, and masques in Aegean ritual,” in ALRAM-STERN et al. eds (supra n. 1) 73; M. CIVITILLO, “Leonesse officianti e animali acrobati? Rifflessioni su alcuni Mischwesen minoici e micenei alla luce delle evidenze epigrafiche tebane,” Mantichora 7 (Dec. 2017) 29-71; VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 2) 13-29; J. ARUZ, “Art and transcendence: Another look at Bronze Age images of human-animal composites,” in B. DAVIS and R. LAFFINEUR (eds), ΝΕΩΤΕΡΟΣ.. Studies in Bronze Age Aegean Art and Archaeology in Honor of Professor John G. Younger on the Occasion of his Retirement (2020) 227-235. Cf. O. KRZYSZKOWSKA, Aegean Seals. An Introduction (2005) 207, 210; DUBCOVÁ (supra n. 17) 235; M. ANASTASIADOU, “The origin of the different: ‘Gorgos’ and ‘Minotaurs’ of the Aegean Bronze Age,” in E. BRIDGES and Dj. AL-AYAD (eds), Making Monsters. A Speculative and Classical Anthology (2018) 173. F.A.M. WIGGERMANN, “Mischwesen,” in D.O. EDZARD (ed.), Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie (1994) 222-244; J.L. CROWLEY, The Iconography of Aegean Seals (2013) 353, n. 25; DUBCOVÁ (supra n. 17) 234; ARUZ (supra n. 17) 230. CMS VI, no. 302.

226

Fritz BLAKOLMER

Leaving aside depictions of Beset and a few other cases (Pl. Le),25 the only hybrid creature combined with a female body is the bird-woman with an avian head and wings (Pl. Lc) which was of high popularity in the seal glyptic of Late Palatial Crete,26 whereas winged male figures occur extremely seldom.27 That a divine character could be attributed to bird-human hybrids is suggested by the depiction of a bird-woman seated on a chair (Pl. Ld)28 and possibly a winged man flanked by lions.29 General observations on hybrid creatures in the Aegean In the iconography of Minoan Crete, hardly any fantastic creature is evidenced earlier than in the late protopalatial period.30 After LM I, the heyday of the formation process of the Aegean arts, no species of hybrid creature was added to the iconographic repertory, perhaps with the exception of animal-men.31 As we have seen above, all common fantastic creatures of the Aegean Bronze Age were borrowed from, or better, stimulated by, the Near East. It is astonishing that hardly any hybrid figure was ever developed independently in the Aegean itself. Although the mixed creatures in the glyptic oeuvre of the so-called ‘Zakro master’ gained some prominence in Aegean archaeology,32 they merely exhibit non-standardised, individual and unique emblem-like compilations of conventional elements taken from the iconographic repertory of LM I Crete and were picked up neither by other seal engravers nor by any artists working in other pictorial media.33 Thus, the Aegean selection of hybrid figures and their animal components was highly eclectic and limited; elements of fish, scorpion and eagle, popular in the composition of animal hybrids in the Near East, were absent in the Aegean and possibly possessed a semantic content which contrasted that of supernatural creatures. A quantitative analysis of (isolated) animals and supernatural creatures in seal glyptic reveals that the last ones comprise only 9.2% and, additionally, many of them are limited to this experimental artistic medium.34 Although, occasionally, a few fantastic creatures appear in association with real animals, such as the griffin in scenes of animal attack, their position was anything but prominent, leaving aside griffins in


21 22 23 24

25 26

27

28 29 30 31 32

33 34

CMS II3, no. 10. CMS I, no. 77. CMS V Suppl. 1B, no. 94. I. PINI, “Die Siegel und die Siegelabdrücke auf Gefäßhenkeln aus dem Heiligtum von Symi,” AM 121 (2006) 4-5, no. 6, Pl. 2, 2. For a female griffin see CMS I, no. 128. J.G. YOUNGER, The Iconography of Late Minoan and Mycenaean Sealstones and Finger Rings (1988) 211-212; I. PINI, “Soft stone versus hard stone seals in Aegean glyptic: Some observations on style and iconography,” in W. MÜLLER (ed.), Die Bedeutung der minoischen und mykenischen Glyptik. VI. Internationales Siegel-Symposium aus Anlass des 50 jährigen Bestehens des CMS, Marburg, 9.-12. Oktober 2008 (2010) 329-332, figs 5-8; CROWLEY (supra n. 19) 364; FOSTER (supra n. 17) 74-75; E. ZOUZOULA, “The Bird-ladies of Minoan iconography: artistic fancy or religious icons?,” in E. GAVRILAKI (ed.), Πεπραγμένα ΙΑ´ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου (Ρέθυμνο, 21-27 Οκτωβρίου 2011) A1.3 (2018) 189-200; V. DUBCOVÁ, “Bird-demons in the Aegean Bronze Age: Their nature and relationship to Egypt and the Near East,” in F. BLAKOLMER (ed.), Current Approaches and New Perspectives in Aegean Iconography (2020) 205-222. CMS IV, no. 161; V Suppl. 1A, no. 123; XIII, no. 60 (dubitanda?). See also DUBCOVÁ (supra n. 26) 209, 215-216. CMS II6, no. 106; II7, no. 126. See also ZOUZOULA (supra n. 26) 192. CMS V Suppl. 1A, no. 123. For possible exceptions see, e.g., bird-demons: DUBCOVÁ (supra n. 26) 206-209. See KRZYSZKOWSKA (supra n. 18) 208. J. WEINGARTEN, The Zakro Master and his Place in Prehistory (1983); EADEM (supra n. 5) 167-180; A. SIMANDIRAKI-GRIMSHAW, “Minoan animal-human hybridity,” in D.B. COUNTS and B. ARNOLD (eds), The Master of Animals in Old World Iconography (2010) 98; M. ANASTASIADOU, “Wings, heads, tails: small puzzles at LM I Zakros,” in ALRAM-STERN et al. eds (supra n. 1) 77-85. KRZYSZKOWSKA (supra n. 18) 152; BLAKOLMER 2016 (supra n. 1) 144-146. BLAKOLMER 2016 (supra n. 1) 127.




HYBRID CREATURES IN AEGEAN BRONZE AGE ICONOGRAPHY

227

the murals of Aegean throne-rooms.35 Additionally, none of these creatures constitutes an individual mythological figure; all of them seem to be species of hybrid beings, comparable to animals and humans. What is furthermore striking is the mostly isolated, static and emblem-like character of supernatural figures in the Aegean; only few composite creatures, such as the Minoan genius, the Minoan dragon and the griffin, occasionally, were integrated into multi-figural scenes and depicted as interacting with deities or other humanoid figures. Since it was convincingly argued by F.A.M. Wiggermann that, in the Ancient Near East, “art needs monsters and monsters need art”,36 we can conclude that fantastic beings in the Aegean constituted a strikingly late phenomenon and did not play an elementary role, at least not to the same extent as in the Near East, with a few exceptions: the most remarkable is the Minoan genius who apparently filled a gap in the cosmological belief in Minoan Crete as well as in late Mycenaean Greece. Did hybrid creatures in the Aegean possess a clear-cut profile? Without going into details of the functions and the possible semantic meaning of Aegean supernatural beings in comparison with that of their Near Eastern ‘models’,37 the aforementioned observations on their iconographic contexts make it plausible to assume that by far the majority of them possessed merely a vague meaning. Several of them even may have constituted interchangeable beings, such as griffin and sphinx (as well as lion, dog, etc.) in their role as ‘creatures of power’ protecting deities.38 While, in the Near East, individual supernatural creatures were associated with a distinct deity or operated in the same field of action,39 Minoan and Mycenaean iconography does not give us any clear hint that this mechanism was also valid in the Aegean. It is also remarkable that, other than in the Near East,40 threedimensional figurines of hybrid beings were widely absent in Aegean shrines and cult-places. Furthermore, in the light of the clear quantitative preponderance of male figures depicted in association with animals, it is remarkable that goddesses are almost as frequently associated with hybrid figures as male deities are.41 Thus, in the Bronze Age Aegean, the hybridity per se of a figure might have indicated the sacral character of a scene.42 In contrast to that, the roles of the Minoan genius in Aegean iconography are highly versatile and more or less clearly defined. As mentioned above, they not only allow us to attribute a divine character to the genius but, paradoxically enough, this highly theriomorphic monster that lacks any human component is depicted as acting in a human manner, and even as interacting with humans. A plausible explanation of the special character of this most exotic hybrid creature of the Aegean is that the spiritual or theological need for such a half-divine, non-anthropomorphic being must have existed:43 neither human nor real deity; neither animal nor anthropomorphic. When we ask for the assessment of a positive or negative character of hybrid creatures in the Aegean, the iconographic contexts clearly demonstrate that, with the possible exception of apotropaic


35

36 37 38

39 40 41 42 43

S.A. IMMERWAHR, Aegean Painting in the Bronze Age (1990) 96-98, 137-138, 201, 203; Y. GALANAKIS, E. TSITSA and U. GÜNKEL-MASCHEK, “The power of images: re-examining the wall painting from the Throne Room at Knossos,” BSA 112 (2017) 47-98. WIGGERMANN (supra n. 19) 225. See esp. DUBCOVÁ (supra n. 2) 163-177; EADEM (supra n. 17) 221-243. TAMVAKI (supra n. 5) 289; F. BLAKOLMER, “A Pantheon without attributes? Goddesses and gods in Minoan and Mycenaean iconography,” in J. MYLONOPOULOS (ed.), Divine Images and Human Imaginations in Ancient Greece and Rome (2010) esp. 50-56; IDEM, “Wie Bilder lügen. Die Frühägäer und ihre Götter,” in C. REINHOLDT and W. WOHLMAYR (eds), Akten des 13. Österreichischen Archäologentages, Klassische und Frühägäische Archäologie, Paris-Lodron-Universität Salzburg, vom 25. bis 27. Februar 2010 (2012) 2122; IDEM, “Hierarchy and Symbolism of Animals and Mythical Creatures in the Aegean Bronze Age: A Statistical and Contextual Approach,” in ALRAM-STERN et al. eds (supra n. 1) 66. WIGGERMANN (supra n. 19) 226. WIGGERMANN (supra n. 19) 226. BLAKOLMER 2016 (supra n. 1) 155-157. Cf. CROWLEY (supra n. 19) 363. Cf. GILL (supra n. 13) 5; BLAKOLMER 2015 (supra n. 13) 34; IDEM 2016 (supra n. 1) 160.

228

Fritz BLAKOLMER

monsters with grotesque, Gorgo-like frontal face recurring to Bes or Beset (Pl. Le),44 no hybrid figure seems to have been perceived as hostile to humans or as adversarial towards deities. Gods, men and possibly heroes are hunting and killing lion, agrimi and stag, but no anthropomorphic figure fighting a griffin, a Minoan dragon or a Minoan genius is known in Aegean art. Fantastic creatures appear apotropaic only in the sense that they were tamed and controlled by a deity and thus protecting her/him, the same as in the case of the lion.45 It might be symptomatic that a man fighting a griffin was depicted on Cypro-Mycenaean ivory mirror handles,46 whereas such an aggressive, hostile function of the griffin against anthropomorphic figures was widely absent from the iconography of the entire Aegean; this well demonstrates that the Near Eastern metaphor of the hero or god struggling with a monster as a symbol of the ruler defeating his enemies47 did not enter the Minoan and Mycenaean view of the world.48 Other than in Mesopotamia,49 the written sources of the Aegean do not give us any undisputed evidence of fantastic beings. The identification of po-ni-ki-pi and po-ni-ke-qe (phoinix) in the Linear B texts with the griffin50 is controversial and that of se-re-mo- with the sirene, perhaps in the form of a sphinx, as was supposed,51 equally remains speculative. The absence of any information in written texts on mythology in the Aegean is all the more deplorable as we learn from Near Eastern sources that the meaning of hybrid monsters could shift, whereas their iconography remained unchanged.52 Additionally, it remains unclear whether, in Aegean imagination, fantastic creatures were perceived as real animals living and acting in some foreign, distant land, as was supposed by S. Hiller, J. Weingarten and others,53 or whether they belonged to an entirely fictitious sphere or a kind of netherworld. Although no evidence clearly points to an understanding of a hybrid creature as an Aegean zodiac sign, this possibility should not be excluded.


44

45

46

47 48

49 50 51

52 53

O. KRZYSZKOWSKA, “Seals from the Petras cemetery: a preliminary overview,” in M. TSIPOPOULOU (ed.), Petras, Siteia – 25 Years of Excavations and Studies. Acts of a two-day conference held at the Danish Institute at Athens, 9-10 October 2010 (2012) 153-156, fig. 8; J. WEINGARTEN, “The arrival of Bes[et] on Middle Minoan Crete,” in MYNÁROVÁ, ONDERKA and PAVÚK eds (supra n. 13) 181196; ANASTASIADOU (supra n. 18) 168-170. See esp. E.F. BLOEDOW, “On hunting lions in Bronze Age Greece,” in P.P. BETANCOURT, V. KARAGEORGHIS, R. LAFFINEUR and W.-D. NIEMEIER (eds), MELETEMATA. Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He enters his 65th Year, I (1999) 53-61, esp. 58. C. D’ALBIAC, “The griffin combat theme,” in J.L. FITTON (ed.), Ivory in Greece and the Eastern Mediterranean from the Bronze Age to the Hellenistic Period (1992) 105-112; E. BABOULA, “Bronze Age mirrors: a Mediterranean commodity in the Aegean,” in A. SERGHIDOU (ed.), Δώρημα. A Tribute to the A.G. Leventis Foundation on the Occasion of its 20th Anniversary (2000) 59-80, esp. 71-72; A. PAPADOPOULOS, “Discussing Bronze Age Cypriot iconography: three case studies,” in S. CHRISTODOULOU and A. SATRAKI (eds), POCA 2007: Postgraduate Cypriot Archaeology Conference (2010) 132-136. See furthermore TAMVAKI (supra n. 5) 289. WIGGERMANN (supra n. 19) 227-228, 232, 235. A possible exception constitutes the image on a seal-stone from Mycenae (CMS I, no. 171) that could show an enemy killed by the griffins. See BLAKOLMER 2016 (supra n. 1) 151-155 with fig. 57; DUBCOVÁ (supra n. 2) 166-167, fig. 5. Cf. WIGGERMANN (supra n. 19) 222-225. F. AURA JORRO and F.R. ADRADOS (eds), Diccionario griego-español I, Diccionario Micénico II (1993) 138. E.R. LUJÁN, J. PIQUERO and F. DÍEZ PLATAS, “What did Mycenaean Sirens look like?,” in M.-L. NOSCH and H.L. ENEGREN (eds), Aegean Scripts, Proceedings of the 14th International Colloquium on Mycenaean Studies, Copenhagen, 2-5 September 2015, I (2017) 435-460. WIGGERMANN (supra n. 19) 228-232. S. HILLER, Discussion, in S. SHERRATT (ed.), Proceedings of the First International Symposium ‘The Wall Paintings of Thera’, 30 August-4 September 1997, II (2000) 916; J. WEINGARTEN, “Review of J.L. CROWLEY, The Iconography of Aegean Seals (2013),” BMCR 12.12.2013 (http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/ 2013/2013-12-12.html); N. MARINATOS, Akrotiri. The Biography of a Lost City (2015) 100. Cf. L. WINKLER-HORACEK, Monster in der frühgriechischen Kunst. Die Überwindung des Unfassbaren (2015) 373394.




HYBRID CREATURES IN AEGEAN BRONZE AGE ICONOGRAPHY

229

Do hybrid creatures give us any evidence of mythological narratives in the Aegean? In contrast to Egypt, Mesopotamia and classical antiquity, in the Aegean Bronze Age, we come across fundamental problems when we try to identify pictorial scenes of mythological character including heroes/heroines and possibly also deities.54 All the more significant could be the definition of images with mythological content by the presence of fantastic, unreal creatures. However, this methodological approach reveals not more than a dozen singular cases. Leaving aside examples of fragmented and highly unclear character,55 the majority of (the few) mythological scenes with hybrid creatures clearly imitate Egyptian or Levantine pictorial motifs. Seal impressions from Knossos that show a ruler(?) defeating the (Egyptian) sea monster Apophis (Pl. Lf)56 and an Aegean cylinder seal from Agia Pelagia with figural scenes, including a griffin and a Minoan dragon in a papyrus landscape (Pl. XLIXc),57 constitute the most obvious examples of a mythological scene. It becomes clear that examples such as these form the exception to the rule, and that mythological scenes with hybrid creatures occur extremely seldom in the iconography of the entire Aegean. If the so-called ‘Ring of Nestor’ is genuinely Minoan,58 which seems more and more plausible based on recent studies, we have to bear in mind that the assumed ‘griffin-like heads’ of the female figures in the lower zone of this signet-ring rather should be perceived as the common aniconic heads.59 Even in the case of the very active Minoan genius, we should note that this fantastic creature is portrayed participating in activities of men and gods, but the iconographic contexts hardly presuppose the existence of any underlying mythological stories, such as in the cases of Chumbaba in the Gilgamesh epic, of the sea monster (ketos) of Jonah, of Medusa in the myth of Perseus or the Minotaur in the myth of Theseus. Although the depiction of a centaur-like bull-sphinx facing a male figure on a late Mycenaean larnax from Tanagra (Pl. Lg) makes an association with the later Greek myth of Oedipus and the Theban Sphinx tempting to us,60 the gesture of touching the central column by both figures could indicate that, also in this case, the ‘sphinx’ simply possessed its traditional function as protector of the palatial rulership.


54

55 56

57 58 59

60

L. BANTI, “Myth in pre-classical art,” AJA 58 (1954) 307-310; V. KARAGEORGHIS, “Myth and epic in Mycenaean vase painting,” AJA 62 (1958) 383-387; E.T. VERMEULE, “Mythology in Mycenaean art,” The Classical Journal 54 (1958-1959) 97-108; A. SACCONI, “Il mito nel mondo miceneo,” PP 15 (1960) 161-187; F. BLAKOLMER, “The Silver Battle Krater from Shaft Grave IV at Mycenae: Evidence of fighting „heroes“ on Minoan palace walls at Knossos?,” in R. LAFFINEUR and S.P. MORRIS (eds), EPOS. Reconsidering Greek Epic and Aegean Bronze Age Archaeology. Proceedings of the 11th International Aegean Conference, Los Angeles, UCLA – The J. Paul Getty Villa, 20-23 April 2006 (2007) 217; J.G. YOUNGER, “Identifying myth in Minoan art,” in ALRAM-STERN et al. eds (supra n. 1) 433-438; IDEM, “Narrative in Aegean art: A methodology of identification and interpretation,” in BLAKOLMER ed. (supra n. 26) 7186. See, e.g., CMS I, no. 309; PINI (supra n. 15) 6-7, no. 11, Pl. 4. CMS II8, no. 234; N. MARINATOS, “The Minoan Mother Goddess and her son,” in S. BICKEL and S. SCHROER (eds), Images as Sources. Studies on Ancient Near Eastern Artefacts and the Bible Inspired by the Work of Othmar Keel (2007) 358-360, figs 5-6; EADEM, Minoan Kingship and the Solar Goddess. A Near Eastern Koine (2010) 177-180, figs 13.9-19; EADEM, “Minoan religion,” in M.R. SALZMANN and M.A. SWEENEY (eds), The Cambridge History of Religion in the Ancient World I: From the Bronze Age to the Hellenistic Age (2013) 252253, fig. 19; V. DUBCOVÁ, “Zur Problematik der herrscherlichen Ikonographie im minoischmykenischen Griechenland,” Anodos 9 (2009) 26, figs 9-10; F. BLAKOLMER, “Ethnizität und Identität in der minoisch-mykenischen Ikonographie,” in Proceedings of the International Conference “The Phenomena of Cultural Borders and Border Cultures across the Passage of Time (From the Bronze Age to Late Antiquity)”, Trnava, 2224 October 2010, Anodos 10 (2010) 35-36, fig. 10. CMS VI, no. 321. CMS VI, no. 277. A.G. VLACHOPOULOS, “The Ring of Nestor and the quest for authenticity,” in BLAKOLMER ed. (supra n. 26) 223-252, esp. 240. T.G. SPYROPOULOS, “Ανασκαφή μυκηναϊκού νεκροταφείου Τανάγρας,” Prakt 1971 (1973) 12, Pl. 18b; M.R. BELGIORNO, “Centauressa o sfinge su una larnax micenea da Tanagra,” SMEA 19 (1978) 205228; K. DEMAKOPOULOU and D. KONSOLA, Archäologisches Museum Theben. Führer durch die Ausstellung

230

Fritz BLAKOLMER

In the context of sphinxes in animal friezes in the vase painting of archaic Greece, L. WinklerHoracek characterised the phenomenon of the depiction of isolated hybrid creatures as “monsters without myths”,61 meaning the isolated or repetitive but contextless and non-narrative use of a supernatural figure.62 Thus, the frequent occurrence of isolated or duplicated fantastic creatures such as griffin, sphinx or the Minoan genius in Aegean minor arts by itself does not necessarily require the existence of any mythological narrative.63 Nonetheless, a mythological narrative cycle in connection with a hybrid creature is suggested by the frequent depiction of one or more griffins attacking stag and doe,64 and also in association with men protecting deer against the griffins as can be seen on a seal impression from Pylos (Pl. Lh).65 Whatever narrative lies behind these images, it rudimentarily reminds us of the later Greek tale of griffins and Arimaspeans by Aristeas of Prokonnesos.66 In contrast, a lentoid seal in Paris that shows a griffin standing on its hind legs and handling a stag atop an offering(?) table (Pl. Li)67 was interpreted as depicting a griffin in a priest-like function.68 Such a human-like behaviour of a fantastic creature, though, is otherwise evidenced only for the Minoan Genius,69 making an interpretation of this scene as an unusual animal attack, perhaps with the table as an allusion to offering, at least more plausible.70 Conclusion We can conclude that, in the light of Aegean iconography, the relationship of Minoans and Mycenaeans to hybrid creatures, as well as to supernatural beings in general, was distanced and




61 62

63 64

65 66

67 68 69

70

(1981) 83-84, Pl. 43 bottom; B. RUTKOWSKI, Frühgriechische Kultdarstellungen (1981) 53, fig. 15:2, p. 6062; IMMERWAHR (supra n. 35) 156-157, Pl. 92; V. ARAVANTINOS, The Archaeological Museum of Thebes (2010) 121-123; DUBCOVÁ (supra n. 2) 163-177. WINKLER-HORACEK (supra n. 53) 76-84. Cf. also H.G. FISCHER, “The ancient Egyptian attitude towards the monstrous,” in A.E. FARKAS, P.O. HARPER and E.B. HARRISON (eds), Monsters and Demons in the Ancient Medieval Worlds. Papers Presented in Honor of Edith Porada (1987) 14, 26. Cf. WIGGERMANN (supra n. 19) 225. See, e.g., CMS I, no. 511; II3, no. 25; III, no. 275; V, nos 642, 675; IX, no. 20D; X, no. 126; XI, no. 41; T.L. SHEAR, “The campaign of 1939,” Hesperia 9 (1940) 283-288, figs 27-29. See also MORGAN (supra n. 2, 1988) 313-318; F. BLAKOLMER 2016 (supra n. 1) 167; IDEM 2017 (supra n. 1) 17. CMS I, no. 324; PINI (supra n. 15) 5-6, no. 10, Pl. 3. E.D. PHILLIPS, “The legend of Aristeas. Fact and fancy in Early Greek notions of East Russia, Siberia and Inner Asia,” Artibus Asiae 18 (1955) 173-174; V. ÜBLAGGER, “Arimaspen-Greifen-Kampf,” in J. BORCHHARDT and A. PEKRIDOU-GORECKI (eds), Limyra. Studien zu Kunst und Epigraphik in den Nekropolen der Antike (2012) 117-144. CMS IX, no. 20 D. See N. MARINATOS, Minoan Sacrificial Ritual. Cult Practice and Symbolism (1986) 45 with fig. 29. An exception is formed by three unusual lion-like figures holding ritual vessels in their paws, depicted on a late Mycenaean rhyton from Kameiros: E. VERMEULE and V. KARAGEORGHIS, Mycenaean Pictorial Vase Painting (1982) 154-155, XII.17; E. KARANTZALI, “A new Mycenaean pictorial rhyton from Rhodes,” in V. KARAGEORGHIS and N.Ch. STAMPOLIDIS (eds), Eastern Mediterranean: Cyprus Dodecanese - Crete 16th - 6th cent. B.C., Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Rethymnon - Crete in May 1997 (1998) 96-97, figs 9-10; M. BENZI, “Minoan Genius on a LH III pictorial sherd from Phylakopi, Melos? Some remarks on religious and ceremonial scenes on Mycenaean pictorial pottery,” Pasiphae 3 (2009) 12-13, fig. 3. I am very grateful to Olga Krzyszkowska for discussing this seal stone with me and convincing me of its authenticity. Thus, this former assumption by the author (BLAKOLMER [supra n. 1, 2017] 17-18) can be ruled out.




HYBRID CREATURES IN AEGEAN BRONZE AGE ICONOGRAPHY

231

ambivalent. The depiction of fantastic creatures, in their majority or totality borrowed from the Near East, constitutes a remarkably late phenomenon; most of them seem to have maintained a somewhat foreign character or, at least, a special position that never permitted them to become fully integrated into the Aegean metaphysical mind-set. The roles and symbolism of supernatural creatures mostly remain emblem-like and superficial. The Minoan genius constitutes a striking exception: the most fantastic and exotic composite creature that took on human-like roles and, at the same time, even achieved the position of a minor deity in the Aegean pantheon. Although, since the 18th century BCE, hybrid creatures became a constant factor in the iconography of the Aegean Bronze Age, when compared to the ‘balance’ of iconographic cycles in other civilisations, they nevertheless appear as a selective patchwork of individual examples, whose meaning is generally not sharply defined. In several examples, one may even suppose that, in the Aegean realm of palatial imagery, the exotic character of these orientally-rooted fantastic figures was of greater significance than providing them with a distinct meaning. With regard to the depiction of fantastic creatures in mythological scenes, one may cast doubt whether this was ever the purpose of Minoan and Mycenaean iconography, although a few exceptions might exist. Nonetheless, it is hard to imagine any complex society that, in its stories, legends, poems, hymns, liturgical songs, magical sayings and prayers, lacks any mythological elements. Thus, it appears rather doubtful that supernatural creatures depicted in Minoan and Mycenaean iconography really were assigned to send ‘messages from or about another world’ to Aegeans (as well as to Aegean archaeologists), and this carries a twofold meaning: neither did hybrid species possess a deeper and consistent meaning, although a few exceptions exist; nor was their mostly variable and superficial meaning identical with that of their Egyptian and Near Eastern morphological prototypes. Instead, they mostly seem to have been perceived as attractive, icon-like images which allude to their exotic Near Eastern origin and merely conveyed rather simple messages.


Fritz BLAKOLMER

232

Fritz BLAKOLMER LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Pl. XLIXa Signet-ring from Prosymna (CMS I, no. 218). Pl. XLIXb Ivory plate from Spata (After J.-C. POURSAT, Catalogue des ivoires mycéniens du Musée National d’Athènes [1977] Pl. XLVIII, no. 462). Pl. XLIXc Seal-stone from Agia Pelagia (CMS VI, no. 321). Pl. XLIXd Synopsis of the morphological development of the Minoan genius (drawing by the author). Pl. XLIXe Ivory plate from Thebes, Boeotia (after S. SYMEONOGLOU, Kadmeia I. Mycenaean Finds from Thebes, Greece. Excavations at the Oedipous St. [1973] Pl. 73, fig. 230). Pl. XLIXf Seal image from Pylos, reconstruction by the author (based on CMS I, no. 379). Pl. La Seal-stone in Boston (CMS XIII, no. 34). Pl. Lb Seal-stone from Kato Symi (after I. PINI, “Die Siegel und die Siegelabdrücke auf Gefäßhenkeln aus dem Heiligtum von Symi”, AM 121 [2006] Pl. 2:2). Pl. Lc Signet-ring in the Giamalakis Collection (CMS III, no. 365). Pl. Ld Seal image from Agia Triada (CMS II6, no. 106). Pl. Le Seal-stone from Petras (after O. KRZYSZKOWSKA, “Seals from the Petras cemetery: a preliminary overview”, in: M. TSIPOPOULOU (ed.), Petras, Siteia – 25 Years of Excavations and Studies. Acts of a two-day conference held at the Danish Institute at Athens, 9-10 October 2010 [2012] 154, fig. 8a). Pl. Lf Seal image from Knossos (CMS II8, no. 234). Pl. Lg Larnax from Tanagra (after RUTKOWSKI [supra n. 60] 53, fig. 15:2). Pl. Lh Seal image from Pylos (CMS I, no. 324). Pl. Li Seal-stone in Paris (CMS IX, no. 20D).

XLIX

b

a c

d

e

f

L

a

b c

f d

e

g

h

i

HYBRIDS IN THE AEGEAN BRONZE AGE: DIVERSE ORIGINS, DIVERGENT TRAJECTORIES* Monsters, demons, grotesques and other fantastic creatures are widespread throughout the ancient world, the middle ages, the early modern period, even unto the present day. These hybrids – to use a more neutral term – frequently combine anatomical realities with a few striking violations of expected norms.1 As such the images themselves are both arresting and memorable. But crucially their genesis may well reflect deep-seated beliefs, fears or aspirations. Moreover, some hybrids, if not all, come to play a key cosmological function, for they occupy a liminal zone and thus can mediate between this world and the supernatural. Some prove to be short-lived and are confined to very particular cultural contexts, making very little impact beyond their original homelands, so to speak. Others are long-lived and travel widely, undergoing a series of transformations in cultures far and wide, perhaps losing some of their original potency, but gaining new powers in their adoptive lands. Five of the hybrid creatures that appear in the Aegean in the second millennium had foreign origins. I will call these the exotic hybrids: the genius, the dragon, the sphinx, the griffin, and a grotesque related to Bes. Exactly how – and indeed why – these exotics reached the Aegean, specifically Minoan Crete, is obscure in the extreme. Their origins are diverse, the routes they travelled and by what means are largely unknown and indeed often unknowable. In addition we have a few home-grown hybrids, to which I will return later. Although their imagery is no less striking, their impact proves to be much more circumscribed. What follows is intended as a broad overview of our evidence,2 punctuated by what I hope are some pertinent questions to be addressed in future. For both exotic and home-grown hybrids, glyptic provides the overwhelming majority of evidence. The roughly 300 examples depicting exotic hybrids cover a period of some 600 years or so, from the late Prepalatial period onwards. In quantity this total outstrips examples in all other media combined by roughly 3:1. Of course seals are practically indestructible and perhaps less susceptible than frescoes and ivories to the vagaries of preservation. But it is also worth remembering that the glyptic record itself is far from


*

1

2

Abbreviations: Aegean Seals = O. KRZYSZKOWSKA, Aegean Seals: An Introduction (2005) CatIvMyc = J.-C. POURSAT, Catalogue des ivoires mycéniens du Musée National d’Athènes (1977) IvMyc = J.-C. POURSAT, Les ivoires mycéniens. Essai sur la formation d’un art mycénien (1977) CMS on-line = available at https://arachne.uni-koeln.de/drupal/?q=en/node/196; HM = Herakleion Museum (inventory number) NAM = National Archaeological Museum (inventory number) Acknowledgements. For facilitating study of material discussed and/or illustrated here, I cordially thank: National Archaeological Museum, Athens; Archaeological Museums of Chania, Herakleion and Siteia; CMS (Heidelberg); INSTAP East Crete Study Center; T. Brogan; K. Demakopoulou; G. Flouda; S. Mandalaki; E. Papadopoulou; M. Tsipopoulou. For financial support, I thank the Institute for Aegean Prehistory (Philadelphia) and the Institute of Classical Studies (London). D. SPERBER and L.A. HIRSCHFELD, “The cognitive foundations of cultural stability and diversity,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8 (2004) 40-46, esp. 44; D. WENGROW, The Origins of Monsters: Image and Cognition in the First Age of Mechanical Reproduction (2014) 23. WENGROW (ibid. 1, 24) uses the term ‘composites’ for what I term ‘hybrids’; he sensibly refers to ‘images’ rather than ‘representations’ since these are creatures of the imagination, not pictures of living things that could be seen in the world. The literature on this subject is vast and only a fraction of references can be given here. Similarly only a small selection of images can be presented, chosen to show the variety of media involved and changes (or not) in iconography over time. They are aimed especially at readers unfamiliar with the Aegean repertoire. For cultural background and dating: Aegean Seals xviii, 57, 79, 119-120, 193, 232-233.

234

Olga KRZYSZKOWSKA

complete: the extant repertoire probably represents something less than 5% of original output.3 In that case our 300 or so examples are potentially the tip of a much larger iceberg. Conceivably, then, seals served as one of the most effective means of disseminating certain cosmological beliefs to a wider audience. We will return to this in due course. The earliest hybrids in the Aegean known to me are a few ‘white pieces’ of late Prepalatial date. One combines a humanoid head with spiral locks placed on an animal’s body, perhaps leonine (Pl. LIa: CMS III 1). On a hitherto unpublished example the humanoid head is attached to a recumbent lion (Pl. LIb: HM Metaxas Collection 1628). A third shows two such creatures arranged tête-bêche (CMS VS1A 221). Whether these hybrids should be construed as sphinxes – and hence reflecting foreign influence – is open to debate. A detailed discussion is currently in press.4 The main horizon for the arrival of exotic hybrids is the late Protopalatial period, a time when complex palace-based society emerged in Crete and when overseas connections gathered pace. A few sealings and contemporary seals provide the first certain encounters with the genius, dragon, sphinx, and griffin (Pl. LIh assembles all known examples). In fact without the chance survival of the sealings, evidence for the genius and griffin in this period would be wholly absent. Apart from the genius, accompanied by libation jugs and foliage, the other exotics remain little more than isolated images, altogether lacking attributes. Thus they offer no clues whatsoever as to how much symbolic baggage accompanied them on arrival, much less the roles they would come to play in future. Before we focus on the major ‘exotics’, a brief word about the grotesque creature attested at Petras (Pl. LIe). I discussed him in detail at the Metaphysis conference and have little to add now, save to recall his existence.5 His origin seems assured, being clearly related to the Egyptian Bes (Pl. LId).6 This dwarf demi-god, who sometimes appears alongside Taweret on magic wands (Pl. LIc), is characterized by a leonine mane and tail; as time goes his physique becomes more paunchy, his visage ever more gruesome. But his impact on Aegean iconography is decidedly limited. Nevertheless Bes (or more precisely the Petras creature) did spawn a series of striking images during MM II – chiefly disembodied heads of monstrous appearance and very likely apotropaic function (Pl. LIf: CMS VI 101a).7 Aside from glyptic, a similar head appears on a vase at Malia (Pl. LIg).


3 4

5

6

7

Aegean Seals 1. See also below and infra n. 62. O. KRZYSZKOWSKA, “Seals in the Giamalakis Collection attributed to Apesokari,” in G. FLOUDA, Tholos Tomb A and the Settlement at Apesokari: An Archaeological Palimpsest in Southern Crete (forthcoming). For ‘white pieces’ generally: Aegean Seals 72-74 (with earlier references). O. KRZYSZKOWSKA, “Warding off evil: apotropaic practice and imagery in Minoan Crete”, in E. ALRAM-STERN, F. BLAKOLMER, S. DEGER-JALKOTZY, R. LAFFINEUR and J. WEILHARTNER (eds), METAPHYSIS. Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 15th International Aegean Conference, Vienna, Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Aegean and Anatolia Department, Austrian Academy of Sciences and Institute of Classical Archaeology, University of Vienna, 22-25 April 2014 (2016) 115-121, esp. 118-121, Pls XLIV-XLV. And not the female Beset as asserted by Weingarten: see KRZYSZKOWSKA (supra n. 5) 119-120 and n. 36 with references. Beset lacks a tail, but Bes is invariably shown with one, as in Pl. LIc-e. KRZYSZKOWSKA (supra n. 5) 118-121, Pls XLIV-XLV (illustrating all known examples). M. Anastasiadou has recently argued that the disembodied heads in MM II glyptic (e.g. here Pl. LIf) sometimes became attached to bodies like the Petras figure: M. ANASTASIADOU, “The origin of the different: ‘Gorgos’ and ‘Minotaurs’ of the Aegean Bronze Age,” in E. BRIDGES and D. AL-AYAD (eds), Making Monsters: A Speculative and Classical Anthology (2018) 166-175, esp. 168-169. But this is wholly excluded by the Petras figure with its indisputable links to Bes. That is, the gruesome heads are clearly excerpts, derived from the full-length figure not vice versa. Note also her regrettable use of the term ‘Gorgos’ and the links which she draws to much later, entirely unrelated, Gorgoneia: cf. KRZYSZKOWSKA (supra n. 5) 121 with n. 49. Finally, Anastasiadou regards CMS III 230b (shown here in Pl. LIh) as a ‘gorgo mask’ attached to a quadruped. It is in fact a sphinx with Anatolian connections, as rightly recognized by J. ARUZ, Marks of Distinction: Seals and Cultural Exchange between the Aegean and the Orient (ca. 2600-1360 B.C.) (2008) 106-107, fig. 224, no. 180.

HYBRIDS IN THE AEGEAN BRONZE AGE

235

In contrast to Bes, Taweret swiftly establishes itself as the Minoan genius, undergoing several transformations in the course of its very long sojourn in the Aegean, well documented in earlier studies.8 In appearance the genius is surely the most outlandish of our hybrids. On arrival in MM II it retained the physical features of Egyptian prototypes – a corpulent hippo-like body, leonine head and a dorsal appendage, perhaps the carapace of a crocodile – although by LM I it had become a much slimmer creature with typical Minoan wasp waist (compare Pl. LIh left column and Pl. LIIa). And while in the Middle Kingdom Taweret was a combative creature, often wielding a broad knife and sometimes even using it on human foes, in MM II the Minoan genius, accompanied by vegetation, calmly bears a libation jug (cf. Pl. LIc and h). In LM I glyptic, libation remains a key role, but the genius also becomes much more active, appearing in hunting scenes and as a guardian or helper (Pl. LIIa: CMS II7 31; XI 208; cf. I 379 of LB II-IIIA1 date). Several seals datable on stylistic grounds to LB I-II show the genius leading a tethered bull, as if to sacrifice (Pl. LIIa: CMS VI 304), clearly echoing LM I compositions with human figures.9 The same is also true in LB II-IIIA glyptic where the genius bears an animal over its shoulder or carries a pair of creatures on a pole (Pl. LIIa: CMS XI 37-38).10 Far from clear is whether the imagery represents a genuine evolution in the symbolic role of the genius or arises from a well-known phenomenon in glyptic where new types were created from standard compositions by altering certain elements or attributes.11 In any case, in glyptic such scenes are limited in number, confined to a few examples in hard stone, and during LB II-IIIA1 a libation jug remains the creature’s key attribute, most forcibly seen on the great Tiryns ring (CMS I 179; cf. Pl. LIIa: CMS I 231; XI 290). Eventually, however, the genius recedes once again to a static image, as on our latest soft stone seals of LB IIIA1/2 date, where its features become ever more debased (Pl. LIIa: CMS XII 302 and V 367, the latter being the sole example in the ‘Mainland Popular Group’). Roughly 57 seals portray the genius in various guises.12 But not only are examples in other media far fewer, the range of activities portrayed are more limited. The Malia triton famously reinforces the significance of the genius in libation rituals during the Neopalatial period (Pl. LIIb),13 and the imagery certainly recurs in other media during LB II-III. But extant examples are very few indeed. The unique Pangalochori mirror handle (Pl. LIIc) was very likely a special commission, but did that extend to choice of


8

9 10

11 12

13

E.g. J. WEINGARTEN, The Transformation of Egyptian Taweret into the Minoan Genius: A Study of Cultural Transmission in the Middle Bronze Age (1991); P. REHAK, “The ‘genius’ in Late Bronze Age glyptic: the later evolution of an Aegean cult figure,” in I. PINI and J.-C. POURSAT (eds), Sceaux minoens et mycéniens. IVe symposium international 10-12 septembre 1992, Clermont-Ferrand (1995) 215-231. See also infra n. 13. Cf. CMS VI 304-306 with genii and CMS VS1A 173 (LM I); VII 102 (LB I-II) with human figures. Carrying animal over shoulder: CMS V 209; VI 307; IX 129; XI 38-39. Cf. the LM I motif chiefly in soft stone of female figures carrying goats, e.g. CMS II4 111; also in hard stone, e.g. CMS I 221 (LH IIA). In a bizarre twist a genius carries on its shoulder a male figure (whether dead or alive is unclear) on CMS VS1B 153 (of LB II-IIIA date). For the genius carrying a pair of animals on poles (CMS VS1B 167; XI 37) cf. compositions with humans: CMS VI 25a (MM II); II8 238 (LM IIIA1). Another rare case of ‘substitution’ involves the genius in the role of ‘Master of Animals’ on CMS I 161 (flanked by dogs for which cf. CMS VII 126, see infra n. 58) and CMS I 172 (flanked by lions) a composition otherwise popular in LB I-II and LB II-IIIA1 glyptic with both central female and male figures. Aegean Seals 139, 205. A search in the CMS on-line yields 59 examples from MM II to LM IIIA1/2. The breakdown is as follows: soft (19), hard (32), metal (4). Non-Aegean are CMS IS 66a (ivory cylinder seal); II1 283 (Egyptian scarab); II3 282 and VI 290 (Cypro-Aegean). Many of the Knossos sealings are highly fragmentary and uninformative. Add: impressions of a gold ring with griffins and genii bearing jugs flanking an enthroned female: C. PITEROS, J.-P. OLIVIER and J.L. MELENA, “Les inscriptions en linéaire B des nodules de Thèbes (1982). La fouille, les documents, les possibilités d’interprétation,” BCH 114 (1990) 103-84, esp. 109-110, nos. 6-7, 20 (Thebes Museum 9909, 9910, 9924). Add also: S.R. STOCKER and J.L. DAVIS, “An Early Mycenaean wanax at Pylos: On genii and sun-disks from the Grave of the Griffin Warrior,” in F. BLAKOLMER (ed.), Current Approaches and New Perspectives in Aegean Iconography (2020) 293-299, figs 1-3. The composition is comparable to that on CMS I 231 from Vapheio (see here Pl. LIIa). P. DARCQUE and C. BAURAIN, “Un triton en pierre à Malia,” BCH 107 (1983) 3-73.

236

Olga KRZYSZKOWSKA

iconography and its symbolism? 14 Or are later iterations are merely derived from a repertoire of stock images? In glass jewellery, libation is again the theme, but is attested on less than a handful of examples (Pl. LIId).15 Much the same imagery recurs on the handles of two bronze craters very likely of Aegean manufacture although found in Cyprus.16 Sacrificial ritual appears on an ivory chair back from Thebes, and perhaps hunting on the fresco fragment from Mycenae (Pl. LIIe, f).17 Only a fresco fragment from Pylos, depicting the genius carrying a flounced skirt, expands the repertoire beyond that previously attested on seals (Pl. LIIg).18 But this too echoes LM I glyptic imagery involving female figures (e.g. CMS II3 8, 134; II7 7; VS3 394). Thus virtually all the Bildthemen involving the genius are initially to be found in glyptic. Was glyptic then responsible for the genesis of the symbolic repertoire, or for its wider dissemination, or for both? We may now turn briefly to the dragon, which plays a much more limited role in the iconographic repertoire. The origins of this exotic seemingly lie in Mesopotamia,19 and as such it travelled the furthest to reach the Aegean, though as ever the paths are obscure. In its homeland the dragon’s features included an elongated neck and snout; a scaly lizard-like body; relatively long legs with the forefeet of a lion and hindclaws of an eagle; and curling upraised tail, sometimes resembling that of a scorpion.20 Some of these are retained in Aegean imagery, although there are also striking additions, notably a ‘feathery’ tail curving over the creature’s back, as seen on several seals of MM II and MM III-LM I date (Pls LIh, LIIIa: CMS IV 32D; X 245a; XI 291; XII 290).21 In the Near East, the dragon sometimes bears a male deity on its back: either enthroned or standing, as on the Akkadian seal shown in Pl. LIIIa top left. By contrast in the Aegean the creature appears as the familiar of a female figure, likely a goddess. And crucially, while other exotic hybrids in the Aegean are sometimes tethered or otherwise controlled, the dragon alone is ridden (Pl. LIIIa: CMS I 167; II6 33; VI 321). Yet despite the striking imagery, this hybrid is seemingly the least


14

15

16

17

18

19 20

21

K. BAXÉVANI-KOUZIONI and S. MARKOULAKI, “Une tombe à chambre MR III à Pankalochori (nome de Réthymnon),” BCH 120 (1996) 641-703, esp. 673-681, figs 46-48. Otherwise the genius seems largely absent from the ivory repertoire, although note an appliqué from Pylos: CatIvMyc 129, Pl. XL, no. 393 and IvMyc 58; and the chair back from Thebes (see below and infra n. 17). Glass plaques (none closely datable): Mycenae, Tomb of the Genii (G. MYLONAS, Mycenae Rich in Gold [1983] 191-193, fig. 144 [colour]), Mycenae, T. 93 (A. SAKELLARIOU, Oι θαλαμώτοι τάφοι των Μυκηνών [1985] 268, Γ 4551, Pl. 133 with references). Stone mould with genius and palm tree (here Pl. LId): D. EVELY, Well Built Mycenae 27: Ground Stone (1992) 22, 31, Pl. 4, no. 49; E. FRENCH, Mycenae: Agamemnon’s Capital (2002) 107, colour Pl. 19. Context LH IIIB1 but perhaps earlier. H.W. CATLING, Cypriot Bronzework in the Mycenaean World (1964) 158-160, Pls 23-24. For further references and detailed discussion of their origin: G. PAPASAVVAS, “Out of place, out of time? The case of a Cypriot bronze crater,” in S. und R. NAWRACALA (eds), ΠΟΛΥΜΑΘΕΙΑ. Festschrift für Hartmut Matthäus anläßlich seines 65. Geburtstages (2015) 389-414. Thebes chair back: S. SYMEONOGLOU, Kadmeia I. Mycenaean Finds from Thebes, Greece. Excavations at 14 Oedipus St. (1973) 48-52, Pls 70-75; IvMyc 58, Pl. V.1. Fresco from Tsountas House, Mycenae: Chr. TSOUNTAS, “Αρχαιότητες εκ Μυκηνών,” ArchEph 3 (1887) 160-162, Pl. 10.1. Note further fragments with genii from elsewhere in the Cult Centre: I. KRITSELI-PROVIDI, Τοιχογραφίες του Θρησκευτικού Κέντρου των Μυκηνών (1982) 21-23, fig. 2, Pl. Aα, nos. A-1 to A-4. Fragment 40 H ne: originally seen as a ‘woman standing to the left’ in M. LANG, The Palace of Nestor in Western Messenia II. The Frescoes (1969) 79, Pls 26, C. Correctly identified as a genius by M.A.V. GILL, “Apropos the Minoan genius,” AJA 74 (1970) 404-406, ill. 1. See now full discussion by T. BOULOTI, “A ‘knot-bearing’ (?) Minoan genius from Pylos. Contribution to the cloth/clothing offering imagery of the Aegean Late Bronze Age,” in ALRAM-STERN et al. eds (supra n. 5) 505-510. D. LEVI, “Gleanings from Crete,” AJA 49 (1945) 270-280; ARUZ (supra n. 7) 172. E.D. VAN BUREN, “The god Ningizzida,” Iraq 1 (1934) 60-89, esp. 71, Pl. IXb (here Pl. LIIIa left); IDEM, “The dragon in ancient Mesopotamia,” Orientalia NS 15 (1946) 1-45, esp. 7-8, figs 5-8. CMS IV 32D; X 245a (both MM II); XI 291a (not ‘talismanic’ as in ARUZ [supra n. 7] 172 n. 57, since face b bears a MM II-III ‘architectural’ motif). ‘Feathery’ tails also on: CMS V 581; XII 290-291 (all MM III-LM I ‘talismanic’). Of same style (without ‘feathery’ tails): CMS III 320; IV 42D.

HYBRIDS IN THE AEGEAN BRONZE AGE

237

potent: its latest appearance in glyptic is a single seal of LB II date (Pl. LIIIa: CMS I 167) and the imagery barely survives into LB III.22 Indeed unlike the genius, sphinx or griffin, the dragon is largely confined to glyptic, and Neopalatial glyptic at that. And whereas the Mesopotamian dragon was apparently conceived as a terrestrial creature, the Minoan dragon (with or without rider) is sometimes shown in a marshy or riverine landscape (Pl. LIIIa).23 There are, however, some indications that even in LH/LM I the creatures were undergoing a further metamorphosis, being conflated with crocodiles. This may be true of the gold cut-outs from Grave Circle A at Mycenae and certainly applies to a comb from Palaikastro; similar representations persist into LB III (Pl. LIIIb-e).24 Does this suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of the original imagery or its deliberate abandonment? Do these crocodiles reflect familiarity with Egyptian models or even with the living animal? Whatever the explanation, these creatures seem to have a largely decorative character, entirely devoid of the symbolic association between exotic hybrid and Aegean cosmography so fleetingly evidenced in LM I. The sphinx is unusual inasmuch as it is appears in a medium other than glyptic in MM II, notably the well-known ceramic relief from Malia (Pl. LIIIh).25 Here and on a contemporary seal (Pl. LIh: CMS VI 128) its connections to the Anatolian variety are plain to see (Pl. LIIIf-g). The so-called Pratt ivories, now in New York, but almost certainly from Acemhöyuk, provide convincing parallels, as do a number of seal impressions from that site.26 Notable are the human heads conjoined to the leonine bodies and the exuberant locks that curl down onto the neck and shoulders. Crucially these sphinxes are wingless. But as


22

23

24

25

26

The sole examples are a poorly illustrated glass plaque (A. PERSSON, The Royal Tombs at Dendra near Midea [1931] 65, fig. 43); and a fragmentary ivory relief from Mycenae, T. 29 (CatIvMyc 91, Pl. XXIX, no. 295; IvMyc 88; SAKELLARIOU [supra n. 15] 105-106, Pl. 27, no. E2641). Riverine settings on: CMS I 167 (?); II6 33 (?), 262; VS1B 76; VI 277 (Ring of Nestor); 362 (with plant motif); note also CMS II6 34 and VI 321 both with papyrus. Scaly skin on: CMS II6 262; II7 77; VS1B 76; VI 362; XII 293. Note also the griffin on CMS VI 321 (infra n. 42). All examples cited here and supra n. 21 are hard stone or impressions of gold rings except: CMS VI 362 (LM I serpentine lentoid) and X 245 (MM II steatite prism). CMS VS1B 76 from Mycenae is made of green jasper and hence very likely of LM I (i.e. Cretan) manufacture: Aegean Seals 237 with n. 23. J.-C. POURSAT, “Notes d’iconographie préhellénique: dragons et crocodiles,” BCH 100 (1976) 461-474. Mycenae cut-outs: G. KARO, Die Schachtgräber von Mykenai (1930/33) 50, Pl. XXVI, no. 41 ‘Schäferhunde’. Comb from Palaikastro Block X16: R.C. BOSANQUET and R.M. DAWKINS, The Unpublished Objects from the Palaikastro Excavations 1902-1906 (1923) 127, fig. 108; context seen by excavators as ‘LM II’, but a Neopalatial date seems assured: J. DRIESSEN and C. MACDONALD, The Troubled Island: Minoan Crete before and after the Santorini Eruption (20202) 228. For combs from LM/LH III contexts: IvMyc 88-89 with references. Asine lid: IvMyc 88, Pl. II.2; O.H. KRZYSZKOWSKA, “Asine Chamber Tomb I.2: the ivories,” in R. HÄGG, G.C. NORDQUIST, and B. WELLS, Asine III. Supplementary Studies on the Excavations 1922-1930 (1996) 85, 89, fig. 1.3. Note also an ivory crocodile carved in the round from Milatos: C. DAVARAS, Hagios Nikolaos Museum: Brief Illustrated Archaeological Guide (n.d.) 26, ill. 74; ARUZ (supra n. 7) 172, fig. 340. J.-C. POURSAT, “Reliefs d’applique moulés,” in B. DETOURNAY, J.-C. POURSAT, and F. VANDENABEELE, Fouilles exécutées à Mallia: Le Quartier Mu II (1980) 116-132, esp. 116-118, figs 164-165. The influence is seen as Egyptian rather than Anatolian as stressed by others. E. SIMPSON, “An early Anatolian ivory chair: the Pratt Ivories in the Metropolitan Museum of Art,” in R. KOEHL (ed.), AMILLA. The Quest for Excellence. Studies presented to Guenter Kopke in Celebration of his 75th Birthday (2013) 221-261, esp. 226-228 (origin), figs 16.6-16, 16.23-24. J. ARUZ, “Central Anatolian ivories,” in J. ARUZ, K. BENZEL, and J.M. EVANS (eds), Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C. (2008) 82-84, nos. 46a-b. A. GILIBERT, “Die anatolische Sphinx,” in L. WINKLER-HORAČEK (ed.), Wege der Sphinx. Monster zwischen Orient und Okzident. Eine Ausstellung der Abguss-Sammlung Antiker Plastik des Instituts für Klassische Archäologie der Freien Universität Berlin (2011) 39-48, esp. 39-42, figs 2, 6. Also: ARUZ (supra n. 7) 106-107, 116; A. SANAVIA and J. WEINGARTEN, “The transformation of tritons: some decorated Middle Minoan triton shells and an Anatolian counterpart,” in ALRAM-STERN et al. eds (supra n. 5) 335-344, esp. 340; KRZYSZKOWSKA (supra n. 4).

238

Olga KRZYSZKOWSKA

is too often the case, we have no clues as to how the sphinx was initially regarded in the Aegean; how much symbolism had accompanied the imagery on arrival.27 By the Neopalatial period the sphinx takes on a new form, very likely related to the Egyptianizing variety then current in the Levant (Pl. LIVa).28 Often shown seated, less often standing, the sphinx in the Aegean is now invariably winged and wears a plumed crown. The humanoid head on the leonine body is sometimes (though not always) recognizably female. An early example occurs on a fresco fragment from Knossos, part of the design on an elaborate skirt worn by a life-size female figure (Pl. LIVb).29 Yet again, the symbolic role played by the sphinx remains enigmatic, but at least its association with elite status – for that matter palatial status – is assured. More or less contemporary are the gold cut-outs from Grave Circle A at Mycenae (Pl. LIVc).30 Yet curiously, the sphinx is the least frequent exotic hybrid in glyptic, with barely a dozen examples: a few each in hard and soft stone, and on gold rings (Pl. LIVd).31 Some simply look bored, self-satisfied or smug. And they are seemingly the least active, the least engaged of all the exotic hybrids. Yet a sealing from Thebes, impressed by a LB I-II cushion, underscores the patchy nature of the extant repertoire. For here we find a male figure followed by a leashed sphinx; beneath the creature’s belly are a bucranium and horns of consecration (Pl. LIVe).32 The controlling of powerful but real creatures such as lions appears in glyptic as early as LM IA, implying mastery over the natural world.33 The involvement here of a hybrid creature reinforces the potency of the imagery, with the horns of consecration and bucranium further emphasizing its religious significance. Male figures and leashed sphinxes are also depicted on a much-decayed ivory pyxis from Mycenae.34 In turn these pieces of evidence support the view that the famous LM I relief fresco of the ‘Lily Prince’ was accompanied by a sphinx wearing the lily crown, whether leashed or not is impossible to say.35 But when we turn to other LB III ivory carvings, the sphinx again reverts to a purely static pose. Nor do the supports on which it appears – relief plaques or cosmetic articles such as mirror handles, pyxides and combs – betray any clues as to its symbolism (Pl. LIVf-g).36 Are these instances purely


27

28

29

30 31

32

33

34

35

36

See above for possible MM IA examples. Other MM II sphinxes are CMS III 230b and probably PTSK05.322b (Pl. LIh). For the latter: O. KRZYSZKOWSKA, “Seals from the Petras cemetery: a preliminary overview,” in M. TSIPOPOULOU (ed.), Petras – Siteia. 25 Years of Excavations and Studies. Acts of a Two-day Conference held at the Danish Institute at Athens, 9-10 October 2010 (2012) 145-156, esp. 150-151, fig. 6; EADEM, “The seals,” in M. TSIPOPOULOU, Petras: House Tombs 2, 4, 10 (forthcoming) cat. no. S3b. ARUZ (supra n. 7) 128-129, 149. B. TEISSIER, Egyptian Iconography on Syro-Palestinian Cylinder Seals of the Middle Bronze Age (1996) 12-25 (general), 80-88 (sphinxes), 144-149 with no. 150. A. EVANS (with catalogue by M. CAMERON and S. HOOD), Knossos Fresco Atlas (1976) 25, Pl. E fig. 3k, Pl. IV fig. 17; cf. also 24, Pl. E fig. 3c (griffin or sphinx); S. HOOD, “Dating the Knossos frescoes,” in L. MORGAN (ed.), Aegean Wall Painting: A Tribute to Mark Cameron (2005) 45-81, esp. 58-60, fig. 2.7b, ‘LM IA but some pieces being earlier’, i.e. MM IIIB/LM IA. KARO (supra n. 24) 51, Pl. XXVI no. 48 (6 examples). CMS I 87, 129; II3 39, 118; II7 88; II8 194, 543; VS3 352, 359; VII 176 (?). For MM II examples see supra n. 27. No sphinxes appear in the MM III-LM I ‘talismanic’ style; CMS II7 88 is the sole example of LM I date (CMS V 690 is more likely a griffin). Thebes Museum 9915 (TH Wu 45): PITEROS et al. (supra n. 12) 109, no. 12; note also 110-111, nos. 18, 35 (Thebes Museum 9921, 9941) impressed by seal that also depicts a male figure and sphinx, but facing left not right, and lacking horns of consecration and bucranium. Unfortunately drawings of the motifs are yet to be published. CMS II8 237 (male and lion) from the Eastern Temple Repository is likely to be the earliest; but this Bildthema persists through LM IB to LB II-IIIA1. Cf. also below for griffins. CatIvMyc 92, Pl. XXVIII, no. 297. Cf. IvMyc 59 no. 25, Pl. XVII.4, fragmentary pyxis from Enkomi; (probably ‘Mycenaeanizing’: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/G_1897-0401-1127). W.-D. NIEMEIER, “Das Stuckrelief des ‘Prinzen mit der Federkrone’ aus Knossos und minoische Götterdarstellungen,” AM 102 (1987) 65-98, esp. 96-97, fig. 25, but without mention of the Thebes sealings (supra n. 32). IvMyc 59-64 provides a convenient list with further references.

HYBRIDS IN THE AEGEAN BRONZE AGE

239

decorative, albeit deploying imagery somehow deemed suitable for elite status, or is there something deeper here? And as we move into LH IIIB and beyond, our attempts to analyse the potency of the sphinx are further confounded. The creatures appear in heraldic and likely protective guise atop the gateway on a miniature fresco at Pylos (Pl. LIVh).37 They also seem to acquire a connection with death, as suggested by their appearance on two larnakes from Tanagra (e.g. Pl. LIVi).38 Very occasionally they even migrate onto pictorial pottery, still just about recognizable as sphinxes. In one instance (Pl. LIVj) they retain the heraldic pose initially attested in glyptic, later in ivories and fresco, prompting us to again question whether we are dealing with a stock image; on a few more they appear with living animals (Pl. LIVk-l) or griffins, albeit in wholly static poses.39 For the most part, then, these late sphinxes are devoid of associations that might help us understand their symbolism and the extent to which this hybrid still resonated as late as the LH IIIC period. The last of our exotic hybrids – the griffin – is characterized by the head, neck and wings of an eagle combined with a leonine body and tail; feathered ‘crests’ appear on some examples, but are not diagnostic. While convincing antecedents occur in both Syrian and Anatolian glyptic of the 19-18th centuries BC, the means of transmission to the Aegean is, as usual, unclear.40 In the Aegean the griffin positively dominates the glyptic repertoire, with an astonishing 200 or so examples.41 Moreover unlike the other hybrids there is a roughly equal division between hard and soft stone (with 90 or so each), plus a further 20 or so gold rings or impressions thereof. From the very beginning of LM IA – evidenced by the chariot scene from the Eastern Temple Repository – griffins adopt a range of poses, including the Aegean flying gallop, and engage in a variety of actions (Pl. LVa: CMS II8 193). Some are controlled by a male or female figure, some flank a Potnia Theron (Pl. LVa: HM 1017; II3 63).42 Others are simply tethered to a column. There are about 20 attack scenes, involving bovines, deer, goats or even lions as prey, reinforcing the griffins’ superiority to the living creatures of this world (Pl. LVa: CMS II6 103; VS1A 202). But it must be stressed that on roughly three-quarters of the seals depicting griffins, the creature is a static image – usually shown recumbent, occasionally standing, with one or both wings displayed (Pl. LVa: CMS III 508a). However, unlike the genius, where the poses and compositions established in LM I recur with little change in later seals, griffin imagery shows remarkable diversity in LB II-III glyptic, even when essentially drawing on the same broad themes, such as tethering, chariotry, or attacks (Pl. LVa: CMS I 128; VS1A 202; VS1B 137, 429; XII 301). This tendency toward reinterpretation rather than replication occurs in other media too.


37 38

39

40

41

42

Fragment 1A2: LANG (supra n. 18) 136-137, Pls 75, I, R. Th. SPYROPOULOS, “Aνασκαφή mυκηναϊκού νεκροταφείου Τανάγρας,” PAE (1971; pub 1973) 12, Pl. 18β (sphinx and column); IDEM, “Aνασκαφή Μυκηναϊκής Τανάγρας,” PAE (1974; pub. 1976) 14, Pls 10β, 11α (see Pl. LIVi; sphinxes on both sides). E. VERMEULE and V. KARAGEORGHIS, Mycenaean Pictorial Vase Painting (1982) nos. V.27 (with griffin chariot on other side, here Pl. LVk) V.28, VI.16 (with bull), Χ.42 (with bird), XI.91 (with deer; griffins on other side, here Pl. LVl). For the latter: J. CROUWEL, “Late Mycenaean pictorial pottery,” in D. EVELY (ed.), Lefkandi IV. The Bronze Age. The Late Helladic IIIC Settlement at Xeropolis (2006) 243-245, 254, G1, Pl. 67 (dated LH IIIC Middle). Useful summary with references in ARUZ (supra n. 7) 107-108, figs 231-235; the feathered crest may be an Egyptianizing feature, ultimately derived from the Pharaonic headdress. MM II examples are CMS II5 317-319; II6 215 (here Pl. LIh). For further examples see the CMS on-line at: searching under “Greif”. Although this yields 241 results, some are foreign imports or post-Bronze Age seals; others are fragments too tiny to be diagnostic. Roughly 210 is a more accurate count. Add HM 1017: Y. SAKELLARAKIS and E. SAPOUNA-SAKELLARAKI, Archanes. Minoan Crete in a New Light (1997) I 169-179, esp. 177; II 651-653, figs 718-719 (cf. Pl. LVa top left). Also impressions of a gold ring with griffins and genii bearing jugs flanking an enthroned female figure: PITEROS et al. (supra n. 12) 109110 nos 6-7, 20 (Thebes Museum 9909, 9910, 9924). In total about 20 seals depict a griffin with a female (or less often male) figure, but whether they should all be construed as divine is uncertain. Note CMS VI 321 (Pl. LIIIa) a rare case where two hybrids (there a griffin and dragon) occur on the same seal; cf. the seal impressions from Thebes (supra n. 41).

240

Olga KRZYSZKOWSKA

Before we turn to fresco, it is worth mentioning the griffin’s presence in metalwork and ivories. Gold cut-outs from Grave Circle A at Mycenae show griffins in two poses: in flying gallop and recumbent with head regardant (Pl. LVb-c).43 On a sword from Grave Circle B (Pl. LVd) and a dagger from Circle A griffins in flying gallop appear on the blades, while a recumbent griffin in niello and gold with wings displayed adorns the remarkable short sword from Athanasia Kanta’s recent excavations at Knossos.44 Conceivably the aim was to increase the might of the weapon, to ensure success in combat, given the griffin’s dominance in scenes of attack. Animal attacks also figure on a number of ivories of LB III date, most famously on the pyxis from the Athenian Agora (Pl. LVe). But a few pyxides and relief plaques aside, the griffin’s impact on the ivory repertoire seems decidedly limited,45 in marked contrast to the prevalence of the sphinx. To date we have found no ivory combs or mirror handles decorated with griffins.46 Were they deemed an unsuitable subject and if so why? Examples in fresco are well known and need little comment. We should however contrast the griffin in the West House at Akrotiri – set in the Nilotic landscape with real living creatures (Pl. LVf) – with its role in nearby Xeste 3 as a familiar of the goddess.47 From the East Hall at Knossos come the life-sized tethered griffins in high relief, while the griffins in the Throne Room represent the ultimate in tethering, deprived of their wings (Pl. LVg-h).48 Did this ensure their protection in perpetuity for the palace and its occupants, or does it signify the power wielded by the occupant of the throne, or both? In common with the sphinx, the griffin also appears in mortuary contexts during LB III, as evidenced by the Ayia Triada sarcophagus and a larnax from Palaikastro (Pl. LVi-j).49 On the former, the griffin chariot is depicted, a theme already familiar from glyptic (e.g. Pl. LVa: CMS II8 193; VS1B 137). And the imagery survives even longer, reappearing in pictorial vase painting of LH IIIB, where the creatures’ heads and scrawny necks resemble those of living griffin vultures (Pl. LVk).50 The very latest appearance of the griffin, on a vase dated to LH IIIC Middle, adds a novel twist to the repertoire, where adults hold in their beaks a nest with chicks (Pl. LVl).51 Thus notwithstanding their hybrid form, these


43

44

45 46

47

48

49

50

51

KARO (supra n. 24) 48, Pl. XXVII, no. 29 (one example); 51, Pl. XXVI, no. 47 (three examples); note also: 78, Pl. XXXII, no. 274 (gold foil pin-head two griffins on upper portion, two lions on lower). G. MYLONAS, O Τάφικος Κύκλος Β των Μυκηνών (1973) 85-86, fig. 8, Pls 67-68, no. Δ-277; KARO (supra n. 24) 135-136, figs 50-51, Pls XCI-XCII, no. 747 (Grave V); A. KANTA, “The religious centre of the city of Knossos and religious worship through time,” in N.C. STAMPOLIDIS, E. PAPADOPOULOU, I.G. LOURENTZATOU, and I.D. FAPPAS (eds), Crete: Emerging Cities. Aptera, Eleutherna, Knossos (2019) 244249; 330, no. 310 (where dated LM II-IIIA1, but conceivably earlier owing to use of niello). IvMyc 64-68 provides a convenient list with references; but see infra n. 46. Note, however, two mirror handles from Enkomi: BM 1897.4-1.872 and 883 (IvMyc 65 nos 19-20, the latter falsely seen as a pyxis). See: O. KRZYSZKOWSKA, “A ‘new’ mirror handle from Cyprus,” BSA 87 (1992) 237-242, Pl. 14. Although often seen as ‘Mycenaeanizing’, their subject matter is far removed from the Aegean. C. DOUMAS, The Wall-paintings of Thera (1992) 48, Pls 30-34; 130-131, Pls 122, 128. WENGROW (supra n. 1) 5, remarks on ‘the routine appearance of griffins among the (real) desert animals mentioned or depicted in ancient Egyptian sources’; thus our own classification of ‘real’ versus ‘imaginary’ is not a universally objective criterion. Convenient list with references in HOOD (supra n. 29) 58-60, fig. 2.9c (skirt fragment); 65, Pl. 48.1 (Throne Room); 75-76, fig. 2.26 (stucco reliefs). For wingless griffins at Pylos: LANG (supra n. 18) 101-102, 110-112, Pls 53-57, F, P. Note also the figure carrying a miniature griffin (figurine?) at Mycenae: KRITSELI-PROVIDI (supra n. 17) 28-33, Pls Bα, 2α, no. A-6. C.R. LONG, The Ayia Triadha Sarcophagus: A Study of Late Minoan and Mycenaean Funerary Practices and Beliefs (1974) 28-34, figs 18, 26. R.C. BOSANQUET, “Excavations at Palaikastro I,” BSA 8 (1901-02) 297-300, Pl. 18b. To date no sphinxes have been found on Cretan larnakes, nor griffins on those from Tanagra (cf. supra n. 38). VERMEULE and KARAGEORGHIS (supra n. 39) no. V.27. Antithetical sphinxes appear on the other side of the vase (Pl. LIVj). CROUWEL (supra n. 39) 243-245, 254, G1, Pl. 67; see here Pl. LIVl for the other side.

HYBRIDS IN THE AEGEAN BRONZE AGE

241

griffins display a ‘regular biology’, conforming to ‘ordinary expectations’; a feature attested in a few other Aegean images.52 Finally and briefly, we must turn to home-grown hybrids. Regarding the strange creatures known from the Zakros sealings (Pl. LVIa) I intend to say little.53 These images combine in bizarre ways a truly bewildering array of animal and human parts – far in excess of the ‘few striking violations of expected norms’ featured in the exotic hybrids. We are left wondering if these fantastic combinations somehow reflect or are derived from performative, shamanistic rituals involving animal masks and feathered capes local to Zakros itself. In any case they make little or no impact on contemporary glyptic and are entirely absent in other media. As for the devices that are related to bird-ladies (e.g. Pl. LVIa: CMS II7 129A) these may well have been inspired by mainstream LM I glyptic rather than vice versa. About 30 Cretan seals depict bird-ladies.54 The origin of the motif clearly lies in LM I soft stone output, normally combining the wings and head of a bird (e.g. CMS II6 112), attached to the flounced skirt and feet of a female figure (e.g. CMS III 351). While most should probably be dated to LM I, the imagery certainly continues into LM IIIA1/2. But there is little that helps us understand the symbolism of this attractive hybrid. That they are found exclusively in soft local stones is noteworthy, thus closely matching the large group of LM I soft stone seals that depict female figures: dancing, in procession, or carrying animals to sacrifice.55 Could it be that these belonged to a distinctive social group, perhaps involved in the religious sphere? Could the same be true of the bird-ladies? Whatever the case, the imagery fails to take root in other media; nor does it transfer to the Greek mainland. Our final group of home-grown hybrids only appears after the Neopalatial period, in LM IIIIIA1.56 They ordinarily combine the heads, necks and forelimbs of animals with the torsos, waists and lower limbs of humans, invariably male. Bull-men constitute the overwhelming majority, but a few goatmen, deer-men and lion-men are known (Pl. LVIc).57 One even depicts a genius-man flanked by the


52

53

54

55

56

57

SPERBER and HIRSCHFELD (supra n. 1) 44. Juvenile griffins on CMS I 304; females (with teats) on CMS I 128, 269, 271; II3 219; V 690. Cf. juvenile genii on the Pangalochori mirror (Pl. LIIc). See Aegean Seals 150-153 for summary and references; earlier accounts including J. WEINGARTEN, The Zakro Master and his Place in Prehistory (1983) are unreliable, having been written prior to the definitive publication of the sealings with accurate drawings of the motifs in CMS II7 (1998). See now M. ANASTASIADOU, “Wings, heads, tails: small puzzles at LM I Zakros,” in ALRAM-STERN et al. eds (supra n. 5) 77-85. For convenient illustrations: I. PINI, “Soft stone versus hard stone seals in Aegean glyptic: some observations on style and iconography,” in W. MÜLLER (ed.), Die Bedeutung der minoischen und mykenischen Glyptik, VI. Internationales Siegel-Symposium aus Anlass des 50 jährigen Bestehens des CMS Marburg, 9.-12. October 2008 (2010) 325-339, esp. 329-332, figs 5-8. Add: H. VAN EFFENTERRE, Le palais de Mallia et la cité minoenne (1980) II 574-575, fig. 855 (from SE entrance to palace). Add also: M.C. and J.W. SHAW, House X at Kommos: A Minoan Mansion near the Sea I. Architecture, Stratigraphy, and Selected Finds (2012) 86, Pl. 3.11, J16 (oriented incorrectly). O. KRZYSZKOWSKA, “Worn to impress? Symbol and status in Aegean glyptic”, in M.-L. NOSCH and R. LAFFINEUR (eds), KOSMOS. Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 13th International Aegean Conference/13e Rencontre égéenne internationale, University of Copenhagen, Danish National Research Foundation’s Centre for Textile Research, 21-26 April 2010 (2012) 739-747, esp. 743-746, Pls CLXXVac, CLXXVIa-e. Cf. PINI (supra n. 54) 332-336, figs 9-11. For summary and earlier references: Aegean Seals 207-208. Cf. N. SCHLAGER, “Minotauros in der ägäischen Glyptik?,” in I. PINI (ed.), Fragen und Probleme der bronzezeitlichen ägäischen Glyptik. Beiträge zum 3. Internationalen Marburger Siegel-Symposium 5.-7. September 1985 (1989) 225-239; but his lists are difficult to use and out-of-date, owing to the publication of newer CMS volumes (see infra n. 57). Although often called ‘minotaurs’, this is a misnomer, since several species are involved. Moreover, true minotaurs in later Greek iconography invariably show the head and tail of a bull attached to the entire body of a man. This combination is attested only once in the Bronze Age, where the lack of a tail suggests the male figure may have been wearing a mask (Pl. LVIc: CMS VS3 154). The latter is also noted by ANASTASIADOU (supra n. 7) 171-173 (who wrongly dates it to ‘1500-1400’ and other examples to ‘1700-1500’, i.e. MM III-LM I). Bull-men: CMS I 216; II3 67; III 363; VS1B 159; VS2 112; VS3 150, 154, 223; VI 298-300, 303; IX 127-128, 144; X 145-146, 232; XI 251; XII 238; XIII 34, 61, 84. Goat-men: CMS II3 331; VS3 113. Deer-men: CMS

242

Olga KRZYSZKOWSKA

forequarters of dogs (Pl. LVIc: CMS VII 126).58 The genesis of the bull-men and related imagery is obscure. Some connection with bull-leaping or even hunting is not impossible, combining animal and human excerpts from those scenes. If so, it may be inappropriate to consider these true hybrids. There are also occasional allusions to the imagery of sacrifice or scenes of attack, e.g. where the hybrid is associated with the head (or skull) of a living creature (Pl. LVIc: CMS I 77; also XIII 84).59 Attacks may be implied on CMS II3 10 where a lion-man bites the neck of a deer-man and on CMS VI 302 with a lion-man and bullman (Pl. LVIc; cf. CMS VS1B 94, lion-man attacking a real goat). While the imagery may be difficult for us to ‘read’ with confidence, the bull-men and related creatures clearly held a particular fascination for engravers, chiefly working in hard stones, during LB II-IIIA1.60 Yet there is no sign of these hybrids in other media; nor can we be certain that those found in mainland contexts were actually made there. Concluding remarks The late appearance of the home-grown hybrids and their confinement to glyptic is puzzling, but may reflect the fact that whatever needs they fulfilled were severely circumscribed by time and place. By contrast the exotic hybrids – borrowed from overseas by means that remain enigmatic during the Protopalatial period – were ‘other-worldly’ in both the literal as well as the metaphysical sense. Whatever symbolic associations may have accompanied them, their foreign origin alone may have held a special cachet for elite members of society during an era of state-formation.61 Apart from the genius, which undergoes an immediate transformation, gaining the attributes of libation and vegetation, during MM IIIII the other exotic hybrids are merely isolated images, still apparently in search of a role. But with the beginning of the LBA the poses and proportions of the hybrids evolve, the better to fit conventions accorded in the Aegean to living creatures. Moreover, they now take on more active roles, appearing with creatures of the real world, as in hunting or attack scenes. More crucially, figures in human form – some very likely divine – either control the hybrids or are seemingly protected by them. In all such cases, the imagery thus reinforces the belief that order, harmony and stability are being maintained in the cosmos. From this period on, the hybrids also appear on a wide range of supports, including ivories, metalwork




58

59

60

61

VII 138; Lion-men: CMS I 77; II8 200, 205; VS1B 94; also CMS II3 10 (with deer man); VI 302 (with bullman). Genius-man: CMS VII 126. Unidentified quadruped: CMS II8 206. Also: CMS II8 202 (goat-mangoat); VI 301 (bull-man-bull); VII 123 and XI 336 (both bull-man-goat): XII 245 (man-bull-man). Add HM 2309: VAN EFFENTERRE (supra n. 54) II 575, fig. 858, Pl. XXIXe (serpentine not steatite; lion-man). Also Rethymnon Σ244 from Maroulas with goat-man: O. KRZYSZKOWSKA, “Changing perceptions of the past: the role of antique seals in Minoan Crete,” in E. BORGNA, I. CALOI, F.M. CARINCI and R. LAFFINEUR (eds), MNHMH/MNEME. Past and Memory in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 17th International Aegean Conference. University of Udine, Department of Humanities and Cultural Heritage, Ca’Foscari University of Venice, Department of Humanities, 17-21 April 2018 (2019) 487-496, esp. 493, Pl. CLXXVIIIa, centre. Curiously the CMS on-line sees this as a ‘Schwein-Mann-Mann’. The identity of the creatures is confirmed by CMS I 161 (genius flanked by dogs), a hard stone seal used to impress the stoppers of five stirrup jars found at Mycenae; both stoppers and jars were made of west Cretan clay. On stylistic grounds the seal itself was very likely of Cretan (LM II-IIIA1) manufacture: Aegean Seals 288-289, ill. no. 568a-b. The same was probably true of CMS VII 126, although it was acquired on Cyprus. Note also the disembodied human head on CMS X 145; for similar heads, perhaps apotropaic in nature, on LM II-IIIA1 seals: KRZYSZKOWSKA (supra n. 5) 120-121, Pl. XLVe-f. Cf. also: L. MORGAN, “Frontal face and the symbolism of death in Aegean glyptic,” in PINI and POURSAT eds (supra n. 8) 143-145. The contorted poses seen in all examples are common in LM II-IIIA1 seals depicting animals: Aegean Seals 210. Note that in older CMS volumes these hybrids were shown with necks erect and heads facing forwards; more recently they have been oriented with necks and heads turned sharply downwards (cf. CMS II3 331 and VS3 113), reflecting the contorted poses of animals. In total there are about 40 seals with bull-men and related hybrids: only three are made of soft local (Cretan) stones: CMS II3 331 (reddish limestone); VI 300 and the lentoid from Malia (supra n. 57) both serpentine. For the appearance and spread of hybrids in the Near East and Egypt during periods of state-formation and the rise of urban societies see WENGROW (supra n. 1) 2-3, 50-73, 92-94.

HYBRIDS IN THE AEGEAN BRONZE AGE

243

and frescoes. But with very few exceptions these echo the themes (sometimes the very compositions) attested in glyptic. Indeed glyptic may well have served as a crucial means for the wider dissemination of hybrid iconography through space and time. Even so, we must take care not to overstate the role of exotic hybrids in the glyptic repertoire itself. The c. 300 examples represent only a tiny proportion of the extant output (whether seals or sealings) from MM II to LB IIIA2. Very likely confined to the upper echelons of society were the gold signet rings and examples made of hard semi-precious stones, together accounting for more than half of the seals/sealings with hybrids.62 And only the griffin offers a substantial number (c. 90 examples) made of soft local stones, hinting at a broader distribution throughout society. Yet further than this is impossible to go. Did possession of a seal (or indeed other item) with hybrid iconography connote special status? Or was it perceived as bestowing on the owner special protection? Although the exotic hybrids all arrived in roughly the same era, they followed very different trajectories once established in the Aegean. Yet how should we assess their impact on Aegean religious beliefs: by activity, by longevity or by the range of media in which they occur? The genius was often shown undertaking roles that could also be performed by humans. Yet alone among the hybrids did this creature possess a form – standing in profile on two legs inherited from Taweret – that permitted this conflation with humanoid poses: clearly impossible for the four-legged dragon, sphinx or griffin. Thus it remains open to question whether during the Bronze Age the genius was seen as occupying an elevated rank in the hierarchy of creatures.63 At the other extreme is the dragon, an attractive but somewhat mysterious creature, often set in marshy landscapes, occasionally ridden by a female figure. Yet, the imagery scarcely survives the Neopalatial period and makes scant impact outside glyptic. The sphinx, somewhat surprisingly, appears on relatively few seals and with rare exceptions is invariably a static image, without meaningful associations. Unlike the griffin it never flanks a Potnia Theron; nor does it engage in attack scenes. And yet its image survives in pictorial pottery as late as LH IIIC Middle. The same is true of the griffin – surely the most powerful, the most potent of the hybrids. As evidence we need only reiterate the diversity of its roles; the continued evolution of its imagery even when drawing on earlier themes; its prevalence in glyptic; and the wide range of other media in which it occurs. But with the griffin, as with other hybrids, we are still left with a host of unanswered questions. How were these creatures perceived – as purely imaginary, as strange but real creatures dwelling in some far-off land, or as true supernatural beings, fitting companions for the deities who safeguarded the living world? No single answer is likely to hold true, for perceptions will surely have altered and evolved according to the beholder. Scant wonder, then, that our own understanding of these hybrids is always likely to be imperfect at best. Olga KRZYSZKOWSKA





62

63

For details see supra nn. 12, 23, 31, 41. The exact proportion of seals/sealings with hybrids relative to the total MM II-LB IIIA2 corpus cannot be gauged; it is unlikely to exceed 5% and could be lower. Of course any given seal could potentially be used to impress multiple sealings and, thus, could conceivably reinforce or disseminate hybrid iconography still further. But there is no means of guessing their number. Among extant sealings with hybrids, some are indeed represented by multiple examples (e.g. CMS II7 31, here Pl. LIIa on five nodules); but many are singletons. Obviously the very preservation of sealings is a matter of chance: Aegean Seals 1-2. Cf. F. BLAKOLMER, “Il Buono, il Brutto, il Cattivo? Character, symbolism and hierarchy of animals and supernatural creatures in Minoan and Mycenaean iconography,” Creta Antica 17 (2016) 97-183, diagram 19.

244

Olga KRZYSZKOWSKA LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Drawings of ancient seal impressions are courtesy of the CMS Archive; photos of modern seal impressions are adapted from CMS images or are by the author. All other photographs are by the author, unless otherwise specified below; copyright for those held in Greek museums rests with the Greek Ministry of Culture and Sports Archaeological Receipts Fund. Pl. LIa Pl. LIb Pl. LIc Pl. LId Pl. LIe Pl. LIf Pl. LIg Pl. LIh Pl. LIIa Pl. LIIb Pl. LIIc Pl. LIId Pl. LIIe Pl. LIIf Pl. LIIg Pl. LIIIa Pl. LIIIb Pl. LIIIc Pl. LIIId Pl. LIIIe Pl. LIIIf Pl. LIIIg Pl. LIIIh Pl. LIVa Pl. LIVb Pl. LIVc Pl. LIVd Pl. LIVe Pl. LIVf Pl. LIVg Pl. LIVh Pl. LIVi Pl. LIVj Pl. LIVk Pl. LIVl Pl. LVa Pl. LVb-c Pl. LVd Pl. LVe Pl. LVf

Late Prepalatial ‘theriomorphic’ seal (CMS III 1). Late Prepalatial ‘theriomorphic’ seal (HM Metaxas Collection 1628). Magic wand, Middle Kingdom, detail showing Taweret and Aha-Bes (Louvre E3614). Faience figurine of Aha-Bes, late Middle Kingdom (Baltimore Walters Art Gallery 48.420). OpenAccess image. MM II rectangular bar from Petras (Siteia Museum 13513a). MM II four-sided prism, ‘Central Crete’ (CMS VI 101a). MM II pithos, detail: Malia, Quartier Mu. Drawing after J.-C. POURSAT, “Iconographie minoenne: continuités et ruptures”, in P. DARCQUE and J.-C. POURSAT (eds), L’iconographie minoenne. Actes de la table ronde d’Athènes (21-22 avril 1983) (1985) fig. 3. MM II and MM II-III seals and sealings depicting hybrids. Selected LM I-LB IIIA1/2 seals and sealings depicting the Minoan genius. LM I stone rhyton with genii and libation jugs. Drawing after DARCQUE and BAURAIN (supra n. 13) fig. 14. Ivory mirror handle face (b), detail with genii and juveniles: Pangalochori, Crete (Rethymnon Museum O282). Stone mould for jewellery, detail with genius: Mycenae, Citadel House Area (Mycenae Museum 1686). Ivory chair back, detail with genius: Thebes. Drawing after SYMEONOGLOU (supra n. 17) Pl. 73. Fresco fragment with genii carrying a pole: Mycenae, Tsountas House (NAM 1665). Fresco fragment with genius and skirt: Pylos. After LANG (supra n. 18) Pl. C. Selected seals and sealings depicting the dragon. BM 122125 (Akkadian) after VAN BUREN (supra n. 20) Pl. IXb; the remainder are MM III-LM I to LB II in date. Gold cut-out of dragon or crocodile: Mycenae, Circle A Grave III (NAM; display) Ivory comb from Palaikastro (HM 149). Ivory comb from Palaikastro (HM 149). Restored drawing after BOSANQUET and DAWKINS (supra n. 24) fig. 108. Ivory circular plaque with crocodiles: Asine, CT I:2 (NAM 10554). Ivory sphinx: ‘Acemhöyuk’. New York Metropolitan Museum 36.70.1. OpenAccess image. Ivory sphinx: ‘Acemhöyuk’. New York Metropolitan Museum 36.70.11 OpenAccess image. Ceramic relief depicting a sphinx: Malia, Quartier Mu (HM; display). Syrian cylinder seal depicting sphinxes. Drawing after TEISSIER (supra n. 28) no. 150. Fresco fragment with sphinx: Knossos. After EVANS (supra n. 29) Pl. IV.17. Gold cut-out of sphinx: Mycenae, Circle A Grave III (NAM; display). Selected seals and signet rings depicting sphinxes. Sealing impressed by cushion-shaped seal depicting sphinx lead by male figure (Thebes Museum 9915). Ivory mirror handle with sphinx: Knossos, Zapher Papoura T. 49 (HM 172). Ivory comb with sphinx: Spata (NAM 2044). Fresco fragment with sphinxes. After LANG (supra n. 18) Pl. R. Larnax detail with sphinx: Tanagra (Thebes Museum; display). Pictorial vase with sphinxes: Enkomi T. 48. Drawing after A.S. MURRAY, A.H. SMITH and H.B. WALTERS, Excavations in Cyprus (1900) fig. 14. Pictorial vase with sphinx: Mycenae, Cult Centre (Mycenae Museum 1973). Pictorial vase detail with sphinx and deer. Drawing after CROUWEL (supra n. 39) Pl. 67. Selected seals, signet rings and sealings depicting the genius. LM I-LB IIIA1/2. Gold cut-outs of griffins: Mycenae, Circle A Grave III (NAM; display). Sword detail with griffins in flying gallop: Mycenae, Grave Circle B, Δ-277. Drawing after MYLONAS (supra n. 44) fig. 8. Ivory pyxis and lid with griffin attack: Athens Agora T. I. (Agora Museum BI 511). ‘Nilotic’ frieze, detail: Thera, West House Room 5. DOUMAS (supra n. 47) Pl. 30.

HYBRIDS IN THE AEGEAN BRONZE AGE Pl. LVg Pl. LVh Pl. LVi Pl. LVj Pl. LVk

245

Relief fresco of tethered griffins: Knossos, East Hall (HM; display). Wingless griffins: Knossos, Throne Room (as restored). Ayia Triada sarcophagus, detail with griffin-drawn chariot (HM; display). Larnax detail with griffin: Palaikastro (HM; display). Pictorial vase with griffin-drawn chariot: Enkomi T. 48. Drawing after A.S. MURRAY, A.H. SMITH and H.B. WALTERS, Excavations in Cyprus (1900) fig. 71. Pl. LVl Pictorial vase detail with griffins and young. Drawing after CROUWEL (supra n. 39) Pl. 67. Pl. LVIa Selected LM I sealings depicting fantastic hybrids: Zakros House A. Pl. LVIb Selected LM I seals depicting bird-ladies. Pl. LVIc Selected seals and sealing depicting bull-men and related hybrids.

LI

LII

LIII

LIV

LV

LVI

D. ANIMALS IN BELIEFS AND RELIGION




























DIVINE ACOLYTES: THE ANIMALS AND THEIR SYMBOLISM IN THE XESTE 3 WALL-PAINTINGS for Christos Doumas, as he enters his 88th year Athens, 17.02.2021

Potnia of Nature and the nature of Potnia On the basis of the frequent reproduction of the iconographic motif of the seated female figure, which has been dubbed ‘Potnia’ in Aegean art of the second millennium BC,1 we are now able to determine the ‘nature’ of the elements that compose her and the criteria that define her.2 In this paper we focus on the animal world of the attendants of the Potnia in Xeste 3, as they are defined by the very dense iconography of this emblematic building at Akrotiri, Thera, whether they are animals

which ‘converse’ with her

which are depicted in her immediate environment and have a complementary and supplementary ‘function’ for the main representation

which are represented on the garments and jewellery of the Potnia herself, as well as of the giftbearing females processing towards her. In seeking the most appropriate and authoritative term to convey the represented qualities of the animals of the earth, of land water, the seabed and the air, in their relation to the Potnia, we shall name


1

2

Of the 11,000 or so sphragistic surfaces of all kinds, in the CMS, the motif of the sitting bare-breasted female figure is the focal point for humans, animals, plants, landscapes and architectural structures on less than 40 specimens. To the 37 representations gathered by Th. Eliopoulos (Th. ΕLIOPOULOS, Η καθήμενη κρητομυκηναϊκή θεά και η επιβίωσή της κατά τους πρώιμους ιστορικούς χρόνους, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Athens [2011] 31-34 Pls 5-7, 39-50 Pls 12-47) can be added the rings from Mylopotamos near Rethymnon (Ε. PAPADOPOULOU, “Gifts to the goddess. A gold ring from Mylopotamos, Rethymnon”, AM 126 [2011] 126) and Gaidourophas near Hierapetra (Y. PAPADATOS and K. CHALIKIAS, “Minoan Land-Use Patterns and Landscape Transformation in the Mountains of the Ierapetra Area: The Building at Gaidourophas,” in K. CHALIKIAS and E. ODDO [eds], Exploring a Terra Incognita on Crete: Recent Research on Bronze Age Habitation in the Southern Ierapetra Isthmus [2019] 84-85 fig. 5.12). See also a sealing from a seal ring found in the Kadmeia of Thebes (V. ARAVANTINOS, The Archaeological Museum of Thebes [2010] 94). The sitting Potnia is identified in relief wall-paintings from Knossos, Pseira and Chania (M.C. SHAW, “The Painted Plaster Reliefs from Pseira,” in P.P. BETANCOURT and C. DAVARAS [eds], Pseira II. Building AC (the “Shrine”) and other Buildings in Area A (1998) 55-76; ΕLIOPOULOS, ibid, 52-55, Pls 48-49), in Minoan and Mycenaean wall-paintings (ibid, 74-83, Pls 78-82; S. PETERSON MURRAY, “Patterned Textiles as Costume in Aegean Art,” in M.C. SHAW and A. CHAPIN [eds], Woven Threads: Patterned Textiles of the Aegean Bronze Age [2016] 43-103) and on ivory objects (ΕLIOPOULOS, ibid, 69-70, Pls 71-74), with most important the Mochlos pyxis (J.S. SOLES, “Hero, Goddess, Priestess: New Evidence for Minoan Religion and Social Organization,” in E. ALRAM-STERN, F. BLAKOLMER, S. DEGER-JALKOTZY, R. LAFFINEUR and J. WEILHARTNER [eds], METAPHYSIS. Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 15th International Aegean Conference, Vienna, Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Aegean and Anatolia Department, Austrian Academy of Sciences and Institute of Classical Archaeology, University of Vienna, 22-25 April 2014 (2016) 247254). See, P. REHAK “Enthroned Figures in Aegean Art and the Function of the Mycenaean Megaron,” in P. REHAK (ed.), The Role of the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean: Proceedings of a Panel Discussion Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, New Orleans, Louisiana, 28 December 1992 with Additions (1995) 95-118. K. KOPAKA, “A day in potnia’s life. Aspects of ‘potnia’ and reflected ‘mistress’ activities in the Aegean Bronze Age,” in R. LAFFINEUR and R. HÄGG (eds), POTNIA. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference, Göteborg, Göteborg University, 12-15 April 2000 (2001) 15-31.

250

Andreas G. VLACHOPOULOS

these beings ‘acolytes’,3 concurring with scholarship’s acceptance of their organic relationship to the divine hypostasis of the Potnia or her epiphany.4 The very few surviving wall-paintings from the prehistoric Aegean that can contribute to the discussion about ‘animal acolytes’ of the Potnia are numerically and iconographically at the opposite pole to the frequently intact miniature representations in seal-carving. This latter art, however, has proved to be ancillary, complementary or catoptric to monumental painting,5 both because of the repetitiveness and the fullness of the representations, and because of the long period over which seals and seal-rings were reproducing the ‘Potnia cycles’, spanning Cretan, Cycladic and Helladic religious iconography with an arc of at least three centuries.6 In the fragmentary corpus of monumental painting with representations of a Potnia, the threestorey building Xeste 3 at Akrotiri (Pls LVII-LVIII) has pride of place, not only because of the excellent preservation of the paintings and the architectural contexts, but also because of the chronological ripeness, however late in the LC I (LM IA) period the iconographic programme of the building was executed.7 Included among the Neopalatial wall-paintings with representations of scenes or cycles of the Potnia and ‘conversants’ with her are the iconographic programmes of Rooms 13 and 14 of the complex at Hagia Triada in Crete8 and of the Pillar Crypt at Phylakopi on Melos,9 the temporal, geographical and cultural horizon of which traverses the synchronisms of the Aegean LM ΙΑ/LC Ι/LH Ι period and imprints the shared ideological space of the Creto-Cycladic societies. Corroborative examples from less well-preserved or less-studied wall-paintings that have been recently published come from the “Porter’s Lodge” at Akrotiri, Thera,10 the West House of Mycenae11 and perhaps the Kadmeion of Thebes.12


3

4 5

6

7

8 9

10

11

“Anyone who follows or helps another person, or someone who helps a priest in some religious ceremonies” (Cambridge Dictionary, entry. acolyte). See P. REHAK, “Children’s Work: Girls as Acolytes in Aegean Ritual and Cult,” in A. COHEN and J. RUTTER (eds), Coming of Age: Constructions of Childhood in the Ancient World (2007) 205-225. ΕLIOPOULOS (supra n. 1) 275-285. F. BLAKOMER, “Small is beautiful. The significance of Aegean glyptic for the study of wall paintings, relief frescoes and minor relief arts,” in W. MÜLLER (ed.), Die Bedeutung der minoischedn und mykenischen Glyptik. VI. Internationales Siegel-Symposium aus Anlass der 50 jährigen Bestehens des CMS, Marburg, 9.-12. Oktober 2008 (2010) 91108; IDEM, “Image and architecture: reflections of mural iconography in seal images and other art forms of Minoan Crete,” in D. PANAGIOTOPOULOS and U. GÜNKEL-MASCHEK (eds), Minoan Realities. Approaches to Images, Architecture, and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age (2012) 83-114; N. BECKER, Die goldenen Siegelringe der Ägäischen Bronzezeit (2018) 280-284; A. VLACHOPOULOS, “The Ring of Nestor and the quest for authenticity,” in F. BLAKOLMER (ed.), Current Approaches and New Perspectives in Aegean Iconography (2020) 236-241. KOPAKA (supra n. 2) 19-24; P. WARREN, “Flowers for the Goddess. New fragments of wall paintings from Knossos,” in L. MORGAN and O. KRZYSZKOWSKA (eds), Aegean Wall Paintings: A Tribute to Mark Cameron (2005) 146-148; BECKER (supra n. 5) 260-262. On the basis of stylistic traits (as well as of the argument that the parts of earlier wall-paintings found under the last layer of wall-paintings in Xeste 3 appear to be later than those from other buildings), the wall-paintings of Xeste 3 belong to the mature production of the LC I Theran workshops. Considered to be earlier are the wall-paintings of the West House and of Building Complex Beta, contemporaneous those of Room 2 in Building Complex Delta, and contemporaneous or slightly later those of the procession of male figures from the grand staircase of Xeste 4. See Α. VLACHOPOULOS, “The dispersion of wall-paintings in the Late Cycladic I settlement at Akrotiri, Thera. The data after the recent excavations,” in C. DOUMAS (ed.), Akrotiri, Thera 1967-2007. 40 years of research (2021 in press). P. MILITELLO, Haghia Triada I. Gli affreschi (1998). See below n. 46. L. MORGAN, “The painted plasters and their relation to the wall paintings of the Pillar Crypt,” in C. RENFREW, Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos 1974-77 (2007) 371-399. Α. VLACHOPOULOS, “Disiecta Membra: The Wall Paintings from the ‘Porter’s Lodge’ at Akrotiri, Thera,” in M. NELSON, H. WILLIAMS, P. BETANCOURT (eds), Krinoi kai Limenai: Studies in Honor of Joseph and Maria Shaw (2007) 127-134. Ι. ΤΟURVAVITOU, “Unconditional Acceptance and Selective Rejection. Interactive Thematic Cycles in Mycenaean Painting. Tales of the Unexpected,” in A. VLACHOPOULOS (ed.), ΧΡΩΣΤΗΡΕΣ /

THE ANIMALS AND THEIR SYMBOLISM IN THE XESTE 3 WALL-PAINTINGS

251

With which animals does the Potnia “converse”? The iconographic programme and the architectural idiom of Xeste 313 offer to Potnia Studies the fullest narration of actions revolving around the central figure of the Aegean pantheon, and indeed inside her best-preserved “oikos” (Pl. LVIII).14 Thanks to progress in the conservation of the wall-paintings, over the past 50 years (1972-2021), study of Xeste 3 is dynamic, allowing partial readings of the building’s iconography, which have contributed to five thematic categories of the same number of Aegaeum conferences over the last 15 years (Epos,15 Kosmos,16 Physis,17 Metaphysis,18 Mneme19). If we add studies




12

13

14

15

16

17

PAINTBRUSHES. Wall-painting and vase-painting of the 2nd millennium BC in dialogue. Proceedings of the International Conference on Aegean Iconography Held at Akrotiri, Thera, 24-26 Μay 2013 (2018) 499-502 fig. 6c; EADEM, The Wall Paintings of the West House at Mycenae (2017) 19, 24-25 figs 9-13. The procession of women towards a facing female figure, from the House of Kadmos, includes – in unknown context – a figure of a griffin or a sphinx, see C. BOULOTIS, “Η τέχνη των τοιχογραφιών στη μυκηναϊκή Βοιωτία”, in V. ARAVANTINOS (ed.), Πρακτικά Γ΄Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Βοιωτικών Μελετών v. Γ'. α', Αρχαιολογία, Θήβα 4‐8 Σεπτεμβρίου 1996 (2000) 1100, 1115-1116; V. ARAVANTINOS, I. FAPPAS, P. ANGELIDIS, M.P. LOUKA, N. SEPETZOGLOU, “The female figure in the pictorial tradition of Mycenaean Boeotia: critical overview and technical observations,” in VLACHOPOULOS ed. (supra n. 11) 428-437 (esp. 431) figs 1-4. An important representation of a seated Potnia from the Kadmeia is being restored presently: E. KOUNTOURI, “Part of an Iconographic Koine? Discussing New Wall Paintings from Thebes,” in VLACHOPOULOS ed. (supra n. 11) 442-455. In the absence of any parallel for Xeste 3 in the archaeological record for the Late Bronze Age, it is preferable not to characterize as a “temple” the large building with its extensive mural decoration, however much the iconography, the lustral basin and other architectural features, as well as moveable finds, strongly suggest its ritual and ceremonial mission. See C. DOUMAS, “H θρησκεία στο Ακρωτήρι,” in C. DOUMAS (ed.), Ακρωτήρι Θήρας, 30 Χρόνια Έρευνας 1967-1997 (2008) 357-358 fig. 9; C. BOULOTIS, “Aspects of religious life at Akrotiri,” Als 3 (2005) 20-75; A. VLACHOPOULOS, “L’espace rituel revisité: architecture et iconographie dans la Xeste 3 d’Akrotiri, Théra,” in Ι. ΒOEHM and S. MÜLLER-CELKA (eds), Espace civil, espace religieux en Egée durant la période mycénienne. Approches épigraphique, linguistique et archéologique. Actes des journées d’archéologie et de philologie mycéniennes tenues à la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée – Jean Pouilloux les 1er février 2006 et 1er mars 2007 (2010) 173-198, 223-229; I. PAPAGEORGIOU, “Stories of Coming of Age at Prehistoric Akrotiri. Rituals and Iconographic Correlations,” Als 8, 2011-12 (2019) 36, 60, 72, 103. In my view, it would be more correct to consider that Xeste 3 constitutes together with the adjacent House of the Benches (sacristy of ritual objects and ark of the community’s collective memory, the excavation of which is in progress) as the ‘civic cult zone’. I propose that initiation rites and other sacred ceremonies took place in Xeste 3 and public rituals in the paved square delimited by it and the House of the Benches, whereas sacrificial acts of which there are sacred remains (horn altar/keraton?) were performed complementarily in the latter building “under the gaze of the Great Goddess” (BOULOTIS ibid., 36). For the House of the Benches, see BOULOTIS ibid., 44-46, 73 figs 24-27, 63; VLACHOPOULOS ibid., 176-177, figs 3-4; V. PETRAKOS, “Ακρωτήρι Θήρας,” Έργον 2018, 37-40; IDEM, “Ακρωτήρι Θήρας,” Έργον 2019, 52-55. As the iconography of Xeste 3 and our knowledge of Minoan religion suggest, most sanctuaries and cult activity were open-air (hypaethral) and mainly in the mountains See N. MARINATOS, Minoan Religion: Ritual, Image, and Symbol (1993) 115-126; EADEM, “Το Μαγικό Βουνό. Tα ιερά στη μινωική θρησκεία, εικονογραφία και αρχιτεκτονική,” in I. TZACHILI and M. ARAKADAKI (eds), Good Works. Studies in Honour of Professor Clairy Palyvou (2020) 305-316. Α. VLACHOPOULOS, “Mythos, Logos and Eikon. Motifs of Early Greek Poetry and the Wall Paintings of Xeste 3, Akrotiri,” in S.P. MORRIS and R. LAFFINEUR (eds), EPOS. Reconsidering Greek Epic and Aegean Bronze Age Archaeology. Proceedings of the 11th International Aegean Conference, Los Angeles, UCLA – The J. Paul Getty Villa, 20-23 April 2006 (2007) 107-118. Α. VLACHOPOULOS and F. GEORMA, “Jewellery and Adornment at Akrotiri, Thera: The Evidence from the Wall Paintings and the Finds,” in M.-L. NOSCH and R. LAFFINEUR (eds), KOSMOS. Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 13th International Aegean Conference/13e Rencontre égéenne internationale, University of Copenhagen, Danish National Research Foundation’s Centre for Textile Research, 21-26 April 2010 (2012) 35-42. Α. VLACHOPOULOS and L. ZORZOS, “Physis and Techne on Thera: Reconstructing Bronze Age environment and land-use based on new evidence from phytoliths and the Akrotiri wall paintings,” in G.

252

Andreas G. VLACHOPOULOS

concerning the Theran painters’ technical knowhow,20 issues of colour aesthetics21 and criteria for use of pigments,22 conservation of the wall-paintings23 and archaeometrical analyses of pigments (Μetron),24 the Aegaeum conferences become six and Xeste 3 with its copious wall-paintings rightly claims its place as reference point in Aegean prehistory.25 Here we focus on the role of the animals depicted in the building. These can be classified as “existing animals” (bull, cow / calf, wild goat-agrimi, monkey, duck, bird, swallow / fledgling, dragonfly,




18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

TOUCHAIS, R. LAFFINEUR and F. ROUGEMONT (eds), PHYSIS. L’environnement naturel et la relation homme-milieu dans le monde Égéen protohistorique. Actes de la 14e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Paris, Institut National d’Histoire de l’Art, 11-14 décembre 2012 (2014) 183-197. Α. VLACHOPOULOS, “Images of Physis or Perceptions of Metaphysis? The Iconography of the Xeste 3 Building at Akrotiri, Thera”, in ALRAM-STERN et al. eds (supra n. 1) 375-386. See also N. MARINATOS, “Myth, Ritual, Symbolism and the Solar Goddess in Thera,” in Ibidem 3-14; ΕΑDEM, “The Waz-Spirals of Xeste 3, Thera: Regeneration and Solar Symbolism”, in VLACHOPOULOS ed. (supra n. 11) 63-72. Α. VLACHOPOULOS, “Mneme and Τechne at Akrotiri, Thera,” in E. BORGNA, I. CALOI, F.M. CARINCI and R. LAFFINEUR (eds), MNHMH/MNEME. Past and Memory in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 17th International Aegean Conference. University of Udine, Department of Humanities and Cultural Heritage, Ca’Foscari University of Venice, Department of Humanities, 17-21 April 2018 (2019) 443-445. C. PAPAODYSSEUS, T. PAPAGOPOULOS, M. EXARHOS, C. TRIANTAFYLLOU, G. ROUSSOPOULOS, P. ROUSSOPOULOS, D. FRAGOULIS, G. GALANOPOULOS, Α. VLACHOPOULOS and C. DOUMAS, “Distinct Late Bronze Age (c. 1650 BC) Wall Paintings of Akrotiri, Thera Comprising Advanced Geometrical Patterns,” Archaeometry 48 (2006) 97-114; P. ANGELIDIS, E. KALAMBOUKI, S. SOTIROPOULOU and M. HAMAWI, “The Preliminary Designs in the Akrotiri Wall-Paintings,” in VLACHOPOULOS ed. (supra n. 11) 357-368. Α. VLACHOPOULOS, “Purple rosettes / Πορφυροί ρόδακες: New Data on Polychromy and Perception in the Thera Wall Paintings,” in R. KOEHL (ed.), Studies in Aegean Art and Culture: A New York Aegean Bronze Age Colloquium in Memory of Ellen N. Davis (2016) 59-76; N. SEPETZOGLOU, “The Role and Significance of Colour in the Large Wall-painting Compositions of Spirals from Xeste 3 at Akrotiri,” in VLACHOPOULOS ed. (supra n. 11) 377-388. Α. VLACHOPOULOS and S. SOTIROPOULOU, “Blue Pigments on the Thera Wall Paintings: from the palette of the Theran painter to the laboratory analysis,” in A. PAPADOPOULOS (ed.), “Current Research in the Late Bronze - Early Iron Age East Mediterranean,” Talanta 44, 2012 (2013) 245-272. For the pigments, see K. BIRTACHA, S. SOTIROPOULOU, V. PERDIKATSIS and C. APOSTOLAKI, “Pigments. New Data on the Materials, their Processing and their Use in the Prehistoric Settlement at Akrotiri,” in DOUMAS ed. (supra n. 7). For the purple dye, see also S. SOTIROPOULOU, I. KARAPANAGIOTIS, K. ANDRIKOPOULOS, T. MARKETOU, K. BIRTACHA and M. MARTHARI, “Review and New Evidence on the Molluscan Purple Pigment Used in the Early Late Bronze Age Aegean Wall Paintings,” Heritage 2021,4, 171-187. Α. VLACHOPOULOS, “‘Βίρα-Μάινα’: Το χρονικό της συντήρησης μίας τοιχογραφίας από την Ξεστή 3 του Ακρωτηρίου,” in A. VLACHOPOULOS and K. BIRTACHA (eds), ΑΡΓΟΝΑΥΤΗΣ. Τιμητικός Τόμος για τον καθηγητή Χρίστο Ντούμα από τους μαθητές του στο Πανεπιστήμιο Αθηνών (2003) 505-526; A. VOULGARIS and P. ANGELIDIS, “The conservation of the spirals wall-paintings from Xeste 3,” Als 8, 2011-12 (2019) 117153. T. PANTAZIS, A. KARYDAS, C. DOUMAS, A. VLACHOPOULOS, P. NOMIKOS, E. THOMSON, C. VECOLI and M. DINSMORE, “X-Ray Florescence Analysis of a Gold Ibex and Other Artifacts from Akrotiri,” in K.P. FOSTER and R. LAFFINEUR (eds), METRON. Measuring the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 9th International Aegean Conference, New Haven, Yale University (18-21 April 2002) (2003) 155-160. For the architecture of Xeste 3, see C. PALYVOU, Akrotiri Thera. An Architecture of Affluence 3,500 Years Old (2005) 54-62 figs 62-75. For the architectural and the visual perception of the Xeste 3 wall-paintings, see EADEM, “Wall painting and architecture in the Aegean Bronze Age. Connections between illusionary space and built realities,” in PANAGIOTOPOULOS and GÜNKEL-MASCHEK eds (supra n. 5) 14-24 figs 7-9, 12-18. For the pottery from the building, see A. PAPAGIANNOPOULOU, “Xeste 3, Akrotiri, Thera: The Pottery,” in C. MORRIS (ed.), Klados. Essays in honour of J.N. Coldstream (1995) 209-215; EADEM, “Η ανασκαφή του “Αδύτου” της Ξεστής 3 στον οικισμό Ακρωτηρίου Θήρας και η στρωματογραφία της κεραμεικής του,” in TZACHILI and ARAKADAKI eds (supra n. 14) 229-270.

THE ANIMALS AND THEIR SYMBOLISM IN THE XESTE 3 WALL-PAINTINGS

253

flying fish, fish) and “imaginary beings” (griffin).26 With regard to the manner of their depiction in Xeste 3, this varies in its fidelity to realism, scale and iconographic context. The griffin and the monkey are represented on either side of the Potnia, the duck and the dragonfly are motifs of her jewellery. The wild goat and the bull are represented together with male figures performing hunting feats, while swallows, birds, flying fish and fish embellish the garments of the female figures in procession, advancing towards the Potnia. The animals that appear in natural landscapes with fauna and flora are the cow, the monkey, the duck, the swallow and the dragonfly, with the cow and the swallow depicted feeding their young, the calf and the nestlings, respectively. From this “list”, it is readily understood that the faunal “universe” that plays its part in elaborating the iconographic programme of Xeste 3 is targeted, following canons that are linked with the animals’ attributes and supplementing the natural landscape. First and foremost, however, it is didactic and standardized in relation to the mural performances and, ultimately, it is doxastic of the Potnia, under whose inspiration the ritual enactments unfold. Interesting is the conclusion that the vocabulary of “animal images” enters Theran painting unchanged from the affined Minoan iconography, since the animals depicted on the walls of Xeste 3 do not echo the natural environment of the island so much as the represented natural world (landscape-vegetation), 27 but reproduce cycles of (Knossian) Neopalatial iconography in which animals reveal religious symbolism, participate in rituals and promote exemplary qualities.28 Cyclado-Minoan Phylakopi affirms this ascertainment. As a methodological tool for examining the representations of animals in Xeste 3 we select the architectural function of the building, by entering the antechamber (Room 5) and then wandering through the two lower storeys (Rooms 2, 3a and 3b), in which the wall-paintings of interest are physiocentric, anthropocentric and theocentric compositions in three iconographic enclaves. The area of the two storeys is the same (283 square metres) and the spaces, 14 in number, are repeated in both, with minor deviations. In rooms of the west wing, some plaster fragments yet to be conserved have been identified as belonging to representations of animals (Room 12: birds and abstract motifs;29 Room 13: griffin wing / animal with red-spotted yellow body)30 and humans (Room 10: mature female figure)31. The uppermost storey of Xeste 3, smaller in area and overlying the east part of the building, was covered completely with wallpaintings of polychrome linear motifs (primarily spirals and rosettes), in aniconic, rhythmically repeated patterns of imposing dimensions and metaphysical character.32 To facilitate our following of the representations of animals, as well as to apprehend the frequency and combinations with which they occur in the best-studied west part of the building, we mapped the “animal pictorial units” and the biotope that is their setting on the plans of Xeste 3, and the painter Nikos Sepetzoglou created the annotated drawing of Pl. LIX. Ground floor – Antechamber (Room 5) Wild goat and bull Represented on the north pisé wall of the antechamber of Xeste 3 is a wild goat being captured by two symmetrically lunging men who grasp it by the horns (Pl. LXa). Represented opposite and on the


26 27 28 29

30 31 32

For this distinction, see ELIOPOULOS (supra n. 1) 275-283, 283-285. VLACHOPOULOS and ZORZOS (supra n. 17), with bibliography. For these remarks on the wall-paintings from the “Porter’s Lodge,” see VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 10). The excavation in Room 15 has not been completed and it is not clear to which phase of Xeste 3 it belongs: VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 13) 175 note 2 fig. 16. On Room 12, see A. G. VLACHOPOULOS, “The wall-paintings from the Xeste 3 building at Akrotiri: Towards an interpretation of the iconographic programme,” in N. BRODΙE, J. DOOLE, G. GAVALAS and C. RENFREW (eds), Horizon. Ορίζων. A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades (2008) 454. VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 29) 454 figs 41.45, 41.51. VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 29) 454 figs 41.44, 41.51. For the wall-paintings from the second storey, see VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 18); VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 21); SEPETZOGLOU (supra n. 21).

254

Andreas G. VLACHOPOULOS

south wall is the capture of a bull with a rope, again by two men, wearing long loincloth (zoma) and athlete’s boots (Pl. LXa).33 Both wall-paintings start from the height of the stone benches; each one is addressed to the spectators sitting on the bench opposite.34 The animals (the fastest and the strongest in the Aegean fauna) are male, as are their hunters. So, this is a “male” iconographic nucleus of feats/labours of hunting prowess, in which participants are youths of specific age, attire and hairstyle, probably in the introductory stage of the initiation process that will take place inside the building.35 The boots allude to the countryside and probably to a natural space difficult of access, where the ritual performances are enacted. However, neither wall-painting includes the setting, instead depicting the capture of wild animals in an environment as neutral as the white ground.36 The bull and the wild goat face the direction of the staircase and the sottoscala,37 respectively, as if they come from the countryside and enter into what is happening in the building. Thus, for those persons waiting in the antechamber, they link the implied natural habitat of the animals’ capture, the paradigmatic value of the hunters-athletes’ feat and the rites that the building institutes. So, if the wallpaintings publicize the youthful achievements that have preceded the pending procedure of initiation, then the two horned animals come into the “entry sphere” of the iconography of the building, with their physical virtues (strength, swiftness, vigour, usefulness to people), but also their status as sacrificial animals,38 if we accept the view that hunting images in Aegean iconography function as “metaphors for sacrifice”.39 The last is confirmed and reinforced by the pile of horns, mainly of domesticated sheep and goats, fewer of bulls and deer antlers (keraton altar?), which is being excavated in the space of the House of the Benches,40 as well as the gold wild goat (ibex) figurine which was kept in an adjacent wooden casket placed inside a clay larnax. 41 In this precious sacristy we may imagine the dedication, deposition and accumulation of objects of diachronic memory for the sacred acts, but also the removal of them for parading in litanies and processions in the stone-paved Square of the Benches.42 However, of the two vigorous animals in the wall-paintings, the long-horned wild goat (agrimi) is endemic in the mountains of Crete and has not been identified at Akrotiri, while bulls could only have


33

34

35 36

37 38

39

40

41

42

VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 13) 177-178 figs 5-7; PAPAGEORGIOU (supra n. 13) 61-69 figs 36-41; I. PAPAGEORGIOU, “The Iconographic Subject of the Hunt in the Cyclades and Crete in the 2nd Millennium BC: Sounds and Echoes in the art of Wall-painting and Vase-painting,” in VLACHOPOULOS ed. (supra n. 11) 305-309 figs 6-9. There is also a stone bench along the outside wall of the entrance to Xeste 3, where up to six persons could sit – that is, the same number as on the two benches in the antechamber, see VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 13) 176 figs 5-7. PAPAGEORGIOU (supra n. 13) 72. The “cutback” of the familiar Theran rocks, which would have rendered the animals’ natural habitat, is perhaps due to the height of the benches. PALYVOU 2005 (supra n. 25) 54-56 figs 62, 70. N. MARINATOS, Minoan sacrificial ritual. Cult practice and symbolism (1986); E.F. BLOEDOW, “Notes on Animal Sacrifices in Minoan Religion,” JPR 10 (1996) 31-44. MARINATOS (supra n. 38) 25, 42-43. See E. LOUGHLIN, “The calf in Bronze Age Cretan art and society,” in B.S. FRIZELL (ed.), Pecus: Man and Animal in Antiquity (2004) 184. C. Boulotis estimates that the bull on the quay of City IV from the South Miniature Frieze of the West House is being led to sacrifice, see BOULOTIS (supra n. 13) 38 fig. 5 below. However, the animal has no horns and is barely visible. Κ. TRANTALIDOU, “Ακρωτήρι Θήρας. Απόθεση των κεράτων (ΥΚ Ι περίοδος),” ArchDelt 62 (2007) 14081409; EADEM, “Archaeozoological research at the Akrotiri excavation. The animal world in everyday life and ideology,” Als 6 (2008) figs 7, 39, 56. Two deer antlers were found in Xeste 3, on the floor of Room 11 of the first storey, see A. MICHAILIDOU, Ακρωτήρι Θήρας. Η μελέτη των ορόφων στα κτήρια του οικισμού (2001) 339, 356-357 figs 253-254; VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 13) 189. BOULOTIS (supra n. 13) 44, 48 figs 26-27; C. DOUMAS, The Early History of the Aegean in the Light of the Recent Finds from Akrotiri, Thera (2008) 41-42 figs 45-47; VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 13) 177; PAPAGEORGIOU (supra n. 13) 68-69 figs 44-45. For the House of the Benches, see n. 13; VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 13) 175 figs 1, 3, 5.

THE ANIMALS AND THEIR SYMBOLISM IN THE XESTE 3 WALL-PAINTINGS

255

been reared in limited populations on waterless Thera,43 a parameter that makes their iconography at Akrotiri a derivative of Cretan mural models.44 In its iconography the composition of the wild goats in Xeste 3 has no direct affinity with the Potnia and her female circle, unlike the case in Room 14 of Hagia Triada, where the mountainous landscape with wild goats, wild cat and birds, to the left of the Potnia, constitutes part of her territory (and perhaps of the representation).45 To the right is a scene of a kneeling female figure (and perhaps of a second) in a landscape with crocus and other flowers (Pl. LXVa).46 The subject of the seated female deity, who as Mistress of Animals (Potnia Theron) “converses” with the wild goat, is encountered on the newly-found LM ΙΑ/Β bronze ring from Gaidourophas, Hierapetra,47 and on four LM IA seals with high-quality sphragistic devices,48 which probably echo a lost model in wall-painting. One such model, of the subject of capturing a wild goat in motion by unarmed hunters, which is represented on four Minoan seals49 and on a signet ring from Palaikastro,50 is preserved by the Theran wall-painting, thus documenting the two-way ideological relationship between Crete and Thera and the complementary way in which the iconography of seals and murals should be studied.51 The life-size hunters-athletes and their monumental projection on facing walls of the antechamber form “tableaux vivants”, the first beheld by the initiate or the catechumen entering Xeste 3. Whether he is directed in the mind’s eye via the staircase into the mountainous landscape of the ritual performances of


43

44

45

46

47 48

49

50 51

The bovid bones from the settlement at Akrotiri represent 2.47% of the faunal remains, see TRANTALIDOU 2008 (supra n. 40) 48. However, depicted to the left of the coastal City II in the North Miniature Frieze of the West House is a herd of four grazing bulls: C. TELEVANTOU, Οι τοιχογραφίες της Δυτικής Οικίας (1994) 190-191, 232-233 col. Pl. 30, Pl. 28b, foldout drawing 1. For the representations of bull capture or kindred sports in the porches and the entrances of palaces (Knossos and Zakros), see PAPAGEORGIOU (supra n. 33) 304-305 fig. 4; L. PLATON, “Iconography Workshops at Minoan Zakros: Marrying Political-Religious Symbolism with Expressive Freedom?,” in VLACHOPOULOS ed. (supra n. 11) 252 fig. 3; PAPAGEORGIOU (supra n. 13) 72-73 fig. 53. Possibly animal legs are shown to the left of the Potnia in the drawing by Ε. Gilliéron and E. Stefani (MILITELLO [supra n. 8] tav. D, E) and are traced in the recent examination of the wall-painting: S. MANDALAKI (ed.), Δαίδαλος. Στα Ίχνη του Μυθικού Τεχνίτη (2019) 158-159. For the wild goats in the wallpainting, see P. REHAK, “The Role of Religious Painting in the Function of the Minoan Villa: the Case of Ayia Triadha,” in R. HÄGG (ed.), The Function of the ‘Minoan Villa’ (1997) 172-173. See KOPAKA (supra n. 2) 21, Pl. IV.d. MILITELLO (supra n. 8); IDEM, “Altari, piattaforme, stendardi e festoni. Una nota sull’iconografia delle immagini cultuali minoiche,” Rivista di Archeaologia (2018) 13-26. See also B. JONES, “A Reconsideration of the Kneeling Figure Fresco from Hagia Triada,” in NELSON et al. eds (supra n. 10) 152-158; EADEM, “Revisiting the Figures and Landscapes on the Frescoes at Hagia Triada,” in TOUCHAIS et al. eds (supra n. 17) 493-497; BLAKOLMER 2012 (supra n. 5) 94-96 figs 36-37. PAPADATOS and CHALIKIAS (supra n. 1). CMS II, 8, 261 (Knossos); CMS II,6 30 and CMS II,6 31 (Hagia Triada); CMS VS1A, 175 (Chania). See BLAKOLMER 2012 (supra n. 5) 94-96 figs 39-41. CMS VI, 179 (Knossos?); CMS II8 235 (Knossos); CMS VI 345 (Agia Pelagia); CMS I 199. See J. WEINGARTEN, M. POLIG and S. HERMON, “The Palaikastro Master’s Ring and the Griffin Warrior’s Combat Agate: Drawing Conclusions,” in B. DAVIS and R. LAFFINEUR (eds), ΝΕΩΤΕΡΟΣ. Studies in Bronze Age Aegean Art and Archaeology in Honor of Professor John G. Younger on the Occasion of His Retirement (2020) 133-134. CMS VS 1B 341, see WEINGARTEN et al. (supra n. 49) 131-140 Pls XVII-XVIII, XXI. No corresponding relation of the Potnia with the bull in corresponding role is documented in the iconography, perhaps because the animal belongs to the fully discrete cycle of “bull-games”. See J. YOUNGER, “Bronze Age representations of Aegean bull-games, III,” in R. LAFFINEUR and W.-D. NIEMEIER (eds), POLITEIA. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, University of Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut, 10-13 April 1994 (1995) 507-545; U. GÜNKELMASCHEK, “Spirals, Bulls, and Sacred Landscapes: The Meaningful Appearance of Pictorial Objects within their Spatial and Social Contexts,” in PANAGIOTOPOULOS and GÜNKEL-MASCHEK eds (supra n. 5) 115-139. For the iconography of the wild goat, see A. CHAPIN and M. SHAW, “The Fresco of the Crocuses and Goats from the House of the Frescoes at Knossos,” BSA 101 (2006) 68, 80-81.

256

Andreas G. VLACHOPOULOS

the upper storey, or he enters into the “illustrated nuclei” of the animals (Room 2), the women (Room 3a) or the men (Room 3b) of the ground floor, this scale will follow him everywhere, to the degree that the ubiquitous pier-and-door partitions (polythyra) allow, limit or prevent access to and vision of the spaces.52 Through producing and re-producing illusionary landscapes with feats, rituals and activities which unfold in real, symbolic or idealized hypaethral spaces, Xeste 3 transforms the extra-urban performance into an image of exemplary reference to the public urban space. Ground floor – Room 2 Cow and calf, ducks and dragonflies The excavation data available for Room 2 show that the many painted plaster fragments from the two storeys of this space were found in muddled groups which preclude the secure distinction of the wallpaintings of the first storey from those of the ground floor. However, as the conservation and study of the compositions progresses, we tend to attribute the Palm Trees Fresco to the ground floor and to conclude that the animal depicted is a cow,53 which is shown suckling a calf and perhaps protecting a second one (Pl. LXb).54 The well-lit Room 2 is a discrete architectural space accessed through polythyra from Room 4, which is of nodal importance for regulating circulation in the building, in both storeys.55 On the ground floor it has fixed and moveable constructions which are associated with ablutions and water management, as indicated by “a built low basin with an outlet toward the street and a clay tub fixed by its side”.56 The riparian landscape of the wall-painting hints at or depicts water (in the missing lower right part), so heightening the significance – actual and symbolic – of this vital element for rituals that included purification, symbolic bathing, and so on, as well as for the systematic consumption of liquids, which, as


52

53

54

55 56

For the role of the polythyra in Xeste 3, see MARINATOS 1993 (supra n. 14) 83-86, 203-211; C. PALYVOU, Ακρωτήρι Θήρας. Η οικοδομική τεχνική (1999) 350 figs 191-196; EADEM 2005 (supra n. 25) 144-145 figs 212-214; EADEM 2012 (supra n. 25) 11-15 figs 7, 19; VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 13) 178, 183-185 figs 7, 16; U. GÜNKEL-MASCHEK, “A Lost Ritual Space in the Palace at Knossos: Re-contextualising the Fresco of the ‘Dancing Lady’,” in BLAKOLMER ed. (supra n. 5) 160 fig. 12. For sex separation in the iconography of Xeste 3, see C. DOUMAS, “Η Ξεστή 3 και οι κυανοκέφαλοι στην τέχνη της Θήρας,” in L. KASTRINAKI, G. ORFANOU, and N. GIANNADAKIS (eds), ΕΙΛΑΠΙΝΗ. Τόμος τιμητικός για τον Καθηγητή Νικόλαο Πλάτωνα (1987) 151-159; REHAK (supra n. 3) 207-214; A. CHAPIN, “Boys will be Boys: Youth and Gender Identity in the Theran Frescoes,” in COHEN and RUTTER eds (supra n. 3) 229-255; VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 13) 177-181, 189-190; PAPAGEORGIOU (supra n. 13) 33-34, 36, 60. The animal is identified from the body, the surviving head with most probably horns, the tail and the hooves. The absence of the characteristic brown or black patches, which in Aegean iconography are indicated on the white hide of the cow (as also on the bull in the antechamber), is not particularly problematical because there were breeds of cattle that were monochrome (ochre-brown), as is known from Egyptian art, see A. ROBERTS, Hathor Rising: The Power of the Goddess in Ancient Egypt (1997). Moreover, the typical piebald bull and the monochrome (blue) bull with red lines coexist on the North Miniature Frieze of the West House, see TELEVANTOU (supra n. 43). For the supposed positions of the wall-painting and the identification of the animals, see VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 29) 451 figs 41.7-41.9 and IDEM (supra n. 13) 181 fig. 16 (ground floor / lion-goat); VLACHOPOULOS and ZORZOS (supra n. 17) 194-195, Pl. LXVIIa (ground floor / cowcalf). Depicted under the downward-sloping body of the cow are pairs of legs of smaller animals, of which the left ones are restored as the forelegs of the suckling calf, as corroborated by the outline of the back and traces of its uplifted neck and head. At some distance – too far for them to be the hind legs of the same calf –, is a pair of smaller legs with hooves and a third leg in the opposite direction, increasing the number of small animals but confusing the picture, as the condition of the wall-painting is such that a second calf cannot be restored there for certain. PALYVOU 2005 (supra n. 25) 57 figs 62, 64, 66, 70. PALYVOU 2005 (supra n. 25) 57. See VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 13) 181-182 figs 7, 16. When the clay asaminthos was cleaned in 2011 it was ascertained that it has no outlet hole. Its interior is decorated with reed motifs on a dark ground.

THE ANIMALS AND THEIR SYMBOLISM IN THE XESTE 3 WALL-PAINTINGS

257

we shall see, distinguishes the first storey of the same space.57 Furthermore, if the wall-painting coexisted with the bathing installation,58 the significative connotations of the watery element would be strengthened further by a composition that is almost scenographic, as the unnaturally downward-sloping pose of the cow can be justified more convincingly if the animal is drinking water, as perhaps is her second calf too. The wall-painting combines elements of the tranquil wetland habitat (rounded rocks, palm trees, reeds, wickers, ducks, dragonflies) with the most maternal moment of the large-bodied mammal, which usually gives birth in spring.59 The cow, the bulkiest, the strongest and the most valuable of all the domesticated animals, is promoted as symbol of fertility, profitable procreation, “regeneration and nourishment”.60 First and foremost, however, it is promoted as a model of maternal/parental solicitude, which functions on two (differently perceived) levels: in an iconographic and cognitive dialogue with the bull in the antechamber, as its female counterpart which rears the fruit of its fecundity, and in a context of didactic symbols with the iconography of the same resonances in the upper storey, where swallows feed their chicks in the nest. We shall return to this. The scene of the cow suckling a calf (rarely two calves) is quite common in Minoan iconography, with at least 20 examples known from seal-carving,61 two ivories from Archanes62 and at least two small faience plaques from Knossos,63 on which the arrangement of the animals is identical to that in the Theran wall-painting.64 In the majority of representations the cow is oriented to the right and the suckling calf is slightly raised towards its udder.65 In all the representations, however, the cow turns her head affectionately towards her calf, while no representation is known of a cow drinking water (a natural element almost “invisible” in iconography).66 On two seals (LH ΙΙ-ΙΙΙΑ?), the hind legs of the nursing cow step on rocky ground (CMS X, 255) and its forelegs are uplifted, just like the hind legs of the cow in the wall-painting (CMS X, 217), while on a Knossian seal ducks too appear in the upper part (CMS II3, 088). The palm tree usually denotes the natural landscape in “Mycenaean” sphragistic scenes of suckling (see seal-ring from Antheia in Messenia CMS VS IB, 136 and two palm trees in mirror image on the seal


57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64 65 66

A. PAPAGIANNOPOULOU, “Συγκριτικά στοιχεία από τα κεραμεικά σύνολα τριών κτηρίων στον οικισμό του Ακρωτηρίου Θήρας. Ερωτηματικά που προκύπτουν από την μελέτη της κεραμεικής του Κτιρίου της Ξεστής 3,” in D. ATHANASOULIS et al. (eds), Περὶ τῶν Κυκλάδων νήσων. To αρχαιολογικό έργο των Κυκλάδων, forthcoming. PALYVOU 2005 (supra n. 25) 57: since there is “clear evidence for a door and a window that were later blocked in the north wall,” the wall-painting perhaps decorated the south wall of the room. For maternity of animals in Aegean art, see J. WEILHARTNER, “The Missing Mother. Zur fehlenden Darstellung stillender Mütter in der minoischen Bilderwelt,” in L. BERGER, L. HUBER, F. LANG and J. WEIHARTNER (eds), Akten des 17. Österreichischen Archäologentages (2020) 609-619. E. LOUGHLIN, “The calf in Bronze Age Cretan art and society,” in B.S. FRIZELL (ed.), Pecus: Man and Animal in Antiquity (2004) 185. In the CMS are entries for about 100 Minoan and Mycenaean glyptic representations of suckling animals. In the great majority of cases the animal is identified as a cow. Next in frequency is the she-goat and far fewer are the sow and the lioness. On a seal from Thebes (CMS V, 663) the calf stands on an upward-sloping rock, like the cow in the Theran wall-painting. For the subject see E. LOUGHLIN, “The bovine mother: Bronze Age images of the cow from Crete and the Eastern Mediterranean,” Journal of Indo-European Studies 30.1-2 (2002) 41-60, Table 1. The subject of the nursing horned quadruped facing a tree is among the few pictorial themes of Early Helladic II seal imagery (Petri, Nemea): E. WEIBERG, “Pictures and People. Seals, figurines and Peloponnesian imagery,” Opuscula 3 (2010) 202, 209, 210, 215 fig. 7i. J.-C. POURSAT, Les ivoires mycéniens. Essai sur la formation d’un art mycénien (1977) 18, 20, 74, 76, 168, Pl. 6, 1; J. and E. SAKELLARAKIS, Archanes. Minoan Crete in a new light (1997) 168, 731-732 figs 853-856 (plaque and mirror handle); LOUGHLIN (supra n. 60). On the plaque both animals stand in a rocky field. Α. EVANS, Τhe Palace of Minos at Knossos I (1921) 510-512 figs 367, 369; M. PANAGIOTΑΚΙ, The Central Palace Sanctuary at Knossos (1999) 82, figs 18, 20, Pl. 12 (nos 169, 170). Cow and calf are identified also on two Minoan larnakes, see LOUGHLIN (supra n. 61) 58 nos 2-3 fig. 2. LOUGHLIN (supra n. 60). E. SHANK, “Depictions of Water in Aegean Miniature-Style Wall Paintings,” in KOEHL ed. (supra n. 21) 77-92.

258

Andreas G. VLACHOPOULOS

CMS VS3, 259), but it also usually hints at the sanctity of the space or the acts taking place, as is perhaps the case with the symmetrical palm trees in the Xeste 3 wall-painting.67 The multicoloured drakes68 perched on the palm branches or flying between them form the upper, triangular zone of action in the wall-painting, while the red male dragonflies69 flitting around the trees, lower down, form a lower, undulating zone. The combination of these creatures, which echoes the period of the year from spring to late autumn, refers to a wetland habitat, which is confirmed by the riparian vegetation and implied by the pose of the cow. The Palm Trees Fresco focuses on a universe that is drawn from vernal-aestival pastoral life and is didactic in character. However, in contrast to the serenity conveyed by the main scene of suckling, the waterfowl seem to have been startled, which is perhaps why they pay no attention to their favourite food, the dragonflies. Although the criteria for depicting the birds and insects are possibly chromatic-aesthetic,70 the possible enhancement of the male sex in the upper half of the wall-painting can be interpreted as being in contradistinction to the main scene of the maternal care shown by the cow. The intentional promotion of the gender of the animals and humans, which we have seen so far in Xeste 3, inspires the iconography of the entire building, as we shall see in due course. The cow dominates in Egyptian art, both as exemplary mother and nurse (qualities promoted par excellence by the “cow-headed” mother-goddess Hathor and other female deities),71 and as lactating mammal, and is protagonist in the iconography of rural-pastoral life, as symbol of abundance, wealth and a relationship of gratitude between humans and animals.72 Let us now take a closer look at the two faience plaquettes from the Temple Repositories of Knossos, the better-preserved of which depicts the cow tenderly and protectively suckling her calf (Pl. LXIa-b).73 The less well preserved plaque depicts the cow in a sloping rocky field with the hind legs higher than the forelegs (Pl. LXIc),74 in a composition that refers directly to the landscape of the Theran wall-painting. Both show the cow turned to the left, in contrast to the plaquette with the female wild goat suckling her kid in the rocky landscape, accompanied by a second cow, uplifting its hind legs slightly in the rocky field.75 So, through a combination of their narrative elements, these small plaques constitute the best parallel for the wall-painting from Xeste 3 and demonstrate that their thematic repertoire of fertility and


67

68

69

70

71 72

73 74

75

Notwithstanding the “pastoral” character of the representation, the palm trees perhaps confirm some kind of sanctity here and possibly imply the Potnia. See N. MARINATOS, “The Date-palm in Minoan Iconography and Religion,” Opuscula Atheniensia 15 (1984) 115-122; VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 10) 135-137 Pls 15.2, 15.5. Ducks can be discerned on worn parts of the wall-painting, but it is not possible to identify their species or sex. However, the coloured ring around the neck refers to the widespread species of the male mallard Anas platyrhynchos. See A. VLACHOPOULOS, “The Reed Motif in the Thera Wall-Paintings and Its Association with Aegean Pictorial Art,” in S. SHERRATT (ed.), Proceedings of the First International Symposium on the Wall Paintings of Thera (2000) 639-641 figs 3, 4, 11; IDEM, “Η ‘Τοιχογραφία του Δονακώνος’ από το κτίριο Ξεστή 3 του Ακρωτηρίου,” in DOUMAS ed. (supra n. 13) 270-272 figs 4, 5, 10, 11. Bright red dragonflies are males of the species Crocothemis erythraea, see VLACHOPOULOS 2008 (supra n. 68) 269-270, 272 figs 2-5, 9a-b, 10g, 11g. The female dragonfly floats on still waters of brooks and stagnant waters of marshes, where it lays its eggs, whereas the male flies more closely to the water and in riparian vegetation. I thank entomologist R. Martin Casacuberta (Institució Catalana d'Història Natural) for discussing this matter with me. The vivid colours of the ducks, which do not occur in nature, may on the one hand be attributed to the ‘Minoan hybridism’ of Aegean art, and on the other to the painter’s desire to complement with blue, red and brown the coloration of the rest of the composition. The pigment used for the pale blue of the birds and the palm leaves is Egyptian blue, which is popular in the wall-paintings of Xeste 3, see VLACHOPOULOS and SOTIROPOULOU (supra n. 22). See below, n. 104. ROBERTS (supra n. 53); LOUGHLIN (supra n. 61) 41-42, 46. L. EVANS, “Le symbole de la sollicitude dans la vie quotidienne des anciens Égyptiens,” Egypte, Afrique et Orient 86 (2017) 41-50. PANAGIOTAKI (supra n. 63) 82 fig. 18 above, nο. 169. PANAGIOTAKI (supra n. 63), 82, fig. 18 below, Pl. 12a, nο. 170. More hooved animals are depicted on the fragments of plaques in pl. 12b-d (nos 174-176). PANAGIOTAKI (supra n. 63) 82, fig. 18 above, Pl. 12a, nο. 168.

THE ANIMALS AND THEIR SYMBOLISM IN THE XESTE 3 WALL-PAINTINGS

259

parental protection is an iconographic model of major symbolic-religious gravitas for the Minoan metropolis, as they were kept safe in the sealed Temple Repositories of the palace. In addition, the presence in the same closed assemblage of plaquettes with representations of bovines and of caprines is attuned absolutely to the iconography of the two rooms in the front part of Xeste 3, where these animals monopolize the adjacent spaces. A small fragment of a similar plaque of coloured faience, which depicts a hoofed animal, probably a bovine, was found in the Akrotiri excavation,76 reinforcing the possibility that these portable plaques of Cretan inspiration or production functioned as templates of Minoan symbolistic motifs which the Therans opted to include in the iconography of their wall-paintings. The model of maternal affection, taken from the world of animals familiar to man, functions equally inside the seat of palatial ideology and inside the “oikos” of community rites and ceremonies, presumably because it echoes a fundamental valuative parameter of the moral and spiritual principles of the Aegean peoples, which we awkwardly call “religion”. Ground floor – The blank blanc Room 4, the cycles of men and women in Rooms 3a and 3b Room 4, as we have noted, is the axis of the four directions in which a person can move in the ground floor and the first storey of the building. Strangely, it was left without mural representations, perhaps because its solid walls were limited in area, due to the polythyra arranged on three of its sides.77 The walls of Room 7, to the west, were likewise blanc and blank, even though a large heap of wallpaintings was found inside it.78 The spacious Room 3, to the north, accessible and traversable through pier-and-door partitions, ended at the Lustral Basin, above the corner of which the three Adorants converged at the façade of an olive-planted shrine crowned by double/sacral horns (Pl. LXIIa).79 Formed to the west was a small Πshaped space decorated with the mural panels of four male figures participating in initiation rites that included bathing (Pl. LVIII).80 From the two ensembles of a “same-gender company” only the Wounded Woman sits in a rocky landscape filled with crocus flowers, so the absence of animals is iconographically to be expected on the white ground of the six other figures. Even though the didactic-ritual narrative of the Adorants is clearly centred on the saffron crocus, the axis of blood that links this particular hypostasis of the bleeding Potnia with the blood-dripping shrine81 infers a preceding slaughter of animals, perhaps those


76

77

78

79

80

81

The plaque was found in the New Pillar Shaft 71Π, in a non-excavated insula of buildings in the north part of the settlement. It is being studied by Professor Marina Panagiotaki, whom I thank for our discussion of the issue and for kindly providing the drawings of the Temple Repositories plaques published in this paper. VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 13) 178. In the ground floor there are the north small wall and the back surface of the destroyed south pisé wall, on the other side of which was the Wild Goat-hunters Fresco in antechamber 5. In the first storey there are the walls in the same positions but longer, as well as the west wall towards Room 7. Strangely, these walls are coated with exceptionally fine white plaster. See PALYVOU 2005 (supra n. 25) figs 62, 70-72, 75. The wall-paintings have not been identified and conserved, see MICHAILIDOU (supra n. 40) 339, 354 figs 249, 254; VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 13) 184. For the ‘visibility’ of the wall-paintings in these spaces, see Ε. PALIOU, D. WHEATLEY and G.P. EARL, “Three-dimensional visibility analysis of architectural spaces: iconography and visibility of the wall paintings of Xeste 3 (Late Bronze Age Akrotiri),” Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (2011) 375-386; GÜNKEL-MASCHEK (supra n. 52) 158-161 figs 11-12. C. DOUMAS, The Wall-Paintings of Thera (1992) 109 figs 109-115; MARINATOS 1993 (supra n. 14) 209211 figs 215-218; VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 19) 450-451 Pls CLXIV-CLXV; PAPAGEORGIOU (supra n. 13) 77-88 figs 59-63, 66-68. DOUMAS (supra n. 80) 128-129 figs 100-108. For the identification of the richly bedecked Wounded Woman with the Potnia, see REHAK (supra n. 1) 106; MARINATOS (supra n. 18); VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 18) 376-377; IDEM (supra n. 13) 180; PAPAGEORGIOU (supra n. 13) 52-54 figs 24-26.

260

Andreas G. VLACHOPOULOS

which were captured in the deity’s honour by the men depicted in the antechamber82 and of those slaughtered ones whose horns were deposited in the solid “horn altar”(?) of the House of the Benches, contiguous with Xeste 3.83 It is clear that this cyclic annotation of the symbols (water, blood, shrine, sacrifice, double horns, crocus, olive) of the sacred initiatory acts for men and women links their actual performances with the representational version of them in the wall-paintings of the ground floor. The iconographic and semantic axis of these cycles is in all probability the Potnia in the ‘adyton’, in whose orbit miraculous mythological episodes, age-based role models, initiation rites of haircutting and robing, and gender-specific performances that precede the actual coming together of the sexes in life, unfold in the apartments and rooms of Xeste 3, which was clearly constructed in such a way as to house them. Staircase to the first storey Mountain landscapes The staircase, one of the widest known in the buildings at Akrotiri and with broad treads to facilitate easy ascent, was “plastered and painted red”.84 The vivid colour (commonly used for the joins of paved floors, such as that of the antechamber) added the feature of architectural painted flooring to the staircase, the walls of which were covered by a continuous depiction of a rocky mountain landscape (Pl. LIX).85 The wall-painting on the south wall of the stairwell continues through the upper coloured bands the wall-painting of the bull-hunters, but interposed was a double door that closed off the staircase from the antechamber,86 a functional principle characteristic of all the architectural and iconographic enclaves of Xeste 3. As a person ascended the dimly-lit staircase he/she was flanked by colourful rocks with tiny trees, as if following a mountain pathway from which the landscape recedes into the distant horizon. Here there are no fellow travellers, as in Xeste 4, and animals are superfluous. So, the staircase leads the visitor physically to the first storey of the building and metaphysically to the celestial sphere, selectively accessible.87 The transitional passage through the fresh air of the mountains terminates in visually staged crocus-filled plains and rustling reedbeds. Here, however, in contrast to the corresponding spaces of the ground floor, men are absent, whereas women, plants and animals dominate, around the axis of the “most magnificent presentation of the Goddess of Nature in the whole of the Aegean” (Pl. LXIVa).88 First storey – Room 2 A Theran metaphysical biotope: swallows, dragonflies, monkeys Room 2 in the first storey repeats the corresponding room in the ground floor, but the form of its outside walls is uncertain, as the ongoing conservation of the wall-paintings shows. Most of the plaster


82

83 84 85 86 87

88

Even if the shrine is dripping blood miraculously, as the slaughtered animal is not depicted, the blood implies that it comes from a sacrificial procedure, see VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 18) 377; PAPAGEORGIOU (supra n. 13) 46, 51, 69, 75 fig. 21. See nn. 13, 40. PALYVOU 2005 (supra n. 25) 133-136, fig. 190, 158 fig. 236. VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 29) 452-453 figs 41.12-41.14. PALYVOU 2005 (supra n. 25) 59 fig. 70. For the physical and symbolic role of mountainous landscapes as loci of rituals and cult, see B.C. DIETRICH, “Peak Cults and Their Place in Minoan Religion,” Historia 18.3 (1969) 257-275; C.J. TULLY and S. CROOKS, “Power Ranges: Identity and Terrain in Minoan Crete,” Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture 13.2 (2019) 130-156. See also n. 14; IDEM, “Enthroned Upon Mountains: Constructions of Power in the Aegean Bronze Age,” in L. NAEH and D. BROSTOWSKY GILBOA (eds), The Ancient Throne: The Mediterranean, the Near East, and Beyond, 3rd Millennium BCE – 14th Century CE, OREA 14 (2020) 37-59. DOUMAS (supra n. 80) 131.

THE ANIMALS AND THEIR SYMBOLISM IN THE XESTE 3 WALL-PAINTINGS

261

fragments come from what are now known to be three friezes of differing height, with rocky crocusstudded landscapes, swallows and dragonflies, and a larger mural composition with monkeys performing actions imitative of humans (Pl. LXIIb). Thus, there were few solid surfaces of walls and a great number of windows, so increasing the illumination and the visibility of the room, and the view from it. Without committing ourselves here to the proposed architectural form of the space, we shall study the iconography of the first-storey room, which like that of the ground floor draws on nature, enhances the qualities of animals and excludes humans. Room 2 was accessed independently, through the three pier-and-door partitions, and the viewing of its wall-paintings was fully controlled (Pl. LIX). Its projection as on offset on the east side of the main bulk of the building secured for Room 2 a privileged view of the surrounding squares,89 the monumental building Xeste 4 opposite, and the waterfront, through windows and perhaps pier-and-window partitions, after the model of Room 5 of the West House.90 Its architectural design, functionality, iconography and vessels for ritual performances91 and feasting92 all point to the room’s discrete purpose within Xeste 3, akin to the semi-autonomous status of a side chapel in a large Christian church.93 The spacious room (approx. 4.50 x 3 m) could accommodate several people involved in the aforesaid activities, possibly in combination with sacral acts relating to or inspired by the symbolic messages of the pervasive wall-paintings. Let us look at them briefly. The fragments of the four monkeys belonging to a single composition were found mainly in the middle and the south part of the room. Since the dynamic thrust of the earthquake that struck the city at Akrotiri before the volcanic eruption is known to have been from north to south,94 we can argue that the wall-painting decorated the north wall, in which case we may assume that the three friezes of crocus-filled landscapes ran above the pier-and-window partitions and the pier-and-door partitions (Pl. LXIIb). With the abundant light entering through two walls, and being diffused into the dimly-illumined Room 4,95 and the unimpeded view of the south coast of the island, Room-Veranda 2 was the ideal space for the unfolding of a multiple composition of a rocky volcanic landscape filled with crocus flowers, in which monkeys engage in music and dance, swallows catch dragonflies and feed their nestlings or from which animals are absent.


89 90 91

92

93

94

95

PALYVOU 2005 (supra n. 25) 38 fig. 26; VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 13) 175-176. PALYVOU 2012 (supra n. 25) 9-13 figs 1-5. Decisive for the distinct functional role of Room 2 is the sizeable trichrome offering table in wall-painting technique, which was found in the southeast corner of the first storey and is comparable in size to the offering table with the dolphins, which was found on the sill of the window in the south wall of Room 4 of the West House. A leg from an offering table painted with lilies was found in the windows of the north wall of Room 5 of the West House (C. TELEVANTOU, “Επίχριστες τράπεζες προσφορών,” in C. DOUMAS [ed], Ακρωτήρι Θήρας, Δυτική Οικία. Τράπεζες – Λίθινα – Μετάλλινα – Ποικίλα [2008] 49-56, 70 drawings 1-5 Pls 4-8b; MICHAILIDOU [supra n. 40] 168, 413-414, 426). A second (rectangular) offering table was found in Room 10 of Xeste 3, see MICHAILIDOU ibid. 346, 352, 356; VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 13) 189. From the first storey comes a large number of conical cups and jugs of all types, which constitute a set of sympotic vessels for secular and ritual use. On some jugs there are red trickles that are similar to trickles of blood (alluding to the blood-dripping facade shrine?), while others have a hole in the bottom, for their use as rhytons. It is worth mentioning that “in Xeste 3 the rhyta total is six, with zoomorphic rhyta being completely absent” PAPAGIANNOPOULOU (1995 supra n. 25) 213, fig. 5. I express my thanks to Dr A. Papagiannopoulou for a helpful discussion of the subject. The term is used with the logic of the secondary but distinct spaces of worship in churches, which are supplementary to the church proper and have independent access and iconography. This was ascertained in many wall-paintings in the two storeys and was verified when studying the spirals and rosettes of the second storey, see VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 21) 64. See PALYVOU 2005 (supra n. 25) 100, note 11. For the lamps found in Room 4 and the large number of lamps in the building, see MICHAILIDOU (supra n. 40) 252-253; VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 13) 187.

262

Andreas G. VLACHOPOULOS

As a staged setting, the representation of volcanic rocks arising on the white horizon in the lower part of the wall-paintings would suffice. However, these crags also frame the sides and the upper edge, roofing the painted surfaces like a rock shelter, encasing the representations in “landscape windows” that compete with the actual windows and the actual view of the outside world. The three (so far) friezes and the wall with the monkeys invade the room as natural spaces, bringing an illusionistic duplication of the “outside” and the “inside”.96 In the Theran landscape the painter of Room 2 creates the spring cycle of life of the swallows, the blooming of the autumn crocus and the appearance of the dragonfly in the period between these two seasons.97 Research has tended to concentrate on the issue of seasonality in the wall-paintings and has studied the intentional non sequiturs of the synchronisms by the painters, reaching the conclusion that what is of interest in the art of the period is the idealized projection of the fertility cycles of life in their relation to the Goddess of Nature and Fertility, who is either portrayed or implied. It is to be expected that this period starts from the festive flowering of springtime and lasts until the onset of the vitalizing autumnal rains, thanks to which the crocus blossoms98. We saw it already in the ground floor Room 2. We shall ascertain it henceforth in all the wall-paintings of the first storey. Man is missing from the iconographic enclave of Room 2, but his presence is hinted at by the anthropomimetic monkeys playing musical instruments and drawing sword and by the barn swallows (Hirundo rustica), which nest close to people and their stabled livestock. The swallow is an exemplar of the tender helpmate and nurturing parent, who returns year after year to the same nest during its spring migration to the Aegean. The bird was beloved throughout antiquity by Aegean societies and is depicted in many artistic genres from the ripe Middle Bronze Age onward,99 with the earliest specimen of monumental painting the Protopalatial “Swallows Fresco” from the town of Knossos, where the birds fly and perch in a schematized landscape of red rocks.100 At Akrotiri, the swallow is encountered on mature Middle Cycladic and LC I polychrome clay vases for display and special use,101 and then passes into mural painting, while several of these earlier ceramic works of art were in functional association with the wall-painted spaces of the settlement.102 One such monument which taught us that the triad polychromy-representationalism-narrativity can bridge the mature Middle Cycladic vase-painting with the early Late Bronze Age wall-painting of Thera is the impressively decorated Hunt Asaminthos, on which in a crocus-filled landscape are three swallows in


96

97

98

99

100

101

102

Despite the similarities of this space to Room 5 in the West House, the perceptional result of its wallpaintings is very different, as the peopled and natural landscapes and the scales of the four Miniature Friezes represented natural spaces and narrated actions of diverse references to the viewer. See TELEVANTOU (supra n. 43). The biological cycle of the dragonfly is remarkable. An amphibious insect, it lives from one to five years in the larval state in water and about one month as an imago. It dies in autumn. It is the swiftest insect and a predatory hunter. See n. 69. MARINATOS (supra n. 14) 193-195; VLACHOPOULOS 2008 (supra n. 68) 285; PAPAGEORGIOU (supra n. 13) 58, 68, 103. Correspondingly, the olive tree in the shrine of the adyton is depicted without fruit (spring), but the olive branch adorning the head of the fifth female figure bears ripe fruits (autumn). Τhe swallow appears, also at Knossos, in seal-carving of the Protopalatial period, see M. MARTHARI, “Αn MM seal with swallow motif from Knossos and its interconnections with Late MC-LC I Theran iconography,” in D. DANIELIDOU (ed.), Δώρον. Τιμητικός τόμος για τον καθηγητή Σπύρο Ιακωβίδη (2009) 419-423 figs 1-3. M. RΟUSSAKI, “New evidence in Minoan pictorial Wall painting: ‘The Swallows Fresco’ from the Knossos area,” in TOUCHAIS et al. eds (supra n. 17) 539-542. I thank M. Roussaki for the invitation to discuss the wall-painting with her in the course of its conservation in the Heraklion Museum. MARTHARI (supra n. 99) 423-429 figs 11-21; I. NIKOLAKOPOULOU, Akrotiri, Thera. Middle Bronze Age Pottery and Stratigraphy (2019) 256 notes 215-216, motif II.22 on Pl. 3.3. Found in the first storey of Xeste 3 was the strainer pyxis with swallows, a superb Theran vase for special use; VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 13) 188 fig. 17. A. VLACHOPOULOS, “From Vase Painting to Wall Painting: The Lilies Jug from Akrotiri, Thera,” in R. KOEHL (ed.), ΑΜΙΛΛΑ: The Quest for Excellence. Studies in Honor of Guenter Kopcke (2013) 64, 66, 67, 71.

THE ANIMALS AND THEIR SYMBOLISM IN THE XESTE 3 WALL-PAINTINGS

263

columnar arrangement.103 The middle swallow flies ahead, possibly with a red insect in its beak (Pl. LXIIc). The Swallows Frieze from Room 2, of estimated length 4.50 m and height 0.70 m is painted at the level where in real life the human eye sees from below the real swallows’ nests (Pl. LXIIb). Depicted are some fifteeen swallows and three nests, each with three to five chicks which the parents feed alternately with five red dragonflies caught in flight in the cavernous landscape. The birds are almost life-size, as are the dragonflies.104 Shown in the spatial intervals between the nests are realistic moments in the playful, pursuing, erotic and parental life of the swallows, which moments compose a vividly illustrated handbook of the Mediterranean life of the beloved migratory bird. In parallel, as repetitive pictorial units of Xeste 3 and as works by the same hand,105 similar swallows are crammed on the skirt-landscape of the female figure in the adjacent corridor, on the metaphysical canvas of which birds singly or in pairs flutter betwixt the enclosed rocks (Pl. LXIIIb).106 Aristocratic ladies, members of the priestesshood or hypostases of the Potnia towards whom they process bearing gifts, the Five Mature Women will be discussed shortly. The identity of the master artist dubbed the Xeste 3 Painter permeates the densely-decorated building and is ascertained also in the triptych Spring Fresco from Room 2 of Building Complex Delta,107 the lilies and the swallows of which can only be interpreted within sacral contexts alluding to the Goddess of Nature.108 Complementary to her in subject matter, the representation of parental care of the swallow chicks from Room 2 of Xeste 3 adds an important work to the corpus of Aegean mural painting and a composition of maximum symbolic (fertility), didactic (maternity) and instructive (upbringing) value to the iconography of the building. The enhancement of corresponding meanings, which is endeavoured in the same space of the ground floor with the suckling cow, transforms Room 2 in its two storeys into an idealized habitat in which maternal care of the young is intertwined with other creatures of exuberant nature in the midst of perpetual efflorescence. The plant and the flower which iconographically runs horizontally through the first storey of Xeste 3, but also unites vertically the two Potnias on the north wall, as indicator of autumnal rebirth of nature, is that cherished by the ubiquitous Aegean Potnia, the crocus (Pls LXIIa and LXIVa). The plant, intentionally rendered as bushy (it has few leaves in nature), functions together with the white horizon and the shiny rocks of the mountainous meadows, and these three elements create the field in which divine, human, animal, hybrid and imaginary beings stand, walk, gesticulate, gallop and fly, in the cosmological universe of Rooms 2 and 3a in the first storey of Xeste 3.


103

104

105 106

107

108

MARTHARI (supra n. 99) 424 figs 22-23; C. DOUMAS, “The human figure at the mercy of the paintbrush,” in VLACHOPOULOS ed. (supra n. 11) 38 fig. 12. Those swallows with long tail are identified as male individuals, which is corroborated also by their bright red throat, see A. TURNER, The Barn Swallow (2006) 23, 25, 39, 129. Because the two mother swallows are depicted with these features, it is reasonable to assume that the wall-painting stresses coloration and painterly traits rather than the rendering of particular biological details of the bird. On the “deliberate contrivance for the unambiguous identification of the species concerned” in showing the sex of animals in Aegean art, see J. WEILTHARTNER, “Zur Vermengung geschlechtsspezifischer Merkmale bei Tierdarstellungen in der Glyptik der ägäischen Spätbronzezeit. Unkenntnis oder bewusster Kunstgriff?,” AA 2016.2 (2017) 1-17. VLACHOPOULOS 2008 (supra n. 68) 275. VLACHOPOULOS and ZORZOS (supra n. 17) 193 note 71 (bibliography) Pls LXI, LXIV; A. CHAPIN, “The Lady of the Landscape: An Investigation of Aegean Costuming and the Xeste 3 Frescoes,” in C.S. COLBURN and M.K. HEYN (eds), Reading a Dynamic Canvas: Adornment in the Ancient Mediterranean World (2008) 48-83. VLACHOPOULOS 2008 (supra n. 68) 275; C. TELEVANTOU, “Η τοιχογραφία της ανοίξεως: ένα θηραϊκό αριστούργημα της αιγαιακής μεγάλης ζωγραφικής της Εποχής του Χαλκού,” in I. DANEZIS (ed.), Σαντορίνη, Θήρα, Θηρασία, Ασπρονήσι, Ηφαίστεια (2001) 150-158. The fragments with red dragonfly and wickers, by the same painter, come from the first storey of Building Complex Delta (TELEVANTOU ibid., 156-157); VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 7) figs 33-34. BOULOTIS (supra n. 13) 25-26 fig. 1; F. BLAKOLMER, “Meaningful Landscapes: Minoan “Landscape Rooms” and Peak Sanctuaries,” in TOUCHAIS et al. eds (supra n. 17) 121-128.

264

Andreas G. VLACHOPOULOS

It is in these crocus-filled fields of Room 2 that the unexpected representation of the four blue monkeys develops.109 The earlier view was that it was a frieze, but given the minimum restored height of 1 m and the scale of the animals it is now clear that it decorated a larger surface of wall (Pl. LXIIb). The two outer monkeys are in the crouching pose taken when these animals are eating or resting, while the two middle monkeys stand upright, in a pose never observed in nature because of the long-bodied skeleton of the baboon (Papio anubis or Papio hamadryas), which, although hybridic, is depicted with significant anatomical fidelity in Xeste 3.110 The activities of the four monkeys are anthropomimetic and anthroponoetic. The first baboon on the left holds in the left hand a five-stringed lyre and most probably strums it with the lost right hand; the last monkey on the right stretches out his hands to the fore because he is clapping or playing krotala (clappers/castanets). The two middle monkeys stand opposite each other in mirror image, the right one brandishing a long sword in the right hand and the left one a scabbard of equal length in the left hand. The bodies are painted in vibrant Egyptian blue, their nose, lips and ears in pale pink, the pupil of the eye is ochre outlined in red, while a touch of ochre renders the downy cheeks. From what details are preserved in the wall-painting, the scabbard-bearer wears a lunate yellow (gold) earring with dotted red outline111 and a cord of the same colour, probably a necklace112 rather than a baldric.113 The same colours are used for the variegated (wooden) frame of the lyre,114 the fur chape ornament of the scabbard115 and the (gold?) blade of the sword,116 with the colour rendering different materials. The scabbard is not painted (perhaps it was coloured initially with purple dye) and the strap of the baldric which forms two loops on the


109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

DOUMAS (supra n. 80) 134 figs 95-96; VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 29) 453 figs 41.17-41.18. Conservation of the wall-painting is in progress. I. PAPAGEORGIOU and K. BIRTACHA, “Η εικονογραφία του πιθήκου στην Εποχή του Χαλκού. Η περίπτωση των τοιχογραφιών από το Ακρωτήρι Θήρας,” in DOUMAS (supra n. 13) 298-300; M.N. PAREJA, Monkey and ape iconography in Aegean art (2017); B. URBANI and D. YOULATOS, “A new look at the Minoan ‘blue’ monkeys,” Antiquity 94:e9 (2020) 1-5; M.N. PAREJA, T. McKINNEY, J.A. MAYHEW, J.M. SETCHELL, S.D. NASH and R. HEATON, “A new identification of the monkeys depicted in a Bronze Age wall painting from Akrotiri, Thera,” Primates 61 (2020) 159-168; B. URBANI and D. YOULATOS, “Occam’s razor, archeoprimatology, and the ‘blue’ monkeys of Thera: a reply to Pareja et al.,” Primates 61. 6 (2020) 757-765; M. N. PAREJA, T. McKINNEY and J.M. SETCHELL, “Aegean monkeys and the importance of cross-disciplinary collaboration in archaeoprimatology: a reply to Urbani and Youlatos,” Primates (2020). See also P. REHAK, “The Monkey Frieze from Xeste 3, Room 4: Reconstruction and Interpretation,” in P.P. BETANCOURT, V. KARAGEORGHIS, R. LAFFINEUR and W.-D. NIEMEIER (eds), MELETEMATA. Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He enters his 65th Year (1999) 705-709. Similar to those worn by all the Adorants and the Saffron-Gatherers, see VLACHOPOULOS and GEORMA (supra n. 16) 36 (bibliography). The loop finds an exact parallel in the necklace proffered by the left Adorant (DOUMAS (supra n. 80) 141 fig. 104), but refers also to the plain cord necklace worn by one of the Fishermen from the West House (ibid., 55 fig. 23). See a similar loop in the cord holding in place the scabbard around the waist of the attacking man on the seal-stone known as the Pylos Combat Agate, from the Griffin Warrior Tomb (LH ΙΙΑ): S. STOCKER and J. DAVIS, “The Combat Agate from the Grave of the Griffin Warrior at Pylos,” Hesperia 86 (2017) 583-605 figs 1-3, 9-14. Red dots forming scrolls or surrounding the wooden frame of the lyre depict tiny beads or other decorative elements, which did not necessarily exist on the musical instrument itself. This is a pendent finial on sword scabbards, as can be seen on seal-stones from Mycenae (CMS I, 11), Kakovatos (CMS XI, 208), Pylos (CMS I, 290) and is confirmed by the Pylos Combat Agate (STOCKER and DAVIS, supra n. 113). An identical tasselled finial of soft material reminiscent of fur appears on the bars of unknown objects carried by a male figure from the grand staircase of Xeste 4, see DOUMAS (supra n. 80) 178 fig. 139. For representations of figures brandishing sword and scabbard, see REHAK (supra n. 110) 708. The sword in the wall-painting, with midrib and obliquely raised cross-guard is encountered in Grave Circle A at Mycenae and is identified on the Pylos Combat Agate (STOCKER and DAVIS [supra 113] 594-595 fig. 15).

THE ANIMALS AND THEIR SYMBOLISM IN THE XESTE 3 WALL-PAINTINGS

265

monkey’s palm is black with white spiralling embellishments. The void in the left loop of the strap is justified only by a spherical bead at that point. The animals are evenly spaced on the horizon defined by four-coloured (ochre, red, grey riebeckite and Egyptian blue) rocks with black shadows, and a stalactitic rock divides medially the chamber of action.117 Smaller rocky outcrops have bushy crocus plants with purple flowers in full bloom, which rule out the possibility that the scene is set in a cave.118 The crocuses grow in symmetrical and catoptric position in relation to the monkeys, describing an undulating floral pattern in the “sky” of the representation. It is interesting that in the Swallows Frieze the crocuses sprout only on the ground level of the rocks and as a result the two contiguous compositions present in oscillation the efflorescence of “heaven” and “earth”. The most ingenious element in the syntax of the representation is that the monkeys’ heads describe an ascending axis from low left to high right, which is heightened by the alignment of the scabbard and the sword, and the levelling of the lyre with the krotala(?) in the hands of the fourth monkey.119 Thus, the representation gains in movement and dramaticism, starting from the lyre-player below and ending at the krotala-player above, which make the music to which the central couple dances in a ritual performance with sword and scabbard. The intense and synchronized action of the four animals arouses feelings of awe, allegory or pleasure in the viewer, depending on his/her degree of familiarity with the ritual performances depicted. The dulcet tones of the string instrument and the dry sound of the krotala or rhythmical clapping120 are scattered in the mountain air and echo within the cavernous rocks. This “image of sounds” is completed by the voices of the four monkeys, which are either sharp shreaks when the animals express sentiments or are song or human speech, as their half-open mouth indicates – if the Aegean in the second millennium BC has attributed also this ability to them. If to the sounds that we “hear” on beholding the wall-painting of the monkeys we add the synchronized twittering of the fifteen-member flight of swallows and the deafening chirping of the fledglings from the three nests on the adjacent wall, we can readily appreciate the audial dimension of the lived experience of those who entered Room 2. What essentially does the representation of the monkeys achieve and what messages does the bizarre thiasos of ritually performing monkeys transmit? The impeccably staged ritual performance includes musical, dance, theatrical, mimetic and allegorical elements, which are allocated to the two catoptric pairs of animals. The crouching musicians frame the central performance and produce the necessary festive background music, more like trained monkeys than like human hybrids. The flowering crocuses behind them echo the highland pastures, difficult of access, in which the valuable commodity grows and where the saffron-gathering takes place (an activity and status familiar to the monkey’s ‘Aegean’ natura)121 under the blessing of the Potnia in the next room. The central protagonists of the performance stand upright, like their crocus-offering ‘brother’, and grip our attention in their ritual dance, which does not enact a duel or a mimetic prank but is the triumphal display of the sword and its accoutrements.


117 118

119

120 121

A corresponding pendent rock is estimated to have existed in the middle of the Swallows Frieze. In contrast to the Swallows Frieze and the scene of the Wounded Woman, where crocus plants do not sprout from the rocks at the top. Krotala, “idiophone musical instruments for producing rhythmical sound”, according to M. Mikrakis, were usually wooden, as are the three specimens made of olive wood, which were recovered from Xeste 4: Μ. ΜIKRAKIS, “Wooden hand-shaped krotala from Akrotiri,” Αls 5 (2007) 89-92 figs 1-4; IDEM, “Technologies of Sound across Aegean Crafts and Mediterranean Cultures,” in A. BRYSBAERT (ed.), Tracing Prehistoric Social Networks through Technology: A Diachronic Perspective on the Aegean (2011) 51-54, 58, 60 figs 3.1-3.3. The pair of krotala is in the form of a hand (“a substitute for the clapping of hands”) and the third krotalo is carved with a representation of a rocky crocus-filled landscape with heraldic birds. For “ritual clapping, the most archaic form of musical expression”, see ΜIKRAKIS (supra n. 119) 92. N. PLATON, “Συμβολή εις την σπουδήν της μινωικής τοιχογραφίας. Ο κροκοσυλλέκτης πίθηκος,” KretChron 1 (1947) 505-524; PAREJA (supra n. 110) 71-77 figs 7.1-7.2 (bibliography). For the monkey in Minoan iconography, see PAREJA (supra n. 110) 51-70, 79-84.

266

Andreas G. VLACHOPOULOS

An allegory of war, power or office, the prominence given to the (gold?) sword, the (purple dye?) scabbard and the baldric refer at first glance to a male iconography, which, however, has no place in the storey devoted to the Potnia and her female attendants. So, does the wall-painting perhaps reflect the belief that among the symbols which the Potnia’s institutional acolyte is authorized to bring and to offer to her,122 as narrated here, is the sword?123 If yes, then the two (men?) monkeys124 ‘present’ in its full complement the weapon illustrated on the north wall – special for the Potnias of Xeste 3 – of Room 2, in architectural and visual association with the principal portrayal of the Goddess.125 Parallels in painting, such as the wall-painting in the Cult Centre of Mycenae, which has redefined the religious significance of the sword in relation to a Potnia-Warrior Goddess,126 reinforce this hypothesis. Iconographic cycles functioning together in the ‘enclave’ of Room 2 infer the noetic hypostases of the Potnia of Nature and multiply their symbolisms (flowering, birth, maternity, upbringing, education). 127 The proposed interpretation of Room 2 as an autonomous unit of rituals, and its iconography as a likewise autonomous cycle which records converging qualities of the (quasi-present) Potnia, ends at a hypothesis that the said space is a shrine-in-shrine, perhaps by analogy with the small shrines in the Cretan palatial complexes of the same period. There is nothing strange about the Potnia’s absence from the mountainous crocus-studded space that unifies the wall-paintings of Room 2. After all, it is habitual in Minoan art to emphasize the symbols of the deity in the landscapes in which she is implicit.128 When these symbols refer to the fertility of nature and the female natura, then these landscapes are often stereotypically rendered as rocky and crocus-filled fields, with clear topographical hints at peak sanctuaries, real or imaginary.129 This highland Elysian world for the deity and her acolytes is offered by Xeste 3 and is idealized by the representation of the Monkeys at the Shrine, from the so-called Porter’s Lodge at Akrotiri,130 the architectural façade of


122

123 124

125

126

127

128 129

130

N. MARINATOS, “An Offering of Saffron to the Minoan Goddess of Nature: The Role of the Monkey and the Importance of Saffron,” in T. LINDERS and G. NORDQUIST (eds), Gifts to the Gods. Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1985 (1987) 123-132; PAPAGEORGIOU and BIRTACHA (supra n. 110) 294-307 figs 814; PAREJA (supra n. 110) 59-70 figs 6.8-6.10, 6.13-6.14. See CMS V1A 177: MARINATOS 1993 (supra n. 14) 161 fig. 148. The missing parts of the heads and bodies of the monkeys prevent us from being clearer about the differences in the adornment, age and perhaps sex of the animals. On the individualism of the Xeste 3 monkeys, see PAPAGEORGIOU and BIRTACHA (supra n. 110) 304-307; PAREJA (supra n. 110) 104. We shall not refer here to common ‘inconsistencies’ in Theran painting, such as the repetition of the right hand on the left one, five digits instead of four on the monkeys, and so on. Through the open windows on the spacious central axis of the building, persons entering Room 4 could see the wall-paintings in Room 2 and correlate the monkeys with their fifth companion who stood in front of the Potnia but on the level of the eyes of viewers, as they approached Room 3a. For the visual penetrability of the polythyra of Xeste 3, see N. MARINATOS, Art and Religion in Thera: Reconstructing a Bronze Age society (1984) 73, 81, 84; VLACHOPOULOS 2008 (supra n. 68) 282; PALIOU et al. (supra n. 79); GÜNKEL-MASCHEK (supra n. 52). P. RΕΗΑΚ, “The Mycenaean ‘Warrior Goddess’ revisited”, in R. LAFFINEUR (ed.), POLEMOS. Le contexte guerrreier en Égée à l’Âge du Bronze. Actes de la 7e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Université de Liège, 14-17 avril 1998 (1999) 227-239; IDEM (supra n. 110) 708 Pl. CL.d; T. BOLOTI, “e-ri-ta’s Dress: Contribution to the Study of the Mycenaean Priestesses’ attire,” in M. HARLOW, C. MICHE and M.-L. NOSCH (eds), Prehistoric, Ancient Near Eastern and Aegean Textiles and Dress. An Interdisciplinary Anthology (2014) 263-264 fig. 11.22; A. PAPADIMITRIOU, Mycenae (2015) 186-191. An important parallel in glyptics can be seen on the seal CMS II.3, 16. It seems highly likely that the presence of the Potnia is hinted at in the didactic part (learning swordsmanship/fencing) of a male feat, as reverberation of the male feats with animals in the antechamber. VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 5) 242-244. For the Zakros Rhyton and other kindred representations, see MARINATOS (supra n. 14) 119-121, 193196 fig. 85; TULLY and CROOKS 2020 (supra n. 87) 40-43 fig. 11. See n. 14. VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 10).

THE ANIMALS AND THEIR SYMBOLISM IN THE XESTE 3 WALL-PAINTINGS

267

which adds the exotic element that usually fuses the monkeys in Aegean context with their homeland, Egypt and the Near East.131 First storey: Room 9 – corridor The female acolytes of the Potnia We surveyed the iconography of Room 2 in Xeste 3 by ascending the main staircase of the building. However, in order to reach the tripartite “enclave of the Potnia” we can also ascend the service staircase (no. 8) and enter Room 3 via the corridor of the Mature Ladies, which ends on the inside of the polythyra, which it thus avoids. The dual access reinforces the visitability of Room 3, but it generates in visitors a different functional and experiential relationship with the intervening spaces and their iconography (Pl. LIX). The walls of the service staircase no. 8 are decorated with plain bands, an element that stresses its secondary character.132 It is logical to assume that persons entering from Room 9 (and the adjacent Rooms 10, 12, 13) and from the west part generally of Xeste 3, ended up at the “peopled corridor” leading to Room 3.133 The blossoming wickers that rise from the water or earth on two of the walls of Room 9 (Pl. LXIIIa-b)134 create the second “painted biotope” after the crocus-covered rocks of Rooms 2 and 3, and depict the second wetland habitat of the upper storey, after the rustling reed-bed in Room 3b, which was parallel to the staircase (Pl. LXIIIa and LXIVa-b).135 If we accept that the mural landscapes with images of efflorescence imply the Potnia or create the setting in which devotees sense her or worship her,136 then it is possible that the summer-flowering wickers (Vitex agnus castus) of Room 9 would be one such space.137 The gift-bearing Mature Ladies of the corridor and perhaps the actual women participating in the ritual performances ‘were coming’ from there138 in a representational iconography that melded the acolytes with attributes or hypostases of the Potnia.139 The


131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

For the iconography of the monkey in Egypt, see PAREJA (supra n. 110) 19-29, and the Near East ibid., 31-49. See also PAPAGEORGIOU and BIRTACHA (supra n. 110) 288-294 figs 1, 4-5. PALYVOU 1999 (supra n. 52) 276 figs 137, 191; VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 13) 184. For a service staircase with similar decoration in Xeste 4, see PALYVOU ibid. 197 fig. 134; VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 7) figs 2-4. VLACHOPOULOS 2008 (supra n. 29) 451, 454; VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 13) 184-185. The west part of Xeste 3, which to date has been considered the “service section” of the building, includes Rooms 6-14, the architectural and iconography study of which has not been completed. VLACHOPOULOS 2008 (supra n. 29) 454 figs 41.41-41.42; VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 13) 184 fig. 16; VLACHOPOULOS and ZORZOS (supra n. 17) 192. For the wall-painting of wickers from Building Complex Delta, by the same painter, see n. 107. The wall-painting from Xeste 3 (before its conservation) had been attributed erroneously to Delta 17: DOUMAS (supra n. 80) 188 fig. 151; A. CHAPIN, “A ReExamination of the Floral Fresco from the Unexplored Mansion at Knossos,” BSA 92 (1997) 17-19 Pl. 4. VLACHOPOULOS 2000, 2008 (supra n. 68); VLACHOPOULOS and ZORZOS (supra n. 17) 190, 192, 194-195 Pls LXIII, LXV, LXVI. See ‘Potnia’ in the wall-paintings from the Villa of Amnissos, D. EVELY (ed.), Fresco: A Passport into the Past: Minoan Crete Through the Eyes of Mark Cameron (1999) 182-184. For the symbolism in the treatment of nature scenes, see Ν. ANGELOPOULOU, “Nature Scenes: An Approach to a Symbolic Art,” in SHERRATT ed. (supra n. 68) 545-554; K. FOSTER, “A Flight of Swallows,” AJA 99 (1995) 413-415; J.K. BINNBERG, Birds in the Aegean Bronze Age (2018) 12-13, 50. The choice of the aquatic bush with purple flowers (in the wall-painting they are shown in Egyptian blue) is linked with the island riparian vegetation that in nature complements the reedbeds. However, in view of the potent curative properties of wicker, associated with woman and the menstrual cycle, the plant’s relation to the corresponding properties of the crocus is possible, see Μ. RUSSO and G.C. GALLETI, “Medicinal properties and chemical composition of Vitex agnus-castus: A review,” Acta Horticulturae 426 (1996) 105-112. The clay vessels from Room 9 are of sympotic interest (cups, jugs and storage vases predominate) but not all the material has been conserved, as Dr A. Papagiannopoulou informed me. “The processing life-size ladies may reflect some of the multi-dimensional perceptions (υποστάσεις) of the supreme female Aegean Divinity” (VLACHOPOULOS [supra n. 18] 378). See also VLACHOPOULOS

268

Andreas G. VLACHOPOULOS

possible reflexive relation of performed and depicted turns the Corridor of the Mature Ladies from an architectural passageway into a discrete processional branch of the rituals of transition taking place in Xeste 3, justifying the investment of an extremely narrow and dimly-lit corridor with paintings of high artistic quality and concentrated symbolisms140 (Pl. LXIIIa-b). The four Mature Ladies are arranged in pairs along the length of the corridor and the fifth lady is placed – on the basis of the findspot of the plaster fragments – on the end, east wall, so creating an “architectural procession” towards the Potnia (Pl. LXIIIa). Bearing gifts and sumptuously attired and bedecked, the female figures are individualized in their physical features, pose, type of garment and mainly the species of flora and fauna with which they are adorned or which they hold. Common feature, denoting the maturity of the five women (and one otherwise unknown in Theran female iconography), is the binding of the hairstyle in a luxurious beribboned snood. That of the Rose Bearer is embroidered with crocuses, while tied to the snood of the Basket Bearer is a posy of crocuses, of the Lily Bearer a white lily, and of the Lady with the Flying Fish dogroses and an olive-laden branch. These signs of flowering, fertility and other symbolisms have been employed repetitively in the building or resonate on the garments and gifts that the figures wear and bear.141 The Basket Bearer and the Rose Bearer of the north wall wear ankle-length fleecy mantle and sleeved bodice, embellished with lily flowers and crocus flowers.142 They hold or proffer the gifts after which they are named and form a pair with similar attire, movement and processional comportment. We could say that these mature mistresses, aristocratic ladies, uniformed priestesses or fantastical followers of the Potnia,143 become adult nymphs of the vegetation cycle, projecting the three most glorified flowers of the Goddess of Nature: the crocus, the lily and the rose. It is obviously not fortuitous that they bear no faunal elements or symbols. The iconographic interest of the pair of ladies on the south wall, that is to the right of persons entering Room 3, is inversely proportionate to the condition of the wall-painting. The fragments missing from the upper half deprive us of more information about the Lady of the Swallows and of vital details for the bodice of the blue-eyed Lily Bearer.144 Nonetheless, it is clear that these females do not share the sartorial uniformity of the opposite pair. The Lady of the Swallows wears a purple bodice, a belt with intricate spiral ornaments and a one-piece long skirt adorned with a rocky landscape in the three caverns of which fly eight swallows. The generous use of Egyptian blue, as bright blue and as emerald green,145 and the masterful painting of the swallows elaborate a “wall-painting within the wall-painting”, endowing




140

141

142

143

144

145

(supra n. 23); CHAPIN (supra n. 106); VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 15) Pls XXX-XXXI; C. BOULOTIS, “Από ένα κάτοπτρο του θολωτού τάφου της Κλυταιμνήστρας στον κνωσιακό μήνα των ρόδων (wo-dewi-jo me-no),” in DANIELIDOU (supra n. 99) 457-494; VLACHOPOULOS and ZORZOS (supra n. 17) 193-194 Pls LXI-LXIV. The wicker basket held by the Basket Bearer could allude to the biotope from which the procession begins, and the crocuses on her snood could be a direct reference to the biotope to which it proceeds. The corridor is 2.20 m long and just 0.80 m wide. The figures, of height 1.50 m, are the tallest ones to have been restored in the wall-paintings from Xeste 3 and in Theran wall-paintings generally: VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 23) 524 figs 22-23. VLACHOPOULOS and ZORZOS (supra n. 17) 193; U. GÜNKEL-MASCHEK, “Reflections on the Symbolic Meaning of the Olive Branch as Head-Ornament in the Wall Paintings of Building Xeste 3, Akrotiri,” in TOUCHAIS et al. eds (supra n. 17) 361-367. See REHAK (supra n. 3) 207-214, 223-225. The way in which the flowers are rendered on the women’s bodices (as also on those of the Adorants in the Adyton and of the Potnia) shows that they are not decorative motifs on the textile but full flowers, as if real, which metaphysically transform the garment into a blossoming field. Study of the affined iconography shows that sartorial and cosmetic criteria which clearly separate the deities from the priestesses do not exist, see BOLOTI (supra n. 126) 261-262. VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 23) 512, 519, 521-525 figs 8, 13. The Mature Ladies in the corridor are depicted against a white ground, except the Lily Bearer who is framed by a red ‘silent wave’, a painterly solution that allows the white Madonna lilies (L. Candidum) to be shown in detail. She is the second blueeyed female figure in the building, after the Red-haired Saffron-Gatherer who enters behind the Potnia. VLACHOPOULOS and SOTIROPOULOU (supra n. 22) 256-257 fig. 14a-b.

THE ANIMALS AND THEIR SYMBOLISM IN THE XESTE 3 WALL-PAINTINGS

269

the woman wearing the landscape-dress with an exceptional hypostasis, the unique parallel for which is the contemporary Seated Potnia from Phylakopi, on whose skirt large birds fly between colourful rocks (Pl. LXVIa). The figure is represented in smaller scale than the norm for Theran wall-paintings and receives a textile(?) from an attendant, associated with a marine scene of flying fish and rocks (Pl. LXVIb), which semiologically is completed by white lilies against a red ground and at least one monkey from an adjacent room. L. Morgan has persuasively demonstrated the relation of these unities to the iconography of Xeste 3, pointing also to the religious function of the Pillar Crypt.146 The small faience plaques from the Temple Repositories at Knossos, which are models of garments-landscapes, that is robes and skirts with crocus flowers and crocus-filled mountain fields, were highlighted in the publication of the palace, thanks to the perspicacious inspiration of Sir Arthur Evans (Pl. LXVIc).147 Since then, these works in the minor arts have been utilized extensively in discussions about the visual codes of Minoan religion,148 but the scenographic sympan that they articulated with the plaquettes found together with them has been somewhat neglected, as we shall see. The wall-paintings of Xeste 3 have demonstrated the communicative relation of the “crocus fields” within which the Adorants, the Saffron-Gatherers, the Potnia and her acolytes move and which are represented on their garments, with the contemporary (LΜ Ι)149 faience plaques from Knossos, and document fully the sacred crocus flower as their common denominator.150 On the skirt of the Lady of the Swallows, the Theran rocky landscape is enlivened by the much loved migratory birds, not “painted” or “trapped” but free-flying in (mountainous?) nature, seeking a mate or already coupled, and in incidents that repeat the Swallows Frieze in Room 2 (and its painter).151 This special figure, which has precedence in its pair, does not simply belong to the group of gift-bearing women – indeed, we do not know if she carried anything. Garbed in splendid purple and a metaphysical vernal landscape, she could well be the priestess of the accompanying group or identified with some Potnia of Birds, an hypostasis, that is, of the Aegean deity.152 Let us try to shed light upon her through the Lily Bearer. Thanks to the purple bodice there is a chromatic unison of the torso of both women. However, there is disparity in their skirts, as that of the Lily Bearer is a tiered white skirt with two-colour flounces.153 Concurrently, thematically and chromatically the upper half of her figure is in chiastic arrangement with the lower half of the woman to the fore, as her blue snood, blue eyes, green bouquet and the pale blue birds on her bodice constitute a mirroring of Egyptian blue pigments in the skirt-landscape of the


146

147

148

149

150

151 152

153

MORGAN (supra n. 9) 383-389 figs 9.2-9.8 Pls 41-47. See also PETERSON MURRAY (supra n. 1) 62-63 fig. 3.20 (see also figs 3.4, 3.14). For landscape-costumes in Aegean painting, see CHAPIN (supra n. 106) 69-78 figs 2.6-2.7. ΕVANS (supra n. 63) 499, 506 fig. 364a-b; IDEM, The Palace of Minos IV.2 (1935) 718, 720 figs 703-704. See PANAGIOTΑΚΙ (supra n. 63) 101-103 fig. 27; M. PANAGIOTAKI, “The Temple Repositories of Knossos: new information from the unpublished notes of Sir Arthur Evans,” BSA 88 (1993) figs B, 3a-b, D. MARINATOS (supra n. 14), 141-145; P. REHAK, “Crocus costumes in Aegean art,” in A. CHAPIN (ed.), ΧΑΡΙΣ. Essays in Honor of Sara A. Immerwahr (2004) 85-100; CHAPIN (supra n. 106) 69-73 fig. 2.6. A. KARNAVA, Seals, sealings and seal impressions from Akrotiri in Thera (2018) 178: “the discard of the deposit of luxury objects, Linear A documents and sealings retrieved in the Eastern Temple Repository suggests a firm LM I date”. See CMS II.8, 8; PANAGIOTAKI (supra n. 63) 151. Also found in the same set of faience models, apart from crocus flowers (PANAGIOTAKI [supra n. 63] 77, 152 fig. 19 Pls 9d, 19), were “lily, lotus, waz lily and plum”, see ibid. 75-78, 151-152 Pls 9, 19, 20. The “lily flower made in the round” and the faience trunk (ibid. 75-76, 151 Pls 9a-b, 17, 19) might render a palm tree. Curiously, totally absent from the faience plaques of the Temple Repositories are birds and insects, ibid. 104. See n. 107. For the bird as “the celestial messenger of the Goddess,” MARINATOS (supra n. 14) 156; G. RETHEMIOTAKIS, “The Divine Couple Ring,” AM 131-132 (2016-2017) 1-30. CHAPIN (supra n. 106) 62-69 fig. 2.5; BOLOTI (supra n. 126) 247-254.

270

Andreas G. VLACHOPOULOS

swallows.154 The colour dialogue is a painterly issue but the iconographic doubling of the birds in this chiastic scheme is clearly targeted and calculated. Painted on the latticed bodice of the Lily Bearer, along the length of the right upper arm, are two miniature light-blue birds with open wings, red throat and red legs. The birds have been identified as “tiny swallows embroidered on the tissue of the bodice”,155 “small blue with red-head birds trapped in her lattice bodice”,156 “perhaps rock doves”157 or small migratory birds trapped in a net that has been passed around the figure’s shoulders and arms, according to I. Papageorgiou.158 Further study of the wallpainting clarified that the rope with which the net traps the birds is visible on the woman’s right shoulder, but because it is surrounded externally by the woven border of spiralling motifs of the sleeve, the net becomes (metaphysically?) part of her bodice.159 Conservation showed also that the woman’s two hands hold elegantly the rich bouquet of lilies and do not pull the ends of the ropes that close the heavy net, as would be expected. I believe that these features describe an intentional ambiguity in the figure’s garment and that the bodice combines the textile-net with the living birds trapped in its loops,160 in exactly the same way as the skirt of the Lady with the Swallows combines the garment worn with the landscape of the flying swallows (Pl. LXIIIb). The birds on the bodice are difficult to identify,161 both because they are so tiny and because of the intentional choice of the blue body as counter-tone to the purple and the red, which which it converses. Intentional too, so as to make it conspicuous in the wall-painting, is the rendering of the net with red and black knotting, since a real net in nature should be camouflaged while in use. So, the painter depicted with artistic criteria the definitive elements of the Lily Bearer, successfully marrying the realism of the objects with their symbolic dimension.162 The chiastic presentation of the birds on the garments of the two women obviously links these females’ supernatural properties with the world of the sky and strengthens the documentation of the role of winged beings as attributes and heralds of the deity.163 Their iconography also advocates the hypothesis that the “bird nymphs” processing with them constitute convergent versions of imaginary acolytes of the Potnia, if not also hypostases of her. At the narrative level, their pair functions supplementarily to the women opposite but complementarily to the assumed role of all four females to narrate a major doxastic cycle that draws noble flowers and pure birds from Nature, and refers to its recipient deity.164


154

155 156 157 158

159 160

161

162

163

164

For the extensive use of Egyptian blue in the wall-painting with the two figures, see VLACHOPOULOS and SOTIROPOULOU (supra n. 22) 257. VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 23) 524 figs 11, 22. See IDEM (supra n. 15) 114 Pl. XXXb. VLACHOPOULOS and ZORZOS (supra n. 17) 193 Pl. LXI. CHAPIN (supra n. 106) 54-55. I. PAPAGEORGIOU, “The Practice of Bird Hunting in the Aegean of the Second Millennium BC.: An Investigation,” BSA 109 (2014) 111-128; EADEM 2018 (supra n. 33) 309-310 figs 10-11. When the wallpainting was found in 1972, Spyridon Marinatos had recognized ‘birds trapped in a net’: S. MARINATOS, Thera VI (1974) 17; PAPAGEORGIOU 2014 (ibid.) 117 note 7. Part of the left upper arm also preserves the lattice and the purple border of the garment. That the little birds are trapped in the bichrome (red-black) net is boosted by the detail that the loops in front of their body are only red. If we believe their red throat/breast, then a possible species for the representation is the robin redbreast, a sweet-warbling and friendly bird which is associated with winter. Its plumage is pale (ash) grey. I. Papageorgiou (2014 supra n. 158, 120 note 11) tends to identify the species as Subalpine Warbler (Sylvia cantillans). A symbolic dimension that arises from the placement of the swallows on the rocks and the little birds in the net, is the opposition of the concepts of “free in nature – captives of man”. See n. 152. PAPAGEORGIOU (2014 supra n. 158) 125. As in the iconography of Room 2, an additional sense that the two flocks of birds evoke on seeing the wall-painting is the sound of their chirping. It should be noted that the two pairs bring together also the red lilies (Lilium chalcedonicum) beloved in Minoan and Theran iconography and the white lilies (see nn. 91, 144) which occur on the bodice of the Rose Bearer and in the bouquet of the Lily Bearer, respectively. See EVELY ed. (supra n. 136) 100-101.

THE ANIMALS AND THEIR SYMBOLISM IN THE XESTE 3 WALL-PAINTINGS

271

The Woman with the Flying Fish merits a more analytical commentary, even though there are many vague points in her iconography.165 Her snood is embellished with dogroses166 and an olive-laden branch,167 she holds a globular vase of veined stone,168 wears an elaborate bracelet (unique in the Aegean jewellery repertoire) and a double-hoop earring.169 She wears a monochrome fleecy mantle and a sleeved bodice, but her precise gesture and garment are difficult to comprehend. The main surface of the bodice is covered by an incised grid of squares rendering a net, discernible inside the loops of which are two small fish, round pebbles or shells and systems of dots which perhaps denote water bubbles, in accordance with the convention encountered in the miniature paintings from Ayia Irini,170 the Frieze of Flying Fish from Phylakopi171 and on the Theran “dolphins offering table” from the West House.172 A broad band of black ground, where five flying fish swim and multicoloured rocks above and below represent the depths of the sea, borders the bodice on the bosom, the shoulder and the left arm, while the yellow fleecy mantle falls diagonally. This peculiar bodice is the third example of a landscape garment in the composition of the Mature Ladies, for the bright rocks of which the palette of Egyptian blue of the rocks of the Lady with the Swallows has been used once again.173 The fish are painted with pale blue body and dorsal fins, while the pectoral fins are in white. Light blue is perhaps used also for the pelvic fins. Three colours are observed also on the carefully rendered flying fish of Phylakopi, which likewise swim in the midst of multicoloured rocks but against a white ground, in a marinescape which is the natural habitat of the Melian Potnia (Pl. LXVIb). The flying fish of Xeste 3 resemble more the type with short body and large head, the same type as on the two plaques from the Temple Repositories of Knossos,174 which in the initial scenographic “image of a seabed” were almost certainly combined with the faience models of rocks and shells and the “thousands of sea shells”, “about 500 of them painted”, from the same ensemble (Pls LXIa and LXVIc).175 As is the case in other Minoan representations of living creatures, the fish seem to be exactly some species, but in fact are not.176 So, in the three cases cited, the flying fish of Phylakopi resemble anatomically the blue flying fish that glides over the water (Exocoetus volitans), whereas the flying fish of Thera and Knossos probably depict the red flying fish or flying gunard (Dactylopterous volitans), which


165

166 167

168

169

170

171

172 173

174 175 176

The wall-painting has not been conserved completely and large parts of the lower half of the figure are missing. VLACHOPOULOS and GEORMA (supra n. 16) 38 Pl. XVc-e. Its painting renders exactly the mature (black) fruit of the olive and the lanceolate leaves of the tree, far more realistically than in the case of the old olive tree that projects behind the shrine of the ‘adyton’ and the branch in the hairstyle of the Wounded Woman. The olive tree with fruit is not encountered in Minoan iconography (see ΕVELY [supra n. 136] 128-130, 211, 244-245, 259), but is rendered with realistic clarity on a Linear B tablet, see ΕVANS (1935 supra n. 147) 716-718 fig. 700. In contrast, the depiction of the tree, without fruit or in flower, is dense: CHAPIN and SHAW (supra n. 51) 78, 82, 87 Pl. B. A similar stone vase is held by a male figure in the Procession Fresco from Knossos (A. EVANS, The Palace of Minos II.2 [1928] 722 fig. 451) and by a female figure in the Procession of the Kadmeion (ARAVANTINOS et al. [supra n. 12] figs 1-4). None of the other women wear earrings but all wear necklaces and two of them have anklets. See VLACHOPOULOS and GEORMA (supra n. 16); E. SΗΑΝΚ, “The Jewelry worn by the Procession of Mature Women from Xeste 3, Akrotiri,” in TOUCHAIS et al. eds (supra n. 17) 559-565. These are the wall-paintings from the North Bastion, see L. MORGAN, “Inspiration and Innovation: The Creation of Wall Paintings in the Absence of a Pictorial Pottery Tradition at Ayia Irini, Kea,” VLACHOPOULOS ed. (supra n. 11) 282 figs 4, 5 note 22. MORGAN (supra n. 9) 381-383 Pls 44-46a; PETERSON MURRAY (supra n. 1) 62-63 fig. 3.20. See EVELY ed. (supra n. 136) 225 no 58a. TELEVANTOU (supra n. 91) 65, 68 Pl. 6; see SHANK (supra n. 66). PANTAZIS et. al. (supra n. 24) 157-158 Pl. XXXIX.c; VLACHOPOULOS and SOTIROPOULOU (supra n. 22) 256-257 figs 14a-b, 16a-b. PANAGIOTΑΚΙ (supra n. 63) 80, 154 fig. 16 Pl. 11; PANAGIOTΑΚΙ (supra n. 147) 66-68 figs B, 6b. PANAGIOTΑΚΙ (supra n. 63) 128-131; PANAGIOTΑΚΙ (supra n. 147) 50, 66-69 figs B, 6a-b. For so-called Minoan hybridism, see n. 70.

272

Andreas G. VLACHOPOULOS

however is benthic and hunts on the seabed.177 The blue fins which the wall-paintings depict emphatically occur on the blue flying fish, as well as on various species such as longfin gurnard (Chelidonichthys obscurus) and the streaked gurnard (Chelidonichthys lastoviza), which too scour the seabed. What is most interesting, according to D. Mylona, is that because these fish are not typical of the catch of coastal fishing178 and should be linked with diving activity on the rocky bed of the open sea and with overseas voyages. This approach, which adds the element of the silent deep to the Potnia’s realm and implicates the accolade for a feat for the maritime community that conquers it, puts on a new interpretative basis the iconographic connotations of the Lady with the Flying Fish, as well as the affined iconographic cycle that L. Morgan has persuasively restored for the Potnia of the Pillar Crypt at Phylakopi.179 The endorsement of the fertile earth on the snood, of the world of the sea, the seabed and of fishing with a net on the bodice, and the emphasis placed on her ornamented attire, constitute a polysemous role for the Lady with the Flying Fish. The painting achievement of a living seascape as self-referential space of this Mistress180 strengthens the proposed identification of the five Mature Ladies who, bearing gifts, advance towards the Potnia, as members of a thiasos of ritual references, who echo aspects of Nature and of the Potnia, and of the hypostases of both. The enhancement of the faience plaques from the Temple Repositories of Knossos as illuminating parallels which contribute crucially to the reading and interpretation of the iconography of Xeste 3 reinforces the dialectical conversation of the two contemporary ensembles, allowing the sacred objects from the Minoan palace, which are projected in mural scale in the shrine of the Minoanizing Cycladic city, to document further the common theological universe shared by the communities of Crete and Thera. Study of the iconography has shown that this illustrated sympan, in which, as M. Panagiotaki remarks, “the flora and fauna can be seen as symbolizing the sphere(s) of influence of the divinities concerned”,181 can be far more voluble than the scripts and less slippery than the architecture, which by itself is incapable of housing the deity. First storey: Rooms 3a and 3b The Potnia’s panoramic biotope The thiasoi of animals ceremonially officiating and nesting in Room 2, and the group of womenlandscapes of nature coming in from the lateral corridor, reflect pictorial units, selected for their semiology, in the wall-painting enclave of Rooms 3a and 3b, which constitutes a “sublime panorama of the Potnia” (Pls LXIIIa and LXIVa-b). Concurrently, the same triple axis (saffron-gathering – saffronoffering – reedbed) at least 15 metres in length and at least 45 square metres in surface area, as actual adyton of the deity in terms of regulation of access and viewing, alloys and echoes pictorial units that enmesh the entire building and crystallizes them in the most institutional iconography.


177

178

179

180

181

I thank the ichthyo-archaeologist Dr D. Mylona for the information and for discussions of the issue, which is part of her own research project. M. Panagiotaki identifies the fish on the Knossian plaquettes as Exonautes rondeleti, perhaps referring to the species Hirundichthys rondeletii, see PANAGIOTΑΚΙ (supra n. 63) 80. D. ΜYLONA, “Marine resources and coastal communities in the Late Bronze Age Southern Aegean: A Seascape Approach,” AJA 124 (2020) 179-213. MORGAN (supra n. 9) and especially n. 146. I thank Dr Lyvia Morgan for enlightening information on and discussion of the related iconography. The offices of the five women are presumably linked with their mature age and high social statue, which is denoted by the covering of the hair by a snood. This is the paramount “secular” echelon in the stages of biological development and rites of passage in which female figures appear in the wall-paintings of Xeste 3. See indicatively E. DAVIS, “Youth and Age in the Thera Frescoes,” AJA 90 (1986) 399-406; MARINATOS (supra n. 14) 203-211; C. DOUMAS, “Age and gender in the Theran wall paintings,” in SHERRATT ed. (supra n. 68) 971-981; VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 15); PAPAGEORGIOU (supra n. 158) 125; PAPAGEORGIOU (supra n. 13) 34, 37, 54-58, 103-104; VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 5) 239-244. PANAGIOTΑΚΙ (supra n. 63) 103.

THE ANIMALS AND THEIR SYMBOLISM IN THE XESTE 3 WALL-PAINTINGS

273

Thus, the observant viewer, who has seen in the ground-floor Room 2 red dragonflies framing ducks in the riparian palm grove, sees in the same room in the upper storey the insects being caught in flight by the swallows. In Room 3b dragonflies can be seen again, flying alongside the ducks in the flowering reedbed, and as five motifs-beads composing the large necklace of the Potnia.182 Consequently, this insect participates as prey in the life cycle of the swallows, cohabits harmoniously with the ducks in the tranquil faunal world of the wetlands and is transformed into a component of the Potnia’s jewellery, intimating (like the ducks in the necklace above it) the deity’s sovereignty over their natural habitats, as well as the voluntary turning of choice acolytes of the Potnia into highly symbolic ornamental elements.183 In other words, the ducks and the dragonflies seem to have flown from the biotopes of the building towards the beloved goddess and, forming groups in flying dance, to have taken metaphysically the place of her adornments. We would not rule out either that underlying the etiological connotation of animal – bead – ornamental emblem, is a mythological metamorphosis of the animals, which in religion is named “miracle”.184 After all, a corresponding miracle takes place on the same wall of the ground floor, and blood conflates the Wounded Potnia with the Shrine on the right, just as here the winged beings of the marsh bind the Potnia of Nature with the reedbed, on the left. Within the reedbed, rustling and thriving,185 seven drakes, most of them mallards (Αnas platyrynchos) and fourteen dragonflies (Crocothemis erythraea) are depicted with absolute anatomical and behavioural accuracy,186 but in peaceful coexistence with each other, in contrast to the relationship of hunter-prey that is the case in nature (Pl. LXIVa-b). The species are represented in their purest natural state, so as to articulate an idealized wetlands biotope in which the mire, the riparian vegetation and their wildlife live together in serenity, as message-bearing symbols of the miracle of life, which the Potnia oversees, as complement to the festive and didactic crocus-picking/saffron-gathering. The lapping of the water, the tweeting of the birds, the buzzing of the insects, the conversations and songs of the girls, the gust of the mountain wind that threatens the basket on the shoulder of the Red-haired Saffron-Gatherer and perhaps the “dialogue” between the Potnia187 and the monkey add the sonic dimension to the senses of those who


182

183

184

185

186

187

DOUMAS (supra n. 80) 162-163; VLACHOPOULOS and GEORMA (supra n. 16) 38-39 Pl. XVII.b (bibliography); V. TAGLIERI, “I gioielli della Potnia. Alcune note sui vaghi di collana zoomorfi nell’affresco del Vano 3a della Xeste 3 di Akrotiri (Thera),” Incontri di filologia classica 17 (2017-2018) 89-112. Of the dragonfly beads on the Potnia’s necklace, 3 are in yellow and 2 in pale blue, which obviously stand for gold and silver. For the life-size bronze dragonfly bead from Mochlos, see J. SOLES, “The Symbolism of Certain Minoan/Mycenaean Beads from Mochlos,” in NOSCH and LAFFINEUR eds (supra n. 16) 457-458 Pl. CXII. For the gold-foil dragonfly cut-outs from Peristeria, see VLACHOPOULOS and GEORMA (supra n. 16) 38-39 Pl. XVIIa. For the biological stages of development of the mallard and the dragonfly and the symbolisms of the natural elements (earth, water, air) in the cycles in which they live, see DOUMAS (supra n. 80) 131; VLACHOPOULOS 2008 (supra n. 68) 280; M. ZEIMBEKI, “Nurturing the Natural: A Cognitive Approach in the Study of the Xeste 3 Aquatic Imagery,” in A. DAKOURI-HILD and S. SHERRATT (eds), AUTOCHTHON: Papers Presented to O.T.P.K. Dickinson on the Occasion of His Retirement (2005) 242-251; L. MORGAN, “The Transformative Power of Mural Art: Ritual Space, Symbolism, and the Mythic Imagination,” in ALRAM-STERN et al. eds (supra n. 1) 195. For the recognition of mythological cycles in the iconography of Xeste 3, see S. MARINATOS, Thera VII (1975) 37; MARINATOS (supra n. 125) 80; REHAK (supra n. 3) 223-225; BOULOTIS (supra n. 13) 3738; VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 15); PAPAGEORGIOU (supra n. 13) 37, 48-52; B. JONES, “A New Reading of the Fresco Program and the Ritual in Xeste 3, Thera,” in ALRAM-STERN et al. eds (supra n. 1) 365-373 (bibliography). The ripe yellow reeds with full tassel represent the season of autumn and the sprouting grey reeds that of spring, when they grow within the mires and on river banks. For the quality of the painting of the animals in the reedbed, see VLACHOPOULOS 2008 (supra n. 68) 268-272. For a “Potnia of the marshes(?),” see KOPAKA (supra n. 2) 20. Christos Boulotis referred to the issue of the conveying of sentiments in Aegean wall-paintings, in a lecture delivered at the National Archaeological Museum in Athens (24.1.2011) and titled “Το μειδίαμα της “Μυκηναίας” ”. I thank him warmly for the discussion of this subject.

274

Andreas G. VLACHOPOULOS

behold the mural polyptych, with sounds that would have resonated recurrently behind the single screen of the six closed polythyra. The ducks and the dragonflies of the reedbeds and the palm groves echo the biodiversity of the Theran landscape,188 but they present only the male individuals (the dun female insects and birds are absent) obedient to the painting principles and narrative canons that we have seen hold sway in the ‘bestiary’ of Xeste 3. The green-headed (mallard) drake on the north wall, with the characteristic hooked tail feather declaring its sex,189 is shown coming out of the visual horizon of the Potnia and coming into the secret wetland where the (apparently) male birds and insects enliven the reedbed, just as the girls and women give life to the crocus-filled meadows (Pl. LXIVa). L. Morgan identified age analogies between the Naked Boys in the ground floor of Room 3b and the male winged beings of the fens in the overlying space,190 but these are not verified with regard to the biological stages of development of the birds, as I have demonstrated earlier.191 The white birds of the pair flying in superimosed synchronization are the same size as the rest of the ducks in the wall-painting,192 while a third bird has a similar white head, which it turns in flight, proving that these birds are not fledgelings.193 Their pinkish beak perhaps renders another species of duck, just as the pointed half-open beak of the red-headed bird that takes flight points to another aquatic species, even though the size, the neckring and the colour contrast of the plumage match the mallards flying in the tripartite marshy reedbed (Pl. LXIVb).194 The blue monkey, standing bolt upright to a height of about one metre, is the privileged intermediary that constitutes the axis on which the natural habitat of humans intersects the biotope of the Potnia, to which she has been flown by her exotic acolyte, the griffin (Pl. LXIVa). The anthropomimetic monkey also intersects the represented saffron gathering, as with the large pannier of the left saffrongatherer the procedure of picking the flowers is completed, while the smaller basket of the monkey contains saffron stigmas that have been desiccated metaphysically, so that they can be offered symbolically to the crocus-effulgent Potnia,195 imprinted in whose garments and jewellery is landscape, as in the case of her female attendants.196 In this hypaethreal pyramidal staging197 of humans, deity, animals and Elysian flower-filled fields, the duteous griffin with small body and magnificent wings completes the thiasos of actors, denoting the airborne arrival of the Potnia and declaring the means by which she will depart when a ritual between reality, insight and imagination is completed. The mythical lion-bodied bird, although widely disseminated in the “sacred” iconography of the Aegean in the mid-second millennium BC and included from early on in Theran narrative vase-painting,


188

189 190 191 192

193 194

195 196

197

For the Theran ecological environment in the wall-paintings of Xeste 3, see VLACHOPOULOS and ZORZOS (supra n. 17). For birds and ducks in the prehistoric Aegean, see D. MYLONA, “The Bronze Age birds in Greece. A zooarchaeological perspective,” Quaternary International (https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2020.11.001). DOUMAS (supra n. 80) 172-173 fig. 135; VLACHOPOULOS 2008 (supra n. 68) 266-268 Pl. 10a. MORGAN (supra n. 183) 194-196. VLACHOPOULOS 2008 (supra n. 68) 271. VLACHOPOULOS 2008 (supra n. 68) 271 Pl. 11c-d; VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 29) 453 figs 41.31-41.32; VLACHOPOULOS and ZORZOS (supra n. 17) 194 Pls LXV, LXVI. L. Morgan (supra n. 183, 195) recognizes these birds as “ducklings, rendered in outline, spread their wings in the beginnings of flight while perched on what looks like a nest”, but overlooks their scale, the mature feathers on their wings and tail, and their full flight over the tallest reeds in the reedbed, which rules out the hypothesis of a nest. VLACHOPOULOS 2008 (supra n. 68) 272 Pl. 11e. VLACHOPOULOS 2008 (supra n. 68) 271 Pl. 10b; VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 29) 453 fig. 41.29. See TRANTALIDOU 2008 (supra n. 40) fig. 4. MARINATOS (supra n. 122). When painter Maria Krigha was drawing the Potnia (2000-2001) it became apparent that in addition to the painted crocus flowers on the textile and sleeves of the bodice, there were also relief white flowers on the border of the bosom and relief yellow ones on the skirt. See VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 29) fig. 41.21. For the structure and function of the Potnia’s tripartite dais, see PALYVOU 2012 (supra n. 25) 18-21 figs 13-16.

THE ANIMALS AND THEIR SYMBOLISM IN THE XESTE 3 WALL-PAINTINGS

275

is a hybrid hypostasis, a Mischwesen, the qualities attributed to which by Creto-Mycenaean mythology and religion are barely known.198 It is clear that the griffin in the composition with the Potnia is as unique as his beloved Mistress, nonetheless some fragments of blue griffin wings, which were found in Room 13 together with fragments of the body of an animal with the characteristic cruciform markings of the deer, document a second instance of the fantastic creature in Xeste 3.199 The Potnia’s acolytes beyond Xeste 3 The Potnia in Xeste 3 is portrayed with her institutional hypostasis fully developed, in the splendid festival during which the blossoming of the crocus and the underlying economic dimension of saffrongathering200 become the occasion for unwrapping the Aegean’s illustrated sacred book of the second millennium BC (or at least one version of it), in an idealized temporal dimension of an annual festive calendar and not of a four-season year. The chapters of this single narrative of “pictorial architecture”201 contain the laudatory hymn to Nature as fertile cradle of gods and men, the instruction of girls in rites of passage under the Potnia’s gaze, the social import of the established celebrations in the deity’s honour and the reflection of the valuative, symbolic and mythological components of the ceremonial of her apotheosis. The increasing knowledge that we have acquired in recent years about the iconographic programme and the architecture of Xeste 3202 has given additional momentum to a series of studies, thanks to which we have been able to read in combination the architecture and the mural iconography in apartments found in Minoan palaces and in noble residences, particularly in cases where the lustral basins and the pier-and-door partitions are considered to determine the locus of enactment of ritual performances.203 Of these spaces, our “reciprocal” contribution here focuses on Rooms 13 and 14 of the villa at Hagia Triada (Pl. LXVa-b).


198

199 200

201

202

203

For the griffin in the East and the Aegean, see E. SHANK, “The Griffin motif. An evolutionary tale,” in VLACHOPOULOS ed. (supra n. 11) 234-241; V. DUBCOVA VERESOVA, “Mastering a griffin. The agency and perception of Near Eastern images by the Aegean Bronze Age elite,” Anodos. Studies of the Ancient World 13/2013 (2019) 163-178. For the griffin in Aegean art, see A. VLACHOPOULOS, “Winged Hybrid Creatures of the Prehistoric Aegean. Animal – Man – Monster,” in P. SOUCACOS, A. GARTSIOUTATTI, M. PASCHOPOULOS (eds), Hybrid and Extraordinary Beings. Deviations from “Normality” in Ancient Greek Mythology and Modern Medicine (2017) 15-21 figs 1-4; F. BLAKOLMER, “Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo? Character, symbolism and hierarchy of animals and supernatural creatures in Minoan and Mycenaean iconography,” Creta Antica 17, 2016 (2018) 128-132. In the West House the griffin appears as a galloping animal in the riverbank scene of the East Miniature Frieze (TELEVΑNTOU [supra n. 43] 252-254 col. Pls 47, 64) and features as figurehead of a ship in the South Miniature Frieze (DOUMAS [supra n. 80] 71-77 figs 3637). It is depicted also in the frieze with a man (“African”) officiating in a ritual(?) in a landscape of palm trees, from the “Porter’s Lodge”, see VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 10) 135-136 Pls 15.2, 15.5. See n. 30. J. DAY, “Crocuses in Context. A Diachronic Survey of the Crocus Motif in the Aegean Bronze Age,” Hesperia 80 (2011) 337-379; EADEM, “Counting Threads: Saffron in Aegean Bronze Age Writing and Society,” OJA 30 (2011) 369-391. For the iconography of the crocus, see CHAPIN and SHAW (supra n. 51) 83-87. M. WEDDE, “Pictorial Architecture: for a Theory-Based Analysis of Imagery,” in R. LAFFINEUR and J.L. CROWLEY (eds), EIKON. Aegean Bronze Age Iconography: Shaping a Methodology. Proceedings or the 4th International Aegean Conference, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia, 6-9 April 1992 (1992) 181-203. See nn. 13-25. Publication of the iconographic programme of the building is pending from the author. The architectural study has been undertaken by Professor C. Palyvou. Knossos: Throne Room (I. GALANAKIS, E. TSITSA and U. GÜNKEL-MASCHEK, “The power of images: re-examining the wall paintings from the Throne Room at Knossos,” BSA 112 [2017] 47-98), Upper Queen’s Bathroom / East Wing (GÜNKEL-MASCHEK supra n. 52); Phaistos (D. PUGLISI, “Azione rituale da Festòs a Thera: Un’interpretazione funzionale del complesso adyton-polythyron nel mondo egeo,” in F. CARINCI et al. (eds), Κρήτης Μινωίδος. Tradizione e identità minoica tra produzione artigianale, pratiche cerimoniali e memoria del passato. Studi offerti a Vincenzo La Rosa per il suo 70º compleanno [2011] 323-342); Malia, Chania and buildings at Knossos (D. PUGLISI, “Ritual performances in Minoan lustral basins: new observations on an

276

Andreas G. VLACHOPOULOS

The relatively good condition of the wall-paintings and their republication by P. Militello have kindled a series of readings and re-evaluations mainly of the small rectangular Room 14 and the “Potnia triptych”,204 in which we can now, with more evidence, pinpoint strong thematic analogies and similarities with Xeste 3. Indeed, if the small Minoan shrine is harmonized with the iconography of the bigger Room 13, with the polythyra, and both are compared proportionately with the architectural scale of the multiroomed three-storey Xeste 3, then Hagia Triada and Akrotiri will from now on share a well-documented “Potnia of Nature cycle”. If we accept the restoration proposals of experienced researchers for the Π-shaped Room 14 and intervene only in the central composition of the Potnia (insofar as its extensively damaged condition permits), then we see on the left wall with the meadows of crocuses and lilies two(?) maidens performing rituals for and venerating the Potnia,205 on the right wall wild goats, birds and wild cats enlivening a paradisiacal mountain landscape with crocuses and penetrating into the central wall – if we assume that the forelegs of an animal step on the Potnia’s dais in the same way as the griffin in Xeste 3.206 The Goddess is seated gently on the bottom step of the dais, the higher left part of which is connected with the façade of a shrine from which trickles blood and which is crowned by double horns, like that of Xeste 3 and the Shrine of the Monkeys from the so-called Porter’s Lodge. A garland girds the architectural construction, which extends to the right of the representation.207 The Potnia steps upon rocks forming the bank of a stream, which as a blue zone occupies the base of the wall-painting. Dense leafy plants and flowers abound in its natural space, but many have been lost forever from its missing or burnt part. A garland of rosettes has survived, which is clearly visible hanging from the dais (Pl. LXVa).208 Room 13 has pier-and-door partitions on its three sides and through them communicates with the “shrine” Room 14 (Pl. LXVb). The opposite (west) wall is decorated with wall-paintings of a natural landscape, with bichrome reed-like plants growing from a red wavy zone also with relief rocks (Composizione B),209 and lozenges with rosettes, likewise in relief (Composizione C).210 With the helpful parallels of the iconography of Xeste 3 and the circular confirmation via Neopalatial iconographic programmes, primarily Knossian, we have dependable evidence from which (a) to restore the first composition as a landscape of riparian vegetation in a wavy mire(?), significantly similar to the reedbed of Xeste 3, and (b) to propose its location in the ground floor, as concomitant natural space of the Potnia, who faces it. The visual convergence of the two compositions and the unifying aquatic landscape of the two facing walls makes the through space between them (Room 13) a metaphysical plane of river or sea, but with the strong element of dry land, annotated by the rocks. We attribute to the upper storey of Room 13 the relief composition of lozenges and rosettes, which is very like the relief wall-painting of lozenges and rosettes that decorated the second storey of Xeste 3,


204 205

206 207

208

209 210

old hypothesis,” Annuario 90 [2012] 199-211; CHAPIN and SHAW [supra n. 51] 64-68, 88; WARREN [supra n. 6]). See nn. 8 and 46. For the second figure on the left wall, see P. MILITELLO and V. LA ROSA, “New Data on Fresco Painting from Ayia Triada,” in SHERRATT ed. (supra n. 68) 991-997. It is restored by B. Jones (2014 supra n. 46) Pls CLIV, CLV. See n. 45. P. MILITELLO, “Minoan Religious Architecture. Representation and Reality,” in BLAKOLMER ed. 2010 (supra n. 5) 96 fig. 18. The proposed readings (figs 16, 17 are artwork of the painter Maria Krigha) are based on the watercolour paintings by Ε. Gilliéron and E. Stefani (MILITELLO [supra n. 8] Pls D, E; V. STÜRMER, “Gillerons Aquarell-Kopien der Fresken von Hagia Triada,” Modus in Rebus. Gedenkschrift W. Schindler [1994] 201-205, Pl. 61, col. Pl. III), on the drawing by M. Cameron (EVELY ed. [supra n. 136] 242), on the perceptive observations of P. Militello, the works by B. Jones (note 46) and on the author’s personal inspection of the wall-painting. I am most grateful to Professor Pietro Militello for offering the necessary documentation and our discussion of the iconography of Rooms 13 and 14, and to Professor Bernice Jones for kind permission to reproduce her drawings. MILITELLO (supra n. 8) 173-180 Pl. 21b; REHAK (supra n. 45) 165 figs 2, 3. MILITELLO (supra n. 8) 180-184 Pl. N; REHAK (supra n. 45) 165 figs 2, 3.

THE ANIMALS AND THEIR SYMBOLISM IN THE XESTE 3 WALL-PAINTINGS

277

giving the first well-grounded parallel for an iconography of geometric motifs complementing the Potnia, which possibly renders her celestial-metaphysical and non-figural domain.211 These similarities at the level of architecture, thematic repertoire and combination of pictorial units help us to comprehend that the affinities between the two ensembles are even more than had been pointed out so far, thus enriching a Minoan-Theran iconographic “protocol” of the Potnia. In the very small Room 14 (1.55 x 2.35 m), which is as small as the ground-floor Room 3b of Xeste 3, with the Naked Boys,212 in Rehak’s words “one could imagine a single worshipper being in the presence of the goddess, an effect similar to that of entering a small, highly decorated chapel”.213 On the other hand, the large rectangular Room 13 (3.50 x 4.50 m) could accommodate public assemblies, like Room 3 and the larger Room 4 of Xeste 3, both spaces with pier-and-door partitions which lead to the enclaves of separately officiating men and women (Pls LVIII-LIX).214 Exceptionally helpful for understanding small “adyta”, such as this one at Hagia Triada, in which the Potnia is depicted and worshipped, is the clay model of an oblong sanctuary from the palace at Galatas, inside which there is a seated figurine of a deity and on the roof of the façade are double horns.215 It was found in a ΜΜ ΙΙΙ domestic shrine of the palace, which had a lustral basin, in other words, in an architectural and chronological context of considerable value for studying Minoan religion. There was a seated female figurine in a model of a small shrine from the Neopalatial peak sanctuary at Gournos Krousonas,216 the Minoan scheme of which refers directly to the two models of circular buildings from Room 3 of Xeste 3, which Spyridon Marinatos called “beehives” (σίμβλοι).217 Commenting on the two finds, G. Rethemiotakis rightly states that according to Neopalatial iconography “the ritual of divine revelation became an elaborate public ceremony, a sort of religious drama with theatrical characteristics involving the ‘goddess’ – evidently represented by a priestess in her stead – appearing in a seated posture”.218 An interrogative approach is adopted to the appearance of the seated Potnia as an imagined epiphany or as a physical presence through a priestess-model of her, in the absence of textual sources that would have given “word” to the “image” of the Potnia and “role” to her acolytes.219 But while Potnia Studies continue to be fed by the rich (and voiceless) reservoir of her images, the auxiliary contribution of architecture and of moveable finds, of seal-carving and of other agents of iconography, augment the methodological toolkit for decoding the Aegean deity.220


211 212

213 214 215

216

217

218 219

220

VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 18) 383 Pls CXV-CXVIII; VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 21). DOUMAS (supra n. 80) 146-151 figs 109-115; VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 13) 177-179 figs 8a-b; 16; PALYVOU 2005 (supra n. 25) 167 fig. 245; VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 18) 450-452 Pl. CLXIV. REHAK (supra n. 45) 174. On sex and gender separation in the iconography and architecture of Xeste 3, see n. 52. G. RETHEMIOTAKIS, “A shrine-model from Galatas,” in O. KRZYSZKOWSKA (ed.), Cretan Offerings, Studies in honour of Peter Warren (2010) 293-302. The roughly-rendered female figure with modelled breasts, crescent crown(?) and gesture perhaps denoting pregnancy, is represented seated with her feet resting on a high footstool. The possibility of seeing the deity through the opened door of the model perhaps corresponds to the relation of the later polythyra to the visibility of the Potnia in the wall-painting. G. RETHEMIOTAKIS, “A Neopalatial Shrine Model from the Minoan Peak Sanctuary at Gournos Krousonas,” in A.L. D’AGATHA and A. VAN DE MOORTEL (eds), Archaeologies of Cult. Essays on Ritual and Cult in Crete in Honor of Geraldine C. Gesell (2009) 195-198 figs 16.13-16.16. For a later model from Knossos, see ELIOPOULOS (supra n. 1) 81, 238-241 Pl. 65b. S. MARINATOS (supra n. 184) 30-31 Pl. 52c; MICHAILIDOU (supra n. 40) 346, 353; VLACHOPOULOS (supra n. 13) 188 fig. 18. RETHEMIOTAKIS (supra n. 215) 301. F. BLAKOLMER, “A Pantheon without attributes? Goddesses and gods in Minoan and Mycenaean iconography,” in J. MYLONOPOULOS (ed.), Divine Images and Human Imaginations in Ancient Greece and Rome (2010) 25-28, 42-45. For the invocations (epikleseis), that is, the epithets of the Potnia in Linear B script, ibid. 2526, 28, 39, 44. Pending are the studies of the wall-painting from the Pillar Crypt at Phylakopi (L. MORGAN, “The Wall Paintings of Phylakopi and the Programme of the Pillar Crypt Complex,” in R. BARBER and D. EVELY [eds] Phylakopi, Melos, British School at Athens, Supplementary Series, in press) and the relief Potnias from Pseira (B.

278

Andreas G. VLACHOPOULOS

Xeste 3 is for the second millennium BC Aegean the fullest preserved carapace within which mural and performed ritualia under the gaze of the seated goddess and of her motley crew of acolytes are documented fairly securely. We have seen that the laborious procedure of deciphering these performances through study of the in corpore iconography of the building, in parallel with assonant iconographic programmes, has benefitted from the unique florilegium of sacra reliquia of the Minoan world, which were found sealed in the cists of the Temple Repositories of Knossos.221 Such is the mixture of hundreds of heterogeneous objects (faience and ceramic vessels, clay seal impressions, heaps of beads, stone offering tables, etc.) in the said cists that it is almost impossible to envisage the initial environment of the arrangement, display and function of the groups of the same kind or their combinations. Even so, study of them has enhanced “one basic interpretation, the religious”.222 Ostensibly, the mural iconographic programme of the three-storey Theran ashlar building would seem to have little to do with the pot-pourri of artifacts of faience and other precious materials, which was ritually buried in the religious nucleus of the Knossian palace. However, on examining the variety of the motifs, the thematic affinities and the excellent representation of the faience plaques in particular, we ascertain that they converse mutually with many of the pictorial units of the wall-paintings of Xeste 3, which we approach as the independent lexemes that can recompose the building’s very dense discourse.223 The dozens of faience artifacts from the East Temple Repository,224 even though they were found worn and broken and had been extensively restored by Evans, were emblematized immediately due to the three female figures which were attributed to a Snake Goddess and her “attendants”.225 If, as M. Panagiotaki argues, “the faience female figurines once were five or six”,226 then the female sacred thiasos of Knossos would have supported numerous versions of “theatrical” performances, as we conjecture for the dozens of coloured female clay statuettes in the temple at Ayia Irini227 and for the smaller clay figurines of the Neopalatial and the Postpalatial period,228 but also as shown by the multi-figured thiasos of women around the Potnia of Thera. Outstanding among the rest of the artifacts are the models of three female robes and three girdles, and groups that were classed from outset on the basis of subject: “land animal plaques”, “faunal objects”, “plant and flower plaques” “marine objects”, some of which have been discussed already in relation to the iconography of Xeste 3. In terms of thematic repertoire, the objects are allocated to the woman’s world, the world of animals’ maternal care, the world of flowers and fruits, and the world of the seabed. Totally absent are models and accessories that could be assigned to or concerned men.




221

222

223

224

225

226 227 228

JONES, The Painted Plaster Reliefs from Pseira: A Multifaceted Study and the Iconography of Presentation Scenes, INSTAP Academic Press, forthcoming) and the publication of the important doctoral dissertation by Th. Eliopoulos (ELIOPOULOS supra n. 1). Also forthcoming is the publication of the wall-paintings from the “Porter’s Lodge” by the author. PANAGIOTAKI (supra n. 147) 74: “the objects were placed ‘honored and treasured’ to the TR according to their material, the (40 or 50) ceramic vases always on top”. PANAGIOTAKI (supra n. 147) 148. “The subjects of the seals are concerned with nature, in its nonviolent aspect” (ibid. 116). For the method of studying the iconography of the Theran wall-paintings on the basis of “pictorial units”, see VLACHOPOULOS 2008 (supra n. 68) 279-281, 283-286. PANAGIOTAKI (supra n. 147) 151-160. All the faience artifacts were found in the East Temple Repository, excepting part of the girdle of the faience figurine, Heraklion Archaeological Museum inv. no. 63, which was unique inside the West Temple Repository. EVANS (supra n. 63) 500-501. M. Panagiotaki (supra n. 63, 96-98 figs 25-26 Pl. 17) suggests “a younger person; perhaps a mother and daughter”; however, the figurine “without the torso would have been the largest” (ibid., 103). See, B. JONES, “The Three Minoan ‘Snake Goddesses’,” in KOEHL ed. (supra n. 21) 93-112. PANAGIOTAKI (supra n. 147) 59, 148; EADEM (supra n. 63) 98. Μ. CASKEY, The Temple of Ayia Irini: The Statues (1986). Ε. HASAKI and R. DELOZIER, “Terracotta Statues from Ayia Irini, Kea: An Experimental Replication,” in E. ANGLIKER and J. TULLY (eds), Cycladic Archaeology and Research: New Approaches and Discoveries (2018) figs 2-4. For the Minoan and Mycenaean clay figurines and large scale statues of seated goddesses, see ELIPOULOS (supra n. 1) 60-68, 332-382 Pls 61-68, 93-104.

THE ANIMALS AND THEIR SYMBOLISM IN THE XESTE 3 WALL-PAINTINGS

279

What, however, was their original arrangement? Evans thought that the “marine objects” (rocks, cockleshells, cardium shells, argonauts, flying fish and thousands of sea shells)229 belonged to a panel and Panagiotaki suggested that the “land animal plaques” (depicting goats and cows suckling their kids) collectively could have decorated a piece of furniture or a wall panel, or individually could have been hung on walls.230 She states that “many are suitable for inlays forming compositions, which suggests display.”231 Given that in terms of manufacture and style the faience plaques are identical, it seems more likely that these made up panels of a large surface. In other words, they constituted scenographic compositions that would have been composed and displayed initially in the clearly proximate Knossian shrine, from where they were reverently removed. Miniature faience snakes, gold strips with ribbed decoration that render wild goat horns,232 the skull of a “weasel”, fish vertebrae233 and deer antlers234 blend a further mixture of effigies and real faunal objects of cult, which seem to be in cultic coherence with the snakes and wildcats held or tamed by the faience goddesses or their priestesses (Pl. LXVIc). The three-dimensional standing figurines, the pendent objects and the relief panels composed of plaques would have formed a miniature environment of Nature, suitable for multiple theatrical “stagings”, which included or implied the Potnia. A small ivory “delicately curved handle plate of some musical instrument” (Evans) that could be “the side plates of a lyre, in miniature form” (Panagiotaki)235 possibly indicates that this cult paraphernalia included a model of a lyre, referring to the only musical instrument that was identified in the iconography of Xeste 3. Should the votive objects of the Knossian shrine thematically and syntactically complement the mural images of the Theran “house of rituals” (from the adjacent sacristia of which similar cult paraphernalia have been retrieved),236 then the resulting iconography points to a sympan articulated by floral, faunal and cosmic pictorial components attributable to the qualities of the Potnia of Nature and her female thiasos. With the above general schema and the preceding discussion about the bestiarial index of Xeste 3 and the affined iconography of the Aegean Potnia, the criteria on which the zoic species that are depicted as her acolytes in the mural panorama of the building become more easily understood. Having their starting point in the Middle Bronze Age iconography of Crete and the Cyclades,237 these animals (like the plants too) imprint the biodiversity of all the natural elements (earth, water, sea, air) and transmute fertility, male strength, maternal care, parental teaching coming of age, metaphysical beliefs and the sacrificial dimension into a doxastic “iconography of the divine”. Andreas G. VLACHOPOULOS


229 230 231 232 233

234 235 236

237

PANAGIOTAKI (supra n. 147) 50; PANAGIOTAKI (supra n. 63) 78-81, 128-131 fig. 16. See n. 175. PANAGIOTAKI (supra n. 63) 81-87 figs 17-20. PANAGIOTAKI (supra n. 147) 148. PANAGIOTAKI (supra n. 147) 125-127 fig. 30 pls 22-23. PANAGIOTAKI (supra n. 147) 54 figs B-C; PANAGIOTAKI (supra n. 63) 118-119 Pl. 17. The larger verterba of a shark has been interpreted as an offering to the shrine to ensure a good catch. PANAGIOTAKI (supra n. 63) 117, 151, Pl. 17. PANAGIOTAKI (supra n. 147) 120, 172 fig. 28 Pl. 20c. In the House of the Benches (supra n. 13; VLACHOPOULOS [supra n. 19] 452 note 71) several objects of faience, such as miniature tritons, nautili and other shells, beads and rosettes, as well as miniature bronze double-axes, figure-of-eight shields, and also pottery (PETRAKOS 2018 [supra n. 13] 39-40; IDEM 2019 [supra n. 13] 53-54), show strong similarities with the cult objects of the Temple Repositories. However, the overall context of the finds from Akrotiri points to an idiosyncratic Minoan-Cycladic blend. A. VLACHOPOULOS, “Detecting ‘Mycenaean’ elements in the ‘Minoan’ wall paintings of a ‘Cycladic’ settlement. The wall paintings at Akrotiri, Thera within their iconographic koine,” in H. BRECOULAKI, J. DAVIS and S. STOCKER (eds), Mycenaean Wall Paintings in Context. New Discoveries and Old Finds Reconsidered (2015) 36-65; NIKOLAKOPOULOU (supra n. 101); F. BLAKOLMER, “At the dawn of Minoan iconography: the ‘Archivio di cretule’ at MM IIB Phaistos,” in BLAKOLMER ed. (supra n. 5) 47-70. Also see “Preface” and several papers in VLACHOPOULOS ed. (supra n. 11).

280

Andreas G. VLACHOPOULOS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Pl. LVII Pl. LVIII Pl. LIX Pl. LXa Pl. LXb Pl. LXIa Pl. LXIb Pl. LXIc Pl. LXIIa Pl. LXIIb Pl. LXIIc Pl. LXIIIa Pl. LXIIIb Pl. LXIVa Pl. LXIVb Pl. LXVa Pl. LXVb Pl. LXVIa Pl. LXVIb Pl. LXVIc

Akrotiri, Thera. Xeste 3. Tentative reconstruction of the wall paintings of the building. View from the North-West. 3D model by Mario Wallner. Akrotiri, Thera. Xeste 3, Room 3. Tentative reconstruction of the north wall on the ground floor (Adorants), the first storey (Potnia) and the second storey (Blue Spirals). Section from the south. 3D model by Mario Wallner. Akrotiri, Thera. Xeste 3, plan of the ground floor and the first storey reproduced from C. PALYVOU (supra n. 25) fig. 62. Circles indicate animal pictorial units and squares indicate floral motifs in the wall-paintings of the building. Drawing: Nikos Sepetzoglou. Akrotiri, Thera. Xeste 3, Antechamber (Room 5). The Bull-hunters Fresco (left) from the south wall and the Wild Goat-hunters Fresco (right) from the north wall. Drawings: Nikos Sepetzoglou. Akrotiri, Thera. Xeste 3, ground floor, Room 2. The Palm Trees Fresco. Drawing: Nikos Sepetzoglou. Knossos, Temple Repositories. Faience plaques. Photo reproduced from J.D. PENDLEBURY, The Archaeology of Crete. An Introduction (1939) Pl. XXVIII.3. Knossos, Temple Repositories. Faience plaque with bovid in low relief. Drawing reproduced from PANAGIOTAKI (supra n. 63) fig. 18a. Courtesy of Marina Panagiotaki. Knossos, Temple Repositories. Faience plaque with bovid in low relief. Drawing reproduced from PANAGIOTAKI (supra n. 63) fig. 18b. Courtesy of Marina Panagiotaki. Akrotiri, Thera. Xeste 3, ground storey, Room 3a. Drawing of the Adorants Fresco (north wall) and the Shrine Fresco (east wall). Drawings: Nikos Sepetzoglou. Akrotiri, Thera. Xeste 3, first storey, Room 2. Drawings of the Crocus Frieze, the Swallows Frieze and the Monkeys Fresco. Drawings: Nikos Sepetzoglou. Akrotiri, Thera. The Hunt Asaminthos. Courtesy of the Akrotiri Excavations Photographic Archive. Akrotiri, Thera. Xeste 3, first storey. Tentative reconstruction of the wall-paintings from Room 3 (Reedbed – Potnia – Crocus Gatherers), the corridor (north wall: Mature Women) and Room 9 (Wickers). Drawings: Maria Krigha, Nikos Sepetzoglou. Akrotiri, Thera. Xeste 3, first storey. The Mature Women Frescoes. From left to right: the Rose Bearer and the Basket Bearer, the Lady with the Flying Fish, the Lady of the Swallows and the Lily Bearer. Drawings: Maria Krigha. Akrotiri, Thera. Xeste 3, first storey. Tentative reconstruction of the wall-paintings from Room 3 (Reedbed – Potnia – Crocus Gatherers). Drawings: Maria Krigha, Nikos Sepetzoglou. Akrotiri, Thera. Xeste 3, first floor. Tentative reconstruction of the Reedbed Fresco from Room 3b (south and west walls). Drawing: Nikos Sepetzoglou. Hagia Triada. Room 14, wall-paintings. Central wall (Potnia) reconstructed by the author, left and right walls after B. JONES, “Revisiting the Figures and Landscapes on the Frescoes at Hagia Triada,” in TOUCHAIS et al. eds (supra n. 17) Pl. CLVa-b (courtesy of Bernice Jones). Drawing: Maria Krigha. Hagia Triada. Rooms 13 and 14. Tentative axonometric reconstruction of the wall-paintings by the author after MILITELLO (supra n. 8). Plan courtesy of Pietro Militello. Drawing: Maria Krigha. Melos, Phylakopi. Pillar Crypt. Presentation Scene after MORGAN (supra n. 9) fig. 9.7 (figures) and A. EVANS, The Palace of Minos III (1930) fig. 26 (birds). Courtesy of Anne Chapin. Melos, Phylakopi. Pillar Crypt. The Flying Fish Frieze. Photo Irini Miari. Courtesy of the National Archaeological Museum-Prehistoric Collections. Knossos, Temple Repositories objects. PhEvans, Book 15, p. 25. Courtesy of Marina Panagiotaki.

LVII

LVIII

LIX

LX

a

b

LXI

a

b

c

b

a

c

LXII

b

a

LXIII

LXIV

a

b

a

b

LXV

LXVI

a

b

c















TERRACOTTA BIRDS AND HYBRID WINGED CREATURES FROM TANAGRA: RETHINKING RELATIONS BETWEEN FUNERARY PRACTICES, BELIEFS AND RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS IN THE LATE BRONZE AGE AEGEAN*

At the Museum of Thebes, zoomorphic winged terracotta figurines of a particular and unusual type are on display, fixed on the lid of a small decorated larnax.1 It is elsewhere reported that “over a dozen examples [...] were collected from the larnakes” of Tomb 6,2 at the Gephyra locality in Tanagra. They were associated with four larnakes, including the one actually restored.3 Two further figurines (called εἰδώλια-ἀκρωτήρια) were found in Tomb 60, at Gephyra, which contained two larnakes.4 Each winged creature perches atop a terracotta plaque made of a disc mounted on a pair of horns of consecration.5 The long wings of the zoomorphic figurines spread out wide from their body, which ends in a long tail slightly raised. Since their discovery in chamber tombs in 1969, attention has focused on their symbolic and social meanings and values. However, a close examination of these unusual terracottas has not yet appeared. With this paper we take the opportunity to do so. We will compare these winged creatures with the common bird figurines and birds depicted on the larnakes, investigating further the links between the birds represented in Tanagra with other Minoan and Mycenaean examples (e.g. from Palaikastro and Ayia Triada in Crete to Kynos in East Lokris, today Phthiotis), looking for traces of cultural and stylistic affinities. Finally, this paper proposes to analyse Aegean religious symbols such as the solar discs and horns of consecration, and to explore funerary beliefs in a new light through their association with birds, bird-like and hybrid winged creatures. Zoomorphic Winged figurines on disc- and horn-shaped plaques from Tanagra The zoomorphic winged creatures from Tanagra fall into two types (Appendix 1). The figurines of the first type have long wings spread out from their body, like birds (Pl. LXVIIa). It is a question as to whether they should be regarded as stylized birds or as fantastic creatures. The fact that the head of the figurines belonging to both types is characterized by a large forehead, different from any kind of bird, would support the second interpretation. The winged creatures may have the elongated body of an


*

1

2 3

4 5

A programme for the study of the Tanagra Larnakes has been going on for a number of years and is funded by INSTAP. Apart from the authors of this article, our team includes E.-V. Tsota, archaeologist of the Boeotia Ephorate. The present contribution is offered, despite Covid-19, as a first fruit of our work which has further forged our collaboration into a true friendship. It is hoped that other articles will follow soon and a monograph is currently in preparation. We express our gratitude to E.-V. Tsota and to archaeologistconservator M.-P. Louka, for their hard and dedicated work and their close collaboration. For help and support, that made possible our studies on the larnakes and their contexts, our warmest thanks go to the Director of the Ephorate, Dr A. Charami, and the staff of the Museum of Thebes. V.L. ARAVANTINOS, The Archaeological Museum of Thebes (2010) 100. Previously, in the old exhibition of the museum: K. DEMAKOPOULOU and D. KONSOLA, Αρχαιολογικό Μουσείο της Θήβας. Οδηγός (1981) 44. Th.G. SPYROPOULOS, “Ἀνασκαφὴ εἰς τὸ μυκηναϊκὸν νεκροταφεῖον τῆς Τανάγρας,” AAA 3 (1970) 196. SPYROPOULOS (supra n. 2) 187. The larnakes have been numbered (nos 6, 12, 13 and 14) by their excavator. The restored larnax is no. 12. Th.G. SPYROPOULOS “Ἀνασκαφὴ μυκηναϊκοῦ νεκροταφείου Τανάγρας,” Prakt (1971) [1973] 8-9. These creatures are often regarded as birds, see L. GOODISON, Death, Women and the Sun. Symbolism of Regeneration in Early Aegean Religion (1989) 76, fig. 135b-c.

282


Laetitia PHIALON and Vassilis L. ARAVANTINOS

insect,6 such as dragonflies.7 The figurines of the first type correspond to the four winged creatures which are now placed as finials on the four corners of the lid covering the aforementioned larnax exhibited at the museum of Thebes (inv. 47643) (Pl. LXVIIb).8 Regarding the figurines of the second type, the wings of the creatures spread out from their neck, and their backs are curved upwards (Pl. LXVIII). For this reason, we are moved to consider the figurines of the second type as hybrid creatures. It is a question whether their curved body should be seen as recalling that of a snake,9 since snakes usually undulate horizontally on the ground, and not vertically,10 as is the case with the winged creatures from Tanagra. Another difference between the two types of zoomorphic winged figurines must be mentioned here. A close examination at the museum revealed that the winged creatures of the first type were glued after restoration on the top of the disc- and horn-shaped plaques, whereas those of the second type are modelled of a piece with the discs. The association of a bird and horns of consecration may recall the Minoan terracotta bird modelled on horns of consecration found in a Neopalatial shrine deposit at Ayia Triada (Pl. LXIXa).11 However, this bird, fashioned in a naturalistic style with its wings closed, is perched on the horns,12 and thus is very different from the Tanagra winged creatures on the top of the disc- and horn-shaped plaques. There is also no close resemblance between the Tanagra winged creatures and the Late Minoan bird figurines from Palaikastro,13 whose wings are less extended than the Tanagra winged creatures. Stylistically, the terracotta birds fixed on a tree from the Early Iron Age cemetery of Fortetsa near Knossos, which have open wings and a more schematized style (Pl. LXIXb),14 resemble the Tanagra winged creatures more closely than the aforementioned Minoan birds, without being a close parallel for them. Therefore, to date, the zoomorphic winged figurines perched atop the disc- and horn-shaped plaques from Tanagra are unique; they do not find any close comparanda either in Minoan Crete or in Mycenaean Greece.


Or a butterfly: V.L. ARAVANTINOS, “La terre cuite en Béotie. Une tradition millénaire (XIVe-Ve siècles). Les nécropoles mycéniennes de Tanagra,” in V. JEAMMET (ed.), Tanagra. Mythe et archéologie (2003) 73-74, no. 27. For a LM IB dragonfly bead of copper from Mochlos (Building C.7): J.S. SOLES, “The Symbolism of Certain Minoan/Mycenaean Beads from Mochlos,” in M.-L. NOSCH and R. LAFFINEUR (eds), KOSMOS. Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age (2012) 457, Pl. CXIII. For a dragonfly and a butterfly on a seal from Thebes (Kolonaki, Tomb 17, LH IIIA1-IIIA2): CMS V.2 no. 677c-1; this is a carnelian three-sided prism, with hound and butterfly on its two other sides. DEMAKOPOULOU and KONSOLA (supra n. 1) 44; ARAVANTINOS (supra n. 1) 100. This larnax has also been used as a model for the tentative reconstruction of a wooden coffin decorated with emblematic figures of shields as finials from the Prehistoric Cemetery at Mycenae: L. PAPAZOGLOUMANIOUDAKI, “Gold and Ivory Objects at Mycenae and Dendra Revealed. Private Luxury and/or Insignia Dignitatis,” in NOSCH and LAFFINEUR eds (supra n. 7) 451-452. E. BANOU, “Minoan ‘Horns of Consecration’ Revisited: A symbol of Sun Worship in Palatial and Postpalatial Crete?,” Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 8/1 (2008) 39. The so-called Minoan “snake tubes” with vertical multiple handles resembling the snake-like undulations, the handles have nothing in common with the winged creatures from Tanagra. For these tubes: G.C. GESELL, Town, Palace, and House Cult in Minoan Crete (1985) 53, Pls 140-149, including an example with a snake symbol applied on the tube from Prinias, see Pl. 146. For the adding of symbols such as horns of consecration on these tubes, e.g. from Gournia, Independent Sanctuary, see GESELL (supra) 51, 53, Pls 119, 140; also M.P. NILSSON, The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and its Survival in Greek Religion (19502) 81, fig. 14; or birds, e.g. from Kommos, see GESELL (supra) 52, Pl. 144. C.R. LONG, The Ayia Triadha Sarcophagus: A Study of Late Minoan and Mycenaean Funerary Practices and Beliefs (1974) 31, Pl. 14, fig. 36. See also a model of female figure in a circular ground, kneeling or squatting in front of a slab or a table, with a bird and horns of consecration laying on the edge of the circle, both modelled in the round, from Kamilari, Tomb 1: LONG (supra n. 11) 31, fig. 34; GOODISON (supra n. 5) 86, fig. 186. R.M. DAWKINS, “Excavations at Palaikastro. III,” BSA 10 (1903-04) 217, fig. 6, also pp. 219-220. J.A. SAKELLARAKIS, Musée d’Hérakleion. Guide illustré du musée (1978) 104-105, for the context, see p. 100.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 14





TERRACOTTA BIRDS AND HYBRID WINGED CREATURES FROM TANAGRA




283

Further particular traits are encountered in these zoomorphic winged creatures. It is first worth noting that, according to their excavator, a short tang from the base of the horns of consecration was certainly intended to be inserted into the lids of the larnakes, since the restored lid of a larnax from Tomb 6 has some holes at its corners provided for that purpose.15 In other cases, the figurines may have been stuck onto the lid,16 most likely on its short sides.17 Nevertheless, it must be stressed that the tang is not a trait encountered in the hybrid winged creatures of the second type, where the base of the stylized horns of consecration is flat. In this case, they may have been deposited with other funerary offerings in the tomb outside the larnakes or on their lids.18 It is worth noting that some lids of Cretan larnakes were adorned with clay figures but these are mostly protomes of horned animals modelled at the ends of gabled lids,19 and no winged zoomorphic creatures are known. Next, it should be observed that some of the winged figurines have holes going through their heads. This feature is shown in the bird-like creatures now fixed on the lid of the larnax (inv. 47643) exhibited at the Museum of Thebes. In the excavator’s opinion, these holes may have served to suspend the figurine, where the plaque had no tang for insertion.20 However, in our opinion, it seems unlikely that this is so, inasmuch they are too far from the centre of the figurine, too small and close to the edge of the head to ensure a safe suspension of the winged figurines by a metal thread. In the creatures of the first type, these holes coincide with the location of possible horns or with the eyes encircled with a black line. In two winged figurines of the second type (inv. 35879 and 35880), the holes are filled with lead. These might be the remains of horns, as suggested by their excavator.21 This is why it has been suggested that some of them may have been bovine-headed.22 Nevertheless, both figurines are not only holed on the forehead but also pierced in several places on the body. Moreover, the excavator also reports the presence of a blade of lead on the head and in front of the “wings” in a figurine.23 Therefore, it is possible that these small holes on the body may have been used to fix some external adornment. The zoomorphic winged terracotta figurines and plaques of both types are decorated with black painted linear, straight or curved, patterns applied on a white slip. More precisely, regarding winged figurines of the first type, black lines and bands are seen running along their body and head, and crossing their wings and tail. The area of the holes on their forehead is also encircled by a black line. As regards the winged figurines of the second type, most of them show black lines running along the edges of the body. The wings are striped by two or three bands as well. Their eyes are clearly indicated, below the holes where they exist. The discs mounted on the pairs of horns are decorated on both sides, mostly with a stylized ivy leaf depicted with a single or double line. A spoked motif is painted on both faces of two discs belonging to the first type of winged figurines. As regards the second type, one of the discs is ornamented with crossed and curved lines, another with an outline motif in the form of a keyhole (inv. 35880). A disc- and


Th.G. SPYROPOULOS, “Ἀνασκαφὴ μυκηναϊκοῦ νεκροταφείου Τανάγρας,” Prakt (1969) [1971] 10, also Pl. 7β; SPYROPOULOS (supra n. 2) 188. SPYROPOULOS (supra n. 4) 8. SPYROPOULOS (supra n. 4) 9. ARAVANTINOS (supra n. 6) 74. L. MORGAN, “A Minoan Larnax from Knossos,” BSA 82 (1987) 174. However, for a head of animal on a flat lid of a larnax from Knossos, see MORGAN (supra) 173, fig. 2. For a nude female figurine modelled and a head of bull on the edge of the rounded gabled lid of a LM IIIB1 larnax from Episkopi (A16), see MORGAN (supra) 191, also p. 174, n. 11, referring among others to A. KANTA, The Late Minoan III Period in Crete. A Survey of Sites, Pottery and their Distribution (1980) fig. 63.1-5. On a human head from the gable end of the larnax from Kalochorafitis and another from the gable end of the Malia-Perivolia larnax, see A. KARETSOU, “Excavation Report, The Larnakes from Tomb B/1973,” in A. KARETSOU and L. GIRELLA (eds), Kalochorafitis. Two Chamber Tombs from the LM IIIA 2-B Cemetery. A Contribution to Post-palatial Funerary Practice in the Mesara (2015) 57, figs 3.7 and 3.8. SPYROPOULOS (supra n. 15) 13. SPYROPOULOS (supra n. 4) 9. BANOU (supra n. 9) 39. SPYROPOULOS (supra n. 4) 9.

15

16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23






284


Laetitia PHIALON and Vassilis L. ARAVANTINOS

horn-shaped plaque without a winged figurine preserved can be added to this series (inv. 49692): a chevron is painted between two vertical lines ending a the top in volute-like spirals recalling a late version of the papyrus motif on one side, with a multi-spoke wheel motif on the other. The flat disc has been compared to the body of the Phi-type figurines by the excavator,24 but this comparison applies only to a single disc of this series decorated with vertical, slightly wavy lines (inv. 25534). A painted band emphasizes the circumference of both discs and horns. The pairs of horns are either plain, marked by a horizontal straight line or two curved lines. One pair of horns belonging to the winged figurines of the first type is however decorated with a row of three lozenges. Finally, it must be stated that a third type of zoomorphic winged creatures is encountered among the terracottas from Tanagra (Pl. LXIXc). These are two small figurines, both recovered along with human bones from the interior of a larnax exhibited in the Museum of Thebes (inv. 47644). Their body and tail, as well as their wings spread wide, are rendered in a rigid way. It is uncertain as to whether these zoomorphic figurines represent hybrid winged creatures, or fantastic birds, characterized by a very particular tubular head. Some black stripes on their wings are preserved, which recalls the pattern decorating the zoomorphic winged creatures perched atop the disc- and horn-shaped plaques. On the picture published in the 1971 excavation report, a plaque made of a disc and a rectangular base can be seen next to these two zoomorphic winged creatures with a possible third one nearby.25 This conjunction suggests that one of the winged creatures may originally have been set on the top of the plaque. Ordinary birds from Tanagra In addition to the zoomorphic winged creatures described above, a series of small terracotta birds has been discovered in the chamber tombs at Tanagra. Six bird figurines registered in the inventory books at the museum of Thebes are now all exhibited (Pl. LXXa). One of them is already published (inv. 35832).26 However, none of them corresponds to the bird discovered in Tomb 103 and illustrated in the 1976 excavation report.27 In all likelihood, two supplementary bird figurines exhibited at the museum in two distinct show cases come also from Tanagra. In addition, a small terracotta bird still remains in a larnax kept in the storerooms of the Museum of Thebes. Finally, two further bird figurines are inventoried in the Museum database but not exhibited. All in all, it is now possible to list twelve small terracotta birds discovered in the Tanagra cemeteries (Appendix 2). Most of these birds have a plump body with a short slightly raised but flat tail, except for two figurines with a more elongated body. These birds have a long neck and three legs, of which a pair are placed at either front or rear of the body. Short rounded wings spread from the body of three of them. The wings of the others are not indicated. The twelve terracotta birds are all painted, with various linear patterns. The closest comparanda for the terracotta birds from Tanagra come from the Mycenaean settlement at Kynos (Pl. LXXb). The bird figurines, which are also characterized by three legs, are of the same type as those from Tanagra, as already pointed out by E. Alram-Stern.28 More precisely, the Kynos birds, which are numbered from 1 to 6, come from LH IIIB2-IIIC Early (nos 1, 5) and LH IIIC


SPYROPOULOS (supra n. 2) 196. Ergon (1971) [1972] 18, fig. 18. The tomb 5 is indicated in the caption of this picture but the larnax of the so-called Tomb 5 in Ergon (1971) [1972] 15, fig. 12, comes certainly from Tomb 51, see the same illustration in SPYROPOULOS (supra n. 4) Pl. 18β (Tomb 51). ARAVANTINOS (supra n. 6) 78, no. 32. Th.G. SPYROPOULOS “Ἀνασκαφὴ μυκηναϊκῆς Τανάγρας,” Prakt (1976) [1978] 67, Pl. 32ζ right; = Ergon (1976) [1977] 12, fig. 9. The discovery of ordinary bird figurines is reported without illustrations and contexts in SPYROPOULOS (supra n. 15) 14, and Ergon (1971) [1972] 20, both references cited in E. ALRAM-STERN, “The Mycenaean Bird Figurines from Kynos. Their Typology, Meaning and Function,” in M.-Ph. PAPAKONSTANTINOU, Ch. KRITZAS and I.P. TOURATSOGLOU (eds), Πύρρα. Μελέτες για την αρχαιολογία στην Κεντρική Ελλάδα προς τιμήν της Φανουρίας Δακορώνια, Α´ Προϊστορικοί χρόνοι (2018) 11, n. 6. ALRAM-STERN (supra n. 27) 14.

24 25

26 27

28





TERRACOTTA BIRDS AND HYBRID WINGED CREATURES FROM TANAGRA




285

Middle (nos 2-4) contexts.29 This author identifies them as water birds and stresses their resemblance with a bird from Tanagra, having “a long neck, an upturned tail and linear design similar to nos 1-6 from Kynos”.30 In the light of the aforementioned examples, the Early Minoan date of the very particular vessel made of three birds, each three-legged, from the Giamalakis Collection31 should probably be revised. The shape of these birds is close to that of the terracotta birds from Tanagra and Kynos, which could lead one to attribute this triple vessel to the LM IIIB-IIIC phase, despite its similarities to an EM birdshaped juglet from Lebena32 and Early Iron Age theriomorphic pottery vases composed of two or three birds from Knossos.33 In Mycenaean Greece, terracotta birds were mainly found in settlement contexts 34 and more rarely in cult places. 35 The discovery of terracotta birds in Mycenaean funerary contexts is quite unusual.36 Thus, the discovery of twelve terracotta birds in the chamber tombs at Tanagra is exceptional. Similarly, the two terracotta bird figurines from the post-palatial cemetery at Perati (Tombs 151 and Σ23α) comprise further rare examples found in funerary contexts on the Greek mainland:37 the head of the first bird is missing, as well as the head and a part of the tail of the second one. Despite that, it is obvious that their shapes are different from the birds from Tanagra, since the Perati birds stand on a stem protruding vertically from their bodies. This bird is not represented flying, unlike another LH IIIC bird figurine with spread wings found this time in a settlement context at Mycenae.38 The cemetery at Perati is famous in providing many exotica, among them a cylinder seal from Tomb 142 showing a flying bird in front of a divinity,39 whose subject is of Egyptian/Syrian origins but its manufacture is assigned to Cypriot workshop,40 and a Syro-Palestinian knife with a handle in the shape of a duck-head, in Tomb 12.41 These two imported objects were certainly selected to be buried with the deceased not only because of their economic value, but also because Aegean communities


ALRAM-STERN (supra n. 27) 12, for the other birds nos 7-10 coming from LH IIIB2-IIIC Early and LH IIIC Middle contexts, see pp. 13-14. ALRAM-STERN (supra n. 27) 15. S. MARINATOS and M. HIRMER, Kreta, Thera und das mykenische Hellas (1973) fig. 9. J. BINNBERG, “Like a Duck to Water – Birds and Liquids in the Aegean Bronze Age,” BSA 114 (2019) 49, fig. 4. M. GUGGISBERG, “Vogelschwärme im Gefolge der Grossen Göttin: Zu einem Drillingsvogelgefäss der Sammlung Giamalakis,” AntKunst 41 (1998) 85, e.g. a composite vase assigned to PGB from the North cemetery at Knossos, see p. 72, Pl. 13.3. ALRAM-STERN (supra n. 27) 13; e.g. at Asine: O. FRÖDIN and A.W. PERSSON, Asine. Results of the Swedish Excavations, 1922-1930 (1938) 309-310, fig. 213.2. Even the objects including a terracotta bird from the Atreus Bothros are thought to originate from a habitation area, see I. TZONOU-HERBST, A Contextual Analysis of Mycenaean Terracotta Figurines, Ph.D. Diss. University of Cincinnati (2002) 127. For instance, only four bird figurines are counted among the roughly 150 anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines collected at Amyklaion: K. DEMAKOPOULOU, “Η πρώιμη λατρεία στις Αμύκλες: το μυκηναϊκό Ιερό,” Μουσείο Μπενάκη 11-12 (2012) 105. Also V. VLACHOU, “From Mycenaean Cult Practice to the Hyakinthia Festival of the Spartan Polis. Cult Images, Textiles and Ritual Activity at Amykles: An Archaeological Perspective,” in A. TSINGARIDA and I.S. LEMOS (eds), Constructing Social Identities in Early Iron Age and Archaic Greece (2017) 14. ALRAM-STERN (supra n. 27) 11. S.E. IAKOVIDIS, Περατή. Το νεκροταφείον (1969-1970) A, 147; Γ, Pl. 43.δ; and A, 366, no. 544; Γ, Pl. 109.α. Both figurines are mentioned in ALRAM-STERN (supra n. 27) 11, n. 6. A. TAMVAKI, “Some Unusual Mycenaean Terracottas from the Citadel House Area, 1954–69,” BSA 68 (1973) 223, no. 52, fig. 9. Also M. VETTERS, Die spätbronzezeitlichen Terrakotta-Figurinen aus Tiryns (2019) 222, n. 1826. IAKOVIDIS (supra n. 37) A, 223-225, Γ, Pl. 65γ. E.H. CLINE, Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea. International Trade and the Late Bronze Age Aegean (1994) 153, no. 177. IAKOVIDIS (supra n. 37) A, 305, 313, M52, M53; Γ, Pl. 95; also S. DEGER-JALKOTZY, “Late Mycenaean Warrior Tombs,” in S. DEGER-JALKOTZY and I.S. LEMOS (eds), Ancient Greece. From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer (2006) 156.

29

30 31 32

33

34

35

36 37

38

39 40 41






286


Laetitia PHIALON and Vassilis L. ARAVANTINOS

attached importance to the images of birds. The symbolic meaning of the birds and winged creatures at Tanagra require to be thoroughly discussed here. Birds depicted on Tanagra larnakes In the cemeteries at Tanagra, birds are not only represented by terracottas, but are also depicted on larnakes. On two larnakes, the giant creatures are probably water birds, because of their plump bodies and quite long necks. On the two long sides of the first larnax, the central human figure is flanked by two oversized birds standing in an antithetical position.42 By contrast, the giant bird on the other larnax follows two men (Pl. LXXc). 43 A good parallel for the birds depicted on a third larnax is the representation of two flanking a central motif on a Minoan larnax, kept in the Museum of Rethymnon (unknown findplace), but this time, the central motif is a palm and not a human figure.44 On a larnax from Armenoi are depicted two flying birds in antithetical position with a papyrus squeezed between them.45 Apart from their overly large size, the birds painted on the Tanagra larnakes quite resemble water birds, and thus are more akin to the bird figurines examined above than to the winged creatures atop the disc- and horn-shaped plaques from Tanagra. The same can be said for the birds represented on Late Minoan larnakes, which seem to depict real animals in scenes of a hunt, in a natural setting, with quadrupeds, or in antithetical compositions; they come from various cemeteries, notably at Armenoi and Episkopi.46 From the study of M.P. Nilsson,47 which suggests that the species are usually hardly recognizable in the Minoan and Mycenaean iconographic repertoire, various bird types have been identified in Minoan art.48 For instance, a bird with a tail open wide, such an example painted on a LM IIIA larnax from Palaikastro, Sitias,49 resembles a peacock. Nevertheless, on Minoan pottery and larnakes, most of the birds were probably water bird. 50 Birds, including water birds, were frequently depicted on


DEMAKOPOULOU and KONSOLA (supra n. 1) 83, no. 11. E. VERMEULE, “Painted Mycenaean Larnakes,” JHS 85 (1965) no. 5, Pl. XXVIIIa. Also W. CAVANAGH and C. MEE, “Mourning before and after the Dark Age,” in Ch. MORRIS (ed.), Klados. Essays in Honour of J. N. Coldstream (1995) 61, no. 35. Larnax in the Museum of Heraklion (the link metope of a long side is divided into two superimposed zones, each decorated with birds flanking a palm), LM IIIB, see C. MAVRIYANNAKI, Recherches sur les larnakes de Crète Occidentale (1972) 63-65, 67, no. 7, Pls XX, XXI; L.V. WATROUS, “The Origin and Iconography of the Late Minoan Painted Larnax,” Hesperia 60 (1991) 296, Pl. 87a. For a scene featuring two birds facing each other and three palm trees (one of them raising from the middle of horns of consecration) on a LM IIIA2 larnax from Sata Amariou Rethymnis : N. PROKOPIOU, L. GODART and A. TZIGOUNAKI, “ΥΜ θολωτός τάφος Σάτας Αμαρίου Ρεθύμνης,” in Πεπραγμένα του ΣΤ´ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου (Χανιά, 24-30 Αυγούστου 1986) Α Τμήμα Αρχαιολογικό 2 (1990) 201-202, fig. 6. For two birds pecking a palm tree on a larnax from Prevelianon: WATROUS (supra) 296, Pl. 84e. Tomb 24, short side of the larnax no. 1, LM IIIA2: I. TZEDAKIS, “Ἀνασκαφὴ εἰς Ἀρμένους Ρεθύμνης,” ArchDelt (1971) B2 [1975] 516, Pl. 527γ; WATROUS (supra n. 44) Pl. 87g. LONG (supra n. 11) 40, 43, n. 64, 66; WATROUS (supra n. 44) 293, 295-301, e.g. Pl. 92a (Armenoi), Pl. 85d (Episkopi); K. BAXEVANI-KOUZIONI and S. MARKOULAKI “Une tombe à chambre MR III à Pankalochori,” BCH 120/2 (1996) fig. 38 (Pankalochori); and the larnakes cited in footnote 44; also MAVRIYANNAKI (supra n. 44) 75-77, no. 10, Pls XXXIV-XXXVI. NILSSON (supra n. 10) 338. On bird species, see M. MASSETI, “Representations of Birds in Minoan Art,” International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 7 (1997) 354-363. This bird is depicted on the right metope, a fish on the left one: R.C. BOSANQUET, “Excavations at Palaikastro. I,” BSA 8 (1901/1902) 300, Pl. 19, and for the other long side, see Pl. 18. Also NILSSON (supra n. 10) 170, fig. 71; B. RUTKOWSKI, Larnaksy egejskie (1966) Pl. XX.1; MARINATOS and HIRMER (supra n. 31) fig. 131 above; LONG (supra n. 11) Pl. 12, fig. 27; WATROUS (supra n. 44) Pl. 82b. For water birds on a stirrup jar from Argos, Deiras: J.-C. POURSAT, L’art égéen. 2. Mycènes et le monde mycénien (2014) 226, 228, fig. 316. On birds depicted on LM II-III pottery, see POURSAT (supra) 134-137, figs 171-

42 43

44

45

46

47 48

49

50





TERRACOTTA BIRDS AND HYBRID WINGED CREATURES FROM TANAGRA




287

Mycenaean pottery as well, especially on vases from the Argolid.51 The birds depicted on the Tanagra larnakes have much more in common with Aegean pictorial pottery than with wall-painting. It is worth stressing that the bird depicted on the second above-mentioned larnax from Tanagra appears in a natural setting, which gives the scenes a pastoral atmosphere (see Pl. LXXc), but the fact that two papyri are shown behind the bird suggests it is more probably a Nilotic landscape (see below, under vegetal motifs). This recalls the composition made up of birds set all around papyrus flowers depicted on the Minoan larnax from Vassilika Anogeia,52 suggesting a renewal of Egyptian influence in LM IIIA2 Crete.53 There is a common understanding that papyrus flowers and water birds are part of Nilotic landscapes,54 which may refer in funerary contexts to the Afterworld.55 This interpretation may be applicable to the scene represented on the larnax from Tanagra, where the oversized bird follows the two men in their last journey, that is to say in a transitional process taking place under the divine auspices. If the Afterworld is depicted on Minoan post-palatial larnakes, this landscape may have been conceived of as a fantastic but still somewhat familiar setting, fertile and attractive, composed of horned animal, birds and vegetation.56 Furthermore, a fragmentary flat lid of larnax from Tanagra is also decorated with the motif of a bird, which is sketched in, together with various decorative motifs in an untidy composition. For comparison, the birds depicted on the gabled lid and chest of a Minoan larnax from Kavrochori Maleviziou also appear in untidy compositions.57 It is very likely that the birds had not only a decorative but also a strong symbolic value, which should be interpreted in connection with the other depicted motifs. On the lid from Tanagra, the bird appears with horns of consecration too. Before turning to the


174; P. WARREN, “More Birds at Late Minoan Knossos”, in M. BETTELLI, M. DEL FREO and G.J. VAN WIJNGAARDEN (eds), Mediterranea Itinera. Studies in Honour of Lucia Vagnetti (2018) 223-232. Including examples from Tiryns, see VETTERS (supra n. 38) 231, 266-267 and n. 2204, and for water birds, p. 208, n. 1689, and appliques on vases, p. 238, n. 1963, also p. 222, n. 1826, p. 249, n. 2085, and on vase used in a cultic area at Midea, see p. 44, n. 335. For birds depicted on kraters from Enkomi and Ugarit: E. VERMEULE and V. KARAGEORGHIS, Mycenaean Pictorial Vase Painting (1982) 31, 197, IV.6 (Enkomi), and p. 42 (“discussed mythologically”), also pp. 200-201, V.8; V. KARAGEORGHIS, “Myth and Epic in Mycenaean Vase Painting,” AJA 62/4 (1958) 384, Pl. 101, fig. 10 (Ugarit / Ras Shamra). Birds are depicted in a natural setting on a Minoan larnax from Vassilika Anogeia around papyrus flowers: MARINATOS and HIRMER (supra n. 31) fig. 130 below; SAKELLARAKIS (supra n. 14) 109; WATROUS (supra n. 44) 296, Pl. 83f. WATROUS (supra n. 44) 296, 302, Pl. 83.f; POURSAT (supra n. 50) 231-232, fig. 323. A. EVANS, The Palace of Minos Vol. IV: Part I (1935) 330, 332; M. POLOGIORGI, “Παρατηρήσεις στην παράσταση μορφής με υψωμένα χέρια σε Υστερομινωική ΙΙΙ λάρνακα από το Αποδούλου,” in Πεπραγμένα του ΣΤ´ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου (Χανιά, 24-30 Αυγούστου 1986) Α Τμήμα Αρχαιολογικό 2 (1990) 213; BAXEVANI-KOUZIONI and MARKOULAKI (supra n. 46) 668. WATROUS (supra n. 44) 296, 298, 304-305. Also G. RETHEMIOTAKIS, “Λάρνακες και αγγεία από το Καβροχώρι Ηρακλείου,” ArchDelt 34 (1979) A [1986] 246-248; cited in KARETSOU (supra n. 19) 104. For a reference to the Elysian fields, see NILSSON (supra n. 10) 624; RETHEMIOTAKIS (supra n. 55) 258; G. RETHEMIOTAKIS, “Μινωικὴ λάρνακα ἀπὸ τὸ Κλῆμα Μεσαρᾶς,” AEph 134 (1995) [1997] 180; also E. VERMEULE, Aspects of Death in Early Greek Art and Poetry (1979) 68; for the Greek etymology: C. SOURVINOU-INWOOD, Minoan and Mycenaean Afterlife Beliefs and their Relevance to the Homeric Underworld (1973) 335-338; with a warning on making identifications of ‘Minoan religious survivals’ in historical Greek religion: C. SOURVINOU-INWOOD, ‘Reading’ Greek Death. To the End of the Classical Period (1995) 30, 3435, 49, 107. On the symbolic landscape represented on Minoan larnakes: N. MARINATOS, Minoan Religion. Ritual, Image, and Symbol (1993) 234-235. On the best preserved long side of the chest, the bird perches on a vegetal motif, perhaps a palm, along with a kind of chariot, two quadrupeds, a nautilus and a shell, whereas two birds and various motifs (vegetal and marine) decorate the lid, LM IIIA2-IIIB: RETHEMIOTAKIS (supra n. 55) 231, fig. 3, Pl. 93, for the other long side, also with a bird, see p. 232, fig. 4, Pl. 94. Also WATROUS (supra n. 44) Pl. 89c; POURSAT (supra n. 50) 232, 235, fig. 330.

51

52

53 54

55

56

57






288


Laetitia PHIALON and Vassilis L. ARAVANTINOS

association of birds and pairs of horns, it is essential to explore the symbolic meaning of the birds in Minoan and Mycenaean beliefs. Birds as religious symbols Terracotta birds discovered in Minoan cult places, in Protopalatial contexts, such as in the Juktas peak sanctuary, 58 and in Neopalatial ones, were certainly part of the offerings brought there. 59 In Mycenaean funerary contexts, notably at Tanagra and Perati, terracotta birds were certainly deposited in the grave as offerings. Nevertheless, in Minoan Crete, the birds are also to be interpreted as attributes of the female divinity or her messengers,60 and when they appear in ritual scenes,61 as the sign of a divine epiphany. 62 Birds, especially birds of prey, 63 are frequently associated with images of religious architecture and sacred symbols such as tripartite altars and horns of consecration.64 On the whole Minoan Post-palatial period birds are closely associated with a female deity. For instance, birds perch on the heads of some terracotta figures with raised arms, which are most often interpreted as representations of goddesses or as cult images,65 such as the examples from Knossos and Gazi.66 There is reason to believe that the bird acquired a religious value in Mycenaean Greece close to that prevailing in Minoan Crete. The bird, probably a dove, represented flying in front of the lyre player on the famous wall painting in the palace at Pylos is also perceived as larger than life, if compared with the human figures,67 and would be a good illustration of a divine presence in the palatial sphere. Birds certainly played a role in the Mycenaean cult, possibly as sacred animals.68 Moreover, common scholarly


Three terracotta birds from a MM IB-IIA find context, which provided also a stone kernos and pebbles: A. KARETSOU, with a contribution by R.D.G. EVELY, “Two Stone Kernoi from the Juktas Peak Sanctuary,” in E. MANTZOURANI and P.P. BETANCOURT (eds), Philistor. Studies in Honor of Costis Davaras (2012) 89, fig. 10.12. GESELL (supra n. 10) 53, “and not symbols of the goddess”, about birds found in the open-air Piazzale dei Sacelli. MARINATOS (supra n. 56) 155. GOODISON (supra n. 5) 49. NILSSON (supra n. 10) 330-340; GOODISON (supra n. 5) 80; POURSAT (supra n. 50) 248 (about birds on LM IIIC figures with raised arms). On a gold ring from the LH IIA Griffin Warrior at Pylos: J.L. DAVIS and S.R. STOCKER, “The Lord of the Gold Rings. The Griffin Warrior of Pylos,” Hesperia 85 (2016) 651, see also p. 644, fig. 11. On a bird of prey assimilated to Athena herself, as mentioned in the Iliad XIX.350, see N. MARINATOS, Minoan Kingship and the Solar Goddess. A Near Eastern Koine (2010) 99; on Gods (Athena and Apollo) in the form of birds, see comment in G.E. MYLONAS, Μυκηναϊκή θρησκεία. Ναοί, βωμοί και τεμένη / Mycenaean religion. Τemples, altars and temenae (1977) 118-119. MARINATOS (supra n. 63) 67-69, figs 5.1-5.6. For a gold ornament from Grave Circle A at Mycenae: GESELL (supra n. 10) 35, Pl. 23 (Mycenae, gold ornament); GOODISON (supra n. 5) 80, fig. 155.a; MARINATOS (supra n. 63) cover plate. GESELL (supra n. 10) 53; POURSAT (supra n. 50) 209, Pl. LXXI (LM IIIA1-IIIA2 figure from Knossos), and pp. 248-250, figs 349, 351 (LM IIIC figures from Gazi and Karphi). By contrast, F. Gaignerot-Driessen argues for interpreting them as “symbolic representations of votaries”, see F. GAIGNEROT-DRIESSEN, “Goddesses Refusing to Appear? Reconsidering the Late Minoan III Figures with Upraised Arms,” AJA 118 (2014) 489, 491, 513. Knossos, Shrine of Double Axes: A. EVANS, The Palace of Minos Vol. II: Part I (1928) 340, fig. 193. Gazi: S. ALEXIOU, “ Ἡ μινωϊκὴ θεὰ μεθ’ ὑψωμένων χειρῶν,” KretChron (1958) 188-192, Pl. E’, fig. 3. Conversely, on Minoan figures with upraised arms seen as “symbolic representations of votaries”: GAIGNEROTDRIESSEN (supra n. 65) 489, 491, 513. See M.L. LANG, The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia. 2, The Frescoes (1969) 79-80, Pls 125-126. About birds receiving offerings on the tablets from Thebes, see M. DEL FREO, “Mic. ke-re-na-i nei nuovi testi in lineare B di Tebe,” in V. LA ROSA, D. PALERMO and L. VAGNETTI (eds), Ἐπὶ πόντον πλαζόμενοι. Simposio italiano di studi egei dedicato a Luigi Bernabò Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli (1998), 299-304; D.P. ROUSIOTI, “Did the Mycenaeans Believe in Theriomorphic Divinities?,” in R. LAFFINEUR and R.

58

59

60 61 62

63

64

65

66

67 68





TERRACOTTA BIRDS AND HYBRID WINGED CREATURES FROM TANAGRA




289

opinion connects water birds and the Aegean potnia herself to the notion of fertility and the regeneration cycle.69 This raises the question whether the same meaning can be attributed to birds represented in Mycenaean funerary contexts. One may first mention the discovery of beads in the shape of ducks in two Mycenaean tombs, respectively at Aidonia in Corinthia and Lazarides on Aegina, 70 which are similar to the beads worn in necklace by the female figure, a divinity or priestess, on the wall painting of Xeste 3 at Akrotiri.71 An interesting point is that the painted scenes on larnakes, which include different kinds of birds, vary in composition and motifs. For instance, on a Minoan larnax, birds having tails open wide seem to have been hunted, as were two cows and their young as well as a wild goat with its young.72 In a different schema, the bird is the central motif represented on a panel of another larnax.73 Birds are also frequently involved in Nilotic landscapes,74 as already mentioned above. A bird can also be depicted close to a female figure, as illustrated by a LM IIIA1 clay larnax from Knossos, on which a bird is hovering near the head of a female figure with upraised arms (Pl. LXXIa).75 A second female figure is represented on the same long side in a gesture of adoration.76 According to Livia Morgan, “the two women are priestess, the one on the right of higher standing in the religious ritual than the other” and “the bird, unless it alludes to the natural world over which the deity presides, may function as a mediator between human and divine or between living and dead”.77 By contrast, on one short side of the sarcophagus of Ayia Triada, a bird is shown flying over the griffins that draw the chariot conducted by two standing female figures interpreted as deities.78 On a long side of the same sarcophagus, the birds with spread wings are seen perched on double axes surmounting pillars, in the left part of the scene, 79 where two women, most likely priestesses, 80 are bearing buckets in order to perform libations, followed by a man carrying a lyre. The birds perched on


HÄGG (eds), POTNIA. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age (2001) 310-311. In detail V. ARAVANTINOS, L. GODART and A. SACCONI, Thèbes. Fouilles de la Cadmée I (2001) esp. 323, s.v. kere-n-a-i. ROUSIOTI (supra n. 68) 310; K. KOPAKA, “A Day in Potnia’s Life. Aspects of Potnia and Reflected “Mistress” Activities in the Aegean Bronze Age,” in LAFFINEUR and HÄGG (supra n. 68) 17. N. SGOURITSA, “Remarks on Jewels from the Mycenaean Settlement and Cemetery at Lazarides on Eastern Aegina,” in NOSCH and LAFFINEUR (supra n. 7) 542. E.g., Ch. DOUMAS, Οι Τοιχογραφίες της Θήρας (1992) 162-163, figs 125-126. Tomb 11, LM IIIB: I. TZEDAKIS, “Λάρνακες Ὑστερομινωικοῦ νεκροταφείου Ἀρμένων,” AAA 4 (1971) 217, fig. 4 and Pl. III.3. Also VERMEULE (supra n. 55) 66, fig. 24; WATROUS (supra n. 44) Pl. 92a. On representations of bird hunting in the LBA Aegean, see I. PAPAGEORGIOU, “The Practice of Bird Hunting in the Aegean of the Second Millennium BC: An Investigation,” BSA 109 (2014) 111-128, 438440. On the early 11th century pottery in Cyprus, scenes with birds are interpreted as possible hunt scenes, where birds are caught in nets or trapped, see V. VLACHOU, “Aspects of Hunting in early Greece and Cyprus: a Re-examination of the ‘Comb Motif’,” in M. IACOVOU (ed.), Cyprus and the Aegean in the Early Iron Age. The Legacy of Nicolas Coldstream (2012) 353-354. Another issue is the consuming of birds in cult places. A review of the animal osteological material is beyond the scope of this article; for osteological material: D.P. ROUSIOTI, Ιερά και θρησκευτικές τελετουργίες στην Ανακτορική και Μετανακτορική μυκηναϊκή περίοδο (2018) tables on pp. 474-475, 477-478, 480, and for bird bones at Asine in LH IIIC, see p. 184. E.g., larnax from Palaikastro: BOSANQUET (supra n. 49) 300, Pl. 19; WATROUS (supra n. 44) Pl. 82b. E.g., larnax from Vassilika Anogeia: WATROUS (supra n. 44) 296, Pl. 83f. MORGAN (supra n. 19) 183, see p. 178, fig. 4 and p. 181, fig. 7. MORGAN (supra n. 19) 177. MORGAN (supra n. 19) 198. We would however not exclude the idea that the woman on the left is a worshipper. LONG (supra n. 11) 31, fig. 26. LONG (supra n. 11) 36, fig. 37. LONG (supra n. 11) 37-38 (or officiant, for the first woman wearing a “hide skirt”); MORGAN (supra n. 19) 198.

69

70

71 72

73 74 75 76 77

78 79 80






290


Laetitia PHIALON and Vassilis L. ARAVANTINOS

double axes on the Ayia Triada sarcophagus, as well as the birds on the so-called swing model from the same site, have been interpreted as the sign of a divine epiphany.81 On the right hand part of the scene of this sarcophagus, three men are presented in row, bringing offerings in the form of two bulls and a boat to a smaller armless male figure at the right extremity of the panel. Various interpretations have been proposed to identify this enigmatic figure: it may represent the body of the deceased man, his spirit, his deified spirit, a male divinity or the cult image (xoanon) of a divinity.82 The interpretation that this figure may have been the spirit of the deceased was suggested by Charlotte R. Long.83 On the Ayia Triada sarcophagus, the birds are not directly linked to the male figure. The idea that birds may be related to the spirit of the deceased leads us back to the zoomorphic winged creatures from Tanagra studied in this article. The bird-like creatures fixed on the lid of larnax from Tanagra have been interpreted by Sarah Immerwahr as “soul-birds”.84 These may have symbolized the metaphysical departure of the soul from the body after death in the Minoan belief. The association of soul and bird evokes the concept of the ancient Egyptian ba, represented as a human-headed bird. Nevertheless, the bird in Minoan religion is not a Cretan version of the Egyptian ba-bird, since the Minoan bird is not a hybrid human-animal creature.85 Moreover, the Egyptian ba-bird is shown flying over a corpse or entering into the dead “so that he awoke to energy”.86 This movement does not correspond to the attitude of birds depicted on Minoan larnakes. According to Sarah Immerwahr, the “soul-birds” should be interpreted in conjunction with other winged apparitions on the larnakes of Tanagra, those of anthropomorphic figures with batlike wings, as representations of the psyche of the deceased.87 According to Lucy Goodison,88 this last notion is close to the early Greek literary evidence, when “Hector’s soul flutters free” (Iliad XXII, 362), or when “the shades of the dead clamour like the call of wildfowl scattering in panic” (Odyssey XI, 605). However, this does not mean that the soul itself would be represented by a bird in the Late Bronze Age. Another interpretation for the terracotta bird-like or hybrid winged creatures discovery at Tanagra should be considered.




An association of religious symbols (birds, discs, horns of consecration)




As pointed out above, the motifs of birds and horns of consecration are frequently associated in Minoan and Mycenaean iconography.89 For instance, a larnax from Episkopi (Ierapetra) shows on the


G. RETHEMIOTAKIS, Ανθρωπομορφική πηλοπλαστική στην Κρήτη. Από τη Νεοανακτορική έως την Υπομινωική περίοδο (1998) 149-150; cited by N. CUCUZZA, “Minoan Nativity Scenes? The Ayia Triada Swing Model and the Three-Dimensional Representation of Minoan Divine Epiphany,” ASAtene 91, serie III, 13 (2013) [2015] 182, 198. LONG (supra n. 11) 44-50. On the young god dying, see SOURVINOU-INWOOD (supra n. 55, 1973) 274278. LONG (supra n. 11) 50. S.A. IMMERWAHR, “Death and the Tanagra Larnakes,” in J.B. CARTER and S.P. MORRIS (eds), The Ages of Homer. A Tribute to Emily Townsend Vermeule (1995) 117; with reference to DEMAKOPOULOU and KONSOLA (supra n. 1) 84, no. 13, Pl. 44. Also MORGAN (supra n. 19) 184. LONG (supra n. 11) 31. VERMEULE (supra n. 43) 146-147; VERMEULE (supra n. 55) 75. For other divine birds prayed in ancient Egyptian religion, as the falcon of Horus or the ibis of Thoth, see NILSSON (supra n. 10) 626. IMMERWAHR (supra n. 84) 117. On the figure with arms ending in bat-like wings, see N. MARINATOS, “Minoan and Mycenaean Larnakes: a Comparison,” in J. DRIESSEN and A. FARNOUX (eds), La Crète Mycénienne. Actes de la Table Ronde Internationale (1997) 291. GOODISON (supra n. 5) 143. For the gold ornament from Mycenae (Grave Circle A), showing a tripartite Shrine surmounted by horns of consecration and two birds with wings spread, see footnote 64. For the terracotta model of a bird perched on horns of consecration from Ayia Triada (Neopalatial shrine deposit), see footnote 11. On a rhyton from Palaikastro: DAWKINS (supra n. 13) 214, fig. 5. For a seal impression from Mycenae: NILSSON (supra n. 10) 174, fig. 78 (a small pair of horns of consecration inserted between the horns of a larger one and a bird perching upon them; they are resting upon a column on either side of which are a quadruped and a bird).

81

82

83 84

85 86

87

88 89





TERRACOTTA BIRDS AND HYBRID WINGED CREATURES FROM TANAGRA




291

same long side a bird with open tail perched on a bull, next to horns of consecration, together with a bull standing perpendicularly on the left side.90 Furthermore, in light of the Late Minoan terracotta figures from Karphi and Gazi, E. Banou stresses that “the combination as well as the alternating arrangement of birds, horns of consecration and discs on the idols of the ‘Goddess with Upraised Arms’ indicate that they may symbolically complement each other”.91 This link is even truer in the case of the zoomorphic winged figurines mounted on disc- and horn-shaped plaques from Tanagra. The combination of these three elements is essential to better understand the symbolic meaning of the Tanagra bird-like and hybrid winged creatures. To begin this investigation, there is a common scholarly acceptance to interpret discs in the Minoan beliefs as solar discs.92 Rosettes and spoked disks are also assimilated to the solar symbolism, which is linked to the goddess by most scholars. For instance, it has been pointed out that the spoked circular motif or pointed circle was represented on the same scenes together with a seated priestess or goddess, on a seal and a ceramic vase.93 It is thus not surprising to find discs and birds associated in some pictorial scenes.94 Secondly, horns of consecration are a major element of the Minoan cult equipment,95 a very common religious symbol or sacred emblem,96 varying in size and material,97 encountered in various contexts as architectural elements. 98 There is evidence that horns of consecration were linked to sacrificial practices, as illustrated by the bloody horns of consecration depicted on the wall paintings from Xeste 3 at Akrotiri.99 In the same line, it is worth mentioning the sacrificed bull and horns of consecration represented on a seal from Mallia,100 as well as the horns of consecration atop a shrine in the scene of the bull sacrifice on the Ayia Triada sarcophagus. 101 On a gold ring said to be from


S. XANTHOUDIDES, “Γ.’ Ἀρχαιολογικὴ περιφέρεια,” ArchDelt 6 (1920-1921) 158, fig. 5; NILSSON (supra n. 10) 435, fig. 197; WATROUS (supra n. 44) 295, Pl. 85d. BANOU (supra n. 9) 37; with a reference to ALEXIOU (supra n. 66) 263. Also GESELL (supra n. 10) 45: at Karphi, (in LM IIIC) the bird appears on two tiaras; the horns of consecration on a third; disks are used in connection with the bird, see Pl. 48a. Perhaps a shrine to the goddess of the sky, with the symbols of the sun and birds, see BANOU (supra n. 9) 36, fig. 5. NILSSON (supra n. 10) 414; GOODISON (supra n. 5) 13-15; also the rosette, see MARINATOS (supra n. 63) 27-29. GOODISON (supra n. 5) 80, fig. 127.b and c. E.g on pottery vases: GOODISON (supra n. 5) 80, figs 134, 136e, 137. MARINATOS (supra n. 56) 5. E.g in the Shrine of Double Axes at Knossos: NILSSON (supra n. 10) 185; GESELL (supra n. 10) 53, 62, fig. 118. Also in the Temple Tomb at Knossos: EVANS (supra n. 54) 965, 967, fig. 930; MARINATOS (supra n. 56) 89. Horns of consecration crowning altars and facades, were found in Minoan sanctuaries, especially at Knossos, see B. RUTKOWSKI, The Cult Places of the Aegean (1986) 262, s.v. KNOSSOS, horns of consecration, also p. 265, s.v. SACRED EMBLEMS, horns of consecration. A.L. D’AGATA, “Late Minoan Crete and Horns of Consecration: a Symbol in Action,” in R. LAFFINEUR and J.L. CROWLEY (eds), ΕΙΚΩΝ. Aegean Bronze Age Iconography: Shaping a Methodology (1992) 249-252. On stone or clay elements in built environment, see NILSSON (supra n. 10) 165-184; GESELL (supra n. 10) 35, Pls 74-79. On horns of consecration also represented on the roofs of buildings in Minoan Crete: e.g. GESELL (supra n. 10) Pl. 26 (Zakro, Peak Sanctuary Rhyton), also between columns, see Pl. 11 (Knossos, wall-painting). A.G. VLACHOPOULOS, “The Wall Paintings from the Xeste 3 Building at Akrotiri: Towards an Interpretation of the Iconographic Programme,” in N. BRODIE, J. DOOLE, G. GAVALA and C. RENFREW (eds), Horizon Όρίζων. A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades (2015) 491, 496, no. 41.10. Also MARINATOS (supra n. 56) 208, fig. 214. GESELL (supra n. 10) Pl. 115. On representations of bull sacrifices, see also NILSSON (supra n. 10) 230231, fig. 113; GOODISON (supra n. 5) 113, fig. 267. LONG (supra n. 11) 61, figs 86-87. Also GESELL (supra n. 10) Pl. 112b; S. IMMERWAHR, Aegean Painting in the Bronze Age (1990) Pl. 51.

90

91

92

93 94 95

96

97

98

99

100

101






292


Laetitia PHIALON and Vassilis L. ARAVANTINOS

Thebes,102 the bull seen lying in front of an altar might perhaps be expected to be about to meet the same fate. Horns of consecration are depicted on various Minoan larnakes103 as well as on four Tanagra larnakes.104 This religious motif is expected to be encountered during ceremonies, especially when they are set in an architectural setting. In mainland Greece, architectural stone elements in the shape of horns have also been discovered in the citadel of Gla,105 and in the area of the palace at Pylos too.106 Their representation on a wall painting at Pylos confirms their position on the top of buildings. 107 The Mycenaean palatial elites appear to have displayed this religious symbol, which was “traditionally linked to the Minoan official cult”.108 Thus, horns of consecration may have also been used as sacred emblems in Mycenaean Greece. Nevertheless, scholars like E. Banou rightly argue “against a restricted interpretation” of the horns of consecration.109 She points out their resemblance with the Egyptian symbol of “horizon”,110 that is to say the symbol of the Egyptian cosmic mountain consisting of two peaks that define the horizon between which the sun disc rises.111 Twin mountain peaks are not only represented in ancient Egypt but also in Mesopotamia, Syria, Anatolia. 112 The similarity between motifs occurring in different cultures does certainly not imply that they all had the same meaning. Although the hypothesis of a local semantic association or adaptation of a foreign motif in Minoan Crete cannot be ruled out,113 we would rather support the idea of an assimilation of mountain peaks to horns of consecration involving to some extent a fusion of symbolic meanings, without dissociating the latter from bull horns.114 The depiction of a branch emerging from the centre of horns of consecration, such as illustrated on a larnax from Phourni at Archanes115 is in line with a natural setting (Pl. LXXIb). A branch also rises from the centre of the three pairs of horns incised on a bronze plaque from Psychro (Dictaean Cave), which also includes the motifs of a bird and a sun symbol next to a fish and a human figure, probably


NILSSON (supra n. 10) 178-179, fig. 82; CMS V.1 no. 198; Ch. BOULOTIS, “Το μυκηναϊκό κόσμημα,” in Ελληνικά κοσμήματα από τις Συλλογές του Μουσείου Μπενάκη (1999) 58-59, figs 28-29. E.g. WATROUS (supra n. 44) Pl. 82a (Palaikastro), Pl. 85d (Episkopi), Pls 87b-c, e, 88a-b, 92b (Armenoi). Also BAXEVANI-KOUZIONI and MARKOULAKI (supra n. 46) figs 31-32 (Pankalochori). 1) on a short side of larnax, the horns lay on the top of a rectangular building whose entablement is indicated by a row of circles, see Th.G. SPYROPOULOS, “Ἀνασκαφὴ Μυκηναϊκῆς Τανάγρας,” Prakt (1977) [1980], Pl. 13a; Ergon (1977) [1978] fig. 10. - 2) on a short side of another larnax, two horns of consecration also sit on a row of circles, which separates them from two other horns of consecration below, see KANTA (supra n. 19) Pl. 103, no. 1. - 3) the horns depicted on the short side of a third larnax are arranged in three horizontal rows, see VERMEULE (supra n. 43) Pl. XXVIIIb-c. - 4) on the fourth larnax, the corners down to the feet are decorated with a vertical series of horns, see Ergon (1983) [1984] fig. 65. S.E. IAKOVIDIS, Gla and the Kopais in the 13th Century B.C. (2001) 31, Pl. 16:31. C.W. BLEGEN and M. RAWSON, The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia. 1. The Buildings and their Contents (1966) 328, figs 238-239, 271.9. LANG (supra n. 67) 139, 8A3, Pls 78, I, R. Also IMMERWAHR (supra n. 101) 127, fig. 35.c, and p. 196, Py No. 5. This expression is used by A.L. D’Agata for explaining the reappearance of horns of consecration in LM II, notably on Knossian pottery, see D’AGATA (supra n. 97) 253. BANOU (supra n. 9) 41. BANOU (supra n. 9) 28-29, fig. 2. MARINATOS (supra n. 63) 107, fig. 8.4b. MARINATOS (supra n. 63) 107, fig. 8.4c-d. BANOU (supra n. 9) 30. In addition, on some similarities with sun-and-moon symbols, see the schist objects in the form of a crescent supporting a disc, from Tylissos and Phaistos: GOODISON (supra n. 5) 78, fig. 145; see J. HAZZIDAKIS, Les villas minoennes de Tylissos (1934) Pl. XXX.2 (“Deux symboles solaires”). On the dissociation of horns of consecration from bull horns, see BANOU (supra n. 9) 32. Tholos Tomb A: E. SAPOUNA-SAKELLARAKI, “Archanès à l’époque mycénienne,” BCH 114 (1990) 81, fig. 24c. Larnax dated to LM IIIA1.

102

103

104

105 106

107

108

109 110 111 112 113

114 115





TERRACOTTA BIRDS AND HYBRID WINGED CREATURES FROM TANAGRA




293

male.116 As regards the two above-mentioned larnakes from Tanagra,117 we would not exclude the idea that the dotted line or a rippled one that crossed the horns of consecration functioned as a substitute for a branch or a twig. The conceptions of death and regeneration On Minoan larnakes, the disc and horns are associated with birds and not with fantastic creatures. However, the juxtaposition of religious symbols is worth exploring further. It used to be said that horns of consecration and sacrifice of bulls were not directly linked to eschatological beliefs in Minoan Crete,118 but horns assimilated to mountain peaks may be the key for a better understanding of the role played by the winged zoomorphic creatures perched on disc- and horn-shaped plaques from Tanagra. Mountain peaks in Minoan iconography have been compared to the mountains seen as gates in the Near Eastern mythology.119 From there it is easy to understand that the mountains may also be interpreted as gates to the underworld or netherworld. On the basis of Near Eastern iconographic and written sources, N. Marinatos suggests that the Minoan solar goddess had a dual role, due to her access to both the celestial sphere (sky) and the underworld.120 Furthermore, it has been stressed that the motif of the disc rising between the horns of consecration resembles the Egyptian symbol of “horizon”,121 whose iconographic similarity with the headdress of the Egyptian goddess Hathor has also been pointed out. 122 In this respect, it is worth remembering that Hathor was a solar deity, related to the conceptual cycle of regeneration. This is perhaps this specific religious aspect linked to the representation of a pair of horns that Minoans may have integrated into their own local religious and funerary symbolism. Nevertheless, it must be admitted here that the motif of a disc or rosette between the horns of a bucranium has been diffused all over the Eastern Mediterranean, as shown on the ceiling painting of the palace at Malkata and wall paintings of the Senmut tomb at Egyptian Thebes.123 With regards to these cases, Nancy R. Thomas raises the question as to whether the transfer of the motif took place rather from the Aegean to Egypt, quite the opposite to the usual view of a transfer from Egypt to the Aegean, arguing that “a natural fur pattern on cattle [hair on the forehead] developed into a symbol in Aegean art”.124 Thomas leaves the question open. In any case, the combination of a disc and a bucranium suggests a strong link between solar and animal symbolism in Minoan beliefs. Moreover, their depictions on larnakes lead one to connect these symbols further to eschatological beliefs. For instance, on a long side of a larnax from Kalochorafitis in Mesara, decorated with a bull-leaping scene, a bucranium with a rayed circle between its horns appears


GOODISON (supra n. 5) 80, 90, fig. 133, also p. 242, see J. BOARDMAN, The Cretan Collection in Oxford. The Dictaean Cave and Iron Age Crete (1961) 46-47, 49, Pl. XV, no. 217, prob. no later than LM; also NILSSON (supra n. 10) 171, fig. 72. Motifs in the form of horns interpreted as pairs of twin mountain peaks by MARINATOS (supra n. 63) 108, fig. 8.5. Ergon (1983) [1984] fig. 65; VERMEULE (supra n. 43) Pl. XXVIIIb. MARINATOS (supra n. 63) 110. MARINATOS (supra n. 63) 110-113. In the same line, the motif of horns of consecration as a possible Minoan symbol of the “mountain”, see BANOU (supra n. 9) 33. MARINATOS (supra n. 63) 165. See footnote 110. BANOU (supra n. 9) 37. E.g. N.R. THOMAS, “ ‘Hair Stars’ and ‘Sun Disks’ on Bulls and Lions. A Reality Check on Movements of Aegean Symbolic Motifs to Egypt, with Special Reference to the Palace at Malkata,” in E. ALRAMSTERN, F. BLAKOLMER, S. DEGER-JALKOTZY, R. LAFFINEUR and J. WEILHARTNER (eds), Metaphysis. Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age (2016) 134-136; N.R. THOMAS, “Connecting the Pieces: Egypt, Dendra, and the Elusive ‘Kefiu’ Cup,” in J. DRIESSEN (ed.), RA-PI-NE-U. Studies on the Mycenaean World Offered to Robert Laffineur for his 70th Birthday (2016) 329-330, figs 21.4-21.6. THOMAS (supra n. 123, Metaphysis) 136.

116

117 118 119

120 121 122 123

124






294


Laetitia PHIALON and Vassilis L. ARAVANTINOS

on the upper right (Pl. LXXIc),125 whilst another bucranium is flanked by rayed or wheel motifs on the other long side of this larnax.126 According to A. Karetsou, the rayed or wheel motifs are to be equated with the solar symbol, and thus possibly to the divine power. 127 The motif featuring a rayed circle between the horns of a bucranium reoccurs at Pankalochori.128 Bucrania may have been thus associated with the conception of regeneration, although M. P. Nilsson associates their representation with sacrificial practices.129 As pointed out by Robert Laffineur, the conceptions of death and fertility were closely connected, as may further be argued were the sacrificial meaning and libations through the funerary use of animal head rhyta in particular.130 In this respect, it is worth noting that bucrania and horns of consecration are usually not a direct attribute of a Minoan goddess131, except in the case of that “Goddess with Upraised Arms” bearing a tiara surmounted by horns of consecration. As already stressed, horns of consecration was a piece of Minoan cult equipment, a religious symbol and sacred emblem. The link between such horns and the Minoan goddess is mostly suggested more generally by rituals depicted in cultic scenes. Conversely, birds are usually interpreted as close attributes of the divinity. In funerary contexts, birds may have been guardians bespeaking the divine protection and sea journey to a land of regeneration, as suggested by L. Watrous with regards to a Knossian larnax decorated with female figures.132 It is then conceivable that birds represented on four larnakes of Tanagra refer to a similar symbolic meaning. Moreover, if one agrees with J. Binnberg’s suggestion that water and milk may have been connected to bird-shaped vessels and that “notions of fertility and fecundity are ever-present in the beliefs surrounding both liquids”,133 it is thus not surprising to find these vessels in funerary contexts, where they may have links to notions of regeneration.134 Other symbols depicted on larnakes may refer to this sea journey, among them marine animals such as octopuses, and the ship as mean of transport.135 This


Larnax 7: KARETSOU (supra n. 19) 59-60, fig. 3.9. KARETSOU (supra n. 19) 70, fig. 3.21. KARETSOU (supra n. 19) 86. Birds are also depicted on this larnax. BAXEVANI-KOUZIONI and MARKOULAKI (supra n. 46) 661-662, fig. 34. The other bucrania shown on this larnax are not surmounted by a circle. Birds are depicted on another larnax from this tomb, see above. NILSSON (supra n. 10) 232 (“the head of the sacrificed bull”); see BAXEVANI-KOUZIONI and MARKOULAKI (supra n. 46) 661. R. LAFFINEUR, “Fécondité et pratiques funéraires en Égée à l’Âge du Bronze,” in A. BONANNO (ed.), Archaeology and Fertility Cult in the Ancient Mediterranean. The University of Malta, 2-5 September 1985 (1986) 86, 94 and ID., “Weitere Beiträge zur Symbolik im mykenischen Bestattungsritual,” in Kolloquium zur Ägäischen Vorgeschichte, Mannheim, 20.-22.2.1986 (1987) 125-132 The representation of a disk between the horns of a bucranium is visually close to a motif shown on a sealing from Kato Zakro (see GOODISON (supra n. 5) 75, fig. 138e), which is however identified as a “Snake Frame” in CMS II.7 no. 183. The same motif crowns the head of Mistress of Animals on sealstones from Psychro and Knossos (e.g. GOODISON [supra n. 5] fig. 166.a-b), but is regarded as a possible bow-shape object by NILSSON (supra n. 10) 360-363, figs 172-174, for the sealing from Kato Zakro, see p. 364, fig. 176. WATROUS (supra n. 44) 302: “The Knossos larnax (P1. 82:f), for example, shows the rites (carried out by the mourner) which insure divine protection (goddess) and the sea journey (spiral field) to a land of regeneration (lily)”. BINNBERG (supra n. 32) 43. This idea (“la valeur fécondante de l’élément liquide”) has been explored by R. Laffineur, see LAFFINEUR 1986 (supra n. 130) 82. BINNBERG (supra n. 32) 72; on a bird-shaped vessel from Tanagra, see p. 69. This may correspond to the askos illustrated in Th.G. SPYROPOULOS, “Ἀνασκαφὴ μυκηναϊκοῦ νεκροταφείου Τανάγρας,” Prakt (1970) [1972] Pl. 43α. WATROUS (supra n. 44) 301. For birds associated with a boat on a larnax: GOODISON (supra n. 5) 146, fig. 293.c, and on boat journey, see pp. 91-94. According to WATROUS (supra n. 44) 301: “The idea that the deceased will travel to the Afterworld in a chariot, rather than in a boat, is probably Mycenaean”. Depictions of chariots may alternatively refer to a ritual hunt, see L. PHIALON and S. FARRUGIO, “Réflexions sur l’usage des larnakès et cercueils en Grèce mycénienne,” Revue Archéologique (2005) 248;

125 126 127 128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135





TERRACOTTA BIRDS AND HYBRID WINGED CREATURES FROM TANAGRA




295

may explain the possible representation of a boat depicted on another larnax from Tanagra,136 as well as the presence of a small terracotta boat among the various figurines and miniature models from this site.137 Interpreting the combination of birds with disc- and horn-shaped plaques at Tanagra, L. Goodison suggests the solar motif is associated “with both bird and death”,138 thus implicitly she links the horns of consecration to the concept of death. However, following the argument that the meaning of horns of consecration may in certain cases be assimilated to that of mountain peaks, the reference to this religious symbol may reveal another aspect of Minoan beliefs, perhaps more in line with the conception of fertility and regeneration than death. The idea of fertility is even suggested by L. Goodison for the occurrence of horns of consecration, a bird and a solar motif on the bronze tablet from Psychro.139 At this stage, it must be remembered that the Tanagra zoomorphic winged figurines perched atop disc- and horn-shaped plaques should be regarded as fantastic creatures, some of them resembling more insects such as dragonflies, others characterized by an undulating body and thus showing hybrid traits. It is here worth stressing that the dragonfly may be regarded as a symbol of eternity.140 Insects, especially butterflies and dragonflies, are interpreted by N. Marinatos as symbols of divine manifestation.141 One may remember the dragonfly-shaped beads around the neck of the goddess or priestess depicted on the wall painting of Xeste 3 at Akrotiri, alongside bird-shaped beads in her necklace.142 According to R. Laffineur, insects are part of the symbols of regeneration in the Aegean Bronze Age.143 Conclusions The zoomorphic winged creatures from Tanagra inspire more a sense of curiosity, and not one of unsettling strangeness.144 On the assumption that some of these creatures mounted on disc- and hornshaped plaques were fixed as finials on the lid corners of larnakes, they would have certainly produced a notable, maybe even unexpected effect at the funerals. These flying creatures perched on special plaques are far different from the free-standing terracotta birds and the birds depicted on larnakes from the same site. It is worth remembering that the use of larnakes, along with the scenes and symbols depicted on them, may represent Minoan connections at Tanagra, where otherwise the deceased were frequently buried here on the floors of the chamber tombs.145 However, the pottery, the bird and female figurines, as well as other grave goods from these tombs, are clearly Mycenaean in type and style.146 This


KARETSOU (supra n. 19) 83; or perhaps to funerary games, see IMMERWAHR (supra n. 84) 119, n. 29, but this hypothesis has been challenged, see M. BENZI, “Riti di passagio sulla larnax dalla Tomb 22 di Tanagra?,” in LA ROSA, PALERMO and VAGNETTI (supra n. 68) 223, 229; cited by KARETSOU (supra n. 19) 86. Th.G. SPYROPOULOS, “Ἀνασκαφὴ μυκηναϊκῆς Τανάγρας”, Prakt (1973) [1975] 21, Pl. 10α; cited in PHIALON and FARRUGIO (supra n. 135) 249. ARAVANTINOS (supra n. 6) 77, no. 31. GOODISON (supra n. 5) 76. GOODISON (supra n. 5) 90. SOLES (supra n. 7) 458. MARINATOS (supra n. 63) 98-99. See above footnote 71. R. LAFFINEUR, “Iconographie minoenne et iconographie mycénienne à l’époque des tombes à fosse,” in P. DARCQUE and J.-C. POURSAT (eds), L’iconographie minoenne (1985) 252-257. Also B.C. DIETRICH, “Death and Afterlife in Minoan Religion,” Kernos 10 (1997) 31. For examples of seals showing a bird or an insect (butterfly or dragonfly) seen as a flying messenger, see J.L. CROWLEY, The Iconography of Aegean Seals (2013) 72, I 19 and I 19a. There is no reason to believe that Minoans or Mycenaeans had developed particular fears in face of the deceased’s spirits; on this topic, see DIETRICH (supra n. 143) 24. E.g., in Tomb 33 at Dendron, see SPYROPOULOS (supra n. 134) 32, fig. 22. Except a female figurine with a bell-shaped skirt, see ARAVANTINOS (supra n. 6) 75, no. 29; L. PHIALON, “A Late Bronze Age Terracotta Figurine with a Bell-shaped Skirt from Tanagra: New Research

136

137 138 139 140 141 142 143

144

145 146






296


Laetitia PHIALON and Vassilis L. ARAVANTINOS

does not fit well with the picture of community involving in trade activities and Eastern Mediterranean contacts. We have here stressed that birds were most likely interpreted as attributes of the divinity in the Aegean Bronze Age. On the Minoan larnakes, water birds accompanied and protected the deceased in their last journey through Nilotic landscapes to the Afterworld.147 Whereas terracotta birds probably served as funerary offerings, perhaps as substitutes of real birds, water birds depicted on the larnakes certainly refer to Nilotic landscapes. We argue though that the fantastic winged creatures mounted on disc- and horn-shaped plaques may be linked to notions of regeneration. If the body of some of these creatures may recall that of an insect, there is no problem, since insects are mostly regarded as symbols of such renewal.148 Moreover, the combination of bird-like or hybrid winged creatures with symbols such a disc and horns of consecration assists a better understanding of their significance in funerary contexts. There is a common scholarly opinion today that discs, plain, rayed or spoked, and rosettes, are mostly to be interpreted as solar symbols,149 introducing the notion of a cyclical process inherent in the sun’s repeating daily trajectory. The horns of consecration had clearly functioned as cult objects and sacred emblems in Minoan Crete; their assimilation with the symbol of mountain peaks, especially when flowers or branches appear between the horns, brings with it the idea of “disappearance followed by regeneration”,150 in conjunction with “the renewal of nature in spring”.151 The argument is based on iconographic similarities with Egyptian symbols and Near Eastern mythological elements,152 but these similarities do not have to imply a direct transference of motifs from a culture to another, and even less of a reproduction of foreign afterlife beliefs in the Aegean. These iconographic similarities may rather reflect a readaptation process or the reinvention of symbols in Minoan Crete. By the same line of reasoning, the unique presence of zoomorphic winged creatures mounted on disc- and horn-shaped plaques in Mycenaean Boeotia may be understood through the concepts of death and regeneration.153 The Nilotic and sea landscapes scenes depicted on some larnakes most likely refer to afterlife beliefs, in which the bird as a divine manifestation was not limited to one cultic sphere, but here in funerary contexts assured the transition between this World and the Afterworld, which was perhaps not so different from the Underworld described later by Homer. Laetitia PHIALON Vassilis L. ARAVANTINOS










Perspectives and Interpretations,” in K. KALLIGA, S. LARSON and I. FAPPAS (eds), ΒΟΙΩΤΙΚΑΙ ΑΠΑΡΧΑΙ – PRIMITIAE BOEOTICAE (forthcoming). The almost lack of orientalia in the Tanagra cemeteries, except a faience seal of Mitanni “Common Style” may also be pointed out; for this style, see CLINE (supra n. 40) 151, no. 163, see DEMAKOPOULOU and KONSOLA (supra n. 1) 86. See WATROUS (supra n. 44) 301. See LAFFINEUR (supra n. 143) 252-257. NILSSON (supra n. 10) 414; also footnote 92. GOODISON (supra n. 5) 100; also p. 34 (“Aegean beliefs in rebirth”). BANOU (supra n. 9) 42. BANOU (supra n. 9) 37; MARINATOS (supra n. 63) 110-113. In Minoan religion, the conception of death seems to have been closely linked to that of regeneration, see MARINATOS (supra n. 56) 242.

147 148 149 150 151 152 153





TERRACOTTA BIRDS AND HYBRID WINGED CREATURES FROM TANAGRA




297

APPENDIX 1. LISTS OF TERRACOTTA WINGED CREATURES MOUNTED ON DISC- AND HORN-SHAPED PLAQUES The details of each figurine and plaque will be provided in the corpus of the larnakes from Tanagra. The dimensions focus here on the zoomorphic figurines (and not on the plaques). 1) First type: bird-like figurines Four figurines, all now fixed on the lid of larnax inv. 47643. Year of excavation 1969. Semi-coarse fabric, beige clay (reddish-yellow 5YR 7/6); whitish-beige slip (10YR 8.5/2); black paint. Length of the bird-like figurines: between 14.1 and 15 cm. Height of the bird-like figurines (wings included): between 5.3 and 9.3 cm. Distance from wing-tip to wing-tip: between 13.5 and 15.7 cm. An elongated horizontal body finishing in a slightly upraised tail, a head with a large forehead, and two wings spreading wide from the shoulder. Wings ornamented with parallel stripes; a band along the body side; a horizontal band at the base. Hole through the forehead, probably at the place of the eyes, outlined by lines. Glued after restoration on top of the plaques. 2) Second type: hybrid figurines Nine hybrid figurines, storeroom. In addition, a single disc- and horn-shaped plaque (inv. 49692) without hybrid figurine. Semi-coarse fabric, reddish-beige and beige clay (red and light red 2.5YR 5/6 and 6/6, very pale brown 10YR 7/3, light brown 7.5YR 6/4), whitish-beige slip (10YR 8.5/2, 10YR 9/2) and white (10YR 9.5/1), black paint. Length of the hybrid figurines: between 13.8 and 16.2 cm. Height of the hybrid figurines: between 10 and 12 cm. Distance from wing-tip to wing-tip: between 9.7 and 15 cm. An undulating horizontal body finishing in a slightly upraised tail, a head with a large forehead, two wings spreading wide from the neck. Wings ornamented with parallel stripes; in some cases, a band along the body side and at the base. In some cases, hole through the forehead or in place of the eyes. Modelled on the same axis as the plaques, either in the same orientation or perpendicularly to it. 1. Inv. 25533. Excavation 1969. Tomb 6. Hole through the forehead, empty. 2. Inv. 25534; 1969; label on wooden support: Tanagra 69. Tomb 6. Larnakes 13 and 14; but in inventory Book: Tanagra 1969. Tomb 37. 3. Inv. 25536. Tomb 37. Hole through its forehead, empty. 4. Inv. 25575. Tanagra 1969. 20-12-91. Previously Room D. Showcase 6. Larnakes 13 or 14. Hole through the forehead, empty. 5. Inv. 35879; exc. no. 1063; Tanagra 1969; AIA 1063. Tomb 6. Hole through its forehead or in place of the eyes, filled with lead; no eyes depicted; six holes on Face A; six holes on Face B. 6. Inv. 35880; AIA 1064. Hole through its forehead or in place of the eyes, filled with lead; no eyes depicted; eight small holes on Face A; six small holes on Face B. 7. Inv. 49689. 8. Inv. 49690. 9. Inv. 49691. Hole through its forehead, empty. 3) Third type: smaller terracotta winged creatures Two figurines in a larnax (inv. 47644), possibly mounted on plaques originally, see Ergon (1971) [1972] 18, fig. 18. Tubular head. Excavation no. 1190 inscribed one of them.







298


Laetitia PHIALON and Vassilis L. ARAVANTINOS APPENDIX 2. LIST OF TERRACOTTA BIRD FIGURINES

Inv. no. (database of the museum) 1) Inv. 49933. Inside larnax inv. 49926. 2) Inv. 50069. 3) Inv. 50217. Inv. no. and excavation no. (inventory books at the museum) 4) Inv. 35832. Exc. no. 83. 5) Inv. 45638. Exc. no. 82. Inv. no. (inventory books), exc. no. (photos, ancient museum, various showcases) 6) Inv. 45452. Exc. no. 1035. 7) Exc. no. 1031. 8) Inv. 45450. Exc. no. 1045. 9) Exc. no. 1019. 10) Exc. no. 207 11) Inv. 45524. Exc. no. 186 Illustrated in reports 12) Inv. –. Exc. no. –. Ergon (1976) [1977] 12, fig. 9; from T. 103, deposit α.






TERRACOTTA BIRDS AND HYBRID WINGED CREATURES FROM TANAGRA




299

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Pl. LXVIIa

Bird-like creature on a disc- and horn-shaped plaque fixed on the lid of larnax inv. 47643 (© Laetitia Phialon, courtesy of Museum of Thebes) Pl. LXVIIb Lid of larnax inv. 47643 exhibited at the museum of Thebes (© Laetitia Phialon, courtesy of Museum of Thebes). Pl. LXVIIIa-d Hybrid winged creatures on disc- and horn-shaped plaques, inv. 25534, inv. 35879, inv. 35880, inv. 49691 (© Laetitia Phialon, courtesy of Museum of Thebes). Pl. LXIXa Neopalatial terracotta bird modelled on horns of consecration from Ayia Triada. LONG (supra n. 11) Pl. 14, fig. 36, courtesy of Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene. Pl. LXIXb Early Iron Age terracotta birds fixed on a tree from Fortetsa near Knossos. SAKELLARAKIS (supra n. 14) 105. Pl. LXIXc Two winged creatures (excavation no. 1190 inscribed on one of them) inside larnax inv. 47644 (© Laetitia Phialon, courtesy of Museum of Thebes). Pl. LXXa Bird figurines exhibited at the museum of Thebes, inv. 45524, inv. 3582, inv. 45450 (© Laetitia Phialon, courtesy of Museum of Thebes). Pl. LXXb Late Helladic terracotta bird from Kynos. ALRAM-STERN (supra n. 27) 18, Pl. I.1. Pl. LXXc Fragmentary larnax from Tanagra. VERMEULE (supra n. 43) Pl. XXVIIIa. Pl. LXXIa Late Minoan clay larnax from Knossos. MORGAN (supra n. 19) 178, fig. 4. Pl. LXXIb Larnax from Phourni at Archanes (Tholos tomb A). SAPOUNA-SAKELLARAKI (supra n. 115) 81, fig. 24c. Pl. LXXIc Larnax 7 (HM 20590) from Kalochorafitis in Mesara. KARETSOU (supra n. 19) 60, fig. 3.9. Long side A, watercolour by K. Iliakis.









LXVII

a

b

LXVIII

a

c

b

d

LXIX

a

b

c

LXX

a

b

c

LXXI

a

b

c

ANIMALS ARE GOOD TO THINK WITH. SOME THOUGHTS ON THE RELIGIOUS MEANINGS ASSOCIATED WITH ANIMALS IN THE NEOPALATIAL PERIOD The title of this paper has been taken from Claude Lévi-Strauss’s influential book Le totémisme aujourd’hui, which argued that the analogical or symbolic use of animals to understand or think about aspects of human society can be regarded as a general and non-culture specific phenomenon.1 With regard to religion, the idea that animals are good to think with is nearly universal and is often given visual form in religious iconography. Animals are both familiar and other and are experienced by human beings as inhabiting a separate world, which, however, intersects with human society in different ways and to a greater or lesser extent. The characteristics of different animals and our varying relationships with them mean that they are useful for conceptualising and materialising the supernatural. Deities can manifest themselves in the form of an animal, the attributes and characteristics of different animals can be perceived as representing the attributes and characteristics of divine beings, or animals can appear as divine companions. They can have different roles in ritual activities, for example as sacrificial victims or as representatives of the gods. While human beings can recognise qualities in animals that are familiar, their otherness associates them with the divine sphere and at a more abstract level they can function as metaphors for relations between humans and the gods or they can be regarded as paths to contact with the supernatural.2 The iconographical evidence from Bronze Age Crete demonstrates that the Minoans associated many different animals with the supernatural sphere.3 Native and non-native species as well as fantasy animals could embody ritual meaning. In this paper I argue that one way of understanding the variety of depictions of animals in what can be recognised as ritual contexts in Minoan Crete is that animals represented a way of thinking about, visualising, and materialising divine presence and in general a means of relating to the supernatural. As in later Greek religious traditions and also inspired by them, the importance of animals in the Bronze Age Aegean has often been discussed in terms of sacrifice. Nannó Marinatos has argued not only that animal sacrifice existed in Minoan Crete but also that sacrificial symbolism was an integral part of ritual communication.4 In her book Minoan Sacrificial Ritual. Cult Practice and Symbolism, she provided an overview and interpretation of the evidence for sacrificial practice. which she pointed out differed in many respects from the later Greek practice.5 Her approach was inspired by Walter Burkert’s book Homo Necans from 1972, which argued that sacrifice lies at the core of religious practice and symbolism. The significance of images of both domestic and wild animals, such as bulls, pigs, goats, sheep, deer, boars, lying on what has been identified as sacrificial tables, has been interpreted as corroborative evidence. 6 More recently Robert James Cromarty has shown that, while the iconographic evidence seems to indicate the centrality of animal sacrifice, the actual archaeological evidence is uncertain, ambiguous, and limited. He concludes that animal sacrifice did exist but


1 2

3 4 5 6

… “bonnes à penser” (C. LÉVI-STRAUSS, Le totémisme aujourd’hui [1962] 128). Cf. I. SAELID GILHUS, Animals, Gods and Humans. Changing Attitudes to Animals in Greek, Roman and Early Christian Ideas (2006). N. MARINATOS, Minoan Religion, Ritual, Image, and Symbol (1993) 152-159. N. MARINATOS, Minoan Sacrificial Ritual. Cult Practice and Symbolism (1986). MARINATOS (supra n. 4). E.g. CMS II.3.338; MARINATOS (supra n. 3) 13, fig. 2.

302

Helène WHITTAKER

probably only at a few major sanctuaries, such as Iuktas, Kato Syme, and Psychro, and was not a practice common to all ritual sites.7 At all events, the iconographical evidence indicates that animals clearly had a much wider significance in Minoan religion than only as sacrificial victims.8 However, a fundamental interpretative question concerns when an animal is just an animal and when we can identify it as having a symbolic function of some kind. It can be difficult to ascertain whether images of animals alone or interacting with human beings have a religious dimension that would have been recognised as such by the Minoans or simply express a fascination with other living beings.9 This is, for example, the case with the depiction of idealised landscapes in Minoan wall paintings, which often include animals. A fresco from the House of the Frescoes at Knossos shows monkeys and birds in a landscape of abundant vegetation and the fresco from the villa at Ayia Triadha shows deer, goats, cats, and birds among bushes and flowers. Nannó Marinatos has interpreted them as religious landscapes because they are “populated with all kinds of animals and plants”, which are not found together in nature.10 Maria Shaw is also inclined to see a religious dimension but does not see the depictions as fantastical and argues for the existence of cultivated gardens and the import of plants and animals from outside of Crete.11 The precise significance of animals as bearers of religious meaning in Minoan Crete was probably multifaceted and quite nebulous and may have been understood in different ways by the Minoans themselves. Unlike Egypt, it does not seem that Minoan gods were theriomorphic. Nor does it seem that specific animals were avatars of or particularly associated with individual deities, even if the possibility cannot be entirely excluded. Although it is possible that scenes with animals refer to specific myths of divine exploits, the evidence seems rather to indicate that animals played a notable role in giving visual and material expression to important aspects of the relationship between humans and the supernatural world. Because of their in-betweenness animals represented a way of thinking about the supernatural world itself but also about the relationship between the gods and human beings. I suggest that one way of understanding this relationship is in terms of qualities that are often associated with divine beings, such as power, elusiveness, dependency, and dominance.12 Power and elusiveness can be regarded as part of the job description for a deity (“familiarity breeds contempt” and who needs an ineffectual god or goddess hanging around all the time). Dependency and dominance are also closely connected. In a religious society, individuals and the community as a whole see themselves as dependent on the often unfathomable and sometimes capricious will of the gods but they also seek to dominate them, primarily through the performance of religious rituals. Animals can be categorised in various ways – zoologically according to species and sub-species but also according to habitat, to whether they are domestic or wild, native or non-native to particular regions, or less scientifically and sometimes idiosyncratically as cute, suitable as pets or for work, good to eat, annoying pests, dangerous, creepy. In Minoan iconography a large variety of animals appear in what we recognise or interpret as religious contexts. They include domestic and wild animals that were native to Crete and animals that were non-native but might have been known to the Minoans, if individual examples were imported to Crete. They also include hybrid or fantasy animals. Discussions of the occurrence and meaning of animals in prehistoric iconography often distinguish between species


7

8

9 10 11 12

R. J. CROMARTY, Burning Bulls, Broken Bones: Sacrificial Ritual in the Context of Palace Period Minoan Religion (2008) 107. For a survey and discussion of the relationship between different animals and deities in Minoan iconography see F. BLAKOLMER, “Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo? Character, Symbolism and Hierarchy of Animals and Supernatural Creatures in Minoan and Mycenaean Iconography”, Creta Antica 17 (2016) 146-151. O. KRZYSZKOWSKA, Aegean Seals. An Introduction (2005) 150 MARINATOS (supra n. 3) 193-196. M. SHAW, “The Minoan Garden”, AJA 97 (1993) 661-685. I am taking it as given that Minoan religion was polytheistic even if it is difficult to describe or even identify individual deities.

RELIGIOUS MEANINGS ASSOCIATED WITH ANIMALS IN THE NEOPALATIAL PERIOD 303

that actually exist and those that are the product of imagination.13 This distinction may, however, hinder our understanding of the ways in which animals were conceptualised and categorised in Greek prehistory. Sphinxes, dragons, daemons, and griffins have a definite iconography in Minoan Crete as much as any other animal. That they were originally artistic imports from the Near East or Egypt is not necessarily relevant to the question of their ontological status in Bronze Age Crete.14 Despite never having seen one in the flesh, the Minoans may have had no reason not to believe in the existence of griffins as much as they believed in the existence of familiar animals, such as cats or goats, and sphinxes may have been as real or unreal as lions.15 The recognition that human beings are dependent on invisible outside forces, which they must seek to ingratiate themselves with but which they can also aspire to control, perhaps represents the most basic and fundamental aspect of religious thinking. Human survival is dependent on animals, and the relationship between humans and animals can be seen as a metaphor for dependency on gods. In Minoan Crete this dependency was, for example, materialised by the clay animal figurines that reflect the concerns of local herding and farming communities and are commonly found, sometimes found in considerable quantities, in so-called nature sanctuaries, in particular at peak sanctuaries.16 Conversely, asserting power over animals can be seen as a means of controlling the supernatural. The animal that seems most clearly to have incorporated the need to control supernatural forces was the bull, and the Minoans seem to have been obsessed with dominating it. Bulls were the most powerful animals that the Minoans would have had direct experience of. As elsewhere in the eastern Mediterranean the bull was a symbol of authority and kingship. Their superior status in relation to other animals is reflected in images that show bulls dominating other animals.17 Bull imagery was common on seals and gold rings which were disseminated widely and these also demonstrate a preoccupation with exerting dominance over bulls.18 They are depicted as sacrificial victims on seals.19 Bull-leaping was a prestige activity which celebrated mastery over a powerful and dangerous animal. However, in some depictions bull-leapers are shown being wounded or killed, which implies that bull-leaping was experienced by those who took part, either as leapers or viewers, as a contest between life and death, where the outcome was uncertain. This further suggests that bull-leaping was associated with ritual meaning, which recognised and celebrated the power of the gods but also asserted of the possibility of mastering them.


13 14

15

16

17

18

19

E.g. MARINATOS (supra n. 3). KRZYSZKOWSKA (supra n. 9) 24. MARINATOS (supra n. 3) 196; C. KNAPPETT, Aegean Bronze Age Art. Meaning in the Making (2020) 100-107. See also BLAKOLMER (supra n. 8) 164-167 for a discussion of the distinction between real and fantastic animals in Minoan Crete. Blakolmer argues that in general they belonged to separate spheres. Cf. L. MORGAN, “Power of the Beast: Human Animal Symbolism in Egyptian and Aegean Art,” Ägypten und Levante/Egypt and the Levant, Vol 7 (1998) 17; “Idea, Idiom and Iconographie”, in P. DARCQUE and J.-C. POURSAT (eds), L’iconographie minoenne. Actes de la table ronde d’Athènes (21-22 avril 1983) (1985) 6. KRZYSZKOWSKA (supra n. 9) 149 has pointed out that griffins are often depicted with other animals and humans in similar ways to lions, which indicates that they were on the same level of being. A. PEATFIELD, “Minoan Religion for Ordinary People,” in Πεπραγμένα H´ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου (Hράκλειο, 9-14 Σεπτεμβρίου 1996). Α Προϊστορική και Αρχαία Ελληνική Περίοδος 3 (2000) 9-15. B. and E. HALLAGER, “The Knossian Bull. Political Propaganda in Neopalatial Crete,” in R. LAFFINEUR and W.-D. NIEMEIER (eds), POLITEIA. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference/5e Rencontre égéenne internationale, University of Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut, 10-13 April 1994 (1995) 547-556. J. MCINERNEY, The Cattle of the Sun. Cows and Culture in the World of the Ancient Greeks (2010) 55-59; A. SHAPLAND, “Jumping to Conclusions: Bull-Leaping in Minoan Crete,” Society and Animals (2013) 203; J. YOUNGER, “Bronze Age Representations of Bull Games, III,” in LAFFINEUR and NIEMEIER eds (supra n. 17) 507-545. E.g. CMS II.3, 338.

304

Helène WHITTAKER

Images of travelling deities, both male and female, indicate that Minoan deities were neither omnipresent nor confined to one particular location.20 They may have moved around between various sanctuaries or distant origins may have been an important factor in the ritual meaning and mythology of some deities. In some versions a god or a goddess arrives by boat, in others they descend from the air.21 Images of travelling deities sometimes show them accompanied by an animal. Griffins and dragons in particular seem to have been associated with divine distance. On an image on a gold ring from Tholos B at Archanes a flying griffin is followed by a flying woman who can plausibly be identified as a goddess.22 On a ring impression from Knossos of we see a god or goddess in a chariot drawn by a pair of griffins.23 A seal from Ayia Pelagia depicts a goddess riding on a dragon in a landscape of papyrus.24 On a seal impression from Ayia Triada a goddess riding on a dragon among vegetation, probably papyrus.25 The association between non-native/fantasy animals and papyrus plants suggests that the Minoans believed that griffins and dragons lived in Egypt or more generally somewhere faraway.26 Images of animals which emphasise the elusiveness of the gods also reflect their power.27 The wingless griffins on the fresco in the Throne Room at Knossos, which are depicted in a landscape of papyrus plants and palms, can also be interpreted as a reference to the motif of travelling deity.28 It has been plausibly argued that the Throne Room was the site of a ritually enacted divine epiphany.29 However, the main focus would seem to have shifted from elusiveness to power. Maria Shaw has


20 21

22 23 24 25

26

27

28

29

CMS II.3, 252; MARINATOS (supra n. 3) 163, fig. 150. On a gold ring from Mochlos a goddess arrives by sea to a building that can be identified as a shrine (CMS II.3, 252). A gold ring found near Herakleion shows a goddess arriving by ship to a shore where she is greeted by a man and a woman (S. ALEXIOU, “Ὁ δακτύλιος τῆς Ὀξφόρδης,” in E. GRUMACH (ed.), Minoica. Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag von Johannes Sundwall [1958] 1-5). On a ring impression from Zakros a female figure descends from the air in front of a sanctuary (N. MARINATOS, “Divine Kingship in Minoan Crete,” in P. REHAK [ed.], The Role of the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean. Proceedings of a Panel Discussion Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America. New Orleans, Louisiana 28 December 1992 (1995) 42, fig. 16a; KRZYSZKOWSKA (supra n. 8) fig. 216a. On a gold ring from Knossos a god is shown arriving by air to a sanctuary (MARINATOS [supra n. 3] 173, fig. 171). KRZYSZKOWSKA (supra n. 9) 127-128, 149, fig. 213; MARINATOS (supra n. 3) 164, fig. 152. KRZYSZKOWSKA (supra n. 9) 140, 151, fig. 246. J.-C. POURSAT, “Notes d’iconographie préhellénique : dragons et crocodiles,” BCH 100 (1976) 463, fig. 4. Further evidence for the association of dragons and griffins with the papyrus plant is indicated by a sealing from Ayia Triada, which depicts a lone dragon with papyrus (POURSAT [supra n. 23] 461-462, fig. 1). On a seal from Ayia Triada two griffins stand on either side of a papyrus plant (CMS II.6, 102) and on a cylinder seal from Ayia Pelagia griffins are depicted in a landscape of papyrus plants (A. EVANS, The Palace of Minos IV [1935] fig. 136). BLAKOLMER (supra n. 8) 128-129. Papyrus and griffins also occur on vases and on the Caravanserai Fresco from Knossos: Y. GALANAKIS, E. TSITSA and U. GÜNKEL-MASCHEK, “The Power of Images: Reexamining the Wall Paintings from the Throne Room at Knossos,” BSA 112 (2017) 77. For a discussion of the links between geographical distance and supernatural power see M. HELMS, Ulysses’ Sail. An Ethnographic Odyssey of Power, Knowledge, and Distance (1988). For a recent account of the Throne Room at Knossos see GALANAKIS, TSITSA and GÜNKELMASCHEK (supra n. 26) 47-98. Palms seem also to have been associated with Egypt and Egyptian origins (S. HILLER, “Palm and Altar,” in W. GAUSS, M. LINDBLOM, R. Angus K. SMITH, J.C. WRIGHT (eds), Our Cups are Full: Pottery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age. Papers Presented to Jeremy B. Rutter on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (2011) 104-114. MARINATOS (supra n. 3) 109; H. REUSCH, “Zum Wandschmuck des Thronsaales in Knossos,” in GRUMACH ed. (supra n. 21) 334-358; U. GÜNKEL-MASCHEK, “Establishing the Minoan ‘Enthroned Goddess’ in the Neopalatial Period: Images, Architecture, and Elitist Ambition,” in in E. ALRAM-STERN, F. BLAKOLMER, S. DEGER-JALKOTZY, R. LAFFINEUR and J. WEILHÄRTNER (eds.), METAPHYSIS. Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 15th International Aegean Conference, Vienna, Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Aegean and Anatolia Department, Austrian Academy of Sciences and Institute of Classical Archaeology, University of Vienna, 22-25 April 2014 (2016) 255-262.

RELIGIOUS MEANINGS ASSOCIATED WITH ANIMALS IN THE NEOPALATIAL PERIOD 305

suggested that the griffins were the guardians of the throne. This would imply that they were permanently in place which could be symbolised by their exceptional winglessness.30 Griffins are most often associated with female figures and Carl Knappett suggests that they were intended to evoke an absent goddess.31 Lions also express the combination of elusiveness and power as griffins although the focus is more directly on the expression of power. The so-called Mother of the Mountain sealing from Knossos shows a goddess, standing in a very stiff position on a hill or a mountain and holding a staff in her outstretched left hand. Lions stand on either side with their forepaws on the slope of the mountain and a man faces the goddess with his left arm bent towards his face in what can be interpreted as a gesture of adoration or submission.32 A comparable motif on a seal from Knossos shows a seated goddess flanked by two lions.33 Lions are often depicted with male figures and where the focus would seem to be on the direct expression of power. A ring impression from the Temple Repositories at Knossos shows a male figure with a staff accompanied by a lion.34 The topic of the role of animals in relation to Minoan religious beliefs and ritual can be approached and understood in many different ways. In this paper I have suggested that one aspect of their meaning is that they seem to have functioned as a pictorial language which represented not only a way of thinking about but also of materialising important aspects of their religious worldview. Helène WHITTAKER


30

31 32

33 34

It has been suggested in GALANAKIS, TSITSA & GÜNKEL-MASCHEK (supra n. 26) 77, n. 33 that the wingless griffins were inspired by Egyptian representations. KNAPPETT (supra n. 14) 102-103. K. KRATTENMAKER, “Palace, Peak and Sceptre: The Iconography of Legitimacy,” in REHAK ed. (supra n. 21) 42, fig. 16a; MARINATOS (supra n. 3) 155. MARINATOS (supra n. 3) 162, fig. 147. KRZYSZKOWSKA (supra n. 9) 139, 166, no. 319 .

SACRIFICIAL RELICS OR TROPHIES? ANIMAL HEADS IN BRONZE AGE CRETE* Introduction The discovery of animal skulls at Psychro Cave in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century helped shape the way in which animal heads have been interpreted in Bronze Age Crete. The reports of the first excavators mention a black, ashy layer which contained the bones and horns of cattle and goats, which Arthur Evans described in 1897 as a ‘sacrificial deposit’.1 David Hogarth reported taking away “specimens of the skulls, horns, and bones found in the Upper Grot”,2 which were subsequently published by William Boyd Dawkins. He noted that a modified cattle skull, which he identified as a domestic animal, “has probably been fixed to one of the sides of the shrine or to the altar, as a Bucranium”. Although there was no clear evidence that the skull was attached to the altar, like Evans, Boyd Dawkins was interpreting the animal remains in terms of later Greek practice. For him, the bucranium came from an animal “sacrificed in the Sanctuary of Zeus”.3 Subsequently, in his important book on Bronze Age religion, Nilsson suggested that “the bucranium, i.e. the head of the sacrificed bull, played a part in the Minoan cult as it did in the other cults and in Greek times when it was nailed to a tree in the holy grove or to the temple wall”.4 He also linked the co-occurrence of bull’s heads and double axes with sacrifice, although this is a topic of debate.5 Nevertheless, there is a longstanding association between animal heads and sacrifice in studies of Bronze Age Crete.6


*

1

2 3

4

5

6

With thanks to the conference organisers, and connoisseurs of sacrifice, Robert Laffineur and Thomas Palaima, whose hospitality we sadly were not able to enjoy in Texas. For a broader discussion of Bronze Age Cretan animals (both cranial and postcranial) see: A.J. SHAPLAND, Human-Animal Relations in Bronze Age Crete: A History through Objects (forthcoming). A.J. EVANS, “Further Discoveries of Cretan and Aegean Script: With Libyan and Proto-Egyptian Comparisons,” JHS 17 (1897) 355; F. HALBHERR and P. ORSI, “Scoperte nell’ Antro di Psychrò,” Museo italiano di antichità classica 2 (1888) 907. D. HOGARTH, “The Dictaean Cave,” BSA 6 (1900) 101. W. BOYD DAWKINS, “Remains of Animals Found in the Dictaean Cave in 1901,” Man 2 (1902) 162. His interpretation was endorsed by A.B. COOK, Zeus. A Study in Ancient Religion II,2 (1925) 926. M.P. NILSSON, The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and its Survival in Greek Religion (1950) 232. The term bull refers to the male animal, but in most discussions it is used interchangeably with cattle, which is how the term is used here. For recent discussions with further references see M. HAYSOM, “The Double-Axe: A Contextual Approach to the Understanding of a Cretan Symbol in the Neopalatial Period,” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 29 (2010) 35-55; N. MARINATOS, Minoan Kingship and the Solar Goddess (2010) 116-120; H. WHITTAKER “Horns and Axes,” in E. ALRAM-STERN, F. BLAKOLMER, S. DEGERJALKOTZY, R. LAFFINEUR and J. WEILHARTNER (eds), METAPHYSIS. Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 15th International Aegean Conference, Vienna, Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Aegean and Anatolia Department, Austrian Academy of Sciences and Institute of Classical Archaeology, University of Vienna, 22-25 April 2014 (2015) 110; M. NIKOLAIDOU “Materialised Myth and Ritualised Realities: Religious Symbolism on Minoan Pottery,” in ALRAM-STERN et al. eds (supra) 100106. A.J. EVANS, Scripta Minoa I (1909) 196; Y. SAKELLARAKIS, “Das Kuppelgrab A von Archanes und das kretisch-mykenische Tieropferritual,” Praehistorische Zeitschrift 45 (1970) 188-192; N. MARINATOS, Minoan Sacrificial Ritual: Cult Practice and Symbolism, (1986) 40; P. REHAK, “The Use and Destruction of Minoan Stone Bull’s Head Rhyta”, in R. LAFFINEUR and W.-D. NIEMEIER (eds), POLITEIA. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, University of Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut, 10-13 April 1994 (1995) 453-454; S. HILLER, “Potnia/Potnios Aigon. On the religious aspects of goats in the Aegean Late Bronze Age”, in R. LAFFINEUR and R. HÄGG (eds),

308

Andrew SHAPLAND

Another find from Psychro Cave, now in the Ashmolean Museum, is a haematite lentoid sealstone showing a frontal bull’s head and two smaller wild goat heads either side (Pl. LXXIIa).7 The goat heads are clearly agrimia because of the long, curved horns. Like the goat heads, the bull’s head is fleshed, rather than a skull, to which the term bucranium usually refers.8 Such animal heads are frequent on seals from the Protopalatial period onwards, becoming more detailed over time. These heads are sometimes regarded as having a symbolic meaning, and were also used in the Cretan Hieroglyphic script. This paper will explore this set of associations between the deposition of animal skulls, depictions of animal heads, and double axes which can be traced at Psychro and elsewhere. It will suggest that animal heads were significant things in themselves and rather than memorialising sacrifice, as Nilsson argued,9 were used in the commemoration of the butchery and consumption of particular animals. This shifts the focus from the act of killing, which does not leave a material trace, to the subsequent treatment of the animal body, which does. Sacrificial relics? The ashy layer at Psychro Cave was excavated before the Minoan pottery sequence had been established but it appears to date to the Protopalatial and Neopalatial period.10 There are a number of other contexts from these periods in which skulls were deposited. At Knossos Sir Arthur Evans named a building to the south east of the palace the ‘House of the Sacrificed Oxen’ after a deposit of cattle skulls.11 The skulls were found with clay ‘offering tables’ beneath a large dump of pottery which dates the deposit to Middle Minoan III. Evans and Mackenzie suggested that these were deposited on the floor of the house after it had been destroyed by an earthquake, then partially re-excavated, and before it had been filled in again. Although the pottery is most likely connected with the Middle Minoan III earthquake attested elsewhere at Knossos, it is difficult to assess the link between this dump of pottery and the floor deposit of cattle skulls.12 Here the term sacrifice relates to the theory that the animals were killed in honour of “the Powers below” as atonement for an earthquake, linked with later Greek practice: “in bulls doth the earthshaker delight”.13 Two more recently excavated closed deposits show a link between animal skulls and consumption debris. A bench deposit in Room IL at Protopalatial Phaistos contained a partial agrimi skull with the two horns still attached and a large deposit of pottery.14 At Neopalatial Nopigea-Drapanias near Rethymnon an agrimi skull was deposited at the bottom of a pit which was then filled with ceramics.15 In both cases the skulls appear to be related to a single event, and they are both described in these publications as examples


7 8 9 10

11 12

13 14

15

POTNIA. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference, Göteborg, Göteborg University, 12-15 April 2000 (2001) 294. CMS VI 448; A.J. EVANS, The Palace of Minos at Knossos IV (1935) 587, fig. 581. MARINATOS (supra n.5) argues that fleshed heads have a different significance than bucrania. NILSSON (supra n.4) 232; MARINATOS (supra n. 6) 40. L.V. WATROUS, The Cave Sanctuary of Zeus at Psychro. A Study of Extra-urban Sanctuaries in Minoan and Early Iron-Age Crete (1996) 47-52. A.J. EVANS, The Palace of Minos at Knossos II (1928) 301-11. A. MACGILLIVRAY, Knossos: Pottery Groups of the Old Palace Period (1998) 46-49; I. MATHIOUDAKI, “The Pottery Deposit from the Houses of the Fallen Blocks and the Sacrificed Oxen at the South-Eastern Corner of the Palace of Knossos,” BSA 113 (2018), 20-31. EVANS (supra n. 11) 302. I. CALOI, “Memory of a feasting event in the First Palace of Phaistos: Preliminary Observations on the Bench Deposit of Room IL,” Creta Antica 13 (2012) fig. 10; EADEM “Preserving memory in Minoan Crete: Filled-in bench and platform deposits from the First Palace of Phaistos,” Journal of Greek Archaeology 2, 46. Y. HAMILAKIS and K. HARRIS, “The social zooarchaeology of feasting: the evidence from the ‘ritual’ deposit at Nopigeia-Drapanias”, in E. KAPSOMENOS, M. ANDREADAKI-VLAZAKI and M. ANDRIANAKIS (eds), Πεπραγμένα Ι΄ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου (Χανιά, 1-8 Οκτωβρίου 2006) A Πανηγυρικές Συνεδρίες (2011) 199-218.

SACRIFICIAL RELICS OR TROPHIES? ANIMAL HEADS IN BRONZE AGE CRETE

309

of structured deposition.16 This focuses attention on the way in which the consumption event has been memorialised through the deliberated deposition of the remains in a certain way. In both cases the method of killing the agrimi is unknown, but there is abundant iconographic evidence for the hunting of agrimia in this period.17 Hunting has been seen as a form of sacrifice in Bronze Age Crete,18 but this broadens the definition of sacrifice to include most animal killing, blurring the different relations between humans and domestic versus non-domestic animals. Another deposit dating to the Neopalatial period which includes a number of animal skulls is the sanctuary at Kato Syme.19 It was the result of repeated episodes of cooking meat on open fires around the central stone structure. Here the excavators argue that “There is ample evidence from this area that the heads of the victims, complete with horns, were deposited in the remains of the fires”.20 They are careful to distinguish this from the practice of burnt animal sacrifice attested in Mycenaean and later Greece, in which a portion of the carcase was deliberately burned.21 Instead, they suggest that the heads were remains of ritual meals consumed by worshippers at the site and only deposited in the fire at the end, since there was little sign of burning. This suggests that the animal head could have remained on display while its meat was consumed. The deposition of the head is defined by the excavators as a sacrificial offering since, they suggest, it was intended for the deity. Here the term ‘sacrifice’ refers primarily to the offering of a portion of the carcase, the rest of which is cooked and eaten. The deposition of cattle heads continues in the Final Palace period. A cattle skull found in the wall of a side chamber at Tholos Tomb A at Archanes was interpreted by the excavators as a sacrifice.22 To support this interpretation they link it with the roughly contemporary Ayia Triada sarcophagus, which appears to show the slaughter of a bull, but it does not show a human either killing or decapitating the animal.23 In the process of slaughter, whether ritualised or not, the animal is usually stunned, and then its throat slit in order to kill it. The next step, perhaps shown on the sarcophagus, is to drain the blood so that


16

17

18

19

20 21

22

23

HAMILAKIS and HARRIS (supra n. 15) 214; I. CALOI 2012 (supra n. 14) 41-42; see also V. ISAAKIDOU and P. HALSTEAD, “Bones and the body politic? A diachronic analysis of structured deposition in the Neolithic–Early Iron Age Aegean,” in G. EKROTH and J. WALLENSTEN (eds), Bones, Behaviour and Belief: The Zooarchaeological Evidence as a Source for Ritual Practice in Ancient Greece and Beyond (2013) 90-93. E. BLOEDOW, “The Significance of the Goat in Minoan Culture”, Praehistorische Zeitschrift 78 (2003) 159. MARINATOS (supra n. 6) 42-50; for a dissenting view see E. BLOEDOW, “Notes on animal sacrifices in Minoan religion,” Journal of Prehistoric Religion 10 (1996) 31-44. A. LEBESSI and P. MUHLY, “Aspects of Minoan Cult: Sacred Enclosures. The Evidence from the Syme Sanctuary (Crete),” Archäologischer Anzeiger (1990) 315-336. Ibid. 328. B. BERGQUIST, “The Archaeology of Sacrifice: Minoan-Mycenaean Versus Greek. A Brief Query into Two Sites with Contrary Evidence,” in R. HÄGG, N. MARINATOS and G.C. NORDQUIST (eds), Early Greek Cult Practice. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 26-29 June, 1986 (1988) 21-34; V. ISAAKIDOU, P. HALSTEAD, J. DAVIS and S. STOCKER, “Burnt Animal Sacrifice in Late Bronze Age Greece: New Evidence from the Mycenaean ‘Palace of Nestor’, Pylos,” Antiquity 76 (2002) 86-92; Y. HAMILAKIS and E. KONSOLAKI, “Pigs for the Gods: Burnt Animal Sacrifices as Embodied Rituals at a Mycenaean Sanctuary,” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 23 (2004) 135-151; J. WEILHARTNER, “Textual Evidence for Burnt Animal Sacrifice and Other Rituals Involving the Use of Fire in Mycenaean Greece,” in ALRAM-STERN et al. eds (supra n. 5) 393-403. SAKELLARAKIS (supra n. 6) 157-158; Y. SAKELLARAKIS and E. SAPOUNA-SAKELLARAKI, Archanes. Minoan Crete in a New Light I (1997) 264-265. They identify the skull as an auroch (Bos primigenius) but there is no clear evidence for this species on Crete despite such identifications. See J.-D. VIGNE, “The Large “True” Mediterranean Islands as a Model for the Holocene Impact on the European Vertebrate Fauna? Recent Data and New Reflections,” in N. BENECKE (ed.), The Holocene History of the European Vertebrate Fauna (1999) 300. C.R. LONG, The Ayia Triadha Sarcophagus, A Study of Late Minoan and Mycenaean Funerary Practices and Beliefs (1974) 61-68.

310

Andrew SHAPLAND

the meat does not spoil.24 The carcase is then dismembered or butchered and the meat consumed. Many Aegean Bronze Age archaeologists would describe the entire process as sacrifice or sacrificial feasting if the killing is ritualised.25 None of the depictions of bulls trussed on offering tables, a scene which also appears on a number of seals, can be dated earlier than the Final Palace Period (Pl. LXXIIb).26 The Archanes skull is described as sacrificial by association with this set of depictions. Animal skulls continued to be significant at some sites in the Postpalatial period. Room B4 in Building B at Vronda contained a deposit consisting of a circle of bucrania, at least one pair of agrimi horns and boar mandibles. Although it has been suggested that they were from sacrificial victims,27 the excavators focus on the treatment of the skulls. “In this Early LMIIIC context, where horns of consecration and bull imagery are so prevalent and have ritual significance, it seems likely that the cattle skulls and agrimi horn cores were deliberately altered to form objects of ritual or decorative significance”.28 Although they do not exclude the possibility that the animals were sacrificed, they point out that the deposit is related to these remains being used as wall decorations rather than being associated with consumption debris. 29 Modified agrimi skulls, frontlets, are associated with consumption debris at Postpalatial Chania.30 A cattle skull deposited in a pit at Thronos Kephala has been described in terms of structured deposition.31 Returning to Psychro, both cattle and agrimi frontlets were found, consisting of the horns and a portion of the skull.32 Like those found in the later deposit at Vronda they could have been modified for display. Before the perfection of taxidermy in the nineteenth century, the display of animal heads was only possible for a brief period before the head started to rot, so either they were briefly on show or they would have been displayed as skeletal parts. Such animal parts are often referred to as trophies, usually in association with hunting. Although the Psychro frontlets could have been displayed as trophies,33 they were found in an ashy layer rather than fixed to an altar. The structured deposition of heads at Knossos and Nopigea, and a partial agrimi skull or frontlet at Phaistos, suggests short period of display followed by deposition as part of a single consumption event. Rather than interpreting such skeletal parts in terms of one of the various practices described as sacrificial described above,34 their significance can be assessed by turning to depictions of heads, most of them fleshed, in Bronze Age Crete and the wider Aegean. Rhyta Bucrania were associated with animal head rhyta by Nilsson, but he suggested that, unlike bucrania, rhyta were not primarily religious. “They seem to have been fanciful vessels of luxury which


24

25

26 27

28

29 30

31 32 33 34

Not all authors interpret the scene in this way. Cromarty suggests that this is a depiction of the bloodletting of a live animal: R.J. CROMARTY, Burning Bulls, Broken Bones: Sacrificial Ritual in Context of Palace Period Minoan Religion (2008) 15-16. HAMILAKIS and KONSOLAKI (supra n. 21) 145; T.G. PALAIMA, “Sacrificial Feasting in the Linear B Documents,” Hesperia 73 (2004) 217-246; ISAAKIDOU and HALSTEAD (supra n. 16) 87-89. REHAK (supra n. 6) 452. A. MAZARAKIS AINIAN, From Rulers’ Dwellings to Temples: Architecture, Religion and Society in Early Iron Age Crete (1100-700 B.C.) (1997) 295-296. L. PRESTON DAY, N.L. KLEIN and L.A. TURNER, Kavousi IIA. The Late Minoan IIIC Settlement at Vronda. The Buildings on the Summit (2009) 43. Ibid. 62. K. HARRIS, The Social Role of Hunting and Wild Animals in Late Bronze Age Crete: A Social Zooarchaeological Analysis (Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Southampton, 2014) 268-273. ISAAKIDOU and HALSTEAD (supra n. 16) 91. BOYD DAWKINS (supra n. 3) 162-163. E. BLOEDOW (supra n. 18) 32. For a fuller discussion of the different practices regarded as sacrificial in the Bronze Age Aegean see L. RECHT, Sacrifice in the Bronze Age Aegean and Near East. A Poststructuralist Approach (Unpublished PhD dissertation, Trinity College Dublin, 2011) 77-147.

SACRIFICIAL RELICS OR TROPHIES? ANIMAL HEADS IN BRONZE AGE CRETE

311

were sometimes also dedicated to the gods or used in the cult”.35 But rather than being fanciful, the finest examples appear to be simulacra of decapitated animal heads. The most well-known example of a bull’s head rhyton, found in fragments in the Little Palace at Knossos, has jasper inserts in the eye and rock crystal lenses, which Evans suggested “give an almost startling impression of fiery life”.36 Furthermore, they could be animated by filling them with liquid which would spew from a hole at the muzzle. Although it has been argued that this liquid could have been blood, it is more likely that wine was used instead.37 Such objects would have acted as effective substitutes for real heads, particularly when filled with metaphorical blood.38 Most were smaller than lifesize but a fragment of a larger stone bull’s head, most likely a rhyton, was found at Juktas.39 In his extensive discussion of animal head rhyta, Paul Rehak made the intriguing suggestion that stone rhyta were found in fragments because they had been decommissioned using a blow to the muzzle, replicating that used to stun animals.40 While his analysis of their fragmentation is significant, cattle are usually stunned either by severing the spinal cord with a cut to the back of the neck or with a crushing blow delivered to the forehead.41 On the bull’s head rhyton from the Little Palace, a rosette, sometimes regarded as a hair swirl, occurs at the place where a stunning blow would typically be delivered. The gold rosette on the silver bull’s head rhyton from Mycenae Shaft Grave IV occurs in a similar place.42 This helps reinforce Rehak’s argument that these animal head rhyta were connected with the slaughter and decapitation of cattle, but with the stunning blow marked rather than delivered to the rhyton. The pattern of breakage Rehak noted could instead have occurred by throwing these rhyta to the ground. The only lion’s head rhyta known from Crete, from Knossos, were carved from stone, although examples in other materials are known from the Bronze Age Aegean. 43 There is abundant zooarchaeological and iconographic evidence for lion hunting in Mainland Greece and so these rhyta could have acted as simulacra of trophy heads.44 Cut marks on bones indicate skinning, almost certainly followed by consumption: skins would also have been used as trophies of lion hunts.45 No lion skulls have yet been found in the Bronze Age Aegean, although bones consistent with both consumption and skinning have on the Mainland, but not on Crete.46 By contrast, agrimi skulls are found in a variety of contexts on


35 36 37 38

39

40 41

42 43 44

45

46

NILSSON (supra n. 4) 146. EVANS (supra n. 11) 530; R. KOEHL, Aegean Bronze Age Rhyta (2006) 118. MARINATOS (supra n. 6) 31; KOEHL (supra n. 36) 263. R. LAFFINEUR, “Weitere Beiträge zur Symbolik im mykenischen Bestattungsritual,” in Kolloquium zur Ägäischen Vorgeschichte, Mannheim, 20.-22.2.1986 (1987) 125-132. A. KARETSOU and R. KOEHL, “Cult Object–Image–Emblem: A Life-sized Bull’s Head from the Juktas Peak Sanctuary,” in R. KOEHL (ed.), Amilla: The Quest for Excellence. Studies Presented to Guenter Kopcke in Celebration of His 75th Birthday (2013) 135-143. REHAK (supra n. 6) 451. G. ALDRETE, “Hammers, Axes, Bulls, and Blood: Some Practical Aspects of Roman Animal Sacrifice,” Journal of Roman Studies 104 (2014) 35-36. Possible Aegean Bronze Age implements for stunning animals include: stone maces, MARINATOS (supra n. 6) 22; and hammer axes, T. PALAIMA and N. BLACKWELL, “Pylos Ta 716 and Mycenaean Ritual Paraphernalia: A Reconsideration,” Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici NS 6 (2020) 77-86. KOEHL (supra n. 36) 115. KOEHL (supra n. 36) 121-123. N. RHYNE, The Aegean Animal Style: A Study of the Lion, Griffin, and Sphinx (Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of North Carolina (1970); N. THOMAS, “The Early Mycenaean Lion up to Date,” in A.P. CHAPIN (ed.), CHARIS: Essays in Honor of Sara A. Immerwahr (2004) 161-206; EADEM, “A Lion‘s Eye View of the Greek Bronze Age,” in G. TOUCHAIS, R. LAFFINEUR and F. ROUGEMONT (eds), PHYSIS. L’environement naturel et la relation homme-milieu dans le monde égéen protohistorique. Actes de la 14e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Paris, Institut National d’Histoire de l’Art (INHA), 11-14 décembre 2012 (2014) 375-389; E. ANDERSON, “The Poetics of the Cretan Lion: Glyptic and Oral Culture in the Bronze Age Aegean,” AJA 124 (2020) 345-379. A.J. SHAPLAND, “The Minoan Lion: Presence and Absence on Bronze Age Crete,” World Archaeology 42 (2010) 285. THOMAS 2014 (supra n. 44) 378-379.

312

Andrew SHAPLAND

Crete, although the evidence for agrimi head rhyta is sparse. They do appear to be carried alongside bull’s head rhyta by the Keftiu in Egyptian tomb paintings,47 and gold foil agrimi horn coverings from Juktas appear to indicate their existence.48 The origins of animal-head rhyta in Crete have been sought in imported vessels from Anatolia, because of the straight necks of the polychrome Protopalatial examples found at Phaistos and Kommos.49 This shape could instead be the result of their initial manufacture on the wheel before shaping. The origins of the shape are important because the question of foreign influence draws attention away from the significance of animal heads in consumption activities in this period. The more typical type, with a bent neck, appears soon after the straight-necked version, at the end of the Protopalatial period at Phaistos and perhaps elsewhere.50 Although zoomorphic rhyta are attested in the Prepalatial period, it is only in the Protopalatial period that animal head rhyta appear. The most naturalistic examples, made from carved stone, belong to the Neopalatial period, and pottery examples continue to be produced in the Final Palace period and later. These later ceramic rhyta are usually cattle, but a ram’s head rhyton was found at Chania.51 They point to the continuing significance of animal heads on Crete. Seals A similar picture emerges from Cretan seals. Arthur Evans highlighted a particularly naturalistic Neopalatial seal which resembled a decapitated calf’s head (Pl. LXXIIc), as he put it “dressed, without the eyes, for culinary purposes.” Three dots in the field, he conjectured, indicated that “it was a seal for warrants for a share of sacrificial offerings such as is usually allotted to votaries”.52 This idea of meatsharing has not drawn as much attention as the idea that cattle heads are associated with sacrifice. The two are not mutually exclusive, as the implicit comparison with later Greek practice shows. As with rhyta, animal heads first appear on seals in the Protopalatial period, long before depictions of cattle trussed on tables. The most frequent type of animal heads on Protopalatial seals are cattle and goat, followed by dog and cat (Pl. LXXIIIa).53 Some of these are signs in hieroglyphic inscriptions, but it is not always easy to differentiate between script signs and either decoration54 or imitations of script.55 Αs a result, hieroglyphic inscriptions are not distinguished in figure 2. One way to explore the significance of the signs is to look at their use on Cretan Hieroglyphic clay tablets, where sign 152 is used as an ideogram. This appears to be a


47 48

49

50 51 52

53

54

55

S. WACHSMANN, Aegeans in the Theban Tombs (1987) 56-60. R. KOEHL and A. KARETSOU, “An enigmatic piece of gold-work from the Juktas peak sanctuary,” in F. CARINCI, N. CUCUZZA, P. MILITELLO and O. PALIO (eds), Κρήτης Μινωίδος. Tradizione e identità Minoica tra Producione Artigianale, Pratiche Cerimoniali e Memoria del Passato (2011) 207-222. E.B. MILLER, Zoomorphic Vases in the Bronze Age Aegean (Unpublished PhD dissertation, New York University, Institute of Fine Arts 1984) 85; REHAK (supra n. 6) 445-447; KOEHL (supra n. 36) 39-42. KOEHL (supra n. 36) 32. B.P. HALLAGER, “The Ram in Cultic Contexts?” in LAFFINEUR and HÄGG eds (supra n. 6) 315-320. CMS VI 421; EVANS (supra n. 7) 491; Morgan discusses the occurrence of three dots on other seals with cattle and identifies them as a ‘sacrificial symbol’, L. MORGAN, “Frontal Face and the Symbolism of Death in Aegean Glyptic,” in W. MÜLLER (ed.) Sceaux minoens et mycéniens. IVe symposium international, 1012 septembre 1992, Clermont-Ferrand (1995) 142. The sample used in Pl. LXXIIIa-b comprises all seals published in CMS II-IV, seals from Crete published in CMS I (Athens) and CMS V (smaller Greek collections) and seals known to have been collected on Crete published in CMS VI (Ashmolean Museum), CMS VII (UK museums), CMS IX (Bibliothèque Nationale Paris) and CMS XI (Metropolitan Museum of Art). This is particularly the case for the cat head which is not accepted as a script sign in CHIC, J.-P. OLIVIER and L. GODART, Corpus Hieroglyphicarum Inscriptionum Cretae (1996) 13-14. For an opposing view see J.G. YOUNGER, “The Cretan Hieroglyphic Script: A Review Article,” Minos 31-32 (1999) 387; A. JASINK, Cretan Hieroglyphic Seals: A New Classification of Symbols and Ornamental/Filling Motifs (2009) 46-48. M. ANASTADIADOU, The Middle Minoan Three-Sided Soft Stone Prism: A Study of Style and Iconography (2011) 209-215, 355.

SACRIFICIAL RELICS OR TROPHIES? ANIMAL HEADS IN BRONZE AGE CRETE

313

bovid head without horns, often referred to as a ‘calf’, although it could be a sheep.56 It shows that at least some animal heads were used to refer to real animals rather than acting as syllabograms. Animal heads continue to be used as ideograms for some animals in both Linear A and Linear B, although the major domesticates (sheep, goat, cattle) are more schematic forms which refer to horn shape. Animal heads appear frequently on Protopalatial soft stone three-sided prisms whose designs are not generally interpreted as inscriptions (Pl. LXXIId).57 The faces of these seals show a variety of simple forms, many of which appear to be linked to human activities, including weaving, potting, hunting and fishing.58 These activities are sometimes shown explicitly, as with a person holding a fish, but mostly using a shorthand, such as a fish or loomweights. In this context animal heads could refer to livestock rearing and the supply of these animals for consumption events. Since goats are shown in profile it is possible that heads refer to domestic goats, and whole animals to hunted wild goats, but the important point is that these depictions can be linked to real world forms and activities rather than being regarded as symbols. Animal heads continue to be depicted in the Neopalatial period, with a cattle heads continuing to be the most popular. Most of these show the head frontally, with the talismanic seals making up over half of these (Pl. LXXIIe).59 These stylised cattle heads appear to relate to the Cretan Hieroglyphic script, further emphasising the difficulty in isolating script signs.60 There are a small number of dog and lion heads, which appear to relate to hunting. One seal from Ayia Triada shows a dog, lion, cattle head in profile and a frontal boar’s head (Pl. LXXIIf). These are all animals involved in hunting in this period, although the dog was a hunting companion rather than prey animal (although could have been eaten too).61 There are also a large number of different animal heads among the Zakro seals, which are not included in Figure 1 since they are part of composite forms. Notably, these include the very few bucrania shown on Cretan seals (Pl. LXXIIg), since the large majority are fleshed heads. Although the Zakro seals combine different parts of animals and other entities, they show that animal skulls were significant in this period. Animal heads continue to be depicted on Final Palatial seals, but in fewer numbers (Pl. LXXIIIb). Some show animal heads frontally or in profile, such as the seal from Psychro Cave. Others show much smaller heads whose relation to the scenes is sometimes unclear. A seal from Kalyvia, for instance shows a lion with a goat head above its back and another between its legs (Pl. LXXIIh). Morgan relates the depiction of cattle heads to sacrifice, particularly those shown frontally.62 One sealing she discusses does show animal heads beneath a scene of a bull trussed to a table (Pl. LXXIIb). By this time, the animal heads depicted are generally cattle and goats. Discussion The evidence from zooarchaeology, zoomorphic rhyta and seals is complementary: animal heads were deposited and depicted from the Protopalatial period onwards. Cattle heads (and double axes) also appear on ceramics at this time.63 Partly because of their use in the Cretan Hieroglyphic script they are particularly prevalent on seals in the Protopalatial period. Animal heads continue to be depicted and


56

57 58 59 60 61

62 63

There are three occurrences of ideogram 152 listed in CHIC, two of them on the same document (Hh (08) 01): fig. 3.12. As with the clay bar Hh (08) 02, the ideogram is associated with the numeral 1, and both documents are from Knossos. OLIVIER and GODART (supra n. 54) 118-121, 423 [#065, #067]. ANASTASIADOU (supra n. 55) 341-358. O. KRZYSZKOWSKA, Aegean Seals: An Introduction (2005) 92-95; ANASTASIADOU (supra n. 55) 349. A. ONASSOGLOU, Die ›talismanischen‹ Siegel (1985) 120-127. A. JASINK, “From “Hieroglyphic” to “Talismanic” Symbols,” Pasiphae 10 (2016) 22. L. SNYDER and W. KLIPPEL, “From Lerna to Kastro: Further Thoughts on Dogs as Food in Ancient Greece: Perceptions, Prejudices and Reinvestigations,” in E. KOTJABOPOULOU, Y. HAMILAKIS, P. HALSTEAD, C. GAMBLE, P. ELEFANTI (eds), Zooarchaeology in Greece: Recent Advances (2003) 221-231. MORGAN (supra n. 52). M. NIKOLAIDOU, “Materialised Myth and Ritualised Realities: Religious Symbolism on Minoan Pottery,” in ALRAM-STERN et al. eds (supra n. 5) 100-106.

314

Andrew SHAPLAND

deposited in the Neopalatial period, when there are some increasingly naturalistic depictions on both seals and zoomorphic rhyta. The detail of the depiction establishes that they are fleshed heads, often, but not exclusively, from cattle. In the Final Palace period, animal heads continue to be depicted on seals, although often as subsidiary fillers. Animal head rhyta continue to be made in ceramic after the end of the palatial period, and the deposition of animal heads continues. Like animal heads, double axes were depicted from the Protopalatial period onwards and votive replicas were also produced. The association between double axes, cattle heads and sacrifice, put forward by Nilsson, has been doubted because double axes and cattle heads are both depicted in the Protopalatial period, but only come together in the Neopalatial period.64 Even then, depictions of cattle heads with double axes between their horns are comparatively rare.65 Nevertheless, they are found at the same sites as animal skulls and, as Arthur Evans pointed out, there are associations between double axes and bull’s head rhyta at Knossos in the Final Palace period. In the Tomb of the Double Axes, with its extraordinary double-axe-shaped burial shaft, thin bronze-sheet double axes were found in association with fragments from a bull’s head rhyton; in the fill a more solid double axe was found.66 These solid double axes found in palatial Crete could have been used to kill an immobilised animal with a blow to the back of the neck, but it is equally likely that a stunning blow was delivered to the front of the head and then an axe was used to divide the meat into portions for roasting.67 The thinner double axes would not have been an effective chopping tool, and are likely votive, although it is not impossible that some of the blades could have been used ceremonially to slice meat or for skinning.68 In the Little Palace, the bull’s head rhyton was found in association with a stand of the type used for these votive double axes, apparently depicted on the Ayia Triada sarcophagus and also found at Psychro Cave.69 As Cromarty has argued, at sites such as Psychro, there is evidence for ‘commensal meat rituals’ but not unambiguous evidence of sacrifice.70 This is because the zooarchaeological remains at these sites consist of butchered animals, whose meat appears to have been cooked and eaten, but not evidence for the method (or location) of slaughter. There is iconographic evidence for the hunting of both cattle, most likely feral, and agrimia on Bronze Age Crete, so their heads or horns could be regarded as hunting trophies, as Bloedow argues.71 Whether these animals were domestic, non-domestic, or a mixture of both, and however they were killed, the term trophy can be broadened to refer to the display of animal heads. Since heads are the least meaty parts of an animal, and the horns of cattle and goats were used for industrial purposes, the presence of their heads suggests that the carcase was likely to have been divided at these sites and the head sometimes retained for commemorative purposes.72 Rather than memorials of


64

65

66

67

68

69 70 71 72

H.G. BUCHHOLZ, Zur Herkunft der kretischen Doppelaxt. Geschichte und auswärtige Beziehungen eines minoischen Kultsymbols (1959) 19; HAYSOM (supra n. 5) 37-38. On pottery: an MMIII jar from Palaikastro, R. BOSANQUET and R. DAWKINS, The Unpublished Objects from the Palaikastro Excavations (1923) 19-21, Pl. XII; an LMI vessel from Pseira, R. SEAGER, Excavations on the Island of Pseira, Crete (1910) Pl. VII; seals include CMS II 3 11, which could be Neopalatial and CMS XII 250, dated LMII-IIIA1. A.J. EVANS, “The ‘Tomb of the Double Axes’ and Associated Group, and the Pillar Rooms and Ritual Vessels of the ‘Little Palace’ at Knossos,” Archaeologia 65 (1914) 33-59. One example is inscribed with a bull’s head: C. MAVRYIANNAKI, “Double Axe-Tool with an Engraved Bucranium from the District of Amari (Nome of Rethymno),” AAA 11 (1978) 198-208. Experimental archaeology has shown that double axes were effective tools for dividing carcases. M. LOWE FRI, The Minoan Double Axe: An Experimental Study of Production and Use (2011) 60-65. The bronze objects sometimes described as ‘cutters’ are the same form as each half of the ‘votive’ double axes. J. BOARDMAN, The Cretan Collection in Oxford: The Dictaean Cave and Iron Age Crete (1961) 23, 42-45. A sturdier version from Psychro is in the Metropolitan Museum (26.31.474). Compare the Inuit ulu or Tibetan kartika, both curved flaying knives. Knives were also abundant at Psychro which could have been used for filleting. EVANS (supra n. 66) 72. CROMARTY (supra n. 24) 107. BLOEDOW (supra n. 18) 34-35. CROMARTY (supra n. 24) 82-83. One axe from Psychro in the Ashmolean Museum (AN1927.1386) has

SACRIFICIAL RELICS OR TROPHIES? ANIMAL HEADS IN BRONZE AGE CRETE

315

either a hunt or a sacrifice, these heads were more immediately connected with the division, sharing and consumption of meat. The depiction of animal heads in Crete begins in the palatial period. If the idea that heads were put on display as trophies during consumption events is accepted, different phases can be sketched out which parallel the development of feasting in prehistoric Crete.73 The first phase, beginning in the Protopalatial period is closely connected with diacritical feasting in which the provision and sharing of meat was a means of establishing and maintaining social groups. The prevalence of animal heads on seals would then be linked with the provision of animals for such events. The second, Neopalatial, phase, is marked by the creation of increasingly realistic simulacra of animal heads, first in clay and then stone (and likely metal), mirrored in detailed seal depictions of animal heads. Animal head rhyta were used to distinguish palatial consumption events from others, in which finely crafted heads were used as well as or instead of real heads. At this time, the use of heads as hunting trophies also appears to have developed, with lion heads as both rhyta and on seals (alongside deer, boar and hunting dogs); although hunting and sacrifice are different ways of killing animals, both domestic and non-domestic animal bodies were consumed at the same events. In the third phase, animal heads, and the butchery tools associated with these consumption events, double axes, became symbols,74 derived from the rituals of palatial consumption. The depiction of cattle on tables in the Final Palace period perhaps marks the increasing significance of ritualised slaughter, i.e. sacrifice, at this time, which can be linked to Mainland practices.75 Following the end of the palatial period, heads continued to be deposited as part of consumption events, as at Chania, and put on display, as at Vronda. Indeed, as the excavators of Syme argue, the offering of heads continued on Crete into later periods.76 By tracing the history of the deposition and depiction of animal heads on Crete, it becomes possible to disentangle them from the theories of burnt animal sacrifice with which they were invested by the first excavators, or the other types of sacrifice they have been subsequently associated with. It is likely that the killing of domestic animals was ritualised in prehistoric Crete, but the zooarchaeological and iconographic evidence points to the greater significance of the consumption of both domestic and non-domestic animals. Rather than sacrificial relics, heads were used actively as trophies, displayed as a memento of the provision and division of animal carcases whose meat was a critical part of the consumption events that shaped and defined palatial Crete. Andrew SHAPLAND





73

74 75 76

use wear consistent with chopping bones. LOWE FRI (supra n. 67) 73-74, 82-83. Y. HAMILAKIS, “Too Many Chiefs?: Factional Competition in Neopalatial Crete,” in J. DRIESSEN, I. SCHOEP and R. LAFFINEUR (eds), Monuments of Minos: Rethinking the Minoan Palaces (2002) 194-197; E. BORGNA, “Aegean Feasting: A Minoan Perspective,” Hesperia 73 (2004) 247-279; D. HAGGIS, “Stylistic Diversity and Diacritical Feasting at Protopalatial Petras: A Preliminary Analysis of the Lakkos Deposit,” AJA (2007) 111, 755-770; L. GIRELLA, “Feasts in ‘transition’? An overview of feasting”, in L.A. HITCHCOCK, R. LAFFINEUR and J. CROWLEY (eds), DAIS. The Aegean Feast. Proceedings of the 12th International Aegean Conference, University of Melbourne, Centre for Classics and Archaeology, 25-29 March 2008 (2008) 411-426. HAYSOM (supra n. 5) 51-52. ISAAKIDOU et al. (supra n. 21); PALAIMA (supra n. 25); ISAAKIDOU and HALSTEAD (supra n. 16). LEBESSI and MUHLY (supra n. 19) 328.

316

Andrew SHAPLAND LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Pl. LXXII

Drawings of seal impressions: a) LB II-LB IIIA1 seal from Psychro Cave (CMS VI 448); b) LB IIIA seal from Knossos (CMS II 3 338); c) LMI seal from Mirabello area (CMS VI 421); d) face a of MMII three-sided prism from Malia Sealcutter’s Workshop (CMS II 2 170a); e) LMI seal from Psychro Cave? (CMS II 3 289); f) LMIB sealing from Ayia Triada (CMS II 6 92); g) LMIB sealing from Kato Zakros (CMS II 7 155); h) LMIIIA seal from Kalyvia (CMS II 3 104). Pl. LXXIIIa Bar chart showing the number of animal heads depicted on a sample of seals from Crete. Pl. LXXIIIb Bar chart showing proportion of animal heads compared to complete animals in a sample of seals from Crete.

LXXII

b

a

d

c

e

g

f

h

LXXIII

a

b

SHARK TEETH FROM BRONZE AGE GAVDOS. HEALING HEIRLOOMS AND THE LIOKOURNA (SUN OR SNAKE HORNS) MEDICAL FOLK TRADITION* Abstract A set of fossilised shark teeth was found in the Bronze Age levels of the building complex at Katalymata on the island of Gavdos off the southwest coast of Crete. These palaeontological discoveries in mid-2nd millennium BC settlement contexts trigger a discussion of an odd, but long lasting, popular healing tradition, which seems well established in various versions in Crete and wider Greece – and complements similar beliefs in the Mediterranean and beyond. In this tradition, fossil shark teeth strangely change their identity to be recognised as “snake horns” (in themselves a paradox for biologists) and they are usually called liokourna in Crete. Modern islanders used to look for them zealously, finding them in geological formations where a few may have been embedded, and then keeping them in their homes for generation after generation. They believe that these have strong antipoison powers, mainly against venom in the bites of snakes, scorpions, wasps and other noxious creatures, following, apparently, some principle of sympathetic medicine based on homeopathic antidotes. This paper presents, briefly, the excavation data and tentatively puts the finds in their ethnographic framework as implied from both the Gavdiots’ point of view and our preliminary research on Cretan, Greek and Mediterranean folk beliefs on this issue. In an effort to draw analogies between the scientific evidence and the popular narratives, we shall also consider the ethnoarchaeological context of ancient and modern attitudes towards fossilised shark (and other fish) teeth, such as, for example, glossopetrae (petrified [snake] tongues), which were kept for their believed magical curative power to counteract many kinds of toxins in the Middle Ages – and perhaps earlier and certainly much later.

On Gavdos, at the inland site called Katalymata, on the Tsirmiris hill and close to the University’s field station at Siopata, since 2005-06 we have been excavating with our students from the Department of History and Archaeology a large architectural complex (Pl. LXXIV) dating back to the Bronze Age (3rd and mainly first half of the 2nd millennium BC).1 Its rich and diverse contents point to multiple activities – mainly storing, grinding and pounding, food preparing and consuming, as well as more specialised industrial work probably including potting and metal working – and show a considerable sharing of knowledge with Minoan Crete and also the Cyclades and the Aegean. Among organic remains are carbonised grape seeds and animal and fish bones and, from all over the building, abundant shells (and many purple shells [Hexaplex trunculus] Pl. LXXVa).2


*

1

2

Sincere thanks are due to Charalambos Vailakakis, Maria Bikogiannaki and +Giorgos Koumandatakis for their islanders' opinion on liokourna – how fortunate we were to share their memories. Also to A. Alexopoulos, J. Carrillo and T. Argyriou, D. Mylona, and P. Lyberakis for their preliminary expert views respectively on fossils, shark teeth, and snakes. A. Sarpaki and J.L. Nikolakakis provided valuable ethnographic material, and E. Theou further references and precious help. Our gratitude goes also to G. Cadogan for polishing the text, and, most certainly, to R. Laffineur and Th. G. Palaima for their invitation for the ZOIA volume – and extreme patience. The healing perspective of this paper alludes, also, to the COVID-19 pandemic which prevented us from meeting last spring at Austin for the ZOIA Conference and is still testing the planet severely. E.g. K. KOPAKA, “The Gavdos Project. An Island Culture on the Cretan and Aegean Fringe,” The European Archaeologist 46 (2015) 62-67; and for pottery and clay finds, K. ΚΟPΑΚΑ and E. THEOU, “Αγγεία και πήλινα σκεύη της Εποχής του Χαλκού από τα Καταλύματα στη Γαύδο,” Πρακτικά της 4ης Παγκρήτιας Συνάντησης για το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στην Κρήτη, Ρέθυμνο 24-27/11/2016 (forthcoming). Plant and animal remains are studied respectively by A. Sarpaki and D. Mylona (e.g., M. ANDONOVA, K. ΚΟPΑΚΑ and Α. SARPAKI, “Στατιστικά δεδομένα ποσότητας και χωρικής κατανομής βιοκαταλοίπων στο κτήριο της Εποχής του Χαλκού στα Καταλύματα Γαύδου,” in N. ZACHARIAS

318

Katerina KOPAKA

On the excavation field: Shark teeth or “snake horns”? A collection of six fossilised shark teeth was found in 2010 in the North East sector of Katalymata (Pl. LXXIV). They all came from the same spot and almost the same depth, approximately the level of the LBA I/LM I floor of Room 9,3 as if they had been kept together in the past – e.g. in a small box, bag or other container made of perishable material (Pl. LXXVb). Five of them are triangular, flat and thin (2.82 to 3.80 x 1.49 to 2.32 cm), and the sixth (3,63 x 0,86 cm) has a forked cylindrical form (Pl. LXXVIa-b). They seem to belong, according to J. Carrillo and T. Argyriou, to Cosmopolitodus cf. hastalis, to a shark species known in the Neogene of the Mediterranean. The same set involves two fossilised molariform teeth (diam. 1.52 and 1.14 cm) (Pl. LXXVIa, upper row) of some species of Sparidae, as these researchers propose.4 But this solid scientific identification of ours broke down when the Gavdiot Mr. Charalambos Vailakakis, then guard of the local antiquities, visited the excavation: “You have here λιόκουρνα – masses of them!” he shouted excitedly; and to our puzzled gazes translated: “the horns of the snake.” Both the word liokournο and the idea of horned snakes were utterly new and strange to us. He then explained that for many generations the islanders used to look zealously for liokourna, and when they found one,5 they “kept it at home,” he said, “among the pictures of the saints (sto eikonostasi), as a precious item. My mother was blessed to hold a liokourno from her mother, and my sister Maria inherited it.”6 “In the case of an animal’s bite,”7 he continued, “my mother put the liokourno into a glass of water and, once it bubbled (άφριζε), the person would drink the water and was healed.” Without a doubt, then, local people conceived (and still do) the liokourna as having strong antitoxin powers, especially for bites from snakes, scorpions, wasps and other noxious creatures. The connection of their name with the snake further suggests that their use in these therapies follows some principle of sympathetic medicine based on homeopathic antidotes. We were surprised and impressed. Was there the possibility of a similar magical practice at Katalymata more than 3,500 years ago? These palaeontological discoveries in the 2nd millennium BC settlement contexts of Katalymata thus triggered our ongoing ethnographic and documentary research into folk beliefs on this issue. Some of the preliminary results, as discussed here, reveal an enigmatic, but long lasting and popular, healing tradition that seems well established in various versions in Crete and other regions of Greece, such as Macedonia and the Peloponnese.8


3

4

5

6

7

8

[ed.], Αρχαιολογική Έρευνα και Νέες Τεχνολογίες, 3ο Συμπόσιο ARCH_RNT, Παν/κή Σχολή Καλαμάτας 36/10/2012 [2014] 83-93). From our initial Trench Γ3/B4 (Cat. no 273), excavated by Efthimis Theou (responsible), Eleni Chriazomenou and Angeliki Fotoglou (Excavation Diary, 22-23 August 2010). Carrillo, Argyriou and Alexopoulos found two more such teeth (one of each type) in situ in Upper Miocene-Pliocene deposits during their 2019 geological/palaeontological fieldwork on Gavdos. The interdisciplinary study and publication of this material is in preparation. Often, according to our late friend Giorgos Koumandatakis, from a hilly formation with a significant name: Κεφάλι του Φιδιού (Snake’s Head). But, unfortunately, his sister Maria Bikogiannaki has lost it. This happened also to two other owners of such heirlooms from Gavdos. He used the word μιαρό (literally, impure), which in the Cretan dialect connotes animals, usually small creatures such as insects, reptiles and rodents, but can also refer to domestic ones (Μ.Ι. PITYKAKIS, Το Γλωσσικό Ιδiωμα της Ανατολικής Κρήτης, B' [1971] 625; Α.Β. XANTHINAKIS, Το Γλωσσικό Ιδίωμα της Δυτικής Κρήτης [1996] 312). An early discussion and references in Ε.Κ. FRANGAKI, “Ο όφις στην Κρήτη,” Κρητική Εστία 238/239 (1979) 710; see, also, G.Ν. AIKATERINIDIS, “Λιόκουρνο,” Κρητικό Πανόραμα 18 (2006) 170-171. The range of diseases thought to be treated by the liokourno is wide, and may include “facing the evil eye” and incantation in general – and even “expelling the bullet of a gun” to protect its holder.

SHARK TEETH FROM BRONZE AGE GAVDOS

319

The liokourna healing tradition and Mediterranean folk beliefs about shark teeth In this tradition, shark teeth strangely change their identity so as to be recognised as “snake horns” and be called liokourna ([τα] λιόκουρνα, or, in slightly different forms, λιοκόρνα, λιόκρουνα, λιόκρινα etc). The names seem to include Greek ήλιος (sun) and Latin cornum in their etymology: sun horns?9 Snake horns are in themselves a paradox for biologists, according to P. Lyberakis, as snakes do not have real horns. Only rare vipers, mainly the Egyptian/African Cerastes cerastes,10 have frontal skin (and not bone) horn-like projections. It is, consequently, a mystery how shark teeth (and perhaps other horn- or tooth-like fossils?) were and are recognized in so many different and distant regions as the horns of imaginary horned snakes – and some Cretans even report having seen such creatures and can describe them (Pl. LXXVIIa).11 In the leading tradition of the story, on the (rare) encounter with the serpent, alone or when mating, one would immediately throw a garment or cloth (often of light colour) over it, and its horns would fall off.12 The owner of a liokourno (Pl. LXXVIIb) would safeguard it and expect no material gain when he/she used it – only respect for his/her capacity to heal members of the family and the community, and even strangers. In an effort to bridge scientific evidence with popular narratives, we have now begun to review the ethnoarchaeological contexts of ancient and modern attitudes towards fossil shark teeth, which we shall discuss in detail in a future work. Among them are Mediterranean fossils, and especially those of Malta known as glossopetrae (tongue stones): that is “petrified” shark teeth thought to be, this time, serpents’ tongues – after Saint Paul’s punitive miracle of turning into stone a menacing snake on his shipwreck at the island.13 Again, the teeth were used mainly for their apotropaic and curative powers to counteract many kinds of toxins. By the Middle Ages, they were circulated in flourishing economic networks and were also collectors’ items and curios14 – as was perhaps the case earlier, and certainly later.15 These were,


9 10

11

12

13

14

15

E.g., PITYKAKIS (supra n. 7), A’, 553-554); but other suggestions also exist. E.g., with a quick search, http://eol.org/pages/795462/details. See also, perhaps, the nose-horned viper/Vipera ammodytes from Europe/and the Balkans, Turkey, Armenia and elsewhere (L. TOMOVIC, “Systematics of the nose-horned viper [Vipera ammodytes] Linnaeus, 1758),” The Herpetological Journal 16(2) [2006] 191-201). An eyewitness of a horned snake by the Platanias river (Chania) in the 1950s is mentioned in Α.P. FOURAKIS, “Λιόκουρνο, το κέρατο του φιδιού,” Κρητικό Πανόραμα 18 (2006) 158-169 – and the resulting picture in our Pl. LXXVIIa is included in the article. E.g., Ν. PSILAKIS, Λαϊκές Τελετουργίες στην Κρήτη. – Έθιμα στον Κύκλο του Χρόνου (2005) 230-231 – where searching for and finding a λιόκουρνο (usually early in the morning on May Day) is a spring ritual involving magical appeals, e.g. via spells, and overall (almost shamanistic?) divination. Psilakis even mentions a lively rumour of a big κερασφόρος όφις (horned serpent) in the district of Malia in 1987. See, early, A. REES, The Cyclopaedia: Or, Universal Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and Literature 32 (1819) 298-299 – s.v. serpents’ tongues: “The island of Malta abounds with glossopetrae, or the petrified teeth of sharks, which, from their resemblance to a tongue, are by the vulgar supposed to be the tongue of serpents turned into stone by some miracle of St Paul, when he was there. […] The mountains of Sicily afford some few glossopetrae […] but they are few in number and worse prepared than those of the island of Malta.” See also, e.g., C. SAVONAVENTURA, “Maltese Medical Folklore. Man and the Herpetofauna: A Review,” Maltese Medical Journal II (1) (1990) 41-42; and, recently, C.J. DUFFIN, Snakes’ Tongues, Serpents’ Eyes and Sealed Earths: Geology and Medicine in Malta, An Occasional Paper of the St John Historical Society (2019) 1-16. Whether conceived as snakes’ horns or serpents’ tongues etc, fossil shark teeth seem to provide then another shared feature between Gavdos and the islands of Malta – see K. KOPAKA, “Gozo of Malta – ‘Gozo’ of Crete (Gavdos). Thoughts on a Twinned Mediterranean Micro-Insular Toponymy and Epic Tradition,” KritChron ΛΑ’ (2011) 13-32. E.g., G. ZAMMIT-MAEMPEL, “Fossil Sharks’ Teeth. A Medieval Safeguard Against Poisoning,” Melita Historica 6(4) (1975) 391-410; C. GALEA BONAVIA, “Carcharoles Megalodon (Agassiz) (Lamnidae: Neoselachae): A Historical Note,” The Central Mediterranean Naturalist 4 (1) (2003) 105. For example, in the 19th century. Thus, at Attard in Malta, V. Raulin bought “[des] dents de Carcharodon megalodon, provenant sans doute des carrières des environs” – and was offered another one in Città Vecchia (V. RAULIN, Description physique de l’île de Crète, I [1869] 27, n. 1). And A. Evans is said to have acquired in 1888 a (“large translucent grey and red Miocene”) shark tooth pendant, “mounted in gold filigree,” from an

320

Katerina KOPAKA

also, frequently worn as jewels and/or amulets, suspended from a bracelet or necklace, and as such they are often found as grave goods; and there were many other ways to use them, including immersion in drinking vessels and liquids to produce an infusion16 – which is not too far from the Gavdiot ritual. Healing shark teeth in archaeological contexts? The long lasting reputation of shark teeth may reflect deeply rooted concepts, and therefore persisting legends, and appropriate behaviours – as happens with many other “interesting” geological ecofacts and organic remains like bones, horns/antlers, teeth, and even, more rarely, paws e.g. of predatory birds, especially if “petrified”.17 This appeal results from the strong universal attraction of fossils and, therefore, the general eagerness to acquire them. Meanwhile superstitions link them to the magical sphere and empower them with qualities of protecting people from evil and healing diseases,18 according to their different real or imagined features.19 There are also, of course, the potent diachronic symbolisms of the snake, which easily transcend, in our case, that of the shark in the communities’ cognitive representations (see, also, the “snake eggs” and “serpent’s eyes” in fnn. 18-19). Finally, we should add here the efficacy of oral tradition and oral transmissions regarding (inter)cultural sharing of knowledge – including the art of drug-making (pharmacopeia) and healing – which may be to some degree responsible for the adoption of similar concepts and words and comparable attitudes and practices in the longue durée of the Mediterranean. Archaeological evidence for several shark and ray remains, mostly vertebrae, from the Eastern Mediterranean region – fossils or non fossils, perhaps modified, and even artificial versions of them – was first provided by D. Reese’s pioneering zooarchaeological work.20 Shark teeth are not frequent among the finds, but they are known already in Palaeolithic horizons, e.g. in Malta, and later in Neolithic and Bronze Age Egypt, Chalcolithic Sicily, Copper Age Italy and elsewhere21 – and then in




16

17

18

19

20

21

Etruscan tomb (6th century BC) at Ascoli Piceno in Italy (A. MAYOR, The First Fossil Hunters: Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times [2000] 171). For a Maltese fossil shark’s tooth from John Evans’s collection donated through A. Evans to The Pitt Rivers Museum in 1928, see S. STODDART, “Neolithic and Bronze Age Malta and Italy,” in D. HICKS and A. STEVENSON (eds), World Archaeology at the Pitt Rivers Museum: A Characterization (2013) 305. E.g., SAVONA-VENTURA (supra n. 13) 43. For the time being, we have encountered only few suggestions of practical uses of shark teeth (mostly in early horizons?), for example as a tool (e.g. SAVONA-VENTURA and MISFUD [infra n. 21] and STODDART [supra n. 15] – maybe for incising pottery) or as a weapon (projectile) as in some cultures. E.g., C.J. DUFFIN and J.P. DAVIDSON, “Geology and the Dark Side,” Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 122 (2011) 7-15. For some folk concepts that imply mainly fossil bones of Pleistocene mammals in the Mediterranean islands, see D.S. REESE, “Men, Saints, or Dragons?,” Folklore 87(1) (1976) 89-95. E.g., C.J. DUFFIN, “Fossils as Drugs. Pharmaceutical Palaeontology,” Travaux scientifiques du Musée National d’Histoire Naturelle, Ferrantia 54 (2008); A. VAN DER GEER and M. DERMITZAKIS, “Fossils in Pharmacy: From ‘Snake Eggs’ to ‘Saint’s Bones’; An Overview,” Hellenic Journal of Geosciences 45 (2010) 323-332. Thus, possibly due to their circular shape, fish teeth like the ones from Katalymata (supra and Pl. LXXVIa) are called “serpents’s eyes” (occhi di serpe) and toadstones (φρυνόλιθοι) or stones thought to have been extracted from the heads of toads, and are similarly attributed strong apotropaic and medicinal qualities (e.g., DUFFIN [supra n. 18] 33-44; A. MORGAN, Toads and Toadstools: The Natural History, Folklore and Cultural Oddities of a Strange Association [1995]). D.S. REESE, “Shark and Ray Remains in Aegean and Cypriote Archaeology,” Opuscula Atheniensia 15 (1984) 188-192; for shark teeth: 190, 191, 192) – I thank the author for this and many others of his articles and notes. See, also, M.J. ROSE, With Line and Glittering Bronze Hook: Fishing in the Aegean Bronze Age, PhD Dissertation University of Indiana (1994) 211-384; and Τ. THEODOROPOULOU, “Κυνηγώντας καρχαρίες στο προϊστορικό Αιγαίο: Ιχθυολογικά κατάλοιπα και πιθανές χρήσεις,” in Υδάτινοι βιολογικοί πόροι και οικοσυστήματα – Διαχείριση, Αξιοποίηση, Προστασία, Πρακτικά 13ου Συνεδρίου Ιχθυολόγων, Μυτιλήνη 27/30-9-2007 (2007) 29-32, esp. 30, 32. E.g., respectively: C. SAVONA-VENTURA and A. MISFUD, “Palaeolithic Man and his Environment in Malta,” Lecture delivered to the S.S.C.N. 9 April 1997 (Ghar Dalam, c. 18000 years ago): “a fossil shark’s tooth

SHARK TEETH FROM BRONZE AGE GAVDOS

321

Greek and Roman times.22 A few of them are reported from Bronze Age sites in the Aegean, e.g. from the Peristeria tholos tomb, from MH-LH Nichoria,23 and from Mikro Vouni on Samothraki;24 while a shark tooth in faience can perhaps be recognized among the recent finds from Akrotiri (House of the Benches).25 As a response to the equally limited evidence for Minoan Crete, a non-fossilised shark tooth pendant from LM IB Mochlos (House D7 – Pl. LXXVIIc),26 and the tooth of a Mako shark at Papadiokampos (House A.1)27 are paving the way for highly desirable contextual archaeological approaches and systematic interdisciplinary studies of such neglected discoveries. These will certainly include the shark’s tooth from Tomb I of the Warrior-Graves at Knossos, which might have belonged to a LM ΙΙΙΑ1 group of “amulets or charms” – together with a piece of blue glass and a lump of magnetite, maybe “kept for its supposed magical qualities.”28 Epilogue Does the stratified group of shark and other fish teeth from Katalymata stand among the array of ancient folk healing rituals? Such a suggestion should lead us to new readings of these archaeological finds and add an important value to them. It provides, also, a spur to further collaboration of archaeologists, environmentalists, social/medical anthropologists, and maybe other specialists focusing on the challenging field of ethnomedicine and comparative health practices in antiquity and in recent times. Today, traditional healing and women and men folk-healers are severely restricted in the Western world, whereas the growing familiarity of official Medicine with alternative therapies, mostly Oriental ones, continues in some way the long empirical tradition of ancient health-giving knowledge. And despite a few laws that tend to protect fossils as essential pieces of cultural heritage, collecting shark teeth remains popular, very often to the profit of the modern market for e-commerce.




22

23 24 25

26

27

28

... [with] the point chipped off, apparently from a continuous hammering with it”); MAYOR (supra n. 15) 175; R. LEIGHTON, Sicily Before History: An Archaeological Survey from the Palaeolithic to the Iron Age (1999) 94 (from the “tomb of the shaman”); and R. SKEATES, “The Art of Memory: Personal Ornaments in Copper Age South-East Italy,” in K.T. LILLIOS and V. TSAMIS (eds), Material Mnemonics. Everyday Memory in Prehistoric Europe (2010), 77, fig. 4.3 (two perforated fossil shark teeth from Grotta Cappucini in Lecce). See, also, REESE (supra n. 20) 191-192 (Appendix). E.g., MAYOR (supra n. 15). A natural “sand shark tooth” is reported among Roman finds on Bates island in Marsa Matruh in NW Egypt, close to the Libyan borders (D.S. REESE and M.J. ROSE, “Organic Finds from the Island and Adjacent Areas,” in D. WHITE, Marsa Matruh II: The Objects [2002] 90, 92). E.g., REESE (supra n. 20) 189, 190-191. THEODOROPOULOU (supra n. 20) 30. “Μοναδικά ευρήματα από την προϊστορική πόλη του Ακρωτηρίου Θήρας,” Greek Ministry of Culture and Tourism https://www.culture.gov.gr/el/Information/SitePages/view.aspx?nID=3106&fbclid=IwAR2tbnIq77cyr YtNYiafzx0EkZtrfoRhq5z6Al7AadicpX2Ol2wc_VUKy8w#prettyPhoto, fig. 5 (right); and https://www. kathimerini.gr/society/1062606/monadika-eyrimata-apo-tin-proistoriki-poli-toy-akrotirioy-thiras/(01-302020) (last accessed April 9, 2021). Imitations of shark vertebrae in different materials are reported by Reese, for example, from Agia Triada, Koumasa and Agios Onoufrios in Crete (REESE [supra n. 20] 189). D. MYLONA, “Animal Remains from Neopalatial Mochlos: Exploring Human-Animal Relations,” in J. SOLES (ed.), Mochlos IV. The Neopalatial Settlement (forthcoming 2021). My warm thanks to Jeff Soles and the author, for the information and photograph – and the permission to use them. T. BROGAN, C. SOFIANOU, J.E. MORRISON, D. MYLONA and E. MARGARITIS, “Living off the Fruits of the Sea: New Evidence for Dining at Papadiokampos, Crete,” in S. VOUTSAKI and S. VALAMOTI (eds), Diet, Economy and Society in the Ancient Greek World: Towards a Better Integration of Archaeology and Science, Proceedings of the International Conference held at the Netherlands Institute at Athens on 22-24 March 2010, Pharos Suppl. 1 (2013) 130. M.S.F. HOOD and P. DE JONG, “Late Minoan Warrior-Graves from Ayios Ioannis and the New Hospital Site at Knossos,” BSA 47 (1952) 248, 251, 265, 274, 275, fig 18.I.15; REESE (supra n. 20) 189; ROSE (supra n. 20) 248.

322

Katerina KOPAKA

In Crete, keepers and users of liokourna are now extremely few, but their stories and practices remain very attractive especially to young people – and to our students. In the changing universe of human symbolisms, to them shark teeth may have lost their healing power but retain, perhaps, some simple magic, for example of a nostalgic sense of freedom. This may be reflected in the advertising caption of the contemporary “genuine shark tooth pendant” (Pl. LXXVIId – which is fastened like the one from Bronze Age Mochlos, as Mylona cleverly spotted) where we read: “[…] also a great gift for your hippy, surfer, or beach goer friend.” Katerina KOPAKA


SHARK TEETH FROM BRONZE AGE GAVDOS

323

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Pl. LXXIV Pl. LXXVa Pl. LXXVb Pl. LXXVIa Pl. LXXVIb Pl. LXXVIIa Pl. LXXVIIb Pl. LXXVIIc Pl. LXXVIId

Findspot of the teeth (photogrammetry by P. Charamis, 2015). Purple shells from Room 1 (photo D. Mylona). The discovery of the teeth (Gavdos project photographic archive). The teeth after cleaning (by A. Troullinou). Drawings of some of the shark teeth (by P. Stefanaki). A “horned snake” as imagined in Crete (Κρητικό Πανόραμα 18 [2006] fig. p. 171). Old lady (Kandanos, Chania, 1979) and the liokourno she brought to Crete from her own island, Limnos (I. ALFIERIS, “Tο Λιόκουρνο,” Ελλωτία 10 [2002]
figs pp. 295, 296). Non-fossilised shark tooth pendant from Bronze Age Mochlos (MYLONA [supra n. 26]). Modern example (sold in sets of 6 pieces [!] for $4.95) https://leatherunltd.com/products/sharktooth-necklace-pendant-with-wire-wrap-6-pack.

LXXIV

LXXV

a

b

LXXVI

a

b

LXXVII

b

a

c

d

E. ANIMALS IN TEXTS




























THE MYCENAEAN BESTIARY: LINEAR B DATA Archaeozoology, drawings, paintings and sculptures provide a fairly good picture of the animals seen or imagined by the Mycenaean Greeks at the end of the Bronze Age. The Linear B tablets (the latest date ca 1200 BC) yield a very welcome, though limited,1 supplement to these data with their vocabulary, onomastics and ideograms. Not only do they supply the names and even forms of several animals, but in addition throw some light about their importance and use in the economy and life of the Mycenaean Palaces. 1. Animals mentioned in the Mycenaean texts2 The list below gives only animals whose identification in the Linear B texts seems sure or reasonably probable and not too problematic.3 Even so, onomastic forms, especially short ones, should be considered with caution, because they generally lack any contextual support. Apart from a few exceptions, the numbers hereunder come from a personal count of the Linear B data. I shall call “ideogram” any written sign in itself meaningful – for instance, in the Latin alphabet, the sign 1 or the comma (,) expresses in themselves respectively “a unit” or “a separation in a text”. Similarly, the Linear B ideograms VIR (𐂀) or MUL(ier) (𐂁) symbolize a “man” or a “woman”. If added after some Mycenaean ideograms, the letters f or m in exponent mean “female” or “male”. Contrary to custom, I conventionally consider “ideogram” or “logogram” as synonyms. A “phonogram” has no proper signification and is thus devoid of any meaning. It represents just a sound. Phonograms render either phonemes (vel sim.; these signs are “letters” like b or y in the Latin alphabet), or syllables (these signs are “syllabograms” as Linear B 𐀆 or 𐀠‚ which we transliterate respectively by de and pi). Birds terms: anthroponyms:

1

2

3

generic “bird” o-ni- orni- (cf. ὄρνις) “Alcyon” a-ku-wo Alkuōn (cf. anthr. Ἀλκύων)
“Lark” ko-ru-da-ro- Korudallo- (cf. anthr. Κορυδαλλός)

See for example P. HALSTEAD, “Texts and bones: contrasting Linear B and archaeozoological evidence for animal exploitation in Mycenaean southern Greece,” in E. KOTJABOPOULOU, Y. HAMILAKIS, P. HALSTEAD, C. GAMBLE and P. ELEFANTI (eds), Zooarchaeology in Greece: Recent Advances (2003) 257261. References and discussions in Y. DUHOUX, “Aux sources du bestiaire grec : les zoonymes mycéniens,” in Les zoonymes. Actes du colloque international tenu à Nice les 23, 24 et 25 janvier 1997 (1997) 173-202; ID., “Animaux ou humains ? Réflexions sur les tablettes Aravantinos de Thèbes,” in A. SACCONI, M. DEL FREO, L. GODART and M. NEGRI (eds), Colloquium Romanum. Atti del XII colloquio internazionale di Micenologia, Roma, 20-25 febbraio 2006 (2008) 231-250. The so-called “sacred animals” of the Aravantinos’s Thebes tablets are therefore not mentioned here (on this topic, see for instance DUHOUX 2008 (supra n. 2); S. HILLER, “Mycenaean religion and cult,” in Y. DUHOUX and A. MORPURGO DAVIES (eds), A Companion to Linear B. Mycenaean Greek Texts and their World, 2 (2011) 190-195).

328

Yves DUHOUX

Bovines4 terms:

“ox” qo-u- gwou-, etc. (cf. βοῦς). The tablets give the names for some of these oxen (e.g. to-ma-ko Stomargos “White muzzle” [cf. στόμαργος], etc.) “heifer” po-ti- porti- (cf. πόρτις) “bull” could be represented by the abbreviation ta [𐀲] if read as ta(uros) – cf. ταῦρος5 anthroponyms: “Bull” ta-u-ro Tauros (cf. anthr. Ταῦρος) “Ox…” qo-u- Gwou-, etc. (cf. anthr. Βου-) ideograms: “ox” BOS [𐀘]6 “cow” BOSf [𐂌] “bull” BOSm [𐂍] “fat ox” BOS+SI: ideogram BOS ligatured with the abbreviation si(-a2-ro) si(halos) “fat” (cf. σίαλος)7 Deer8 terms: toponyms: ideograms:

“of deer” e-ra-p… elaph… (cf. ἔλαφος) “Deer” e-ra-po Elaphōn “of the Deers” “deer” CERV(us) [𐂂] “deer’s skin”: ideographic abbreviation E [𐀁] of e-ra-pe-ja/e-ra-pi-ja elapheia/elaphia9 (cf. ἐλάφεια/ἐλάφια)


Dogs terms: “dog” ku-n… kun…, etc. (cf. κύων) anthroponyms: “Dog” ku-ne-u Kuneus (cf. anthr. Κυνίσκος) Equids10 terms:

4

5 6 7 8

9 10

“horse” i-q… ikkw… (cf. ἵππος) “foal” po-ro pōlos (cf. πῶλος) – applied to both “horses” and “donkeys” “donkey” o-no onos (cf. ὄνος)

T.G. PALAIMA, “Perspectives on the Pylos Oxen Tablets: Textual (and Archaeological) Evidence for the Use and Management of Oxen in Late Bronze Age Messenia (and Crete),” in T.G. PALAIMA, C. SHELMERDINE and P.HR. ILIEVSKI (eds), Studia Mycenaea (1989) 85-124; ID., “The Knossos Oxen Dossier: the Use of Oxen in Mycenaean Crete. Part I : General Background and Scribe 107,” in J.-P. OLIVIER (ed.), Mykenaïka. Actes du IXe Colloque international sur les textes mycéniens et égéens organisé par le Centre de l’Antiquité Grecque et Romaine de la Fondation Hellénique des Recherches Scientifiques et l’École française d’Athènes (Athènes, 2-6 octobre 1990) (1992) 463-474. J.L. MELENA, “Mycenaean writing,” in DUHOUX and MORPURGO DAVIES eds (supra n. 3) 3 (2014) 133. BOS is in fact the syllabogram mu [𐀘] utilized as an ideographic abbreviation. MELENA (supra n. 5) 137. R. PALMER, “Deer in the Pylos tablets,” in P. CARLIER, C. de LAMBERTERIE, M. EGETMEYER, N. GUILLEUX, F. ROUGEMONT and J. ZURBACH (eds), Études mycéniennes 2010. Actes du XIIIe Colloque international sur les textes égéens, Sèvres, Paris, Nanterre, 20-23 septembre 2010 (2012) 357-382. MELENA (supra n. 5) 145. J. CANTUEL, F. MERCIER, and V. THOMAS, “Les équidés dans le monde égéen à l’âge du Bronze. Approche archéologique et iconographique,” in A. GARDEISEN, E. FURET and N. BOULBES (eds), Histoire d’équidés. Des textes, des images et des os. Actes du colloque organisé par l’UMR 5140 du CNRS, Montpellier, 1314 mars 2008 (2010) 157-175.

THE MYCENAEAN BESTIARY: LINEAR B DATA

ideograms:

329

“equid” EQU(us) [𐂃] stands for both “horses” and “donkeys”, adults and foals “mare” EQUf [𐂄] “stallion” EQUm [𐂅]

Goats terms:11 “goat” a3-k… aig… (cf. αἴξ) anthroponyms: “Goat…” a3-k… Aig… (cf. anthr. Αἰγ…) ideograms: “goat” CAP(er) [𐁒]12 “she-goat” CAPf [𐂈] “he-goat” CAPm [𐂉] “horns of wild goats” CORN(u) [𐂠]13 Hedgehog anthroponyms: “Hedgehog” e-ki-no Ekhinos (cf. anthr. Ἐχῖνος) Lion terms:

“lion” re-wo- lewōn-, etc. (cf. λέων)14

Lizard anthroponyms: “Lizard” sa-u-ri-jo Saurios (cf. anthr. Σαύριος) Mouse anthroponyms: “Mouse” si-mi-te-u Smintheus (cf. anthr. Σμινθεύς) Octopus terms:

“octopus” po-ru-po-de- polupodei- “with an octopus” (cf. πολύπους)

Ovines15 terms:

“sheep” o-wi- owi- (cf. ὄϊς) “of lamb” we-re-n… wrēn… (cf. ῥήν) anthroponyms: “Lambkin” ]wa-ni-ko ]Warniskos (cf. anthr. Ἀρνίσκος) “Sheep” o-wi-ro Owilos (cf. ὄϊς) 11

12 13

14

15

The hapax a-ki-ri-ja (ΚΝ Cf 7064; formerly C[2] 7064) is regularly understood as a form of ἄγριος “wild”, which would be a designation of the Cretan agrimi goats (see n. 13 below). This interpretation is actually difficult. The Cf tablets never begin with a name identifying the animals recorded, but with their localization or with the person responsible for the flock. A-ki-ri-ja could then more probably be a masculine anthroponym like Ἀγρίας. CAP(er) is in fact the (still undeciphered) syllabogram *22 [𐁒] utilized as an ideographic abbreviation. MELENA (supra n. 5) 136. These goats are quite probably agrimi ones, which were (and still are) endemic to Crete: Capra aegagrus creticus; see R. PALMER, “Managing the Wild: Deer and Agrimia in the Late Bronze Age Aegean,” in G. TOUCHAIS, R. LAFFINEUR and F. ROUGEMONT (eds), PHYSIS. L’environnement naturel et la relation homme-milieu dans le monde égéen protohistorique. Actes de la 14e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Paris, Institut National d’Histoire de l’Art (INHA), 11-14 décembre 2012 (2014) 394. Though obviously of exotic origin, lions were represented in Aegean art and a few lions’ bones or teeth have been discovered in Bronze Age Greece (even, perhaps, in the Palace of Nestor at Pylos): see N.R. THOMAS, “A Lion’s Eye View of the Greek Bronze Age,” in TOUCHAIS et al. eds (supra n. 13) 375-389. The Linear B Pylos tablets record stools decorated “with lions” and “with lion’s (heads)”. Regarding the Mycenaean management of sheep see J.T. KILLEN, Economy and Administration in Mycenaean Greece. Collected Papers on Linear B (M. DEL FREO [ed.]) (2015).

330

Yves DUHOUX

toponyms: ideograms:

“Lamb” wa-no-jo Warnojo (cf. ἄρνος) “sheep” OVIS [𐀥]16 “ewe” OVISf [𐂆] “ram” OVISm [𐂇]

Siren mythological creatures: “Siren” se-re-m… Seirēm… (cf. Σειρήν) Suidae17 terms: ideograms:

“pig” su- su- (cf. σῦς) “fat pig” si-a2-ro sihalos (cf. σίαλος) “pig” SUS [𐁂]18 “sow” SUSf [𐂊] “boar” SUSm [𐂋] “fat pig” SUS+SI: ideogram SUS ligatured with the abbreviation si(-a2ro) si(halos) “fat” (cf. σίαλος)19 “wild boar” SUS+KA: ideogram SUS ligatured with a likely abbreviation of κάπρος “wild boar”20

Wolf or lynx anthroponyms and toponyms: “Wolf” or “Lynx” ru-k… Luk… or Lunk…, etc. (cf. Λυκ… Λυγκ…) Generic names for animals terms: “small livestock” po-ku- poku- (cf. Latin pecus “livestock”) “quadruped” qe-to-ro-po-pi kwetropopphi
“(watching) over quadrupeds”

(cf. τετράποδα)


Some other possible animal names Cock The Mycenaean anthroponym a-re-ku-tu-ru-wo Alektruwōn, etc. (cf. Ἀλεκτρυών) is regularly understood as meaning “Cock”, like the term ἀλεκτρυών. According to alphabetic Greek sources, however, the cock appears as a novelty introduced in Greece during the VI c. (Aristophanes still called it the “Persian bird”, Περσικὸς ὄρνις). I prefer therefore to interpret Alektruwōn as “Mr Defender” (the etymological sense of ἀλεκτρυών) in Linear B. It is true that archaeozoology suggests that the cock could have been known in the Mycenaean period, but its data are unfortunately infrequent and disputed.21 For the same reasons, it seems difficult to understand the Mycenaean anthroponym ko-ka-ro Kōkalos vel sim. in the way of Hesychius's gloss κώκαλον· …εἶδος ἀλεκτρυόνος “…kind of cock”. Elephant 16 17 18 19 20 21

OVIS is in fact the syllabogram qi [𐀥] utilized as an ideographic abbreviation. F.G. SLIM, C. ÇAKIRLAR and C.H. ROOSEVELT, “Pigs in Sight: Late Bronze Age Pig Husbandries in the Aegean and Anatolia,” Journal of Field Archaeology 45:5 (2020) 315-333. SUS is in fact the syllabogram au [𐁂] utilized as an ideographic abbreviation. MELENA (supra n. 5) 136. MELENA (supra n. 5) 136. K. TRANTALIDOU, “Dans l’ombre du rite. Vestiges d’animaux et pratiques sacrificielles en Grèce antique. Note sur la diversité des contextes et les difficultés de recherche rencontrées,” in G. EKROTH and J. WALLENSTEN (eds), Βones, behaviour and belief. The zooarchaeological evidence as a source for ritual practice in ancient Greece and beyond (2013) 64-65.

THE MYCENAEAN BESTIARY: LINEAR B DATA

331

“Elephant” and “ivory” share an identical name in alphabetic Greek: ἐλέφας. In Linear B, however, e-re-pa elephants always means “ivory”, never “elephant”.22 The same is true for ἐλέφας in Homer. In fact, its first example as “elephant” appears only in Herodotus. We are, of course, unable to know if elephants referred to the “elephant” in Mycenaean Greek when used outside the tablets. 2. Presents and absents in the Mycenaean animals names The Linear B tablets offer just counts, not dictionaries, lexica, literary or scientific works. Moreover, the palatial economies monitored only a severely restricted number of items. For instance, the Mycenaean texts do never mention the word for “bee”, although “honey” is regularly recorded by me-ri meli (cf. μέλι) and ideographic abbreviations like ME, etc.23 Furthermore, the name for “beehive” appears in the anthroponym ku-pe-se-ro Kupselos (cf. the anthr. Κύψελος and the term κυψέλη
“beehive”); the ideogram *168 [𐂰] could also possibly symbolize a “beehive”.24 The variety of the animals which interested the Mycenaean administration is then clearly limited25 and has nothing to do with the innumerable names known in the Greek alphabetic bestiary. Lots of them are never mentioned, like for instance insects or fishes. Happily, we have seen that some Mycenaean animals are quite natural in bookkeeping texts as bovines, deer, equids, goats, ovines or suidae. Even so, the tablets offer some unexpected animal names. Wild or imaginary ones occur, mainly when they do not refer to fauna proper, but to other realities:26 men or places (not less than about 15 forms) and artistic decorations. Here is their list: Onomastics (see the warning above): anthroponyms: “Alcyon”, “Bull”, “Dog”, “Goat”, “Hedgehog”, “Lambkin”, “Lark”, “Lizard”, “Lynx”, “Mouse”, “Ox”, “Sheep”, “Wolf” toponyms: “Deer”, “Lamb”, “Lynx”, “Wolf”. Artistic adornments: “bird”, “heifer”, “lion”, “octopus”, “Siren”. 3. Importance of these animals in the Mycenaean texts The lists above put all the animals on the same footing and offer no way to appreciate their relative importance. If we look at the numbers of the most frequent of them in the two major Mycenaean Palaces, Knossos and Pylos, the picture changes completely, however. 1) sheep:

22 23 24 25

26

27 28

ca 90,100-110,100 animals (Knossos, between 80,000 and 100,00027: Pylos, ca 10,10028)

About ivory in the Mycenaean tablets, see A. BERNABÉ and E.R. LUJÁN, “Mycenaean technology,” in DUHOUX and MORPURGO DAVIES eds (supra n. 3) 1 (2008) 211-213. C. VARIAS GARCÍA, “The word for ‘honey’ and connected terms in Mycenaean Greek,” in CARLIER et al. eds (supra n. 8) 403-418. C. DAVARAS, “A New Interpretation of the Ideogram *168,” Kadmos 25 (1986) 38-43. This is not an isolated exception: L.M. BENDALL, Economics of Religion in the Mycenaean World. Resources Dedicated to Religion in the Mycenaean Palace Economy (2007) 274-284 discusses the “invisibility” of many items in Linear B. The contrast with Homer is, of course, striking (P. WATHELET, “Les animaux sauvages dans les comparaisons homériques,” in S. DAVID and E. GENY [eds], Troïka. Parcours antiques. Mélanges offerts à Michel Woronoff [2012] 235-51). KILLEN (supra n. 15) 976. Ca 10,100 is the result of the subtraction of ca 1,900 (the goats of Pylos) from ca 12,000 (the sheep and goats of Pylos): KILLEN (supra n. 15) 614.

332

Yves DUHOUX

2) goats:

ca 5,300 animals (Knossos, ca 3,400: Pylos, ca 1,900) ca 345 horns of wild goats (Knossos, ca 34529: Pylos, 0) 3) pigs: ca 1,070 animals (Knossos, ca 380: Pylos, ca 690) 4) oxen: ca 510 animals (Knossos, ca 480: Pylos, ca 30) 5) horses: ca 140 animals (Knossos, ca 140: Pylos, 2) 6) deer: ca 20 animals (Knossos, 0: Pylos, ca 20) ca 20 deerskins (Knossos, 0: Pylos, ca 20). These data reveal the animals the Mycenaean scribes were really interested in and which were important for the palatial administration. The most spectacular number is provided by the sheep, about 90,100-110,100. The smallest one is that of deer, which were not bred, but hunted. 4. Use of these animals in Mycenaean life The numbers above, impressive as they may seem, offer only quite a partial image of the reality. Happily, a more detailed picture is available in the Linear B texts themselves. They provide some information about the ways Mycenaean Greeks used their animals. We shall conventionally split them into six categories: “industry”, agriculture, food, offerings, warfare and art. 1) “Industry”: the Cretan wool activity had an enormous importance and was meticulously monitored by hundreds of tablets.30 Everything was checked: places concerned, herders, number, sex and age of the sheep, amounts of wool expected, collected or missing, quantity and quality of the fabrics and clothing, workforces involved, etc. This craft implied, of course, intensive livestock farming. The Knossos tablets count no less than about 80,000-100,000 sheep. This number reflects only the extent of the flocks controlled by the Palaces. In fact, the total sheep population of Mycenaean Crete was much larger and has been evaluated at some 500,000 and perhaps more in the whole island.31 This strongly contrasts with the ca 10,100 sheep registered by the scribes of Pylos. We are sure that Mycenaean leatherworkers handled deer’s, goats’, lambs’ skins and ox-hides.32 Horns of wild goats were collected and worked out too.33 See also 5) Warfare below. 2) Agriculture: we have just seen that raising livestock was a quite important farming activity. The cultivation of the soil was crucial, however, and at Knossos about 130 oxen were specifically used for ploughing – this is roughly the quarter of the ca 480 palatial Cretan oxen. Such an ox was described as we-ka-ta wergatās (cf. ἐργάτης), literally “worker”. 3) Food: several animals of our lists were certainly eaten in the high society (remember that our records are palatial ones): deer, goats, oxen, pigs or sheep. “Fat oxen” and “fat pigs” were obviously

29 30 31 32 33

This number is given as a total by KN Mc 4457. Since the rest of the series registers ca 240 horns, 345 could totalize the KN Mc ones, but other interpretations are possible. See the collection of papers by KILLEN (supra n. 15) about the Mycenaean wool “industry” of Mycenaean Crete. J.T. KILLEN, “Mycenaean economy,” in DUHOUX and MORPURGO DAVIES eds (supra n. 3) 1 (2008) 173. Concerning leather in the Mycenaean economy, see PALAIMA 1989 (supra n. 4) 87-88; BERNABÉ and LUJÁN (supra n. 22) 221-222. PALMER (supra n. 13) 395-397.

THE MYCENAEAN BESTIARY: LINEAR B DATA

333

intended for consumption. Deer were surely hunted34. The word for “hunters” encompasses the name for “dogs”: ku-na-ke-ta-i kunāgetāhi (dative plural; cf. κυνηγέτης), literally “to the dogs drivers”. On the other hand, the Mycenaean Palaces regularly organized impressive banquets where very large amounts of food and drink were served.35 Banqueting was a quite important way of creating and consolidating the social cohesion of the Mycenaean elites. 4) Offerings: bovines, goats, pigs and sheep were offered to the gods.36 5) Warfare: Mycenaean horses were not used in ploughing but in transporting warriors and drivers by chariots to the battlefield37 as well as in horseback riding with arms and armour.38 The mention of “foals” indicates that horses were bred. Four items of the series KN Mc could have been handled in the manufacture of chariots, arms, 39 etc. They are surely or supposedly linked with goats, though *142 [𐂜] and *150 [𐂟] are not confidently identified: (1) horns of wild goats, CORN; (2) ordinary she-goats, CAPf; (3-4) the ideograms *142 and *150.40 6) Art: the tablets give exceptionally details about artistic decorations as “birds”, “heifers”, “lions”, “octopus” or “Siren”. 5. Differences between Knossos and Pylos There are impressive local contrasts between animals' numbers at Knossos and Pylos: deer (0: ca 20 animals and ca 20 deerskins), wild goat horns (ca 345: 0), horses (ca 140: 2), oxen (ca 480: ca 30), sheep (ca 80,000-100,000: ca 10,100), pigs (ca 380: ca 690), goats (ca 3,400: ca 1,900). These disparities may reflect real economic differences but also bookkeeping peculiarities or some hidden factors. Pylos’s main textile “industry” was linen.41 Pylos was thus much less concerned about wool than Knossos, and this may account for its small number of sheep. The opposition between the two Palaces is striking for oxen (ca 480: ca 30) and especially plough oxen (ca 130: 0). This last difference is paradoxical, since Pylos registers much more cultivated land than Knossos. The explanation is provided by the Pylos tablets: they record at least ca 320 qo-u-ko-ro, gwoukoloi (cf. βουκόλος) “oxherds”.42 We should accordingly increase the number of Pylian oxen and conclude that the Linear B numbers are misleading. The almost nonexistent number of horses at Pylos (ca 140: 2) is also probably a mirage, because the series PY Sa registers large numbers of chariot's pairs of wheels: ca 180 (individual tablets) and ca 210

34 35 36 37

38 39 40 41 42

About Mycenaean hunting, see Y. HAMILAKIS, “The sacred geography of hunting: wild animals, social power and gender in early farming societies,” in KOTJABOPOULOU et al. eds (supra n. 1) 243-244. L.M. BENDALL, “How Much Makes a Feast? Amounts of Banqueting Foodstuffs in the Linear B Records of Pylos,” in SACCONI et al. eds (supra n. 2) 77-101. See BENDALL (supra n. 25), 203-221 for a survey of the animals possibly connected with religion. M. LEJEUNE, Mémoires de Philologie Myénienne, troisième série (1964-68) (1972) 74-77; M.H. FELDMAN and C. SAUVAGE, “Objects of Prestige? Chariots in the Late Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean and Near East,” Ägypten und Levante/Egypt and the Levant 20 (2010) 67-181. J.M. KELDER, “Horseback Riding and Cavalry in Mycenaean Greece,” Ancient West and East 11 (2012) 118. J.L. MELENA, “On the Knossos Mc Tablets,” Minos 13 (1972) 29-54. Here are the totals of these items in KN Mc 4457 (but see above): CORN, 345[ pieces; she-goats, 208[ animals; *142, ca 154 kilograms; *150, 345 pieces. KILLEN (supra n. 15) 1089-1091, 1101-1102. PALAIMA 1989 (supra n. 4) 85-124, 100-115.

334

Yves DUHOUX

(totalling ones). Since the Mycenaean chariot was driven by two horses, the Pylos’s horses clearly outnumbered those of Knossos. The animal names used in artistic decorations come exclusively from a Pylos series, PY Ta, which offers a unique inventory of luxury items. No wonder, then, if they lack elsewhere. Two absences of wild animals may seem intriguing: the deer at Knossos and the wild goat (horns) at Pylos. The last one is rather natural, since the variety of these goats was only found in Crete. The invisibility of deer at Knossos is more difficult. Could it be an accident of our documentation? Perhaps. Indeed, the deer is the smallest of the groups computed above – only ca 40 examples –, while the largest Mycenaean corpuses cover only a span of several months. Deer could thus lack by chance in the Knossos Linear B tablets. But were there deer in Crete at that time and what was their real situation? The Cretan archaeozoological data show that several species of deer existed in the island since the Neolithic, but they were not that frequent. Around the end of the Bronze Age, ca 1300-1100 BC (Late Minoan IIIBC), however, an exception seems to appear. At Khania (extreme western part of the island), the frequency of fallow deer's osteological remains becomes significantly higher than at Knossos and in the rest of Crete.43 At this period, Khania was clearly Mycenaeanized: there was a wanax and a local administration using Linear B. Since the Mycenaean texts of Khania are later than those of Knossos, an augmentation of the deer's population and consumption could have happened in-between. If so, how could it be explained? Khania had become an important Mycenaean Cretan centre and had established special relations with the continent. Western Crete was actually the major source of the Linear B inscribed stirrup jars found in continental Greece, “with the greatest proportion of known jars (ca 90%) originating from the region around Khania”.44 Perhaps did then the particular links of Khania with the continent arouse an attraction for deer? This is possible, but Khania has yielded nowadays fewer than ten fragments of Linear B tablets. We need much more data to be sure. Yves DUHOUX

43

44

K. HARRIS, “Hunting, performance and incorporation: Human–deer encounter in Late Bronze Age Crete,” in K. BAKER R. CARDEN and R. MADGWICK, Deer and People (2014) 48-58. O. KRZYSZKOWSKA, “Cutting to the Chase: Hunting in Minoan Crete,” in TOUCHAIS et al. eds (supra n. 13) 346 considers, however, that “given the patchy evidence currently available for the palatial period in general, it is hard to know whether the increase in agrimia and deer at a handful of recently-excavated east and west Cretan sites of LM III date represents any meaningful change in their exploitation.” P.G. VAN ALFEN, “The Linear B inscribed vases,” in DUHOUX and MORPURGO DAVIES eds (supra n. 3) 1 (2008) 235.





INTERACTIONS BETWEEN HUMANS AND ANIMALS IN THE AEGEAN LATE BRONZE AGE: THE TEXTUAL EVIDENCE* There is hardly any area in the Aegean Late Bronze Age world, where animal and human lives were completely separated from each other. However, research into the relationship between humans and animals has traditionally concentrated on the exploitation of domestic animals for food (meat and dairy products), raw materials (esp. wool) and labour (traction for ploughs and wheeled vehicles) by combining archaeozoological, iconographic and textual evidence. A large number of studies has also focused on the (symbolic) interpretation of depictions in Aegean art that show animals next to human beings. In this paper, however, I focus on those aspects of the textual evidence, which offer an insight into the emotional bond that existed between humans and some animal species in the Aegean Bronze Age.1 Anthroponyms based on animal names Personal names comprise a large unit within the lexical stock of the Mycenaean Linear B script.2 Their reading and transcription is hampered by ambiguities in the spelling of the syllabic script as well as by the lack of any direct semantic link between the personal name and the textual context. As a consequence, the phonetic interpretation of a given Mycenaean personal name will always be ambiguous to a certain degree: More often than not, particularly if names are short, several different transcriptions – both Greek and non-Greek – are equally possible.3 Nevertheless, from the beginning of Mycenaean studies, it has been clear that composition plays a considerable role in Mycenaean onomastics and that Linear B personal names include compounds of specific types (as well as shortened forms or hypocoristics of compounds) known from later alphabetic Greek. We also know that Mycenaean names, just like Greek names, are formed from common nouns or adjectives (with or without additional suffixes).4 As a result, a considerable number of Mycenaean personal names can be identified with a reasonable degree of certainty.


* 1

2

3

4

I warmly thank Melissa Vetters for her excellent suggestions for improvements and her linguistic support. For a good introduction into Human-Animal Studies within a related field of research see D. LAU & A. GAMERSCHLAG, “Das Recht der Tiere, wahrgenommen zu werden. Das Potential der HumanAnimal Studies in der Westasiatischen Altertumskunde,” Forum Kritische Archäologie 4 (2015) 21-41. Much of what is said in this article is equally true for the Aegean Late Bronze Age. For an innovative study on the relationship between humans and animals in Bronze Age Crete see A.J. SHAPLAND, Over the horizon: human-animal relations in Bronze Age Crete (2009). For criteria of their identification see J.L. GARCÍA RAMÓN, “Mycenaean onomastics,” in Y. DUHOUX & A. MORPURGO DAVIES (eds), A companion to Linear B. Mycenaean Greek texts and their world 2 (2011) 219-220. Due to the nature of the texts the exact number of Mycenaean personal names attested in the Linear B tablets is of course unknown. Calculations vary between ca. 1800 and almost 2000 anthroponyms. See A. MORPURGO DAVIES, “The morphology of personal names in Mycenaean and Greek: some observations,” in S. DEGER-JALKOTZY, S. HILLER & O. PANAGL (eds), Floreant Studia Mycenaea. Akten des X. Internationalen Mykenologischen Colloquiums in Salzburg vom 1.–5. Mai 1995 (1999) 390. GARCÍA RAMÓN, op. cit. 214. See, e.g., A. BARTONĚK, “Mycenaean common nouns in the disguise of proper names,” in DEGERJALKOTZY, HILLER & PANAGL eds (supra n. 2) 122. GARCÍA RAMÓN (supra n. 2) 214-216. MORPURGO DAVIES (supra n. 2) 389-390. GARCÍA RAMÓN (supra n. 2) 220-224.

336

Jörg WEILHARTNER

Among these, at least some personal names appear that are formed by terms for animals referring to the outward appearance or the characteristics of these animals and their behaviour in interactions with humans (and other animals) respectively: Among the most prominent examples, all of which have parallels in Homeric and Classical Greek names (except e-ki-no), are the following: re-wo /Lewōn/ Λέ(
)ων, cf. λέ(
)ων “lion”; ta-u-ro /Tauros/ Ταῦρος, cf. ταῦρος “bull”; e-ki-no /Ekhīnos/ cf. ἐχῖνος “hedgehog”; ku-ne-u /Kunēus/ Κύνευς, cf. κύων “dog”; ru-ko /Lukos/ Λύκος, Λύκων, cf. λύκος “wolf”.5 These animals are known for their strength and/or their ability for fierce fighting and effective defence. Thus, a man who carries such a name embodies values and ideals that are characteristic of Mycenaean elite warriors. Compound personal names with the word for horse (i-qo /ikkwos/ ἵππος), which are frequently attested among the personal names of the first millennium BC,6 do not appear in Mycenaean Greek, although the appellative is well attested (KN Ca 895, PY Ea 59, Fa 16, Ta 722).7 Furthermore, in the KN Sc series horses are recorded by means of a logogram (EQU) next to chariots (BIG) and some kind of protective clothing (TUN), which clearly documents that they were highly valued by Mycenaean palatial authorities. Their important role was apparently restricted to the upper echelons of the Mycenaean society and seems to have suppressed the formation of compound personal names with the word for horse in Mycenaean anthroponymy.8 An important role for a larger part of Mycenaean society is apparently assigned to oxen (instead of horses). Bulls and cows act as widely used symbols of strength and fertility in Mycenaean iconography. Appropriately, names with βοῦς are well attested in the Mycenaean corpus.9 Next to qou-qo-ta /gwōugwotās/, which – in the form qo-qo-ta – is also the designation of a profession (see below), one may point to ta-ti-qo-we-u /Stāti-gwōwēus/ or /Tāti-gwōwēus/, qo-wa-ke-se-u /Gwōwaksēus/, qo-wi-ro /Gwōwilos/ and, with a lesser degree of probability, po-ru-qo-to /Polugwōtos/. The latter, just like qo(u-)qo-ta, appears both as personal name (KN Da 1137) and as occupational designation (PY An 128). Although its exact interpretation as occupational term is under discussion, a personal name with the possible meaning of “he, who has a lot of cattle” is not only comprehensible, but also reflects the significance of oxen.10 These names were formed in the same way as those with ἵππος in Classical times and attest to the high esteem of oxen in Mycenaean society. Compound names with βοῦς were extremely rare in the first millennium BC. It is not without significance that the exception to this rule affects regions such as Thessaly or Boeotia, where oxen were highly valued.11


P.H. ILIEVSKI, “Observations on the personal names from the Knossos D tablets,” in J.-P. OLIVIER (ed.), Mykenaïka. Actes du IXe Colloque international sur les textes mycéniens et égéens organisé par le Centre de l’Antiquité Grecque et Romaine de la Fondation Hellénique des Recherches Scientifiques et l’École française d’Athènes, Athènes, 2-6 octobre 1990 (1992) 336. Y. DUHOUX, “Aux sources du bestiaire grec: les zoonymes mycéniens,” in J.Ph. DALBERA, C. KIRCHER, S. MELLET & R. NICHOLAÏ (eds), Les zoonymes. Actes du colloque international tenu à Nice les 23, 24 et 25 janvier 1997 (1997) 177, 185-187, 200. GARCÍA RAMÓN (supra n. 2) 228. P.H. ILIEVSKI, “Some structural peculiarities of Mycenaean-Greek personal names,” in A. HEUBECK & G. NEUMANN (eds), Res Mycenaeae. Akten des VII. Internationalen Mykenologischen Colloquiums in Nürnberg vom 6.-10. April 1981 (1983) 208-210. See, e.g., Hippodamos, Hippokrates, Hippomachos or Hipponikos. The reason for this practice is of course the significant value of this animal as a symbol of aristocracy and/or wealth from the Archaic period onwards. ILIEVSKI (supra n. 6) 208-209. MORPURGO DAVIES (supra n. 2) 391. ILIEVSKI (supra n. 6) 209-210. As the occupational designation i-po/qo-po-qo shows (on this designation see below) there are no reasons to believe that compound names with i-qo could not have been formed in Mycenaean Greek. ILIEVSKI (supra n. 6) 209. DUHOUX (supra n. 5) 176, 200. GARCÍA RAMÓN (supra n. 2) 226. J.L. MELENA, “Mycenaean writing”, in Y. DUHOUX & A. MORPURGO DAVIES (eds), A companion to Linear B. Mycenaean Greek texts and their world 3 (2014) 32. For this interpretation see ILIEVSKI (supra n. 5) 328, 330. However, other proposals have been made, see F. AURA JORRO, Diccionario micénico II (1993) 153. ILIEVSKI (supra n. 6) 209-210.

5

6

7 8

9

10

11




INTERACTIONS BETWEEN HUMANS AND ANIMALS: THE TEXTUAL EVIDENCE

337


Group designations based on animals Apart from personal names terms for animals seem to serve as a basis for group designations that appear as recipients in the Thebes Fq, Ft and Gp series. These recipients – including e-mi-jo-no-i /hēmionoihi/, “to the mules”; e-pe-to-i /herpetoihi/, “to the snakes (or quadrupeds)”; o-ni-si /ornīsi/, “to the birds”; ka-si /khānsi/, “to the geese”; ku-si /kunsi/, “to the dogs”; and ke-re-na-i /gerēnāhi/ “to the cranes” – have attracted much interest among mycenologists. The interpretation of these recipients varies from theriomorphic deities or “animaux sacrés” to plain animals and individuals recorded by their personal names or occupational designations.12 As I have tried to show elsewhere13 there are good reasons to believe that these terms are group designations named after animals. In view of a human figure dressed in an animal skin and performing some kind of ritual on a LH III B fresco fragment from Tiryns14 as well as a group of three upright standing boars (one of them holding a highhandled kylix, another one a musical instrument) on a LH III A2 conical rhyton from Kalavarda, Rhodes15 – whose hands (with spread fingers) and feet (with pointed toes) favour their interpretation as men dressed as boars performing some kind of ritual dance –, I interpret the Linear B terms in question as referring to male and female members of a group dressed up as animals for a ritual performance.16 If true, this would be another point of evidence for a very close bond between animals and humans. Occupational designations related to animals Mundane activities are not popular motifs within the iconographic corpus of the Aegean Late Bronze Age, which reflects the material culture and way of life of the elite. As a consequence, scenes of daily life, such as milking cows and sheep or herding sheep and goats are rarely depicted.17 On the contrary, the large number of Linear B tablets and sealings, which record domestic sheep, goats, pigs and oxen, clearly document the importance of these animals for the palatial economies of different Mycenaean territories. Without doubt, sheep takes the pride of place by providing wool for the highly developed cloth industry of the Mycenaean palaces. The great importance of a well-organized animal husbandry for Mycenaean palaces is also reflected in a series of descriptive terms connected with


For these interpretations and detailed bibliographic references see V.L. ARAVANTINOS, L. GODART & A. SACCONI, Thèbes. Fouilles de la Cadmée I. Les tablettes en Linéaire B de la Odos Pelopidou. Édition et commentaire (2001) esp. 319-321. J. WEILHARTNER, “Die Tierbezeichnungen in den neuen Linear BTexten aus Theben,” in E. ALRAM-STERN & G. NIGHTINGALE (eds), Keimelion. Elitenbildung und elitärer Konsum von der mykenischen Palastzeit bis zur homerischen Epoche (2007) 342-343. Y. DUHOUX, “Mycenaean anthology,” in Y. DUHOUX & A. MORPURGO DAVIES (eds), A companion to Linear B. Mycenaean Greek texts and their world 1 (2008) 349-389, esp. 376-381. Note that Y. Duhoux rejects a link to animal names for some of these terms. WEILHARTNER (supra n. 12) 343-346. J. WEILHARTNER, “Working for a feast: textual evidence for state-organised work feasts in Mycenaean Greece,” AJA 121 (2017) 232 n. 106. E.T. VERMEULE, “Götterkult,” ArchHom III.5 (1974) 50. N. LURZ, Der Einfluss Ägyptens, Vorderasiens und Kretas auf die mykenischen Fresken (1994) 128-129. For a detailed description see WEILHARTNER (supra n. 12) 346, fig. 5. For a detailed description of this rhyton see E. VERMEULE & V. KARAGEORGHIS, Mycenaean pictorial vase painting (1982) 154-155. Cf. J.C. WRIGHT, “A survey of evidence for feasting in Mycenaean society,” Hesperia 73 (2004) 169. On parallels for the practice of dressing up in the guise of animals in Classical times, which is attested in the iconographic and written corpus, see WEILHARTNER (supra n. 12) 344-345, figs 1-4 with further references. Among the rare exceptions see depictions of milking on two sealings (CMS II.8, no. 232 and CMS VS1A, no. 137) and the well-known herding scene on the miniature frieze of the West House in Akrotiri, Thera. For the latter see L. MORGAN, The miniature wall paintings of Thera. A study in Aegean culture and iconography (1988) 58-60, Pl. 82.

12

13

14

15

16

17




338

Jörg WEILHARTNER

animals, which document a detailed subdivision of labour. The central authorities deemed it necessary to record specialized personnel for the maintenance of domestic stock in a very sophisticated manner. The term po-me /poimēn/ ποιμήν (from πῶυ, flock [of sheep]) seems to be used in the Linear B texts for the shepherd stricto sensu. In those two cases where this word is found in a directly occupational context it appears once (on PY Ae 134) along with qe-to-ro-po-pi /kwetropopphi/ – which means quadrupeds and which seems to refer, as in the Classical period πρόβατον, to both sheep and goats – and once (on KN Dd 1376) along with the logogram for sheep/OVIS respectively, albeit in the latter case the occupational designation po-me is used instead of a personal name and seems to serve as such.18 In both cases the shepherd in question is directly connected with the supervision of sheep (or small livestock respectively). In contrast, the su-qo-ta /sugwōtās/ συβώτης, cf. σῦς “pig” is in charge of pigs, whereas the a3-ki-pa-ta /aigipa(s)tās/ cf. αἴξ “goat” is responsible for goats. Besides being per se etymologically self evident, the designation a3-ki-pa-ta, just like po-me, appears in a directly occupational context: it appears twice (PY Ae 108, 489) next to qe-to-ro-po-pi, which, as stated, seems to be used for both sheep and goats. The terms for swine-herd and goat-herd include different words for feeding: -qo-ta, which is related to βόσκω “to feed, to tend, to nourish” and -pa-ta, which is, presumably, connected to πατέομαι “to eat, to feed”.19 Therefore, these designations refer to the main duty of the swine-herd and the goatherd respectively: to feed their animals. Of particular interest is the fact that among those herdsmen, who take care of oxen, palatial administrators differentiate between qo-(u-)qo-ta /gwōugwotās/ βουβότης20 and qo-u-ko-ro /gwōukolos/ βουκόλος.21 There has been some discussion on the exact interpretation of these two terms. On a tablet from Pylos, Nn 831, qo-u-ko-ro appears along with po-me-ne, shepherds. Accordingly, I deem it unlikely that this term was used as a general term for herdsmen of any domestic livestock.22 Rather, I prefer to take the first element literally. qo-u-qo-ta has the same second component as su-qo-ta and refers for that reason to those herdsmen, who are engaged with the feeding (and grazing) of oxen. The second component of the second term, however, is likely to be associated with the verbal stem /kwel-/ > pelomai, cf. πέλομαι. Due to the fact that the basic meaning of /kwel-/ is “to turn” and that the related Latin word colo means “to till, to cultivate” qo-u-ko-ro may refer to those herdsmen who were in charge of draft animals for


The same phenomenon is attested in Pylos. See, e.g., tablet PY Jn 750.8, where a smith is named ka-ke-u /Khalkeus/ Χαλκεύς, cf. χαλκεύς “smith”. In these cases, it is difficult to draw a clear demarcation line between a personal name and an occupational designation; for this phenomenon see also M. LINDGREN, “The interpretation of personal designations in Linear B: methodological problems,” in E. RISCH & H. MÜHLESTEIN (eds), Colloquium Mycenaeum. Actes du sixième colloque international sur les textes mycéniens et égéens tenu à Chaumont sur Neuchâtel du 7 au 13 septembre 1975 (1979) 81. For different explanations of the second part of a3-ki-pa-ta see F. AURA JORRO, Diccionario micénico I (1985) 135. Documented in the PY Ea-series (PY Ea 270, 305, 757, 802) without -u- and in the genitive, i.e. qo-qo-ta-o. qo-u-qo-ta is attested once in Knossos, on KN L(4) 480, where it appears as a personal name. Documented in Pylos and Tiryns: PY An 18, 830, 852; Ea 781; Nn 831; TI Ef 2. For this view see L.R. PALMER, The interpretation of Mycenaean Greek texts (1963) 133, 451. A good counterargument against this assumption has been put forward by M. LINDGREN, The people of Pylos. Prosopographical and methodological studies in the Pylos archive. Part II: The use of personal designations and their interpretation (1973) 132: “Besides, it seems strange that the Ea tablets register both pome, aikipata, suqota, qoqota and qoukoro, if qoukoro was only a “generic” terminus for all different categories of “livestock keepers” (italics in the original)”. On this discussion see T.G. PALAIMA, “Perspectives on the Pylos oxen tablets: textual (and archaeological) evidence for the use and management of oxen in Late Bronze age Messenia (and Crete)”, in T.G. PALAIMA, C.W. SHELMERDINE & P.H. ILIEVSKI (eds), Studia Mycenaea (1988) (1989) 113.

18

19

20

21 22




INTERACTIONS BETWEEN HUMANS AND ANIMALS: THE TEXTUAL EVIDENCE

339


ploughing.23 A point in favour of this interpretation may be seen in the fact that qo-u-ko-ro shows up before DA 1 to-sa-pe-mo GRA 6 in a landholding tablet from Tiryns (TI Ef 2) and refers to an individual herdsman in a landholding context. The much-damaged text of PY An 830 provides additional evidence that this designation is used for personnel with landholding associations.24 If qo-u-ko-ro designates those who yoked the oxen and used the plough this may provide an explanation why the occupational designation ἀροτήρ is missing in the tablets.25 In the Pylian tablets, qo-u-ko-ro are registered in far larger numbers than the single person known by name who is designated as qo-qo-ta: On a single tablet, PY An 830, more than 214 qo-u-ko-ro are recorded at four different places in both provinces of the Pylian kingdom and on another tablet, PY An 18, another 90 qo-u-ko-ro are listed at a single site (ti-no); 26 none of them is referred to by name. In contrast, the references to a single qo-qo-ta is more in line with the numbers attested for the other categories of herdsmen: There are three a3-ki-pa-ta in the Pylian corpus, all of them originally recorded by name, five po-me known by name (and one more without personal name) and one su-qo-ta, whose name is not mentioned.27 If the evidence is not totally fortuitous, then we have one group of herdsmen mentioned in the Pylian texts (qo-qo-ta, a3-ki-pa-ta, po-me and su-qo-ta) engaged with the feeding of the animals (recorded in small numbers and regularly known by name) and another category of herdsman (qo-u-ko-ro) engaged with draught oxen (recorded in high numbers and not recorded by name). Along its use as an occupational term qo-u-qo-ta is also used as a personal name (KN L(4) 480). The same holds true for the substantivized adjective po-ru-qo-to, which appears both as personal name (KN Da 1137) and as occupational designation (PY An 128). As has been stated, its interpretation with regard to a specific function is not yet clear. Apart from the occupational designations already mentioned reference has to be made to the term i-qo/po-po-qo /ikkwophorgwos/ ἱπποφορβός, who takes care of horses. The transcription of the second part of this designation as /phorgwos/ is generally accepted. This word is connected to Mycenaean po-qa /phorgwā/ cf. φορβή “food” and is derived from φέρβω “to feed”. Again, just as the terms for swine-herd, goat-herd and ox-herd, this designation documents that words related to food and nurturing (βόσκω, πατέομαι, φέρβω) play a pivotal role in the terminology of Mycenaean occupational names connected with animal keeping: The bond between domesticated animals and humans is clearly based on feeding. Another interesting aspect is provided by the term ku-na-ke-ta-i, which is attested once in the Linear B corpus (PY Na 248). This designation provides us with some evidence for the keeping of other domesticates.28 There is no question about the transcription of this term (/kunāgetāhi/), which is generally connected with κυνηγέτης. In Classical Greek this term means “hunter”. In Mycenaean Greek, however, this designation is more likely to be interpreted literally according to its etymology as “dog leader”. This differentiation is not arbitrary. In Homeric society, the hunting dog represents a status symbol to its owner, the huntsman, and several passages of the Homeric epics demonstrate a


For a similar interpretation see PALAIMA (supra n. 22) 115: “But it is reasonable to assume that at least some of these large numbers of Pylos qo-u-ko-ro are individuals to whom one or two animals have been assigned for similar purposes (i.e. as the working oxen on the Knossos Ch tablets).” PALAIMA (supra n. 22) 100. On the missing designation for ἀροτήρ and possible explanations see P.H. ILIEVSKI, “MN a-ko-ro-qo and the terms for “farmer” in the Linear B texts”, in P.H. ILIEVSKI & L. CREPAJAC (eds), Tractata Mycenaea. Proceedings of the eighth international colloquium on Mycenaean studies, held in Ohrid, 15–20 September 1985 (1987) 154-155. However, other proposals have been made, see, e.g., ILIEVSKI, op. cit. 157, who assumes that the occupational designation wo-we-u /worweus/ might have had a meaning close to “ploughman”. PALAIMA (supra n. 22) 100. T.G. PALAIMA, “The Knossos oxen dossier: the use of oxen in Mycenaean Crete. Part I: general background and scribe 107,” in OLIVIER ed. (supra n. 5) 465. LINDGREN (supra n. 22) 28-29, 119-121, 130-132, 139. For a detailed analysis of this term see S. HILLER, “ku-na-ke-ta,” in J. BENNET & J. DRIESSEN (eds), Ana-qo-ta. Studies presented to J.T. Killen (1998-1999) 191-196. Whether the term ku-na-ki-si, which appears twice in the Thebes tablets (TH Av 100, Gp 200) is to be read as /kunāgisi/ “for the huntresses” or /gunaiksi/ “for the women” is open to discussion.

23

24 25

26

27 28




340

Jörg WEILHARTNER

close link between the hunter and his dog.29 By analogy, one may view a ku-na-ke-ta as a high-ranking palatial hunting functionary. However, as Stefan Hiller has demonstrated by comparing the evidence of the Linear B texts, the iconographic record of the Aegean Late Bronze Age and the Homeric epics, this occupational designation refers obviously to “hunting helpers” who try to channel the frightened game towards the direction of those who hunt down the game, the true hunters.30 Whereas the hunters are best to be identified as high-ranking men and members of the ruling elite – who are depicted as warriors with javelins and, occasionally, shields in the iconographic record –, the hunting helpers – who are usually not armed – are individuals of a lower social status. It may not be too far-fetched to assume that these hunting companions were responsible for taking care of feeding and training the hunting dogs. Adjectives acting as proper names referring to oxen Working oxen – generally castrated male animals and yoked in pairs – provide motive power for ploughing (and transport).31 According to Roman agricultural authors the training of oxen as traction animals – which usually started in their third or fourth year, as they were not considered strong enough for heavy work at an earlier age – represents a large and long-lasting investment that results in diligent maintenance of their health and condition: The bond between these animals and their keeper, a ploughman or an ox-driver (called bubulcus), was strengthened first by intensive training and then by daily co-working.32 Textual evidence for palatial interest in specialised working oxen in the Mycenaean period is provided by several tablets which either have the description we-ka-ta /wergatās/ cf. (
)ἔργον “action, work” or its abbreviation we respectively next to the logogram for oxen (BOS).33 This term qualifies oxen as “workers” in a remarkably similar way as attested in Classical Greek, βοῦς […] ἐργάτης (Archilochos 48D). At times, the logogram for oxen (BOS) is followed by the abbreviation ZE,34 which stands for *ze-u-ko /dzeugos/ ζεῦγος “yoke” and is invariably used for a pair which functions in tandem (be it a pair of animals, either oxen or horses [used for drawing chariots] or a pair of inanimate objects, two wheels of a chariot or a pair of elephant tusks). This abbreviation is another indication for the recording of working oxen/draught animals. In some cases, the logogram for oxen is even qualified by both we(-ka-ta) and ZE.35 The total number of working oxen listed in the tablets from Knossos is substantial. Next to the restored number of 38 animals in the Ch tablets 84 working oxen are recorded on a single tablet (Ce 59). Other tablets list as a minimum 52 further working oxen. This number (174+), which is likely to be only a small fraction of the total working oxen population in Mycenaean Crete,36 clearly reflects the importance such animals played in various operations controlled by the central administration of the palace of Knossos. Most importantly to the present discussion, oxen were recorded by their proper names on the 19 or 20 tablets of the Knossos Ch series. As will be shown in a moment, these names are in all likelihood based on Greek terms referring to their appearance or their physical characteristics.37 If true, the


See, e.g., Hom. Il. 9,543. 11,292. For more evidence see HILLER (supra n. 28) 192-193. HILLER (supra n. 28) 192-194. On archaeozoological evidence for the early use of male and female cattle as draught animals in Neolithic Knossos see V. ISAAKIDOU, “Ploughing with cows: Knossos and the Secondary Products Revolution,” in D. SERJEANTSON & D. FIELD (eds), Animals in the Neolithic Britain and Europe (2006) 95-112. Cato, de agri cultura 5,6-7. Columella, rei rusticae 1,9,1-2; 2,3,1-2; 6,2,1-15; 6,3,1-8. KN C 1582; Ce 50, 59. KN Ce 7061; Ch series. KN C 1044, 5734; Ch 896. For calculations see PALAIMA (supra n. 26) 474. The following passage owes a lot to J.T. KILLEN, “The oxen’s names on the Knossos Ch tablets,” Minos 27-28 (1992-1993) 101-104. For a detailed discussion of this series with references to previous work see J.

29 30 31

32 33 34 35 36 37




INTERACTIONS BETWEEN HUMANS AND ANIMALS: THE TEXTUAL EVIDENCE

341


oxherds under whose care these oxen were and whose names – once, at least, in the genitive (e-po-rojo)38 – were written with majuscule syllabic signs at the beginning of the tablets “must have been Greekspeaking to give their oxen Greek names”.39 Since one of them, au-to-a3-ta, seems to be associated with working oxen on a regular basis (if au-a3-ta on KN C 1582 is the same person as au-to-a3-ta on KN Ch 972) a close relationship between the ploughman and his oxen is also likely for Mycenaean Crete. However, there has been some discussion, whether the appellations of the oxen are to be understood as proper names40 or descriptive adjectives.41 Although certainty is not possible in this matter, there are some reasons to believe that a3-wa /Aiwāns/ on KN C 973 is a hypocoristic form of a3-wo-ro,42 which would prove an interpretation as names. At any rate, names for working oxen are widely attested through space and time,43 since they serve as a prerequisite for the training: “Bei domestizierten Tieren ist die Vergabe eines Eigennamens eine Notwendigkeit und Voraussetzung für jede Art von Dressur, die auf die verbale Kontrolle des Tieres abzielt, da die Erkennung des eigenen Namens deren Grundlage darstellt”.44 This fact may also provide a satisfying answer, why the scribe of the Ch series bothers to record the names of the working oxen.45 The following names can be read with some certainty: 46 a3-wo-ro /Aiwolos/ cf. αἰόλος “gleaming/of variegated colour” (or “lively, quick-moving”); ke-ra-no /Kelainos/ cf. κελαινός “black”; ko-so-u-to /Ksouthos/ cf. ξοῦθος “yellow, tawny”; po-da-ko /Pod-argos/ Πόδαργος “White-footed” (or “Swift-footed”); re-u-ko /Leukos/ cf. λεῦκος “white”; to-ma-ko /Stom-argos/ cf. στόμαργος “with a white muzzle” (or “noisy”); wo-no-qo-so /Woin-okws/ cf. οἶνοψ “wine-coloured”; a3-zo-ro /Aiskhros/ cf. αἰσχρός “ugly”. Notably, some of these names appear as names of horses in Homer (Αἴολος, Πόδαργος), which correlates with what has been argued above in the context of compound personal names about the importance of horses and oxen in the respective periods.47 Even more interesting is the fact that two names, ko-so-u-to and re-u-ko, are not only used as names for oxen (KN Ch series) but also for men (PY Jn 389, MY Oi 705, TH Z 849+). Although working oxen are by no means regarded equivalent to human beings, the act of naming seems to incorporate the animal into the human sphere.


WEILHARTNER, “Überlegungen zu den mykenischen Banketttexten,” Minos 37-38 (2002-2003) 257262. WEILHARTNER (supra n. 37) 261-262. L. BAUMBACH, “The people of Knossos: further thoughts on some of the personal names,” in OLIVIER ed. (supra n. 5) 61. M. LEJEUNE, “Noms propres de boeufs à Cnossos,” REG 76 (1963) 1-9. A. HEUBECK, “Mykenisch poda-ko und to-ma-ko,” Kadmos 13 (1974) 39-43. BAUMBACH (supra n. 39) 58, 61. KILLEN (supra n. 37) 101. A. BARTONĚK, “Mycenaean common nouns in the disguise of proper names,” in S. DEGERJALKOTZY, S. HILLER & O. PANAGL (eds), Floreant Studia Mycenaea. Akten des X. Internationalen Mykenologischen Colloquiums in Salzburg vom 1.–5. Mai 1995 (1999) 121-129. GARCÍA RAMÓN (supra n. 2) 229. L. GODART, “Les sacrifices d’animaux dans les textes mycéniens,” in DEGER-JALKOTZY, HILLER & PANAGL eds (supra n. 2) 249. On a discussion of both interpretations see KILLEN (supra n. 37) 105106. LEJEUNE (supra n. 40) 5. GARCÍA RAMÓN (supra n. 2) 229. E. DOBNIG-JÜLCH, “Namen von Haustieren und Zuchttieren,” in E. EICHLER et al. (eds), Namenforschung. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Onomastik 1-2 (1995-1996) 1583-1589. K. RADNER, Die Macht des Namens. Altorientalische Strategien zur Selbsterhaltung (2005) 35-36. For a different answer see KILLEN (supra n. 37) 101-103, who suggests that the names of the oxen serve as a check for the palatial administration of the physical characteristics of each pair of animals in order to prevent fraud. On the interpretation of these names see LEJEUNE (supra n. 40) 1-9. HEUBECK (supra n. 40) 39-43. KILLEN (supra n. 37). BARTONĚK (supra n. 40) 125-129. GARCÍA RAMÓN (supra n. 2) 222, 229. ILIEVSKI (supra n. 6) 209.

38 39

40

41

42 43

44 45

46

47




342

Jörg WEILHARTNER

If this evidence is not misleading and Mycenaeans used boonyms, the working oxen were not treated as animate tools but were individualised and ascribed distinct personalities: As similar modern naming practices of animals document, these descriptive names function as individualising names and result in a more intimate bond between the animal and its “owner”.48 Jörg WEILHARTNER


RADNER (supra 44) 37.

48




SLAUGHTER, BLOOD AND SACRIFICE: MYCENAEAN *sphag- IN CONTEXT* Introduction Ritual killing of animals, to be occasionally followed by consumption in various forms, is a key aspect of the attitude of most human communities towards those zōia that formed an integral part in their religious life. In the Aegean, our own perspective about animal sacrifice is now informed by a multitude of approaches to written sources, iconographic analyses and zooarchaeological reports, and, while this is mostly true of the 1st millennium BC evidence, the production of synthetic works has begun for the Late Bronze Age as well.1 Detailed surveys of the evidence demonstrate the diversity of


*

1

This paper owes its existence to the ingenuity and generosity of the organizers of the ZŌIA conference and now editors of this volume, Robert Laffineur and Tom Palaima and, again, to the insights offered by Tom’s remarkable Mycenological contributions to International Aegean conferences since EIKON. For discussion of various topics tackled in the present paper, I am indebted to Tom Palaima, Torsten Meissner, Joseph Maran, Jerry Rutter, Oliver Dickinson, Christos Boulotis, Elina Kardamaki, Robert Koehl, Lena Papazoglou, José Luis García Ramón, Riccardo Guglielmino, Lefteris Platon, Maria Kyritsi, José Melena, Jörg Weilhartner, Paul Halstead, and Malcolm Wiener for valuable comments on various occasions, for sharing material related to topics discussed herein, and for responding with courtesy to my queries in an era of unprecedented insulation that is still ongoing. I warmly thank Andreas Vlachopoulos and Diamantis Panagiotopoulos for permission to include illustrations under their authority for this paper. I thank Alexandra, Orestis and Tasos for everything else. Naturally, I remain responsible for all mistakes in fact or judgement included herein. The following special abbreviations are used: DMic I-II F. AURA JORRO, Diccionario Micénico I (1985) and II (1993). DMicSupl F. AURA JORRO, A. BERNABÉ, E.R. LUJÁN, J. PIQUERO and C. VARIAS GARCÍA, Suplemento al Diccionario Micénico (2020). CASABONA J. CASABONA, Recherches sur le vocabulaire des sacrifices en grec, des origines à la fin de l’époque classique (1966). An excellent and concise overview, focusing on the post-Bronze Age Greek evidence is provided by J.N. BREMMER “Greek normative animal sacrifice,” in D. OGDEN (ed.), A Companion to Greek Religion (2007) 132-144. For important updates on the Mycenaean evidence, especially on the aspect of burnt animal sacrifice from Pylos, Ayios Konstantinos (Methana), Eleusis and Mount Lykaion, see V. ISAAKIDOU, P. HALSTEAD, J. DAVIS and S. STOCKER, “Burnt animal sacrifice at the Mycenaean ‘Palace of Nestor’, Pylos,” Antiquity 76 (2002) 86-92; S. STOCKER and J. DAVIS, “Animal sacrifice, archives, and feasting at the Palace of Nestor,” Hesperia 73 (2004) 179-195; P. HALSTEAD and V. ISAAKIDOU, “Faunal evidence for feasting: burnt offerings from the Palace of Nestor at Pylos,” in P. HALSTEAD and J.C. BARRETT (eds), Food, Cuisine and Society in Prehistoric Greece (2004) 136-154; Y. HAMILAKIS and E. KONSOLAKI, “Pigs for the gods: burnt animal sacrifices as embodied rituals at a Mycenaean sanctuary,” OJA 23:2 (2004) 135-151 (also with evidence for holocaustic – burning of the entire animal – sacrifices of neonatal pigs); M.B. COSMOPOULOS and D. RUSCILLO, “Mycenaean burnt animal sacrifice at Eleusis,” OJA 33:3 (2014) 257-273; D.G. ROMANO and M.E. VOYATZIS, “Mt. Lykaion Excavation and Survey Project, Part 1: The Upper Sanctuary,” Hesperia 83:4 (2014) 569-652; all the above provide sufficient evidence for the practice on the Greek mainland (although not yet on Crete) that should remove many of the reservations expressed by Helène WHITTAKER, “Burnt animal sacrifice in Mycenaean cult: a review of the evidence,” OpAth 31-32 (2006-2007) 183-190. We also have valuable synthetic overviews of the textual and archaeological evidence by J. WEILHARTNER, “Zu den Opfertieren innerhalb der Linear B-Texte: Mögliche Hinweise für Brand- und Schlachtopfer,” in A. SACCONI, M. DEL FREO, L. GODART and M. NEGRI (eds), Colloquium Romanum: Atti del XII Colloquio Internazionale di Micenologia, Roma, 20-25 Febbraio 2006 (2008) 807-824; ID., “Religious offerings in

344

Vassilis PETRAKIS

practices, as well as the vocabulary that refers to them. We admittedly tend to place a diverse array of words and actions under the modern conceptual category of ‘sacrifice’, which often tends to become an Überbegriff of limited use, a conceptual blanket over what has been justifiably called “a complex and varied transhistorical and transcultural phenomenon”.2 Once more we are under the spell of the substantial division between etic and emic perspectives, reflecting respectively the extraneous standpoint of modern scholars and the perspectives of the past human agents that, although obscured by our overspecialized lenses, constitute the actual subject-matter of any field within the humanities. It is very helpful in all pertinent studies to be reminded of Jean-Louis Durand’s remark that sacrifice is “only a word, a lexical illusion”, a term he proposes to replace, in his text, with Greek θυσία.3 Of course, the mere switch from ‘sacrifice’ to θυσία does not correct the fact that our ‘sacrifice’ conceals a multitude of ideas, words and actions of the past human societies. But it is a token of a change of perspective that deserves broad adoption, enabling us to get rid of anachronistic projections and, in doing so, points to the value of considering the emic dimension: how contemporaries conceive of the significance of the various ‘action-complexes’ that we may categorize or subdivide differently. Although realistically our etic perspective cannot be completely abandoned, analyses of specialized vocabularies used by past linguistic communities may give us insights into ideas and concepts expressed ‘in their own words’, the closest thing to the ethnographer’s interview that can be included in the classicist’s toolkit. In doing so, we have to be aware that our own recording was done in our absence, was left torn to pieces, distorted and very often contains utterances out of context (or in a context that we have to reconstruct outside the recording itself).4 This paper proposes to take a detailed look at one such emic source, the use of vocabulary of sacrifice on the Linear B administrative documents and particularly the root *sphag- and its broader context of use. The Mycenaean palatial documents, our only accessible written sources in Aegean prehistory, are uniquely placed to inform us on the inner perspectives of contemporary active elite agents as embedded in the choice and use of specialized religious vocabulary. Although the raison d’être of Mycenaean religious references lies in the economic significance of pertinent practices, their value as




2

3

4

the Linear B tablets: an attempt at their classification and some thoughts about their possible purpose,” in C. VARIAS GARCÍA (ed.), Actas del Simposio Internacional: 55 Años de Micenología (1952-2007), Bellaterra, 1213 de Abril de 2007 (2012) 207-231, at 226-231; ID., “Textual evidence for burnt animal sacrifice and other rituals involving the use of fire in Mycenaean Greece,” in E. ALRAM-STERN, F. BLAKOLMER, S. DEGER-JALKOTZY, R. LAFFINEUR and J. WEILHARTNER (eds), METAPHYSIS. Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 15th International Aegean Conference, Vienna, Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Aegean and Anatolia Department, Austrian Academy of Sciences and Institute of Classical Archaeology, University of Vienna, 22-25 April 2014 (2016) 393-403, at 393-398. A useful overview of religious references to livestock in the Linear B records is also to be found in L.M. BENDALL, Economics of Religion in the Mycenaean World. Resources Dedicated to Religion in the Mycenaean Palace Economy (2007) 203-221. C.A. MURRAY, “The value and power of sacrifice,” in C.A. MURRAY (ed.), Diversity of Sacrifice: Form and Function of Sacrificial Practices in the Ancient World and Beyond (2016) 1-12 at 1. J.-L. DURAND, “Greek animals: Toward a topology of edible bodies,” in M. DETIENNE and J.-P. VERNANT (eds), The Cuisine of Sacrifice among the Greeks (1989) 87-118, at 89; apud E. THOMASSEN, “Sacrifice: ritual murder or dinner party?” in M. WEDDE (ed.), Celebrations: Sanctuaries and the Vestiges of Cult Activity (2004) 275-285, at 275. Of course, Durand’s note was specifically intended as a counter to the semantic distortion of the 1st millennium BC Greek ‘ritual animal killing/consumption complex’ within the dominant context of modern Christian “theological arrogance”. Durand is not interested there in the point I try to make here, that ‘sacrifice’ conceals the diversity of the evidence. I am aware that colleagues may find the etic/emic division quite simplistic and observe that its challenge has lost momentum in anthropology a long time ago. This is to some extent true, and the least I can admit here is the existence of a multitude of etic and emic perspectives. Still, one might find a very useful way to formulate their thinking about any aspect of the human past. Interested readers might be directed to the thoughtful essay by Carlo GINSBURG, “Our words, and theirs: a reflection on the historian’s craft, today,” in S. FELLMAN and M. RAHIKAINED (eds), Historical Knowledge. In Quest of Theory, Method and Evidence (2012) 97-119, especially at 107-111. Some points raised there may not be irrelevant to the prehistorian’s craft today.

SLAUGHTER, BLOOD AND SACRIFICE: MYCENAEAN *sphag- IN CONTEXT

345

“unimpeachable source(s) of hard fact”5 and their reliability are ensured by the nature of the documents on which they appear: these were authentic book-keeping records of a functional bureaucratic system, where terminology is expected to be used with a substantial degree of technical precision.6 In this endeavor one must caution against two temptations: on the one hand, negative evidence from such specialized documents must be assessed with great care because Linear B evidence is always very elliptical and restricted by the specific context in which each document is produced; on the other hand, while it is difficult to resist the temptation to read differences chronologically, we must be always open to the possibility that detectable differences between the Mycenaean and later Greek sources may be due to a variety of reasons. In particular, differences between the extant Mycenaean palatial administrative lexicon and the Homeric epic vocabulary (employed within a Kunstsprache) may not be (simply or necessarily) chronological. Such differences may also reflect the difference in genre, the nature and scope of the texts involved in each case, and (especially in the case of the Homeric material) stylistic choices that may or may not have a chronological significance.7 The words of animal sacrifice Our perspective on the Mycenaean sacrificial vocabulary is essentially comparative, and our essential approach can hardly begin without projecting the meaning of later Greek terms onto the context (verbal and administrative) of the occurrence of the pertinent Linear B sign-group. In this process, etymological and contextual analyses are seamlessly intertwined. The basic Greek terminology for animal sacrifice has been shown to revolve around certain basic terms: ἱερός and the action verbs ἔρδω/ ῥέζω, θύω, σφάζω, ἁγίζω, σπένδω, χέω, as well their derivatives or compounds.8 Jean Casabona’s foundational study has comprehensively dealt with the basic meanings and attestations of these words and has drawn a landscape of meanings with certain remarkable features, such as the specialized use of verbs ἔρδω/ ῥέζω ‘to act, to perform’ with a narrowed meaning ‘to sacrifice’9, or the semantic development of θύω, from its original reference to the action of burning and its olfactive


5

6

7

8

9

J. CHADWICK, “The use of Mycenaean documents as historical evidence,” in E. RISCH and H. MÜHLESTEIN (eds), Colloquium Mycenaeum. Actes du sixième Colloque International sur les textes mycéniens et égéens tenu à Chaumont sur Neuchâtel du 7 au 13 septembre 1975 (1979) 21-33, at 24. “[T]he nuts and bolts of religious practice”, as opposed to concepts of less direct bearing on the bookkeeping concerns of the palace officials, to quote Amanda KRAUSS, “i-je-ro and related terms,” Journal of Prehistoric Religion 15 (2001) 39-50, at 48. It is important, in this regard, to bear in mind the observation by Carlo GALLAVOTTI, “Il valore di «hieros» in Omero e in Miceneo,” L’antiquité classique 32 (1963) 409-428, at 412: “l’impiego vario di ἱερός in Omero, qualunque sia l’imposta zione che si vorrà dare al problema semantico che esso solleva, deve essere anzitutto riguardato sul piano stilistico, e non su quello storico-linguistico o storico-letterario”. CASABONA is still not surpassed in the depth of the analysis and the examination of the interrelationship between the various lexical groups. In his consideration of parallel developments of such verbs in other IE languages, CASABONA, 39-58 discusses the hypothesis that this semantic evolution is based on the interpretation of the sacrificial act as “l’acte par excellence”, observing that in most agropastoralist communities, ‘action’ is linked with anticipated productive results and ‘sacrifice’, as an offering to the divine, is intended to generate analogous productive effects on human communities. This complex topic merits further consideration of the evidence beyond Greek and falls outside the scope of the present paper. However, such generalization and assumption of broadly analogous parallel and independent semantic developments may not be necessary to explain the Greek evidence. Our earliest occurrence of these verbs in that sense occurs in Homer, where the use of ἔρδειν/ ῥέζειν appears to be part of the formulae, with objects such as ἱερά in the sense of ‘sacrificial victims’, βοῦν/ ἑκατόμβην ‘ox/ an offering of a hundred oxen’ (these may be considered implicit when absent), and/or accompanied by clear references to theonyms (such as Φοίβῳ, Ζηνί) indicating the recipient of the ‘action’. Overall, throughout Homer, the meaning ‘to sacrifice’ is sufficiently ensured by the verbal context where these verbs are used.

346

Vassilis PETRAKIS

consequences10 to a significant broadening to indicate the whole ensemble of actions involved in the process of burnt animal sacrifice.11 Other developments and links within the nexus of associated terms, such as the disuse of ἱερεύω after (or outside of) Homer through the aforementioned semantic expansion of θύω are of great interest, but they seem to post-date the Mycenaean evidence.12 Terms associated with ῥέζω and θύω are found in the Mycenaean lexicon with their early meanings: wo-ze /wórdzei/, wo-ze-e /wórdzehen/, wo-zo /wórdzōn/, wo-zo-te /wordzóntei/ and wo-zote /wórdzontes/ are all used in a technical sense in the environment of the fiscal obligations surrounding land tenure at Pylos, while wo-zo-me-no /wordzoménō/ (Dual) and wo-zo-me-na /wordzómena/ (Plural) refer to ‘worked’ or ‘processed’ chariot wheels at Knossos13. The actions implied there are unrelated to the performance of sacrifice, but belong to the non-specialized meaning of the verb, which, in Homer appears to be “en voie de disparition”.14 Still, we should follow Casabona in noting the solemn character of the occasions in which a phrase such as ἱερά ἔρδω is used15 and allow for the possibility for such a verse phrase in prayers and oral religious formulae contemporary with the tablets but outside their administrative context. It is not unlikely that the specialized expression /hierá wórdzehen/ might have been part of Mycenaean prayers and solemn declarations during the communal spectacles that such sacrifices certainly were. One might wonder whether, even on purely etymological grounds, the occurrence of such a phrase in LBA Greek might be hinted at by the compound i-je-ro-wo-ko /hieroworgós/, a term commonly understood as the ‘sacrificing priest’.16


10

11 12

13

14 15 16

R.S.P. BEEKES, Etymological Dictionary of Greek (2010) 567-568, s. θύω 2. The nouns θύος and θύον ‘aromatic substances to be burnt, incense > burnt offerings’ are primary derivatives of θύω and attested in our extant Mycenaean lexicon (BEEKES, op.cit. 567), see immediately below. CASABONA, 334 (Venn diagram). I must note that my survey below is focused on those items identified through the projection of later Greek sacrificial vocabulary onto the Linear B documentation, and I admit the limitations of this starting point. Therefore, it inevitably excludes certain examples whose associations with animal sacrifice rest on interpretation (mostly based on etymology), such as the title o-wi-de-ta-i (Dative Plural) on PY Un 718.2, which C. RUIJGH, Études sur la grammaire et le vocabulaire du grec mycénien (1967) 265 n. 147, 342 has interpreted as /owidétās/ “homme qui lie des moutons [...] titre d’une espèce de prêtre sacrificateur” (cf. also DMic II, 58, s.v. o-wi-de-ta-i) or, for that matter, the identification and etymology of the verbal forms ije-to(-qe) on PY Tn 316 recto .2, verso .1, .4, .8 and (jo-)i-je-si on PY Cn 3.1 (DMic I, 276-277, s. i-je-to for both see also M.F. LANE, “Returning to sender: PY Tn 316, Linear B i-je-to, pregnant Locatives, *perH3-, and passing between Mycenaean palaces,” Pasiphae 10 [2016] 39-89 at 44-47 and the overview by J. WEILHARTNER, “Textual evidence for Aegean Late Bronze Age ritual processions,” Opuscula 6 [2013] 151-174, at 152-153 for i-je-to). DMic II, 451-452, s. wo-ze. I exclude here from discussion the problematic term wo-ke on KN L 698.3 and PY Sh 736 (for which see DMic II, 441, s.v.). CASABONA, 328. CASABONA, 56. DMic I, 276, s. i-je-ro-wo-ko, cf. also CASABONA, 19. Naturally, the association of i-je-ro-wo-ko with ἱερά ῥέζειν was made at the very infancy of Mycenological research, already in M.G.F. VENTRIS and J. CHADWICK, Documents in Mycenaean Greek (1956) 394. The term is so far exclusively Pylian, occurring only twice on unrelated landholding entries (reconstructed on PY Eb 159.A; certain only on Ep 613 .7), unlike the more broadly attested i-je-re-u /hiereús/ and/or i-je-re-ja /hiéreia/ (PY, KN, HV), but this may be associated with the more detailed view we get of religious officials in the landholding records of the Pylos E- series due to the detailed information regarding their fiscal obligations related to landholding. Recently, Torsten Meissner, following an earlier suggestion by Ernst Bosshardt, proposed that /hieroworgós/ is an earlier composite, which, at the time of the tablets would have been in the process of being replaced by /hiereús/ that employed the very productive /-eus/ suffix: T. MEISSNER, “Archaeology and the archaeology of the Greek language: on the origin of the Greek nouns in -ευς,” in J. BINTLIFF and K. RUTTER (eds), The Archaeology of Greece and Rome: Studies in Honour of Anthony Snodgrass (2016) 22-30, at 28, citing the doctoral dissertation by E. BOSSHARDT, Die Nomina auf -ευς: Ein Beitrag zur Wortbildung der griechischen Sprache (1942) 31-32 (non vidi). The proposal is admittedly ingenious, but does not adequately explain why both the /-worgós/ and the /-eús/ formation would be in concurrent use by the

SLAUGHTER, BLOOD AND SACRIFICE: MYCENAEAN *sphag- IN CONTEXT

347

The family of θύω fares better. Although the verbal form does not occur, we have some certain or probable derivatives. tu-we-a /thúweha/ (Accusative Plural) is a generic designation of aromatic materials handed over (unaugmented Aorist -do-ke /dṓken/) from a-ko-so-ta (a personal name – hereafter PN –, perhaps Alxoitās) to an unguent-boiler (Dative Singular a-re-pa-zo-o /aleiphadzṓhōi/) aptly named tu-we-ta /Thuwéstāi/ (Dat.) in the uncommonly eloquent heading of PY Un 267.1-.4. The Pylian ‘scribe’ has here classified coriander, cyperus, commodities marked with the monogram KAPO17 and with the unidentified ‘ideogram’ *157, two varieties of the wine ‘ideogram’ (wine and perhaps vinegar) and wool, all under the generic term /thúweha/, in the apparent technical sense of ‘substances for (aromatic?) unguent production’. On PY Un 219.1, tu-wo /thúwon/ does not appear to be a generic term, however. It is listed as a separate commodity amongst many others which are indicated by the ‘ideogrammatic’ use of syllabograms (perhaps as acrophonic abbreviations of the contemporary names for these commodities) and it might be associated (in this specific context) with later Greek θύον, the name of an aromatic wood, possibly a commodity similar to Roman citrum.18 The phrase tu-wo-te-to (either with an omitted word-divider or perhaps an autonomous accentual unit) from a temporal (o-te /hóte/ ‘when’) clause in the heading of TH Fq 126.1 (from the Odos Pelopidou deposit) may also be interpreted as the occasion of a burnt offering, if /thúwos thḗto/ is accepted.19 Such diverse uses and nuances of tu-wo




17

18

19

same ‘scribes’ and within the same administrative context at Pylos. Knossian i-je-re-wi-jo (either /Hierēwios/ or /hierēwion/?) appears on KN K(1) 875.6 in a position occupied by personal names in other entries of the same tablet (a record of di-pa vessels designated as qa-si-re-wi-ja ‘pertinent to a */gwasiléus/’?), but its interpretation is uncertain (DMic I, 275, s.v. i-je-re-wi-jo). Perhaps it is time to endorse the excellent proposal by Anna SACCONI, “The monogram KAPO in the Mycenaean texts,” Kadmos 11:1 (1972) 22-26, to interpret KAPO not as /karpós/ ‘fruit’ but as /kárphos/, ‘cinnamon’ (< ‘dry piece (of cinnamon)’ (cf. Greek κάρφος, attested in Plural κάρφεα and referring to cinnamon sticks in Herodotus III.111), a well-attested perfume ingredient in ancient sources (cf. Theophrastus HP 9.7.3). DMicSupl, 369-370, s. tu-wo, where /thúwos/ ‘aromatic substance’ is preferred. I would maintain that /thúwon/ as a reference to a specific aromatic plant might be a better option for this specific instance of tu-wo on PY Un 219. For Greek θύον see BEEKES (supra n. 10) 565, s. θύον. I would like to express reservations to the common identifications of Greek θύον as either Tetraclinis articulata (previously in botanist literature named as Callitris quadrivalvis, Thuja articulata) or – less often – Juniperus foetidissima that appear frequently among botanists. It is indeed likely that the species (if indeed θύον was referring to only one species) is within the Cupressaceae family, but literary evidence precludes a more precise identification. For a survey of the commodities attested on PY Un 219, see BENDALL (supra n. 1) 248255 with Table 6-23. At least some of these commodities (E, KO, MA, PE, RA) occur in the contexts of aromatics and condiments elsewhere at Pylos (PY Fr 1215 for RA), at Knossos (KN Ga) and at Mycenae (KN Ge) and are therefore in agreement with the meaning of tu-wo as an aromatic as well, although a few of them seem to occur in contexts diverse enough to suggest possible multivalence (this applies to KO and perhaps E as well). DMicSupl, 351-352, 369-370, s.vv. te-ke, tu-wo. Cf. also WEILHARTNER 2016 (supra n. 1) 400-401. The use of the Medio-Passive verb /thḗto/ here is indeed problematic, as many colleagues have noted, but it would not be entirely unsuitable if this was a burnt offering made by a communal entity (rather than a specific high-status agent, for which the Active te-ke /thḗken/ would be more appropriate, cf. the /wánaks/ appointing – or burying! – the /dāmokóros/ on PY Ta 711.1). The interpretation of tu-wo-te-to as the PN + verb /Thúwōn thḗto/ ‘Th. was buried’ is certainly possible (Y. DUHOUX, “Mycenaean anthology,” in Y. DUHOUX and A. MORPURGO DAVIES [eds], A Companion to Linear B: Mycenaean Greek Texts and their World 1 [2008] 243-393, at 362-364). In favor of Duhoux’s interpretation is indeed the consideration of an elite burial as a less periodical event than a (presumably periodical or less remarkable) burnt offering, which would make the former a more appropriate time-marker (ibid. 364). However, this would require some knowledge of the overall timespan of the activities or transactions that the TH Fq tablets refer to, which is yet unclear. Theoretically, within a restricted range of temporal reference, both a burnt offering and a burial can be equally appropriate time-markers. I here deliberately refrain from discussing the exact nature of any /thúwon/-related ritual or possibilities of extra-Aegean influences involved in later Greek conceptualisations of ‘purification’ (cf. W. BIBEE, Katharos: The Semitic Origin of a

348

Vassilis PETRAKIS

are of great interest. Here on TH Fq 126.1, tu-wo-te-to (again, if /thúwos/ is indeed involved) may be the very term used in contemporary religious language. The meaning of /thúwos/ here cannot be deduced from context; it is the etymology of θύω (apparently compelling) as well as the semantic difference between Homeric uses of the entire lexical family of θύω and the ‘expanded’ meaning of later Greek θυσία that suggest its meaning as ‘burnt offering’.20 We might wish to leave aside the sensational, but practically unprovable, reconstruction of po-reno-tu-ṭẹ[ as the festival name po-re-no-tu-ṭẹ[-ri-ja possibly /po-re-no-thustḗria/ on PY Ua 1413, where this reference is localized at ro-u-si-jo a-ko-ro /Lousiōi agrōi/, a toponym associated with perfumed oil offerings elsewhere (PY Fr 1220, 1226). Otherwise, the context here is quite poor, and, although this would be an attractive candidate for a festival for the ritual burning of whatever is indicated by the first component po-re-no-, it would be entirely inappropriate here to merely dabble into the significance of this term.21 Last but not least, the interest generated by the join between PY Ea [ex Xa] 102 and Ea 107, which produced the syntagm di-wo-nu-so-jo e-ka-ra /Diwonúsoio eskhárā/ is quite justifiable. The /eskhárā/ mentioned here is different than the /eskhárai/ on PY Ta 709.2 (the latter perhaps firerelated utensils, such as portable hearths, fireboxes or braziers). The former may be better understood to indicate an altar-like permanent installation, a tangible locus of ritual action,22 perhaps known wellenough to function as a toponymic reference in the Pylian landholding records. This is perhaps a further example of a non-technical significance that made its way into our documentation in a rather oblique way and a further reminder to be very cautious about inferences based on what is not on the tablets. Although, within our extant ‘sacrificial’ terms preserved on the Linear B records, we seem to be lacking a term that would clearly allude to the whole process of burnt animal sacrifice (either through pars pro toto metonymy or through actual semantic change), I hope to have shown that we have possible hints at contemporary expressions that might have been used outside the specialized vocabulary of the palace officials. Let us now proceed to examine one final element of this ‘sacrificial’ vocabulary, which is also perhaps the most elusive and problematic one: the root *sphag-, represented in the later Greek lexicon by the verb σφάζω and the lexical group formed by its composites and derivatives. *sphag- in the Linear B records Terms more or less certainly associated with *sphag- are not infrequent in the Mycenaean lexicon, although the degree of plausibility of the various identifications varies.23 In most cases, context, one must admit, is not particularly helpful. Being at the mercy of inferences based on plausible


20

21

22

23

Greek Purification Term, unpublished undergraduate thesis, University of Texas at Austin 2008). CASABONA, 69-154 for a thorough examination of the group of θύω in Greek sources with special reference to Homer. The verb has a compelling IE etymology, although it took its thematicized form probably within Greek, as comparison with Latin suffiō ‘to produce smoke, to fumigate’ shows. Both forms can go back to a PIE root *-dhuH-ie/o- (see BEEKES [supra n. 10] 567-568, s.v. θύω 2). The semantic broadening of θύω/ θυσία also seems to have taken place within Greek (cf. also CASABONA, 154). DMic II, 143-144, s.vv. po-re-na-qe, po-re-no-tu-ṭẹ[, po-re-no-zo-te-ri-ja. The latest detailed studies of po-re-no(the same as po-re-na and the Dative Plural po-re-si), à propos PY Tn 316 are by E. NOTTI, M. NEGRI, G.M. FACCHETTI, “Linguistic expression and ritual taxonomy in PY Tn 316,” Pasiphae 9 (2015) 119133 and LANE (supra n. 12) 43-44. See WEILHARTNER 2016 (supra n. 1) 396-399 with references. The join was achieved and published by J.L. MELENA, “24 joins and quasi-joins of fragments in the Linear B tablets from Pylos,” Minos 35-36 (2000-2001) 357-370 at 357-360. Fundamental discussions of the meaning of later Greek ἐσχάρα are to be found in J. CHADWICK, “The semantic history of Greek ἐσχάρα,” in A. ETTER (ed.), O-O-PE-RO-SI: Festschrift für Ernst Risch zum 75. Geburtstag (1986) 515-523 and G. EKROTH, The Sacrificial Rituals of Greek Hero-Cults in the Archaic to the Early Hellenistic Periods (2002) 25-29. A detailed and rich survey of *sphag- has been offered by R. GUGLIELMINO, “pa-ki-ja-ne, la ierapoli di Pilo,” SMEA 23 (1982) 141-194.

SLAUGHTER, BLOOD AND SACRIFICE: MYCENAEAN *sphag- IN CONTEXT

349

reconstructions from the (etically) ambiguous Linear B orthography, I have chosen not to consider further those instances where evidence for identification is not based on positive evidence.24 The celebrated case is, of course, the prominent place-name pa-ki-ja-ne, commonly understood as /Sphagiā́nes/, that occurs widely on Pylian documents in religious associations and is commonly assumed to be the major cult site within the territory controlled by the Englianos palace. The numerous and diverse occurrences of the toponym clearly suggest the paramount religious-political (to be viewed emically as a conceptual continuum in the contemporary political economies) significance of the place.25 It does not necessarily follow, however, that the place is physically close to Englianos,26


24

25

By “positive evidence” I consider cases where the context, rather than the etymology, enables us to give priority to *sphag- over other roots concealed by the pa-kV- sequence. An approach that is more generous than the one followed here is advocated by GUGLIELMINO (supra n. 23), where the root *sphag- is identified in certain controversial instances on the Pylian documents. None of these associations can be completely excluded, but, as the pertinent sign-groups occur mostly in non-informative contexts, no positive conclusion can yet be reached. As further progress in the understanding of these records might alter the situation somewhat, there may be a point in mentioning here these doubtful cases. (1) pa-ke-te-re need not render the same lexeme on PY Vn 879.4 (and rather securely reconstructed on Vn 46.6) and on MY Ue 611.3 (the lack of context on PY Wp 1415.α makes any precise identification difficult). In the former case, a connection with *pāg- (cf. πήγνυμι in the technical sense ‘to fix, to stabilize’) is suggested by the context of the Vn records of structural parts, mostly likely wooden, and pa-ke-te-re there may well be /paktēres/ ‘dowels’ or any related stabilizing or fixing device. On MY Ue 611.3, context suggests a type of vessel, and this extends onto pa-ke-te-ri- | -ja on MY Wt 506.γ-.α (the Wt nodules seem to be associated with MY Ue 611). It is in this context that connection with *sphag- may be entertained, but caution is in order. (2) The Pylian pa-ke-te-ja women on PY Aa 662, Ab 745.B (with -ja over erased [[-jo]]), Ab 746.B and Ad 671.B appear as modified by the derivative adjective from an agent-noun or PN pa-ke-ta, that appears on KN U 4478.21, for which /Sphagétās/ has been proposed. It would be interesting to know whether /Sphagétās/ might have been a ritual specialist here, but no positive clues are available. (3) The utensil pa-ko-to (Dual on PY Ta 709.1, unknown type on MY Wt 505.β) may be /phaktós/ or /phaktón/, although /sphaktós/ is preferred by E.R. LUJÁN, “La moción de género en los adjetivos temáticos en micénico,” in C. VARIAS (ed.), Actas del Simposio Internacional: 55 Años de Micenología (19522007), Bellaterra, 12-13 de abril de 2007 (2012) 127-153 at 147. (4) pa-ka is a PN on KN V(7) 1523.6, although its nature is less certain on PY Fn 7.8 (and the reading .pạ-ka is quite uncertain on MY Oe 112.1) and (5) the ‘oxen-name’ ]pa-ko-qe on KN Ch 5728 (perhaps re-]pa-ko-qe /Lépargos/ ‘with white coat’, see M. KAJAVA, “]pa-ko-qe (KN Ch 5728): a new ox name from Knossos?” Arctos 45 [2011] 59-70) might be excluded from the group, as perhaps should (6) pa-ko (that might be a toponym like /Phāgos/ or /Sphakos/?? on PY An 427.2), (7) pa-ko-wa (PY La 624) which, although morphologically obscure, might be a technical term referring to TELA+TE (perhaps te-pa, cf. τάπης textile), cf. the context of pa-ke-we (mentioned above in this footnote) and (8) pa-ki[ on KN V(3) 492.1. For all the above see also the pertinent lemmata in DMic II, 69-76 s.vv. See a general survey in GUGLIELMINO (supra n. 23) and DMic II, 72-75, s.vv. pa-ki-ja-ne and related terms. The Eb/Ep and En/Eo series of landholding documents record plots of land and their ownership status (the latter with fiscal implications) that appear to be located in that place (pa-ki-ja-ni-ja on PY En 609.1) suggesting an intense interest of the palace in land ownership there, where we also have a well-known remarkable concentration of religious titles (i-je-re-u, i-je-re-ja, i-je-ro-wo-ko, ka-ra-wi-po-ro, te-o-jo do-e-ro or te-o-jo do-e-ra). The term occurs in diverse religious contexts, involving either offerings or provisions to cult personnel (pa-ki-ja-na-de on PY Fn 187.4, Fr 1217.3, 1233; Locative pa-ki-ja-si on PY Tn 316.2, Un 2.1 and perhaps reconstructed on Fr 343[+]1209), as well as the standard ‘ordered’ lists of Hither Province names and related documents of fiscal sensu lato significance. Such references include the following: pa-ki-ja-na-de on PY Vn 20.6; pa-ki-ja-ne on Vn 19.4 and Xa 113.1; Instrumental (with Ablative sense) pa-ki-ja-pi on PY Eb 338.A, Jn 829.7, Ma 221.1; pa-ki-ja-si on PY An 18.11, Vn 130.7, .9 and Cn 608.6; and pa-ki-ja-ni-ja on Jo 438.10 and On 300.3. The term pa-ki-ja-ni-ja might indicate the name of the broader region around pa-ki-ja-ne, but this is difficult to demonstrate, especially since later Greek toponyms in /-íā/ are usually derived from ethnics, as in Aitōloi > Aitōlia, or Akarnánes > Akarnanía). The derivative adjective pa-ki-ja-ni-jo occurs also in religious contexts: paki-ja-ni-jo modifying a-ko-ro (Locative) on PY Fr 1236.1, pa-ki-ja-ni-jo-i (Dative Plural of recipients?) on PY Fr 1216.1 and pa-ki-ja-ni-jo-jo modifying me-no (Genitive) on Fr 1224.


350

Vassilis PETRAKIS

although we must admit that pa-ki-ja-ne seems to enjoy a very special status within the Pylos polity that is hardly paralleled in other prominent locations of cult activity in other palatial territories (such as, for instance, a-mi-ni-so /Amnisós/ in the Knossos records). A less frequently discussed question is the etymology of /Sphagiánes/. Σφαγιᾶνες entered Mycenology with the publication of the decipherment, although, one might suppose, because of the attractive possibility of an association with the later toponyms Σφαγία/ Σφακτηρία rather than directly with *sphag-,27 and it appears that it became the dominant interpretation because no good alternative interpretation has been hitherto proposed.28 The implications of the association of pa-ki-ja-ne with σφάζω have been seldom discussed or featured in discussions of the role of pa-ki-ja-ne within the Pylian political economy.29 Tom Palaima has, on numerous occasions, been exceptionally explicit in putting forward the intriguing rendering of the name as “the place of (ritual animal) slaughter”, although he recently questioned his own interpretation.30 Of course, any association of a hypothetical /Sphagiā́nes/ with *sphag- would not be direct: the obscure suffix /-an-/ intervenes and most discussions on this topic accept that /Sphagiā́nes/ is to be understood as a collective ethnonym (like Ἀκαρνᾶνες) used as a place-name, as in Λοκροί.31 We should not lose sight of the fact that this discussion does not affect (or, in fact, dances around) the initial reading of pa-ki-ja-ne as /Sphagiā́nes/, or, for that matter, its association with *sphag-. Despite the lack of positive evidence for the performance of animal sacrifice at that place in our extant records, I tend to consider the association with *sphag- as a very sound working hypothesis that may generate, in the context of other evidence, some quite interesting questions. Another intriguing term that is most likely related to *sphag- is sa-pa-ka-te-ri-ja, attested at Knossos (KN Cf 941.B and plausibly reconstructed on C 1561.a and X 9191.a; full transliterations appear in Appendix A). Its interpretation as the adjective /sphaktḗria/ had been first proposed by


26

27

28

29

30

31

The only document where pu-ro and pa-ki-ja-ne appear together is the rather exceptional (in many respects) PY Tn 316. This is a very strong link indeed, but one should consider the context in which Tn 316 was produced, and this matter falls entirely beyond the scope of this paper. M.G.F. VENTRIS and J. CHADWICK, “Evidence for Greek dialect in the Mycenaean archives,” JHS 73 (1953) 84-103 at 90. For a not very convincing association between *pa-ki-ja as the Linear B spelling of the type antecedent to later Greek φάσσα ‘pigeon’, see L. DEROY, “«Pakijana», «Pakijane» et «Pakijanija» dans les tablettes mycéniennes de Pylos,” Revue internationale d’onomastique 16 (1964) 89-103 at 101-103. It is telling that there is no lemma σφάζω in J. CHADWICK and L. BAUMBACH, “The Mycenaean Greek vocabulary,” Glotta 41 (1963) 154-271. Cf. the reservations in P. CHANTRAINE with J. TAILLARDAT, O. MASSON, J.-L. PERPILLOU, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque : histoire des mots, avec un Supplément les chroniques d’étymologie grecque 1-10 par A. BLANC, C. de LAMBERTERIE, J.-L. PERPILLOU, New Edition (2009) 1036-1037, s.v. σφάζω, where “ethn. myc. nomin. pl. pakijane?” is mentioned in relationship to place-names Σφαγία, Σφαγιαί and Σφακτηρία, rather than directly with a proper member of the σφάζω group. T.G. PALAIMA, “The nature of the Mycenaean wanax: non-Indo-European origins and priestly functions,” in P. REHAK (ed.), The Role of the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean: Proceedings of a Panel Discussion Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, New Orleans, Louisiana, 28 December 1992 with Additions (1995) 119139 at 131; ID., “Linear B sources,” in S.M. TRZASKOMA, R. SCOTT SMITH and S. BRUNET (eds), Anthology of Classical Myth. Primary Sources in Translation (2004) 439-454 at 447; ID., “Sacrificial feasting in the Linear B documents,” Hesperia 73 (2004) 217-246 at 225. For a detailed discussion now of why pa-ki-jane and related forms may not be derived from *sphag- and the notion of animal slaughter, see the longawaited article by Τ.G. PALAIMA, “pa-ki-ja-ne, pa-ki-ja-na and pa-ki-ja-ni-ja”, in C. VARIAS GARCÍA, J.V. MÉNDEZ DOSUNA,
T.G. PALAIMA (eds), TA-U-RO-QO-RO: Studies in Mycenaean Texts, Language and Culture in Honor of José Luis Melena Jiménez (forthcoming). See, for instance, A. LEUKART, “Νεανίας und das urgriech. Suffix -αν-,” in M. MAYRHOFER (ed.), Lautgeschichte und Etymologie. Akten der sechsten Fachtagung der indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Wien, 24.-29. September 1978 (1980) 238-247, at 244-245. There Leukart discusses the development of the place-name /Sphagíā/ > ethnic /Sphagiā́nes/ > “Ortskollektiva (Regionsnamen)” /Sphagiāna/, with the cautious remark “sofern die Deutung zutrifft”!

SLAUGHTER, BLOOD AND SACRIFICE: MYCENAEAN *sphag- IN CONTEXT

351

Michel Lejeune32 but had been treated with some suspicion due to certain ‘aberrant’ features in its orthography: the notation of the sibilant before a stop in for /Spha-/ (generally not noted, for instance, in ti-ri-po-di-ko /tripodískos/ ‘small three-footed vessel’, -pe-i /spheihi/ Dative Plural of the 3rd person pronoun, or pa-ko-we /sphakówen/ ‘sage-scented’ referring to perfumed oil), as well as the spelling for /-ktē-/. As John Killen rigorously argued, however, both ‘oddities’ could well be accommodated within known Mycenaean spelling practice: (i) the notation of the sibilant when followed by a stop also occurs in other sequences, of which the clearest seem to be e-sa-pa-ke-ṃẹ[na /espargména/ ‘swathed’ (rather than /esphagména/) referring to textiles on KN L 7375 and possibly reconstructed on L(9) 7401.a, i-su-ku-wo-do-to /Iskhuwódotos/ (PN) on KN Fh 348.1 and si-kiro /skirros/ ‘gypsum’ on KN U 8210.1;33 (ii) the spelling for /-ktV-/ appears to be paralleled in the spellings wa-na-ka-te, wa-na-ka-to and wa-na-ka-te-ro for Dative /wanaktei/, Genitive /wanaktos/ and the derivative adjective /wanakteros/ respectively.34 The connection with */sphag-/ seems then quite firmly supported, although */sphagastēria/ is, in my opinion, a valid alternative form with a similar function and meaning.35 This is our most certain attestation of *sphag- in the Mycenaean lexicon, and the only one confirmed by the context in which the term occurs. Killen, in his usual thorough and compelling manner, has given an admirable analysis of the context in which Knossian sa-pa-ka-te-ri-ja is used as an adjective referring to living animals (which, in all identifiable cases, are sheep) with the plausible meaning “intended for slaughter or sacrifice”.36 The context in which the clearest of these references appears, the Cf ‒ previously C(2) ‒ set by ‘Hand’ 112, is convincingly interpreted as listing provisions for sacrificial banqueting, comparable to the Thebes Wu nodules and Pylos documents such as PY Un 138 or Cn 418 (see Appendix C for an updated transliteration of the entire Knossos set). In these documents the recorded livestock are associated with important individuals within the respective polities (a-pi-qo-ta and ko-ma-we in the Knossos Cf tablets, du-ni-jo and we-u-da-ne-u on the Pylian documents). This has important implications for the interpretation of sa-pa-ka-te-ri-ja, as the provision of sacrificial beasts fits very well within the pattern of important ‘donors’ contributing animals for sacrifices under the auspices of the palace.37


32

33

34

35

36

37

M. LEJEUNE, “Essai de philologie mycénienne 6. Les dérivés en -ter-,” Revue de philologie 34 (1960) 9-30, at 12, n. 18. See also DMic II, 280, s.v. sa-pa-ka-te-ri-ja now thoroughly revised and updated in DMicSupl, 2, 329-330, s.v. sa-pa-ka-te-ri-ja. J.T. KILLEN, “Thebes sealings, Knossos tablets, and Mycenaean state banquets,” BICS 39 (1994) 67-84 at 74-75; ID., “Thebes sealings and Knossos tablets,” in E. DE MIRO, L. GODART and A. SACCONI (eds), Atti e Memorie del Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, Roma-Napoli, 14-20 Ottobre 1991 1 (1996) 71-82, at 75-76. For a thorough discussion of the occasional notation of /s/ see J.L. MELENA, “Mycenaean writing,” in Y. DUHOUX and A. MORPURGO DAVIES (eds), A Companion to Linear B: Mycenaean Greek Texts and their World 3 (2014) 1-186, at 104-105. For the examples listed above see DMic I, 251, 287-288 and DMic II, 293, s.vv. It should not escape our attention that all the clear examples of such notation are Knossian, and the ‘asymmetrical’ graphic treatment of /s/, which is regularly notated in /sm/ and /-sm-/ clusters may hint at features of a non-Greek (‘Minoan’) phonology (see discussion below on the etymology of *sphag-). V. PETRAKIS, “Writing the wanax: spelling peculiarities of Linear B wa-na-ka and their possible implications,” Minos 39 (2016) 61-158, 407-410. PETRAKIS (supra n. 34) 95-97. This proposal presupposes the existence of a denominal verbal form */sphag-adzō/ (with productive suffix -adzō/ later -άζω) from a hypothetical */sphagā́/, as in later δικάζω < δίκᾱ instead of the attested later Greek σφάζω (/sphazō/ < */sphag-y-ō/). Given the meager evidence on Mycenaean verb morphology, this remains speculative at the moment, although, to my mind, there is no evidence against the assumption of a productive /-azō/ in Late Bronze Age Greek. See the partly overlapping (but still both indispensable) papers by KILLEN (supra n. 33). The reconstruction ]sa-pa-ka-[te-ri-ja on KN X 9191.a, a tablet mentioning the place-name u-ta-no effectively rules out the interpretation of sa-pa-ka-te-ri-ja as a place-name (cf. Σφακτηρία), first proposed by E. SITTIG, “Praeclassica,” Bibliotheca Orientalis 11 (1954) 67-71 at 68, à propos his review of E.L. BENNETT, A Minoan Linear B Index (1953). For Classical Greece, I have found the study by A. KLÖCKNER, “Visualizing veneration: images of animal sacrifice on Greek votive reliefs,” in S. HITCH and I. RUTHERFORD (eds), Animal Sacrifice in the

352

Vassilis PETRAKIS

Killen advances the important observation that the adjunct sa that modifies sheep that is occasionally found at Knossos is an acrophonic abbreviation of sa-pa-ka-te-ri-ja (see Appendix B for the pertinent dossier).38 In his analysis, he notices how the adjunct sa seems to be contrasted to pa on KN C 394 and C 7063, and makes the very convincing suggestion that pa is an abbreviation for pa-ra-jo or pa-ra-ja /palaiós/ ‘aged, old’. The distinction here seems to be between animals “specifically reared for sacrifice (or slaughter more generally) and (old) animals that have been culled for slaughter from breeding or wool-producing flocks because of their age”.39 I wish to propose a slight modification of his interpretation of the meaning of this distinction. Given the descriptive vocabulary that seems to accompany animals found in some of the associated texts (for instance, a-ko-ro-we-e and a-ko-ro-we on PY Cn 418.2, .3 which Killen convincingly interpreted as /hakhrōwḗhe/, /hakhrōwḗs/ ‘of uniform color’40 or the adjectives e-qi-ti-wo-e /ekwhthiwohe(s)/ ‘starved?’ on TH Wu 75.β-.γ and perhaps po-ro-eko-to /prohektós/? ‘prominent; of superior quality’ on TH Wu 67.β-.γ and 92.β-.γ), it seems that sa-paka-te-ri-ja sums up the entire assemblage of qualities (including some or all of the following: age, health, color, absence of odd physical or behavioral traits) that would make an animal suitable for sacrificial slaughter. Such qualifications are set apart from negative features such as old age, ill health or physical defects, a practice that is well known from later Greek sources. It would appear therefore that sa-pa-kate-ri-ja is here intended in the technical sense of ‘bearing all the necessary qualities that would make the animal fit for sacrifice’. The apparent contrast between sa and pa (if their acrophonic interpretations are correct) make it more likely that sa-pa-ka-te-ri-ja refers to sacrificial killing, rather than secular slaughter, as it is not obvious why aged (pa) animals would be excluded from consumption. In sacrifice, the choice of victim is restricted by a variety of regulations that would not usually affect non-religious slaughter.41 The sign-group pa-ka-na has been well-known as a celebrated case of ‘epic’ vocabulary (φάσγανον) of Late Bronze Age ancestry. Occurring on records of swords (or daggers) from Knossos that bear the very iconic and instantly recognizable ‘ideogram’ *236 PUG, pa-ka-na has uncontestably and unanimously been identified as /phásgana/ on the Ra(1) tablets and this must be understood as a rather generic term, since it is found with both variants of the PUG ‘ideogram’ (cf. the forms of PUG on KN Ra(1) 1540 and 1548) that might be understood as providing a further ‘specification’ (rather than ‘duplicating’ the information) provided by the pa-ka-na annotation.42 Although the parallel provided by Homeric φάσγανον ‘sword’ is compelling and practically unbeatable, let us here note that pa-ka-na might also render */sphágana/, a possibility that might be substantiated on an early metathesis that produced the diversion between *sphag- and *phasg-.43 Along the same line, if pa-ki-ja-


38 39 40 41

42

43

Ancient Greek World (2017) 200-222, very useful. KILLEN 1996 (supra n. 33) 79-81. KILLEN 1996 (supra n. 33) 81. KILLEN 1994 (supra n. 33), 79. This is not incompatible with Paul Halstead’s suggestion (on the strength of the partial applicability of sa only to some animals on KN C 394) that sa/ sa-pa-ka-te-ri-ja might indicate animals “reared for slaughter and not merely destined for slaughter” (P. HALSTEAD, “Texts, bones and herders: approaches to animal husbandry in Late Bronze Age Greece,” in J. BENNET and J. DRIESSEN [eds], A-NA-QO-TA. Studies Presented to J. T. Killen (2002) 149-189 at 161, 187, original italics). Evidence for the fattening of animals may also be connected with sacrificial slaughter. I promise a more thorough treatment and synthesis of all aspects of Mycenaean sacrificial practice from a variety of textual and para-textual (archaeological, iconographic, historical) perspectives, but this will have to be accommodated elsewhere. KN Ra(1) 1540, 1541, 1545, 1548.b, 1549, 1550, 1551.b, 1552, 1553.b, 1554. For a discussion of paka-na and its relationship to the variants of the PUG ‘ideogram’ see V. PETRAKIS, “Figures of speech? Observations on the non-phonographic component in the Linear B writing system,” in M.-L. NOSCH and H. LANDENIUS ENEGREN (eds), Aegean Scripts: Proceedings of the 14th International Colloquium on Mycenaean Studies, Copenhagen, 2-5 September 2015 1 (2017) 127-167 at 153-154 with fig. 3. The etymological association between φάσγανον and σφάζω occurs in the Etymologicon Magnum (a work in which are found folk-etymologies galore 788.40), but we should not be dismissive of the connection altogether because of this. August FICK notes, in his extensive review of Matthaeus MUCH’s Die Heimat

SLAUGHTER, BLOOD AND SACRIFICE: MYCENAEAN *sphag- IN CONTEXT

353

ne is indeed associated with the same *sphag- stem by any means, it might have rendered */Phasgiā́nes/, which might be no less likely than the ‘orthodox’ rendering /Sphagiā́nes/. Finally, one should also refer somewhat more extensively to ].pạ-ke-u, if correctly identified, as a title (rather than a name) /sphageús/ on PY Qa 1308 and add to the arguments offered earlier by Riccardo Guglielmino.44 There are currently two reasons that encourage this interpretation. First the titles i-je-re-u /hiereús/ and i-je-re-ja /hiéreiā/ are attested on many of the Qa tablets (i-je-re-u on PY Qa 1290 and 1296; i-je-re-ja on PY Qa 1289, 1300, reconstructed on 1303) found in Room 99 of the Northeast Building and recording the unidentified commodity noted by ‘ideogram’ *189. The adjective po-ti-ni-ja-wi-jo following the personal name ka-e-se-u also occurs on PY Qa 1299. These six references within a rather small group of documents (twenty-five discounting possible quasi-joins and including seven very small fragments with three graphemes or less) seem meaningful; they provide a fairly good association between the production of this set and religious personnel. Second, although we should not assume absolute formulaic consistency within the series, the structure of PY Qa 1289 and 1296 suggest a ‘PN + title + *189 + numeral’ sequence for at least some of the inscriptions,45 which would accommodate the interpretation of ].pạ-ke-u on 1308 as a (religious) title. José Melena has suggested a quasi-join between Qa 1305 and 1308 that would produce wo-ro-qo-ta[ ].pạ-ke-u *189 1, consistent with the aforementioned sequence.46 Although Melena has proposed the reconstruction e-ro].pạ-ke-u, the term may be complete.47 Although some reservations as to the validity of the quasi-join




44 45

46

47

der Indogermanen in Beiträge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen 29 (1905) 226-247 at 235: “Vielleicht haben die Alten recht, wenn sie φάσγανον von σφάζω ableiten, σγ entsteht sonst aus γσκ, wie in μίσγω aus μιγσκω, λίσγος aus λιγ-σκος, lat. ligo; aus σφαγ-σκανον, gebildet wie βάσκανον (aus βακ-σκανόν) konnte wohl mit Vermeidung des zweimaligen silbenanlauts mit σ φασγ-ανον werden”. The proposal was swiftly adopted in W. PRELLWITZ, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der griechschen Sprache (1905) 483, s.v. φάσγανον, with no further comment. However, H. FRISK, Griechisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch 2 (1970) 995, s. φάσγανον, is critical: “Bildung wie δρέπανον, κόπανον und andere Gerätenamen. Wie so viele Waffenbezeichnungen LW ohne Etymologie. Die herkömmliche Anknüpfung an σφάζω, σφαγή über *σφαγ-σκ-ανον (Prellwitz) ist weder lautlich noch morphologisch einwandfrei”, although he refers to the parallel of Indic khaḍgá‘Schwert’, which, in my view, is also unconvincing. CHANTRAINE et al. (supra n. 29, 1137, s. φάσγανον) notes the basic facts (“Ét.: incertaine. Le mot présente le suffixe -ανον d’instrument”) and is rightly critical of Fick’s */sphagskanon/ that is considered “phonétiquement difficile et morphologiquement peu vraisemblable”. The segmentation there proposed is */sphag-anon/ (cf. κόπανον < κοπ-τ-ω) based on a very early metathesis, concluding that pa-ka-na “peut d’ailleurs se lire *σφάγανα aussi bien que φάσγανα”. The φάσγανον entry in Chantraine’s Dictionnaire (which, as part of his fascicle IV-2 was prepared post mortem by students and colleagues) does not cite E. FURNÉE, Die wichtigsten konsonantischen Erscheinungen des Vorgriechischen (1972) 300, who had noted the association and had suggested a metathesis elaborating on it by providing crucial parallels in σφάκος/ φάσκος, φάσκον ‘sage’. BEEKES (supra n. 10) 1047, s. σφάζω notes that the association “remains uncertain”, but, in my opinion, unnecessarily so. I admit to not being able to consult U. RAPALLO, “Sull’origine semitica del miceneo *pa-ka-no = gr. Φάσγανον,” ΑΙΩΝ. Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli 30 (1970) 388-395. One might anticipate that a loanword of a specific kind of artefact follows the route of ‘borrowing’ the artefact itself. Besides the fact that pa-ka-na appears on Knossian documents only (this may be accidental, of course), it is worth noting that Aegean swords are of Cretan ancestry (see below on the etymology of *sphag-). GUGLIELMINO (supra n. 23) 159-160. This structure seems to be dominant in the Qa tablets. It applies to nine documents (PY Qa 1289, 1295, 1296, 1298, 1299, 1300, 1301, 1303[+]1307, 1305[+]1308), although the possible ‘titles’ are mostly obscure. It likely appears also on Qa 1292 and 1293. Three Qa records seem to note a toponym instead of a title (1290, 1294 and 1304). Qa 1297 records only a PN, while the remaining records cannot be classified due to inadequate preservation. J.L. MELENA, “63 joins and quasi-joins of fragments in the Linear B tablets from Pylos,” Minos 35-36 (2000-2001) 371-384 at 378, n. 10. Roaming in the wasteland of speculation, I could entertain the possibility of a reconstruction sa-].pạ-ke-u, still /sphageús/ but with the notation of the initial sibilant, as in Knossian sa-pa-ka-te-ri-ja (see above).

354

Vassilis PETRAKIS

should remain,48 the evidence supports an interpretation of the term as a religious title, with /sphageús/ (or */phasgeús/) being a most plausible candidate.49 That this title is found in Pylos is interesting, as pa-ke-u may be etymologically related to the prominent cult place pa-ki-ja-ne */Sphagiā́nes/ or */Phasgiā́nes/. The etymology of *sphagThat *sphag- defies a convincing IE etymology and lacks cognates outside Greek is commonly noted. To give what I think is a representative sample, Hjalmar Frisk, Pierre Chantraine et al. and now Robert Beekes commonly observe the facts: a root *sphag- is apparent and nominal root *σφαξ is likely, with all types being formulated within Greek, but the etymology of σφάζω is unknown.50 What are we to make of this? At the danger of being accused of putting forward an ingotum per ignotius kind of explanation, I wish to propose that the root *sphag- was borrowed from a/ the Minoan language, along with the semantic connotations contained in it. This is not pure speculation. We have, I believe, some interesting insights hinting at the interference of non-Greek phonological features in the ‘asymmetrical’ graphic treatment of /s/ in consonant clusters, with /s/ noted by an phonogram, as is also the case with sa-pa-ka-te-ri-ja. We can observe that all such ‘exceptions’ occur at Knossos.51 Melena has hypothesized that the erratic notation of /s/ with stops (which follows a pattern very different than the regular notation of /s/ in /sm/) might reflect the residues of orthographic practices accustomed to dealing with earlier (and obsolete at the time of the tablets) phonological conditions.52


48

49

50

51

52

We should record Melena’s reservation that the quasi-join, like the one between Qa 1303 and 1307, may be discouraged by the assignment of the fragments involved to different ‘scribes’ (S1289 H33 and S1295 H15). On the other hand, however, the quasi-join might also encourage the reconsideration of the assignments of these fragmentary records. MELENA (supra n. 47) 378 attributes PY Qa 1303[+]1307 to Hand 15, cf. the previous attribution of 1307 to Hand 33 in T.G. PALAIMA, The Scribes of Pylos (1988) 96. This note is written without personal autopsy of the pertinent fragments. I have not yet seen the illustrations in L. GODART and A. SACCONI, Les archives du roi Nestor. Corpus des inscriptions en Linéaire B de Pylos, I-II (2019-2020). For later Greek agent-noun σφαγεύς ‘he who slaughters’ see CASABONA, 178-179. This should not necessarily affect either the interpretation of pa-ke-we (most likely a technical term referring to ki-to-ni-ja /khitṓnia/ garments on the fragmentary KN L 7514.a, but could possibly be a Dative from a name in /eús/) or the uncertain reading ].pạ-ke-u (or ]ị-ke-u) on KN As(1) 5609.3. I give here what I consider a representative sample: FRISK (supra n. 43) 825-826, s.v. σφάζω: “Das obige regelmäßige System läßt sich ohne Schwierigkeit als eine innergriechische Schöpfung von einem primären Verb σφάζω, σφάξαι oder einem Nomen σφαγ- aus verstehen. Ohne außergriech[isch] Anknüpfung. Unhaltbare Hypothesen”. CHANTRAINE et al. (supra n. 29) 1037, s.v. σφάζω: “Toute cette famille des mots s’organise aisément autour d’un radical σφαγ- bien visible dans le verbe σφάζω et le nom-racine *σφάξ. [...] Pas d’étymologie plausible.” BEEKES (supra n. 10) 1426-1427, s.v. σφάζω: “The attested formations are productive, so they can all be derived from either the verb σφάζω, σφάξαι or from a nominal root σφαγ-. No cognates outside Greek.” CASABONA, 195-196 attempted tentatively to derive sphag-y-ō from *s-gwhn̥-g- beginning with the *gwhen- (whence θείνειν and πέφνειν), but I find the account too far-fetched. See MELENA (supra n. 33) 104-105 for further examples (see previous section for details), where the notation of /s/ before a stop is arguable, if not likely. All (as well as the aforementioned sa-pa-ka-te-ri-ja, isu-ku-wo-do-to, e-sa-pa-ke-ṃẹ[-na and si-ki-ro) are Knossian. The notation of /s/ in /-sm-/ clusters is canonical, occurring at Pylos and Mycenae as well. Melena’s proposal that “the notation of /s/ before /m/ could be an inherited practice which reflected a voiced /z/ phoneme which did not exist in Mycenaean Greek (where [z] is a positional allophone)” (MELENA, supra n. 33, 105) is ingenious and may well be correct. MELENA (supra n. 33) 105: “the cases of notation of /s/ before /kh/ or /ph/ could be interpreted as instances of a practice surviving from an earlier phase in which the aspirates were still voiced.” Although I admire the ingenuity of this solution too, it would still leave much not explained, including the notation of /s/ before /p/ or /k/ (as in e-sa-pa-ke-ṃẹ[-na for /espargména/ and si-ki-ro for /skírros/).

SLAUGHTER, BLOOD AND SACRIFICE: MYCENAEAN *sphag- IN CONTEXT

355

However, it is important to consider the Knossian concentration of noted /s/+ stop sequences is meaningful and reflective of ‘Minoan’ phonological features current at the time the documents were produced. I am suggesting that the possibility of perceptual assimilation of unfamiliar sounds by ‘scribes’ (whose mother-language had a different phonology) may offer an interesting tool whereby to explain such ‘exceptions’. In this manner, specifically for words with no Greek etymology and possibly of nonGreek origin, such as sa-pa-ka-te-ri-ja or si-ki-ro /skirros/,53 it is not improbable that the /s/ sound thus notated would have been different from the Greek sibilant. If so, we might not exclude the scenario whereby the same root *sphag- would have been spelled at Knossos and at Pylos, reflecting a more ‘accurate’ notation of a non-Greek sibilant (at Knossos) and the ‘levelled’ interpretation of the same phoneme as /s/ (which would permit its omission) through its perceptual assimilation in early 12th century BC Greek phonology. Therefore, the ‘non-canonical’ spelling of sapa-ka-te-ri-ja would at least permit (if not encourage) the consideration of the Minoan origin of *sphag-. Still, the real crux of the matter is in semantics. What is the key concept behind Late Bronze Age *sphag-? In order to answer this, we are left with no other option but to rely on the later Greek evidence and make progress by backwards projection. It is only in this way that we can profit somehow from the obscure working hypothesis that the idea of *sphag- was a lexical, but also a cultural borrowing from the Minoan world. *sphag-, slaughter and the blood of zōia Casabona, in his thorough examination of the lexical family of σφάζω in sacrificial vocabulary has given a comprehensive analysis of the use in later Greek sources. Among the material, I shall be excused in focusing only on Homer, not because I consider a priori the epic context to be close to the Mycenaean palatial one, but because the epic uses σφάζω, as we shall see, in a way that is markedly different from later sources. I am stressing that I am not interested, in this context, in the degree of reliability of the epic descriptions. It is in the choice of specific terms that I place my focus, and I assume that their use was not governed only by stylistic choices and metric restrictions, and that their study has the potential to reveal something about their significance in early Greek. In his admirable efforts to discern the exact meaning of σφάζω in Homer, Casabona relied on what he considers as interchangeable expressions and phrases within the epic and defines primarily σφάζω through its “matériellement équivalents”, which, strictly speaking, is restricted to a single passage in the Nekuia, where Odusseus states τά μῆλα λαβών ἀπεδειροτόμησα (Od. 11.35), while the same sheep are noted a few lines later as ἐσφαγμένα νηλέϊ χαλκῷ (Od. 11.45).54 This approach needs to be followed with great caution: the exactness of the correspondence is hard to assume, and we should never underestimate stylistic choices in the epic composition. That said, we are not devoid of any clues. It is hard not to note the important fact that σφάζω is predominantly used in the realm of animal killing; it never refers to the killing of humans (the Iliad would certainly provide many opportunities for that, as would the slaughter of the suitors in the Odyssey, so this non-use is meaningful). Its use for the non-sacrificial slaughter of animals is also questionable, as we shall immediately see. σφάζω is used in what appears to be a ‘stereotypic’ description of animal sacrifice in the Iliad 1.458-468/ 2.421-431 and in other important sacrificial scenes that are to be found in Il. 9.466-469, 23.29-34, Od. 3.447-463 (~ 12.359-365), 10.531-534/ 11.44-47 (entire sequence in 11.35-47) and 14.418-456.55 I will return to


53

54 55

Or even /iskhús/ as the first component in i-su-ku-wo-do-to, see BEEKES (supra n. 10) 603-604 s.v. ἰσχύς. For /skírros/ see op.cit., 1355, s.v. σκῖρος. CASABONA, 155. Il. 1.458-468 is mostly duplicated in Il. 2.421-431: αὐτὰρ ἐπεί ῥ᾽ εὔξαντο καὶ οὐλοχύτας προβάλοντο, | αὐέρυσαν μὲν πρῶτα καὶ ἔσφαξαν καὶ ἔδειραν, | μηρούς τ᾽ ἐξέταμον κατά τε κνίσῃ ἐκάλυψαν | δίπτυχα ποιήσαντες, ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν δ᾽ ὠμοθέτησαν· | καῖε δ᾽ ἐπὶ σχίζῃς ὁ γέρων, ἐπὶ δ᾽ αἴθοπα οἶνον | λεῖβε· νέοι δὲ παρ᾽ αὐτὸν ἔχον πεμπώβολα χερσίν. | αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ κατὰ μῆρ᾽ ἐκάη καὶ σπλάγχνα πάσαντο, | μίστυλλόν τ᾽ ἄρα τἆλλα καὶ ἀμφ᾽ ὀβελοῖσιν ἔπειραν, | ὤπτησάν τε περιφραδέως, ἐρύσαντό τε πάντα. | αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ

356

Vassilis PETRAKIS

some of them later on. We should mention certain instances where σφάζω appears to indicate animal slaughter without explicit reference to any sacrificial context: Il. 24.622, Od. 1.92/4.320, 9.45-46, 20.312 and 23.305 are the cases involved. In these cases, the possibility of a sacrificial context being implicit cannot be excluded and a religious association of all meat consumption in the Greek world is indeed quite likely.56 Still, one must note that all cases refer to exceptional meals with participants that are joined by non-canonical, exceptional circumstances: the main participants Akhilleús and Príamos are the life-taker and life-giver of Héktōr; the suitors are, of course, not guests but their very presence is counter to the essence of feasting, the host/guest communion and the behavior of raiders whose right




56

παύσαντο πόνου τετύκοντό τε δαῖτα, | δαίνυντ᾽, οὐδέ τι θυμὸς ἐδεύετο δαιτὸς ἐΐσης. Il. 2.421-431 is identical but lines 425-426 (interchangeable with 1.464-465 underlined above) are replaced with καὶ τὰ μὲν ἂρ σχίζῃσιν ἀφύλλοισιν κατέκαιον | σπλάγχνα δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἀμπείραντες ὑπείρεχον Ἡφαίστοιο. Il. 9.466-469: πολλὰ δὲ ἴφια μῆλα καὶ εἰλίποδας ἕλικας βοῦς | ἔσφαζον, πολλοὶ δὲ σύες θαλέθοντες ἀλοιφῇ | εὑόμενοι τανύοντο διὰ φλογὸς Ἡφαίστοιο, | πολλὸν δ᾽ ἐκ κεράμων μέθυ πίνετο τοῖο γέροντος. Il. 23.29-34: αὐτὰρ ὁ τοῖσι τάφον μενοεικέα δαίνυ. | πολλοὶ μὲν βόες ἀργοὶ ὀρέχθεον ἀμφὶ σιδήρῳ | σφαζόμενοι, πολλοὶ δ᾽ ὄϊες καὶ μηκάδες αἶγες· | πολλοὶ δ᾽ ἀργιόδοντες ὕες, θαλέθοντες ἀλοιφῇ, | εὑόμενοι τανύοντο διὰ φλογὸς Ἡφαίστοιο· | πάντῃ δ᾽ ἀμφὶ νέκυν κοτυλήρυτον ἔρρεεν αἷμα. Od. 3.447-463: The following presentation has similarities to the accounts at the beginning of the Iliad. Αὐτὰρ ἐπεί ῥ᾽ εὔξαντο καὶ οὐλοχύτας προβάλοντο, | αὐτίκα Νέστορος υἱός, ὑπέρθυμος Θρασυμήδης, | ἤλασεν ἄγχι στάς· πέλεκυς δ᾽ ἀπέκοψε τένοντας | αὐχενίους, λῦσεν δὲ βοὸς μένος· αἱ δ᾽ ὀλόλυξαν | θυγατέρες τε νυοί τε καὶ αἰδοίη παράκοιτις | Νέστορος, Εὐρυδίκη, πρέσβα Κλυμένοιο θυγατρῶν. | οἱ μὲν ἔπειτ᾽ ἀνελόντες ἀπὸ χθονὸς εὐρυοδείης | ἔσχον· ἀτὰρ σφάξεν Πεισίστρατος, ὄρχαμος ἀνδρῶν. | τῆς δ᾽ ἐπεὶ ἐκ μέλαν αἷμα ῥύη, λίπε δ᾽ ὀστέα θυμός, | αἶψ᾽ ἄρα μιν διέχευαν, ἄφαρ δ᾽ ἐκ μηρία τάμνον | πάντα κατὰ μοῖραν, κατά τε κνίσῃ ἐκάλυψαν | δίπτυχα ποιήσαντες, ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν δ᾽ ὠμοθέτησαν. | καῖε δ᾽ ἐπὶ σχίζῃς ὁ γέρων, ἐπὶ δ᾽ αἴθοπα οἶνον | λεῖβε· νέοι δὲ παρ᾽ αὐτὸν ἔχον πεμπώβολα χερσίν. | αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ κατὰ μῆρε κάη καὶ σπλάγχνα πάσαντο, | μίστυλλόν τ᾽ ἄρα τἆλλα καὶ ἀμφ᾽ ὀβελοῖσιν ἔπειραν, | ὤπτων δ᾽ ἀκροπόρους ὀβελοὺς ἐν χερσὶν ἔχοντες. Since parts of this description are repeated in the description the slaughter of the oxen of Hḗlios in Od. 12.359-365, I consider the latter scene as an implicit reference to animal sacrifice too (parts repeated or in Od. 3.447-463 are underlined): αὐτὰρ ἐπεί ῥ᾽ εὔξαντο καὶ ἔσφαξαν καὶ ἔδειραν | μηρούς τ᾽ ἐξέταμον κατά τε κνίσῃ ἐκάλυψαν | δίπτυχα ποιήσαντες, ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν δ᾽ ὠμοθέτησαν· | οὐδ᾽ εἶχον μέθυ λεῖψαι ἐπ᾽ αἰθομένοισ᾽ ἱεροῖσιν, | ἀλλ᾽ ὕδατι σπένδοντες ἐπώπτων ἔγκατα πάντα. | αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ κατὰ μῆρε κάη καὶ σπλάγχνα πάσαντο, | μίστυλλόν τ᾽ ἄρα τἆλλα καὶ ἀμφ᾽ ὀβελοῖσιν ἔπειραν (also add the similar meaning -although the lines are not identical- of ἐκ μηρία τάμνον ~ μηρούς ἐξέταμον). Od. 10.531-534/ 11.44-47 (the former are Kírkē’s guidelines; the latter their fulfillment by Odússeus): δὴ τότ᾽ ἔπειθ᾽ ἑτάροισιν ἐποτρῦναι καὶ ἀνῶξαι | μῆλα, τὰ δὴ κατάκειτ᾽ ἐσφαγμένα νηλέϊ χαλκῷ, | δείραντας κατακῆαι, ἐπεύξασθαι δὲ θεοῖσιν, | ἰφθίμῳ τ᾽ Ἀΐδῃ καὶ ἐπαινῇ Περσεφονείῃ·/ ' δὴ τότ᾽ ἔπειθ᾽ ἑτάροισιν ἐποτρύνας ἐκέλευσα | μῆλα, τὰ δὴ κατέκειτ᾽ ἐσφαγμένα νηλέϊ χαλκῷ, | δείραντας κατακῆαι, ἐπεύξασθαι δὲ θεοῖσιν, | ἰφθίμῳ τ᾽ Ἀΐδῃ καὶ ἐπαινῇ Περσεφονείῃ. Od. 14.418-456 (parts not narrating the procedure are omitted): Ὣς ἄρα φωνήσας κέασε ξύλα νηλέϊ χαλκῷ | οἱ δ᾽ ὗν εἰσῆγον μάλα πίονα πενταέτηρον. | τὸν μὲν ἔπειτ᾽ ἔστησαν ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάρῃ· […] | ἀλλ᾽ ὅ γ᾽ ἀπαρχόμενος κεφαλῆς τρίχας ἐν πυρὶ βάλλεν | ἀργιόδοντος ὑός, καὶ ἐπεύχετο πᾶσι θεοῖσι | νοστῆσαι Ὀδυσῆα πολύφρονα ὅνδε δόμονδε. | κόψε δ᾽ ἀνασχόμενος σχίζῃ δρυός, ἣν λίπε κείων· | τὸν δ᾽ ἔλιπε ψυχή. τοὶ δὲ σφάξάν τε καὶ εὗσαν· | αἶψα δέ μιν διέχευαν· ὁ δ᾽ ὠμοθετεῖτο συβώτης, | πάντων ἀρχόμενος μελέων, ἐς πίονα δημόν. | καὶ τὰ μὲν ἐν πυρὶ βάλλε, παλύνας ἀλφίτου ἀκτῇ, | μίστυλλόν τ᾽ ἄρα τἆλλα καὶ ἀμφ᾽ ὀβελοῖσιν ἔπειραν, | ὤπτησάν τε περιφραδέως ἐρύσαντό τε πάντα, | βάλλον δ᾽ εἰν ἐλεοῖσιν ἀολλέα· ἂν δὲ συβώτης | ἵστατο δαιτρεύσων· περὶ γὰρ φρεσὶν αἴσιμα ᾔδη. | καὶ τὰ μὲν ἕπταχα πάντα διεμοιρᾶτο δαΐζων· | τὴν μὲν ἴαν νύμφῃσι καὶ Ἑρμῇ, Μαιάδος υἱεῖ, | θῆκεν ἐπευξάμενος, τὰς δ᾽ ἄλλας νεῖμεν ἑκάστῳ· | νώτοισιν δ᾽ Ὀδυσῆα διηνεκέεσσι γέραιρεν ἀργιόδοντος ὑός, κύδαινε δὲ θυμὸν ἄνακτος· […] Ἦ ῥα καὶ ἄργματα θῦσε θεοῖς αἰειγενέτῃσι, | σπείσας δ᾽ αἴθοπα οἶνον Ὀδυσσῆϊ πτολιπόρθῳ | ἐν χείρεσσιν ἔθηκεν· ὁ δ᾽ ἕζετο ᾗ παρὰ μοίρῃ. | σῖτον δέ σφιν ἔνειμε Μεσαύλιος […] | οἱ δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ὀνείαθ᾽ ἑτοῖμα προκείμενα χεῖρας ἴαλλον. | αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ πόσιος καὶ ἐδητύος ἐξ ἔρον ἕντο, | σῖτον μέν σφιν ἀφεῖλε Μεσαύλιος, οἱ δ᾽ ἐπὶ κοῖτον, | σίτου καὶ κρειῶν κεκορημένοι ἐσσεύοντο. G. EKROTH, “Meat in ancient Greece: sacrificial, sacred or secular?,” Food and History 5:1 (2007) 249272 (Archaic to late Hellenistic), but cf. also MURRAY (supra n. 2) 2-4.

SLAUGHTER, BLOOD AND SACRIFICE: MYCENAEAN *sphag- IN CONTEXT

357

upon the animals is unjustified.57 I think, however, that these occurrences of σφάζω might be accommodated either within the sacrificial conceptual realm or within some specific ideas conveyed by *sphag-. I will consider some of these instances later on. Enough evidence has been gathered, I think, to suggest that σφάζω is no mere slaughter. There is something more to it. Paul Stengel, the pioneer in the study of Greek animal sacrifice, has grasped an essential component of σφάζω quite well: “durch einen Schnitt oder Stich dem Tiere das Blut entziehen”.58 Casabona adds: “faire jaillir le sang au moyen d’un coup qui tranche la gorge”.59 Casabona has observed that “σφάζω fait penser au sang” and that “[l]e rite désigné par σφάζω est celui par lequel on donne un coup à la bête pour faire jaillir le sang. La notion de sang paraît essentielle.”60 What can we learn more about the relationship between *sphag- and blood? Etymological analysis cannot offer any help in this endeavor.61 Explicit mention of the flowing blood is mentioned


57

58 59 60 61

I will divide these instances into two groups. a) In the first group, I have placed the scene where Akhilleus slaughters a sheep to prepare a meal for him and Príamos. The epic used σφαξ’ to indicate the killing (Iliad 24.618-627 verb in line 622). ἀλλ’ ἄγε δὴ καὶ νῶϊ μεδώμεθα, δῖε γεραιέ, | σίτου· ἔπειτά κεν αὖτε φίλον παῖδα κλαίοισθα | Ἴλιον εἰσαγαγών· πολυδάκρυτος δέ τοι ἔσται. | ἦ καὶ ἀναΐξας ὄϊν ἄργυφον ὠκὺς Ἀχιλλεὺς | σφάξ’· ἕταροι δ’ ἔδερόν τε καὶ ἄμφεπον εὖ κατὰ κόσμον. | μίστυλλόν τ’ ἄρ’ ἐπισταμένως πεῖράν τ’ ὀβελοῖσιν, | ὤπτησάν τε περιφραδέως, ἐρύσαντό τε πάντα. | Αὐτομέδων δ’ ἄρα σῖτον ἑλὼν ἐπένειμε τραπέζῃ | καλοῖς ἐν κανέοισιν· ἀτὰρ κρέα νεῖμεν Ἀχιλλεύς. | οἳ δ’ ἐπ’ ὀνείαθ’ ἑτοῖμα προκείμενα χεῖρας ἴαλλον. The underlined text is duplicated from the ‘stereotypical’ animal sacrifice description in Il. 1.464-465/ 2.428-429. We cannot exclude, as Casabona suggests, that a sacrifice is alluded to, even if this is not explicitly stated. He is right in noting that “[i]l ne s’agit d’ailleurs pas ici d’un repas ordinaire, mais d’un festin d’hospitalité” (CASABONA, 157, italics added). However, the purpose of the action is explicitly stated: Akhilleús urges Príamos to think of food and the term used is σίτου ‘(human) food’ (see S. HITCH, King of Sacrifice: Ritual and Royal Authority in the Iliad [2009] 42). Following Hitch, it is important to note the similarities and differences between the preparation of this meal and so-called ‘standard’ descriptions in 1.458-468 /2.421-431, especially the explicit reference to the preparation of the table and the distribution of meat by Automédōn and Akhilleús in 625-626 and the replication only of those lines that refer to food-preparation (underlined). Still, Casabona’s remark that this is not an ordinary meal is right on target and the employment of sacrificial formulae may be indicative. b) In the second category I have classified certain instances where it appears that σφάζω indicates the violent, uninvited and unjustified destruction of the life of animals. In Od. 1.91-92/ 4.319-320 the suitors (μνηστῆρες) are described as people οἵ τέ οἱ/μοι αἰεὶ | μῆλ᾽ ἁδινὰ σφάζουσι καὶ εἰλίποδας ἕλικας βοῦς. Casabona is, of course, right in observing that “rien n’indique qu’il n’y ait pas sacrifice chaque fois qu’on égorge une bête pour la consommation” (CASABONA, 157). Still, the emphasis here is on the consumption / destruction of the property of the absent Odússeus; and Athḗna and Tēlémakhos complain about the inappropriate behavior of the suitors. In Od. 9.45-46, Odússeus’ ‘foolish’ companions slaughter sheep and oxen on the coast after their raid in the land of the Kikōnes: ἔνθα δὲ πολλὸν μὲν μέθυ πίνετο, πολλὰ δὲ μῆλα | ἔσφαζον παρὰ θῖνα καὶ εἰλίποδας ἕλικας βοῦς. The agents of σφάζω are raiding the place, they can hold no right in slaughtering these animals and the emphasis here is on the destruction of property. The same sense is, I think, conveyed in Od. 20.311-313, where Tēlémakhos bitterly remarks to the suitors: ἀλλ᾽ ἔμπης τάδε μὲν καὶ τέτλαμεν εἰσορόωντες, | μήλων σφαζομένων οἴνοιό τε πινομένοιο | καὶ σίτου· and, later on in 23.304-305, Pēnelópē describes in a similar way the suitors to her husband: οἳ ἕθεν εἵνεκα πολλά, βόας καὶ ἴφια μῆλα, | ἔσφαζον, πολλὸς δὲ πίθων ἠφύσσετο οἶνος. It is possible that the difference between the piety displayed in the sacrifice of the swineherd Eúmaios (supra n. 55) and the almost exclusive emphasis shown in consumption in scenes where the suitors ἱέρευον (e.g. Od. 20.250-256) is meaningful and suggestive of the moral distance between the two. Still σφάζω is used in connection with both. I think this second use of σφάζω is not exclusive of its basic association with the flow of blood: the flow of blood is the flow of life out of the animal and, therefore, its destruction. The emphasis here is on the destructive, wasteful effect of *sphag- which consistently occurs in contexts where animal killing is not legitimized. P. STENGEL, Die griechischen Kultusaltertümer, Third Edition (1920) 97, n. 9, italics added. CASANONA, 156, original italics. CASABONA, 156, 195, 335 where this remark is extended on the entire group of σφάζω. “[l]a notion de sang paraît essentielle, mais n’appartenait peut-être pas à la racine” (CASABONA, 195).

358

Vassilis PETRAKIS

on three occasions where σφάζω is used and one might object that this may well not be terribly significant. The distribution I find very interesting: on two occasions, the flowing blood occurs in a mortuary context: it is the sacrifice in a pit made by Odússeus at Kirkē’s advice to summon the dead. τὰ δὲ μῆλα λαβὼν ἀπεδειροτόμησα | ἐς βόθρον, ῥέε δ᾽ αἷμα κελαινεφές, Odússeus narrates (Od. 11.3536). The next reference to the sheep is a few lines below, τὰ δὴ κατέκειτ᾽ ἐσφαγμένα νηλέϊ χαλκῷ (Od. 11.45). Instead of using the practical interchangeability between ἀπεδειροτόμησα and *ἔσφαξα here (which one might accept without much complain), the interesting implication may be that the Perfect Participle ἐσφαγμένα indicates the result of both verbs that affected the condition of these animals: ἀπεδειροτόμησα and ῥέε αἷμα: as Casabona remarks, ἐσφαγμένα “peut se traduire par «exsangues»”.62 In the funerary sacrificial feast before the funeral games honoring Pátroklos, the slaughter of animals (the participle is σφαζόμενοι) results in blood flowing all around the deceased: πάντῃ δ᾽ ἀμφὶ νέκυν κοτυλήρυτον ἔρρεεν αἷμα (Il. 23.34). It seems that κοτυλήρυτον implies here a praise of the amount of blood that resulted from this *sphag- action (‘so copious that one could dip a cup, a κοτύλη, in it’). The sacrifice in book 3 of the Odyssey mentions quite explicitly the flow of blood as a result of *sphag-: ἀτὰρ σφάξεν Πεισίστρατος, ὄρχαμος ἀνδρῶν. | τῆς δ᾽ ἐπεὶ ἐκ μέλαν αἷμα ῥύη, λίπε δ᾽ ὀστέα θυμός (Od. 3.454-455). This passage is important for another observation that the poet cares to make: that, along with the flow of black blood, life left the bones of the animal. But the most important passage is the one included in the sequence of events in Eúmaios’ pig sacrifice in book 14: there, Eúmaios has struck the animal dead with a blow of an oaken log: κόψε δ᾽ ἀνασχόμενος σχίζῃ δρυός, ἣν λίπε κείων· | τὸν δ᾽ ἔλιπε ψυχή. τοὶ δὲ σφάξάν τε καὶ εὗσαν· (Od. 14.425-426). The *sphag- action here takes place right after the deadly blow. *sphag- does not describe the killing blow, it is not the *sphag- that kills the animal. It describes the action right after that. Apparently, it is the cutting or, more precisely, the piercing63 of the throat to let the blood out of the animal. This suggestion invites a couple of comments from later, post-Homeric (and post-Archaic) Greek evidence. A further indication of the special conceptual association between *sphag- and blood is the formation σφαγεῖον as a technical term for the vessel that would collect the blood from the slaughtered vessel. In literary sources, the term appears in the Attic tragedy and comedy of the late 5th century BC (Euripides Electra 800, Iphigeneia en Taurois 335, Cyclops 395; Aristophanes Thesmophoriazousai 754-755), as well as contemporary inscriptions. I find it interesting that Homer uses not a *sphag- related formation but ἀμνίον, a hapax in Od. 3.444 (interestingly, not mentioned in the sacrificial scene that follows), a word of unknown etymology.64 Α sharp distinction is commonly drawn between two main categories of sacrificial victims, the ἱερά/ ἱερεῖα and the σφάγια, with the latter primarily referring to the practice of blood sacrifice canonically not followed by a consumption of the animal.65 It is conceivable that σφάγια refers to animal ritual slaughter, with blood being often emphasized, but of a greater diversity than hitherto admitted. Consider, for instance, Michael Jameson’s influential (and convincing) interpretation of classical battle-line σφάγια as sympathetic magic: the hoplites kill the animal with their battle-sword, just as they are going to kill the (human) enemy.66 This cannot be followed in all other cases where σφάγια are performed, such as crossing rituals, purifications or oaths. However, it would appear as if


62 63

64

65

66

CASABONA, 156. P. STENGEL, Die Opferbräuche der Griechen (1910) 92-102, 123-159 favors the interpretation of σφάζειν as an action involving the piercing of the throat. See further below. BEEKES (supra n. 10) 89 s.v. ἀμνίον, lacking any convincing reconstruction known to me. For a brief discussion of σφαγεῖον, see CASABONA, 180 and the excellent survey by G. EKROTH, “Blood on the altars? On the treatment of blood at Greek sacrifices and the iconographical evidence,” Antike Kunst 48 (2005) 9-29 at 14-19 (unfortunately without illustrations of possible material correlates of σφαγεῖα). Casabona’s definition may be quoted here : “C’est [i.e. ἱερεῖον] donc le mot le plus général pour «victime». […] σφάγιον, au contraire, est un terme technique des sacrifices où le sang joue le rôle essentiel [...] et qui ne sont normalement accompagnés de banquet” (CASABONA, 31, 187). M.H. JAMESON, “Sacrifice before battle,” in V.D. HANSON (ed.), Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience (1991) 197-227.

SLAUGHTER, BLOOD AND SACRIFICE: MYCENAEAN *sphag- IN CONTEXT

359

all σφάγια, with their “focus on bloodletting” differ from ‘normal’ θυσίαι in that “a sacrificial fire is irrelevant, and therefore no altar is needed. Furthermore, the flesh of the victim is not eaten by men. The concentration of the language of σφάγια on the act of killing and the blood that spurts out from under the blade is in contrast with the subordination – not absence – of these aspects in normal sacrifice.”67 Jameson’s choice of word is here very important: σφάζειν can still indicate the killing of the animal in normal sacrifice (as in the Homeric material just discussed), but the ensemble of acts is not named after it; θυσία may suggest that the act of θύειν (and the sharing of animal portions between men and gods thereof) as the central element, the perceived culmination of the ritual sequence. It might be that the choice of sacrificial vocabulary might be grosso modo dictated by what the naming agent accepts as the focus of the event. The ancestry of the σφάγια rituals is obscure. Homeric language seems to be unaware of it, or, to phrase it more carefully, is at least not interested in marking it with a reference to σφάγια, a term that is unattested in Homer. Uneaten sacrifices (of a kind that would be justifiably called θυσίαι ἄγευστοι) are also problematic in their identification in Homer, since it cannot be certainly discerned whether the lack of explicit reference to feasting indicates that it did not take place at all.68 I am concerned about the extent in which a distinction that one might be tempted to project onto the Mycenaean evidence is not specific to classical Greece, the era where our earliest testimonies for σφάγια are dated. In any case, let us be reminded that the category of ‘uneaten sacrifice’ itself is quite diverse.69 In view of the above problems, I am inclined to consider Jörg Weilhartner’s suggestion that the sa-pa-ka-te-ri-ja or sa animals were intended for sacrificial killing but not for consumption as certainly intriguing70, but not supported by positive evidence. Technically sa-pa-ka-te-ri-ja (either the commonly interpreted /sphaktḗria/ or my own idiosyncratic /sphagastḗria/) is not σφάγια; the two formations are different derivatives of the *sphag- root. They both appear as termini technici, suggestive of some relationship to the bloodletting that the root *sphag- suggests, but we have no proof that sa-pa-ka-te-ri-ja suggests the quintessential act of a coherent ritual process. It is far more likely that the significance of *sphag- here appears in a way analogous to the significance of σφάζω in Homer: to indicate an action within a broader ensemble of activities, but not their culmination. The formation of the adjunct sa suggests that sa-pa-ka-te-ri-ja is a terminus technicus of a far more practical nature here: it sums up all the qualities that an animal appropriate to receive a *sphag- treatment should have. Whether the animal should be consumed afterwards in a feast or any related festivity remains, in my view, a possibility. In fact, I see one important clue that suggests the intended consumption of sa animals: the fact that, in at least one case, on KN C 7063, rams thus annotated appear in the company of the unidentified commodity *190 (almost certainly a foodstuff71) and wine, in an exactly parallel way to aged (pa) ewes (OVISf) and other non-designated sheep (OVISx) (see Appendix B for the full text). The presence of *190 and wine suggests consumption and, if this holds for KN C 7063, it might be projected without much concern to other attestations of sa animals.


67 68

69

70

71

JAMESON (supra n. 66) 201-202, italics added. As, for example, in the hecatomb offered to Apollo in Il. 1.315-317: ἕρδον δ᾽ Ἀπόλλωνι τεληέσσας ἑκατόμβας | ταύρων ἠδ᾽ αἰγῶν παρὰ θῖν᾽ ἁλὸς ἀτρυγέτοιο· | κνίση δ᾽ οὐρανὸν ἷκεν ἑλισσομένη περὶ καπνῷ. The verb here is ἕρδον, not σφάζον. See, in this regard, the useful remarks in F.T. VAN STRATEN, Hierá Kalá: Images of Animal Sacrifice in Archaic and Classical Greece (1995) 3-5. WEILHARTNER 2008 (supra n. 1) 813-823; WEILHARTNER 2012 (supra n. 1) 226-231. My reservations recorded, I must admit I find Weilhartner’s interpretation of PY Cn 3 as a possible record of a σφάγια-type of sacrifice quite interesting. Note, however, that the verb there is -i-je-si (line .1) and any member of the *sphag- group is conspicuously absent. For *134/*190 in the context of feasting documents see J.T. KILLEN, “Observations on the Thebes sealings,” in J.-P. OLIVIER (ed.), Mykenaïka. Actes du IXe Colloque international sur les textes mycéniens et égéens, Centre de l’Antiquité Grecque et Romaine de la Fondation Hellénique des Recherches Scientifiques et École Française d'Athènes (1992) 365-380, at 366-367; BENDALL (supra n. 1) 257-258.

360

Vassilis PETRAKIS

Iconography and the significance of blood in Aegean Late Bronze Age animal sacrifice Let us return to the lack of any convincing Greek etymology of *sphag- and the adventurous possibility put forward that it might be a ‘Minoan’ loanword. Is there any independent evidence that might be considered relevant to such a hypothesis? Although this is certainly not the place to present an overview of iconographic or archaeological evidence for Aegean Bronze Age animal sacrifice, either from Crete or from the Greek Mainland, certain important aspects might be highlighted. Images are scarce and perhaps well known to students of Aegean religion: The iconographic representation of blood rests on fragmentary and dubious evidence, certainly unlike the copious illustrations of blood-stained altars in later Greek vasepainting.72 Traces of red color that might be interpreted as blood stains on the ‘horns of consecration’ that seem to crown an ashlar façade(?) on the east wall of Room 3a in Xeste 3 at Akrotiri on Thera have been interpreted as implicit of bloody sacrifice,73 although the overall arrangement suggests a building (with a door? whose frame is decorated with spirals) rather than an altar and no victim or agent/ instrument of sacrifice is shown. Certain aspects of the representation remain obscure, such as the relationship between the drops of blood (themselves reminiscent of the trickle motif in Neopalatial pottery) and the tree growing amidst the ‘horns’ surmounting the structure. If one assumes the iconographic unity of the paintings in Room 3a, the role of the female figures in the adjacent north wall (Pl. LXXVIIIa) in the scene is also not discernible. The relevance of the blood overtly shown on the ‘horns’ to the sacrificial, *sphag-induced flow of that vital liquid is also unknown.74 Perhaps the most explicit scene occurs on the Ayia Triada sarcophagus, where a bovid is depicted bound on a table and with red streaks coming out of its neck, clearly blood, to be collected on a vessel standing at ground-level to the right of the table on side B of the sarcophagus (Pl. LXXVIIIb).75 It is possible to consider that the direction of the processional figures is indicative of some temporal sequence of events in Side B. If so, it is likely that the content of the blood-receiving vessel (if it is, as I think, a container and not a rhyton76) may be directed towards the altar-like structure


72 73

74

75

76

EKROTH (supra n. 64) 19-26 with fig. 1; VAN STRATEN (supra n. 69) passim. For the commonly accepted interpretation of the scene as suggestive of animal sacrifice and/or blood libation, see N. MARINATOS, Minoan Sacrificial Ritual. Cult Practice and Symbolism (1986) 27-29, fig. 17 (the reconstruction there needs to be seriously updated) or A.G. VLACHOPOULOS, “The wall paintings from the Xeste 3 building at Akrotiri: towards an interpretation of the iconographic programme,” in N. BRODIE, G. GAVALAS, C. RENFREW (eds), Horizon: A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades (2008) 451-465 at 451 with figs 41.10-41.11. For an alternative interpretation see G.C. GESELL, “Blood on the Horns of Consecration?,” in S. SHERRATT (ed.), The Wall Paintings of Thera. Proceedings of the First International Symposium, Petros M. Nomikos Conference Centre, Thera, Hellas, 30 August - 4 September 1997 (2000) 947-957. The latest detailed discussion of this wall-painting that I am aware of is in G. ALEXOPOULOS, “Το ιερό και το μιαρό. Συμβολική και λειτουργική επιβεβαίωση μιας κοινότητας. ‘Κέρατα καθοσιώσεως’ και αγωγοί λυμάτων στο Ακρωτήρι Θήρας,” in C.G. DOUMAS (ed.), Ακρωτήρι Θήρας: Τριάντα χρόνια έρευνας 1967-1997. Επιστημονική συνάντηση 19-20 Δεκεμβρίου 1997 (2008) 387-422, at 389-390, 410-411, 417. While a detailed drawing showing the state of conservation of the painting at around 1997-2000 is shown in ALEXOPOULOS, op. cit., 390, fig. 1, the most recent reconstruction is given in A.G. VLACHOPOULOS, “The Ring of Nestor and the quest for authenticity,” in F. BLAKOLMER (ed.), Current Approaches and New Perspectives in Aegean Iconography (2020) 223-252 at 237-238, figs 26-27. For an alternative interpretation of the significance of blood in the context of Xestē 3 imagery, see the interesting observations by N. MARINATOS, Akrotiri, Thera and the East Mediterranean (2015) 121-127. For an account see C. LONG, The Ayia Triadha Sarcophagus. A Study of Late Minoan and Mycenaean Funerary Practices and Beliefs (1974) 36-37, 62-63; MARINATOS (supra n. 73) 25-27. The identification of the vessel receiving the blood is debated. If it is a rhyton stuck into the ground (as in LONG, supra n. 75, 63), the blood is poured into the soil and could not be further used. However, one cannot be certain of the type of vessel depicted. E. MANTZOURANI (“Notes on the depiction of various types of vases and vessels in Aegean wall-painting,” in C. MORRIS [ed.], Klados: Essays in Honour of J.N. Coldstream [1995] 123-141, at 127) doubts the identification of the two-handled vessel as a rhyton. It might

SLAUGHTER, BLOOD AND SACRIFICE: MYCENAEAN *sphag- IN CONTEXT

361

on the right of the sacrificial scene. That blood sacrifice is explicitly noted on the Ayia Triada sarcophagus is interesting, because the painting, executed perhaps in LM IIIA2, seems to incorporate elements purposefully referring to the old Minoan past.77 Focusing on what is most easily datable on the scenes of the sarcophagus, we must observe that, like most of the ritual vessels depicted, the blood receptacle has features alluding to MM II-LM I ceramics, a deliberate archaization.78 Would that indicate that the *sphag- action that caused the blood flow is part of preexisting (‘Minoan’) tradition? An agate lentoid whose reported provenance is Mycenae (CMS XI, no. 52) shows a caprid(?) on a table (not bound) with a knife or dagger inserted in the animal’s neck (Pl. LXXVIIIc). The concurrence of the sacrificial instrument with the protruding tongue of the animal may indicate an interest in depicting in the same scene both the killing and the post-kill phase (to use Van Straten’s convenient phasing of sacrificial action). The scarcity of such representations is notable, and it seems to be intriguingly paralleled to the strong underrepresentation of killing in Archaic and Classical Greek iconography.79 Let me comment on two interesting features of that imagery and its archaeological context in relation with the ‘Minoan’ hypothesis for the origin of *sphag-.80 On the one hand, one observes the piercing (as opposed to slitting) of the throat of the animal clearly viewed on the lentoid seal. Throatpiercing is the precise meaning attached to σφάζειν by Paul Stengel.81 The instrument of the bovid sacrifice on the Ayia Triada sarcophagus is not shown, but the relatively straight streaks of blood flowing out of a neck suggest piercing rather than slitting: blood is coming with greater pressure from a smaller section. Piercing the throat vein (termed as σφαγῖτις since Aristotle’s Historia Animalium 154a4, either indicating a jugular vein or the carotid artery) would produce a sudden spring of blood, a movement of a liquid which is compatible with the cross-culturally attested idea of blood as the potent carrier of life.




77

78 79

80

81

be relevant that the blood-receptacle from Anemospilia at Archanes (MM IIIA) is a bucket-shaped jar and not a rhyton (Y.A. SAKELLARAKIS and E. SAPOUNA-SAKELLARAKI, “Ἀνασκαφή Ἀρχανῶν,” Praktika 1979 [1981] 331-392, at 369-373, figs 4-5, Pl. 181). Robert Laffineur kindly brought to my attention the Mycenae ring kernos with an attached conical rhyton (NMA 5427), cited by LONG (supra) 65, 63, fig. 92, cf. also discussion in R. LAFFINEUR, “Fécondité et pratiques funéraires en Égée à l’Âge du Bronze,” in A. BONANNO (ed.) Archaeology and Fertility Cult in the Ancient Mediterranean. The University of Malta, 2-5 September 1985 (1986), 79-96 at 85; ID., “Weitere Beiträge zur Symbolik im mykenischen Bestattungsritual,” in W. SCHIERING (ed.), Kolloquium zur Ägäischen Vorgeschichte, Mannheim, 20.-22.2.1986 (1987) 125-132 at 126-128, and discussed also by L. PAPAZOGLOU-MANIOUDAKI, “Human heads and crawling snakes: ritual vases in Postpalatial Mycenae,” in J. DRIESSEN (ed.), RA-PI-NE-U. Studies on the Mycenaean World offered to Robert Laffineur for his 70th Birthday (2016) 263-274 at 267-270 with figs 16.816.12, where a LH IIIC date is suggested. The decoration on the ring kernos with rosettes and a relief crawling serpent, might be suggestive of the ground level where the liquid was symbolically directed through the attached rhyton (R. Laffineur, pers. com.). Although compatible with the identification of the Ayia Triada sarcophagus blood receptacle as a sunken rhyton, the composition of this elaborate vessel remains unique. Such an interpretation is advanced by B. BURKE, “Materialization of Mycenaean ideology and the Ayia Triada sarcophagus,” AJA 109 (2005) 403-422. BURKE (supra n. 77) 413-414, 418. VAN STRATEN (supra n. 69) 188. I also note (and this perhaps applies generally to iconographic depictions of ritual action, both Bronze Age and later Greek), that images seem to be intended as ‘enhanced snapshots’: specific points of action are chosen and other parts of the process are implied or represented through some pars pro toto principle. It is interesting that sacrificial vocabulary sometimes functions in a similar way: both θυσία and σφάγια, viewed etymologically, highlight one point in the ritual process to the expense of others while referring to an ensemble of actions. I do not take into account there the *sphag-initiated flow of blood that occurs twice in Homer (see above) in a mortuary context (Il. 23.29-34 and Od.10.531-534/ 11.44-47), analogous to the one presumably shown on the Ayia Triada sarcophagus, as the sample of such explicit representations is too small for meaningful comparison. See STENGEL (supra n. 63) followed by JAMESON (supra n. 66).

362

Vassilis PETRAKIS

One might argue that blood streaks on the Ayia Triada sarcophagus (Pl. LXXVIIIb) are semantically interchangeable with the sword or dagger shown on CMS XI, no. 52 (Pl. LXXVIIIc), each chosen because of the inherent qualities of the different media (colored painting and engraved stone respectively). This might suggest a direct relationship – emically accepted – between the weapon and sacrificial blood. In potential relevance to the above, let us consider the use of the first elaborate weapons to appear on the Greek Mainland: these are the type-A swords, well-represented in the Mycenae Shaft Graves and other Mainland elite funerary contexts, accompanied by (and themselves representing) an important cultural borrowing from contemporary Neopalatial Crete. Contemporary imagery shows that such swords were often used in piercing either the neck or the softer tissue around the clavicle of enemies, what Alan Peatfield has aptly described as the “descending diagonal thrust to the neck”.82 Pertinent imagery appears overtly concerned with expressing of military prowess. However, the similarity of this thrust to the impact of the sacrificial thrust has been noted by both Peatfield and Barry Molloy in their expert studies of Aegean sword-combat practice.83 Considering Molloy’s evaluation of the arrival of the long sword as a “quantum leap” in contemporary combat practice, 84 one is led to wonder at the character of a possible concomitant innovation in ritual practice; one that would not necessarily, however, be one of degree, but rather in kind. A closer look: some inferences from Grave Circle A Let us now focus on two relevant representations of such “diagonal thrusts” on two seals (CMS I, nos 11 and 12) from Grave Circle A (Pl. LXXVIIId-e). That these were found in Shaft Grave III, the one in Circle A without weapons, is very interesting, especially in view of the fact that some of the skeletal material assigned to this grave belonged to at least one adult male.85 Considering that


82

83

84

85

A.D. PEATFIELD, “The paradox of violence: weaponry and martial art in Minoan Crete,” in R. LAFFINEUR (ed.), POLEMOS. Le contexte guerrier en Égée à l’Âge du Bronze. Actes de la 7e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Université de Liège, 14-17 avril 1998 (1999) 67-74 at 71. This is effectively similar to the one-off thrust performed by the statue known as the ‘Ludovisi Gaul’ showing a warrior committing suicide with his wife (a Roman – early 2nd century AD – copy of a Hellenistic – late 3rd century BC – original). A further excellent illustration of the same descending thrust is now shown on the ‘Combat Agate’ from the ‘Grave of the Griffin Warrior’ at Pylos (S.R. STOCKER and J.L. DAVIS, “The Combat Agate from the Grave of the Griffin Warrior at Pylos,” Hesperia 86 [2017] 583-605). PEATFIELD (supra n. 82) 71; B. MOLLOY, “Martial arts and materiality: a combat archaeology perspective on Aegean swords of the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries BC,” World Archaeology 40 (2008) 116-134 at 128. I refrain from analyzing the analogy between sacrificial killing and killing in combat here, although the topic deserves extensive discussion. Cf. I. KILIAN-DIRLMEIER, “Remarks on the nonmilitary functions of swords in the Mycenaean Argolid,” in R. HÄGG and G.C. NORDQUIST (eds), Celebrations of Death and Divinity in the Bronze Age Argolid: Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 11-13 June, 1988 (1990) 157-161, at 158; also H. WHITTAKER, “Sacrificial practice and warfare in Homer and in the Bronze Age,” in S.P. MORRIS and R. LAFFINEUR (eds), EPOS. Reconsidering Greek Epic and Aegean Bronze Age Archaeology. Proceedings of the 11th International Aegean Conference, Los Angeles, UCLA - The J. Paul Getty Villa, 20-23 April 2006 (2007) 177-183. On the use of knives and swords in Mycenaean and Homeric sacrificial practices, including in military contexts, see T.G. PALAIMA and N.G. BLACKWELL, “Pylos Ta 716 and Mycenaean ritual paraphernalia: a reconsideration,” SMEA N.S. 6 (2020) 67-95 at 86-89. B. MOLLOY, “Swords and swordsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age,” AJA 114 (2010) 403-428 at 413414; cf. ID., “Martial Minoans? War as social process, practice and event in Bronze Age Crete,” BSA 107 (2012) 87-142 at 125. Shaft Grave III is now known to have included three adults (one female, one male and one probable male, probably identified with the burials numbered by Panagiotis Stamatakis as Μ, Λ and Ν) and one sub-adult individual: L. PAPAZOGLOU-MANIOUDAKI, A. NAFPLIOTI, J.H. MUSGRAVE and A.J.N.W. PRAG, “Mycenae revisited, part 3: the human remains from Grave Circle A at Mycenae Behind the masks: a study of the bones of Shaft Graves I-V,” BSA 105 (2010) 157-224, at 159-161 with fig. 3, 171-181; O.T.P.K. DICKINSON, L. PAPAZOGLOU-MANIOUDAKI, A. NAFPLIOTI and

SLAUGHTER, BLOOD AND SACRIFICE: MYCENAEAN *sphag- IN CONTEXT

363

masculine mortuary personae are commonly interpreted as those of warriors, we are led to ask: what could the male ‘occupants’ of Grave III have been? Oliver Dickinson’s assessment of the evidence seems worth quoting extensively: “it was not an absolute social requirement that high-ranking males be given a warrior persona in death, common though this was for early Mycenaean elite male burials. […] The absence of weapons accompanying Burials Λ and N might be tentatively interpreted as a sign of emulation of Minoan practice, possibly thought appropriate to the position that the men held in life; they might, for example, have been priests or something similar.”86 The contextual association of these seals therefore suggests that their imagery might not have been intended as tokens of military prowess. Perhaps it is worth considering that these images might have been, in fact, understood as somehow representing the kinds of action the deceased were associated with.87 Perhaps it is not too far-fetched to assume that the similarity between the swordman’s descending thrust and the bloodletting sacrificial blow is not our mirage, but it actually represents a strong conceptual link that was perceived and accepted by the agents who formulated the burial assemblage these seals were part of. That such a link had its roots in Minoan practice is also most likely, as the strongly Minoanizing character of the artifact world of the wealthy Grave Circle A burials suggests. In drawing this link between the introduction of concepts and practices related to the notions conveyed by vocabulary s deriving from the root *sphag- and those suggested by the Minoan component in Shaft Grave period assemblages, I have consciously framed the problem within the nexus of problems that orbit around the genesis of the Mycenaean culture and the assessment of the degree to which non-Helladic and specifically Cretan influences shaped Mainland religion. This might look unhelpful insofar as this appears as a fragmentary puzzle with too many missing bits. Still, an outline with some broad strokes of the general picture may be usefuk. One might object that the wild card of the innovative character of the new Minoan or Minoanizing elements in these assemblages has been overplayed. After all, animal sacrifice and the acknowledgement of the significance of blood are cross-culturally attested. 88 Why should the Mainlanders have taken over the idea from Minoan Crete? One faces, I think, an analogous problem when attempting to assess the arrival of the specialized libations instrument known as the rhyton on the Greek Mainland: rhyta make an impressive debut in Grave Circle A, where virtually all LH I examples are to be found.89 Still, libations do not presuppose such rhyta. Likewise, animal sacrifice does not require elaborate blood-collecting vessels or impressive long swords or other specialized instruments. Libation rituals and animal sacrifice can both be performed with simple utensils that would leave less suggestive clues in the archaeological record.90 However, one must assess how the arrival of such artifacts, their availability and esteem (evident in the placement of such items in wealthy burials in LH I-II) changed the appearance of such rituals and consider whether the ideological frame of such ritual performances changed after their arrival, not implausibly with the addition and incorporation of innovative elements.


86 87

88

89

90

A.J.N.W. PRAG, “Mycenae revisited part 4: assessing the new data,” BSA 107 (2012), 161-188, at 173175. This study effectively renders earlier identifications obsolete. DICKINSON et al. (supra n. 85) 175. On the significance of the female burial Μ, see E. KONSTANTINIDI-SYVRIDI, “Mycenae, Shaft Grave III: tomb of the high priestess?,” Journal of Prehistoric Religion 26 (2018) 47-60. P. STEVENS Jr., “Anthropology and religion,” in C.A. MURRAY (ed.), Diversity of Sacrifice: Form and Function of Sacrificial Practices in the Ancient World and Beyond (2016) 13-12 at 25-26. V. PETRAKIS, “The arrival of the rhyton in Early Mycenaean Greece,” Journal of Prehistoric Religion 25 (2016) 47-63. It is for this reason that I cannot base any argument on the silence of positive evidence for animal sacrifice in the Middle Helladic world (see H. WHITTAKER, Religion and Society in Middle Bronze Age Greece [2014] for a recent overview). Of course, the interpretation of the terracotta ‘double axes’ from MH Lerna V as associated with animal sacrifice is well known but unprovable: R. HÄGG, “Did the Middle Helladic people have any religion?,” Kernos 10 (1997) 13-18 at 14.

364

Vassilis PETRAKIS

At this point, it is important to note how rhyta might be suggestive of the practice of blood libations, which is certainly suggested by the explicit collection of bovid blood in the Ayia Triada sarcophagus (Pl. LXXVIIIb). The obvious problem of the quick coagulation of blood after exposure to air might have been solved by the thinning of blood through its mixture with wine, or by its symbolic substitution with red wine.91 The prominence and longevity of head-shaped rhyta, a type of clear Minoan ancestry, in the Mycenaean world strongly suggests that, even if in a small proportion, the liquid element in the rhyta libations included blood. It is likely that the probably non-Greek *sphag- is associated with blood. It is conceivable that the adoption of *sphag- did not accompany the practice of animal sacrifice, which may well have been practiced in MH or earlier contexts. What we may infer from the uses of later Greek σφάζω is that the introduction of *sphag- into Greek might have signaled a new way of conceiving the role of blood in these rituals: how you think of it and what you do with it. Minoan practice may have therefore left a longstanding mark on Helladic sacrificial practice: it introduced instruments that produced an impressive bloodletting effect and introduced ritual implements that would suggest novel ways of dealing with blood, through the practice of blood or blood-mixed-with-wine/oil libations. In this regard, it is not coincidental that three possibly interconnected elements associated with sacrificial practice make their Helladic debut at the same time and share a common cultural source: the imagery of the “descending diagonal thrust”, the long sword and the rhyta are all in origin and style Minoan. Except perhaps for the long sword (whose multifaceted significance as an indispensable tool for both elite combat and sacrifice makes assessments difficult), these appear (as far as our evidence suggests) monopolized in LH I by the Grave Circle A group. My last focus will be on the possibility of a ‘pairing’ of swords and rhyta (specifically some conspicuous animal-headed or zoomorphic rhyta) in Shaft Grave IV, where our third and last explicit representation of the “thrust” in Circle A is depicted, the so-called “Battle of the Glen” scene on the bezel of a gold signet-ring CMS I, no. 16 (Pl. LXXVIIIf). I think it is not coincidental that Grave IV marks by far the quantitative peak in sword deposition in both Circle B and Circle A,92 and is also the grave where by far most rhyta were found.93 This concentration becomes even more meaningful if one observes that the two Koehl’s Type II Head-shaped rhyta (Bull-Head and Lion-Head) – of a type that would be most explicitly alluding to slaughtered animals – were found in close connection to each other and to the same individual Ξ (the southernmost burial with east-west orientation), also male, who also had a heap of long swords and other weapons at his left side.94 Instrument (long sword), way of using it (thrust imagery) and ways of dealing with blood (through the employment of rhyta) appear together in the same grave.


91

92

93

94

Thinning of blood with wine: R.B. KOEHL, Aegean Bronze Age Rhyta (2006) 263, 268, 272; red wine: F. MATZ, “Minoischer Stiergott?,” in A. KALOKAIRINOS (ed.), Πεπραγμένα τοῦ Α΄ Διεθνοῦς Κρητολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου (Ἡράκλειον, 22-28 Σεπτεμβρίου 1961) A (1961-1962) 215-223 at 217 where the reasoning is somewhat weak (“Selbstverständlich konnte aus so schönen Gefässen nur Wein gespendet werden”). A minimum of 42 swords (no type-specific count) is cited by K. HARRELL, “The fallen and their swords: a new explanation for the rise of the Shaft Graves,” AJA 118 (2014) 3-17, at 4-5 with Table 2. Seven rhyta, as well as an unsuccessful conversion of an Anatolian stag-shaped bibrû were found in Grave IV. See PETRAKIS (supra n. 89) 50-51 for a tabular presentation, 53-54, fig. 1. PAPAZOGLOU-MANIOUDAKI et al. (supra n. 85) 162-163 with fig. 6; DICKINSON et al. (supra n. 85) 176-177; for the rhyta see PETRAKIS (supra n. 89) 55-57, 61 (endnote 8). There remain some inconsistencies in the documented distribution especially since the gold rosette now reconstructed on the forehead of the silver Bull-head’s rhyton was found in the area between individuals Ρ and Σ to the north. However, it remains possible that this might reflect some later disturbance or confusion during the fast pace of Schliemann’s excavation. No matter how one interprets this specific association between finds from the southernmost burial Ξ and the area between Ρ and Σ, it is interesting to note that the latter area is also where CMS I, no. 16 (the “Battle of the Glen” ring) was found (PAPAZOGLOU-MANIOUDAKI et al., supra n. 85, 163; DICKINSON et al., supra n. 85, 177).

SLAUGHTER, BLOOD AND SACRIFICE: MYCENAEAN *sphag- IN CONTEXT

365

Comment is also in order for the ‘separation’ of the image of the “descending thrust” on CMS I, nos 11-12 (Pl. LXXVIIId-e) without any association to either weapons or rhyta.95 Let me offer some pure conjecture here: I think this imagery was included in Grave III exactly to suggest an association with the belief-system that framed the flow of blood. What caused the flow of blood, how it was produced and how it was treated within ritual actions were all suggested by the Grave IV finds, but the actual instruments of bloodletting and blood-treatment were not placed in Grave III, because the role and function of the individuals buried there was (perceived and/or presented as) dissociated from the actual practice of bloody sacrifice, the practical *sphag- action. Permit me some further speculation based on projection from later palatial textual evidence onto these early contexts: could the personae of the deceased from Grave III have been that of an /hiéreia/ and two accompanying /hierḗwes/, while the male burial from Grave IV with his swords and rhyta might have been (presented as) a warrior-cum-/hieroworgós/? Besides the occurrence of the “descending diagonal thrust” imagery in both graves, there is one further piece of evidence that serves, in my view, as a strong clue that the assemblages of Graves III and IV are interconnected: these are the only graves were the bones of domesticated mammals, the common choice of sacrificial victim, have been identified among the material recovered: one scrapula of a mammal of the size of a sheep or goat from Grave III and twenty animal bone fragments from at least one pig and more than one sheep/goat have been identified from Grave IV.96 It is not far-fetched to speculate that these animals might have been killed ritually with a blow similar to the “thrust” depicted on seals from both graves. It is impossible to know whether the quantity of the material recovered reflects what was actually deposited in these burials, but it is interesting to observe how it corresponds to the lack and presence of (potential) sacrificial instruments in Graves III and IV respectively. Palatial occurrences Although chronologically distant from the period which I consider as the formative period for Mycenaean animal sacrificial practice under strong Minoan influence, the Shaft Grave period, Ayios Konstantinos (Methana) and Pylos have yielded the clearest cases so far of Late Helladic burnt animal sacrifice. It is interesting that rhyta can be associated with both. A Koehl’s Type III Head-shaped rhyton was found in association with the remains of burnt animal sacrifice in Ayios Konstantinos at Methana.97 If the Ayios Konstantinos rhyton represents the head of a pig and dates to LH IIIA1, as the excavator argues,98 it would appear to be a heirloom (like the sacrificial instruments at Pylos) in a context dated to LH IIIB2, while the identification of the depicted animal matches that of the sacrificial victims from Ayios Konstantinos.


95

96

97

98

The only securely identified ‘weapon’ from Grave III is a bronze knife, which might be conjectured as a sacrificial instrument. The faience triton shell from Shaft Grave III, heavily reconstructed, does not preserve the secondary opening necessary for its secure identification as a rhyton. I follow Robert Koehl in removing it from the corpus of Aegean rhyta (R. KOEHL, pers. com.; cf. also PETRAKIS, supra n. 89, 61, endnote 7). For the aforementioned items from Grave III see G. KARO, Die Schachtgräber von Mykenai (1930/1933) 64, no. 154 [bronze knife] and 166 [faience triton shell], Pls CXLIX top right and CXLVIII bottom right respectively. PAPAZOGLOU-MANIOUDAKI et al. (supra n. 85) 180, 200; cf. also DICKINSON et al. (supra n. 85) 173, 176. Detailed study of this material may be needed. HAMILAKIS and KONSOLAKI (supra n. 1) on the site and the zooarchaeological material. KOEHL (supra n. 91) 42, 129, Cat. no. 360, fig. 13 bottom left, Pl. 29 bottom right. E. KONSOLAKI-YANNOPOULOU, “New evidence for the practice of libations in the Aegean Bronze Age,” in R. LAFFINEUR and R. HÄGG (eds), POTNIA. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference, Göteborg, Göteborg University, 12-15 April 2000 (2001) 213-220 at 214-215. KOEHL (supra n. 91) 42, prefers to identify it as a canine head, but I think Konsolaki’s identification is more convincing. The LH IIIA1 date is stylistic, based on the painted stippled surface of the rhyton.

366

Vassilis PETRAKIS

The most compelling case of Mycenaean burnt animal sacrifice is the one recovered from Room 7 of the ‘Archives Complex’ in the so-called ‘Palace of Nestor’ at Pylos (Epano Englianos). The compelling interpretation of the zooarchaeological and archaeological evidence by Jack Davis, Sharon Stocker, Paul Halstead and Valasia Isaakidou need not be reiterated.99 What may receive special attention is the presence of an heirloom spearhead and a type E sword blade in close association to the location of burnt cattle bones, supporting the suggestion that these might have been sacrificial instruments.100 A further piece of evidence relevant to the performance of this Pylian sacrifice might be noted: a fragment of a monochrome rhyton was found in a balk outside Room 7, close to the SW corner of Room 60.101 I think it is worthy to speculate that the rhyton originates from within Room 7 and is associated with the remains of sacrifice. The evidence from the palatial period hinting at the acquisition and treatment of blood in ways that seem compatible with *sphag- actions is interesting for more than one reasons. Palaima’s and Nicholas Blackwell’s recent comprehensive analysis of PY Ta 716 as recording sacrificial implements, most notably two stunning hammer-axes ‒ indicated phonographically as wa-o /wáhor/ (Singular? instead of Dual?) and sematographically as 𐃈 *232 ‒ and two one-edged long knives ‒ recorded there as qi-si-pe-e /gwsíphehe/ (Dual of */gwsíphos/ cf. later ξίφος) and indicated by sematogram 𐃊 *234 ‒ has added substantially to our knowledge of Mycenaean palatial sacrificial practice,102 despite the fact that no rhyta have been securely identified amongst the complex vocabulary in the Ta set. There, however, ewers or jugs, rendered as qe-ra-na and indicated by 𐃣 *204VAS are noted (PY Ta 711.2, .3) and might have been used for libations within the same ceremonial event. One more speculation here: if qe-ra-na can be understood as /gwheranā/ (or perhaps */gwhernā/?) from */gwher-/ ‘to warm’103 then these ewers might have been intended either to receive blood in a container of warm water (so that it does not coagulate), or, just possibly, named as a reference to the warm sacrificial liquid par excellence: the victim’s blood.104 Closing words The importance of blood in diachronic Greek perspectives of animals as a conceptual category is as vital as the liquid itself: */zṓwion/ > /zṓion/ ‘that which lives’, the ‘animal’.105 The word has a


99 100 101

102

103

104

105

References supra n. 1. STOCKER and DAVIS (supra n. 1) 184-186, 189-190, figs 3, 6. C.W. BLEGEN and M. RAWSON, The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia: I. The Buildings and Their Contents (1966) 235 (provenance noted as “From sections extending southwestward from outside Room 7 to near southwest wall of Room 60”); KOEHL (supra n. 91) 203, Cat. no. 1065, not handled by Koehl or the present author. It is catalogued as Type III Conical (indeterminate) by Koehl. PALAIMA and BLACKWELL (supra n. 83) with all pertinent references. See also now, too, with regard to procedures for blood-letting in the bull-sacrifice scene on the Ayia Triada sarcophagus, N.G. BLACKWELL and T.G. PALAIMA, “Further Discussion of pa-sa-ro on PY Ta 716: Insights from the Ayia Triada Sacrophagus,” SMEA N.S. 7 (forthcoming). I follow here the analysis of MELENA (supra n. 33) 33, who also recognizes the same root in PNs a-qe-mo */Ágwhermos/ ‘without warmth’? on KN Db 1160.B and pi-ro-qe-mo */Philógwhermos/ ‘warmthfriendly’ on MY Ue 611 verso .1. Cf. later Greek θερ-μός, Latin fur-nus/ for-nax. Melena interprets these qe-ra-na as ‘ewer[s] (for hot water)’ which is just as plausible in the context of hand-washing before or after the blood sacrifice, although Mycenaean concepts of impurity or pollution remain elusive to us. For the blood of a living wounded warrior as warm, see the description of the roaming wounded Agamémnōn in Iliad 11.264-266: Αὐτὰρ ὁ τῶν ἄλλων ἐπεπωλεῖτο στίχας ἀνδρῶν | ἔγχεΐ τ᾽ ἄορί τε μεγάλοισί τε χερμαδίοισιν | ὄφρα οἱ αἷμ᾽ ἔτι θερμὸν ἀνήνοθεν ἐξ ὠτειλῆς. A more detailed study of early Greek perceptions of blood is necessary of course, but see for now M. BOYLAN, The Origins of Greek Science. Blood: A Philosophical Study (2015) 1-24. The term ζώιον may be first attested in Semonides fr. 13.1-2 with the likely meaning ‘animal’, but this does not necessarily mean that the conceptual link between ‘movement’ and ‘life’ and ‘animals’ as ‘living things that move’ was not perceived earlier. The implicit opposition to a /phutón/ ‘that which grows’/ ‘plant’ is more difficult to document in the Presocratic era. See T.G. PALAIMA, “Caring for and

SLAUGHTER, BLOOD AND SACRIFICE: MYCENAEAN *sphag- IN CONTEXT

367

neat IE pedigree associated with IE *gweiH3-/*gwieH3-106 indicating that the idea of vivid movement is fundamental to the Greek conceptualization of the ‘animal’ category, which in turn appears to be based on a conception of ‘life’ based on movement. This may hint that the concept of blood as the liquid that makes animals (and humans) warm and also puts them into moving action was already central within Helladic ritual beliefs.107 A non-Greek (and plausibly Minoan) component related to the handling and treatment of blood was added and successfully integrated within such a belief system and its accompanying practices during the Shaft Grave period. This is positively suggested by the earliest occurrence and Minoan ancestry of utensils plausibly associated with an emphasis on blood-shedding through the piercing of the throat area (the *sphag- action par excellence) as depicted in pertinent imagery of sword-fighting with long swords. It is also suggested by the possible performance of (thinned) blood libations with the aid of elaborate specialized vessels, such as animal head-shaped or other types of rhyta, attested in unique concentrations within specific burials of Grave Circle A. The distribution and use of *sphag- (and, as I accept here, its metathesized form *phasg-) in the Mycenaean records is compatible with (even suggestive of) bloodletting ritual action. The common understanding of the major cult-site of pa-ki-ja-ne as */Sphagiā́nes/ or */Phasgiā́nes/, specified as the place of ritual animal slaughter by Palaima, may well be accepted and may, in fact, be strengthened by the possibility of interpreting ].pạ-ke-u in the Qa tablets as /sphageús/ or */phasgeús/. The Mycenaean term indicating offensive weapons (identifiable as swords or daggers from the accompanying iconic ‘ideograms’) were also termed as /phásgana/ or */sphágana/ possibly because of their bloodletting-through-piercing properties. The Knossian sa-pa-ka-te-ri-ja or sa animals are, again, so designated because their properties (age, health and secondarily) made them appropriate to blood offerings, but also, as their occurrence on KN C 7063 might indicate, as intended for postsacrifice consumption. The hypothesis advanced here, that *sphag- and its lexical family were introduced at the onset of the Mycenaean period as part of a broader Minoan cultural borrowing and specifically accompanying innovations in cult practice and belief about the treatment of the blood of zōia, started from an etymological uncertainty and concluded with a number of hypotheses. That these have been based on a certain degree of conjecture is perhaps inevitable. As always, the strength of conjectures is measured by the degree to which they withstand the test of careful scholarly scrutiny and fit in with data discovered in the future. Vassilis PETRAKIS



106

107

nourishing animals and humans in Linear B and Homer: ideological considerations,” 382-383 and 385386, in this volume. BEEKES (supra n. 10) 505, s.v. ζώω. Cf. also CHANTRAINE (supra n. 29) 385, 1303 s.v. ζώω. For restored */gwiH3wós/ ‘alive’ as a “fundamental and diachronically well-nigh ineradicable part of the Proto-Indo-European lexicon” see analytically J.S. KLEIN, “Proto-Indo-European *gwiH3- ‘live’ and related problems of laryngeals in Greek,” in A. BAMMESBERGER (ed.), Die Laryngaltheorie und die Rekonstruktion des indogermanischen Laut- und Formensystems (1988) 257-279 (quotation from 274). */zōw-/ is attested in Mycenaean, although no instance is absolutely certain. PNs zo-wo, possibly */Zṓwos/ (PY An 519.2) and zo-wi-jo perhaps */Zṓwios/ (KN Vs(2) 1523.4b and PY Cn 40.3) are likely, while a-qi-zo-we (PY Aq 164.14) may be a compound PN in °/-zōwēs/ but, if so, with a rather obscure first component (see DMic I, 92, s.v. a-qi-zo-we; DMic II, 400, s.vv. zo-wi-jo, zo-wo). a3-zo-ẉọ[ (PY Cn 485.5) and e-zo-wo (KN Xe 5900.2; PY Cn 40.1; 599.7) are considered as a toponym and personal name respectively of unknown etymology (DMic I, 142, 269, s.vv.). zo-wa is most likely unrelated (cf. MELENA, supra n. 33, 48 for a proposal to render it as /skowā́/ ‘equipment piece’ cf. later Greek σκευή).

368

Vassilis PETRAKIS

Appendices: Transliterations of Knossos texts

A. Transliteration of Knossos texts where sa-pa-ka-te-ri-ja occurs (or can be plausibly reconstructed)



































































 
8


!

 #

"#!


 



⇓
v. .A [[ ]][ .B [[wi-ja[ ]][ r. .B Find-Place:

Traces at right. Area of Bull Relief.














#!




%







 

















&









"



$#





 te
.-11' *#


0
ke
-11' *#
20!#1
2
0'%&2




',"*!#


















&





 *'/3#
120-)#
',1'"#

,-2
!!'"#,2*
-00'"-0
-$
5-0"
 *#21



B. Transliterations of Knossos texts where sa occurs as an adjunct referring to livestock






&












 





pao


de










⇒

















sa
 











%


pa
 




























o
-$
pao
4'023**7
!#02',
20!#1
4#07
"'$$'!3*2
2-
0#!-,!'*#
5'2&
pawo
',"*!#









































#0

,20,!#
2-
--+
-$
-*3+,
1#1






&





sa
 



 









 




 





 


OVIS












-0+#0*7



32
,"
1+--2&#"
2
2-.
',
+'""*#
-$
0#%'12#0

'1
*-5#0
&*$
-$
-0'%',*
0#%'12#0




-,
0'%&2
#"%#



-,

⇒


-,
0'%&2
#"%#

 


pa OVIS
,-2
#6!*3"#"



108

The following update the transliterations appended to KILLEN (supra n. 33) 82 and WEILHARTNER 2008 (supra n. 1) 824. They follow J.L. MELENA and R.J. FIRTH, The Knossos Tablets 6th ed. (2019).

SLAUGHTER, BLOOD AND SACRIFICE: MYCENAEAN *sphag- IN CONTEXT















',"*!#






&

ra

#







 
110
!

#%


 



"





$
110
'1
!-00#!2
.0-  *7
130
-0
140
1',!#
2&#

'1
.*!#"
*-5

.#0&.1
"(3,!2
0#
-$
3**
#*'#$







-4#0




.#0&.1
',!*3"',%

$'012
"'4'"',%
*',#
5&-*#
2#62
-$
.0#1#,2

#6!#.2
2&#
25-
"'4'"#01
50'22#,
#$-0#
2&#
"'4'"',%
*',#

-4#0












&




 



ke


OVIS

C. Transliterations of the Cf tablets -formerly C(2)- from the Area of Bull Relief attributed to ‘Hand’ 112










!


"%























!

#%










!
%#



































⇓















































!#


 

%

!

























































 






























!

 #

!

!
















#!$%#
















































































 
8
!

 #

"#!


 

















































































%ja























































32
2
*#$2
#$2
#,"
,"
!#,20*
"'4'1'-,
3,"#0
 
4#07
!0#$3**7
#01#"
',#
127*31
&-*#
-,
2&#





.#0&.1
-4#0




5-
$',%#0,'*
+0)1
-,
2&#

 
,"
.#0&.1
1-+#
-,
2&#













0!#1
2
0'%&2











 




























!
















2




































ke
















































!






























369













.0-  *7
-4#0






#0&.1
2


-11' *#
20!#
2
0'%&2


370

Vassilis PETRAKIS











ro





















ro


























-0+#0*7



-0+#0*7



SLAUGHTER, BLOOD AND SACRIFICE: MYCENAEAN *sphag- IN CONTEXT

371

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Pl. LXXVIIIa Reconstruction of the composition of the ‘Shrine’ from the east wall of Room 3a of Xestē 3 at Akrotiri on Thera, viewed alongside the possibly relevant female figures (including the wounded seated “adorant”) on the north wall (Courtesy of Andreas Vlachopoulos; drawing by Nikos Sepetzoglou representing study of the fragment by A. Vlachopoulos). Previously published in VLACHOPOULOS 2020 (supra n. 73) 238, fig. 27. Pl. LXXVIIIb The scene of bull sacrifice and the adjacent ‘altar’ structure depicted on Side B of the Ayia Triada sarcophagus, dated to LM IIIA2 (courtesy of the Hellenic Ministry of Culture, Herakleion Archaeological Museum). Pl. LXXVIIIc Agate lentoid CMS XI, no. 52, reported from Mycenae and now at the Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museum zu Berlin, showing a sacrificed animal on a table (Courtesy of the Corpus der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel project, University of Heidelberg). Pl. LXXVIIId Gold cushion seal CMS I, no. 11, from Shaft Grave III in Grave Circle A, Mycenae, now at the National Archaeological Museum, Athens (Courtesy of the Corpus der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel project, University of Heidelberg). Pl. LXXVIIIe Carnelian amygdaloid CMS I, no. 12, from Shaft Grave III in Grave Circle A, Mycenae, now at the National Archaeological Museum, Athens (Courtesy of the Corpus der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel project, University of Heidelberg). Pl. LXXVIIIf Gold signet-ring CMS I, no. 16, from Shaft Grave III in Grave Circle A, Mycenae with the “Battle of the Glen” scene, now at the National Archaeological Museum, Athens (Courtesy of the Corpus der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel project, University of Heidelberg).

LXXVIII

a

b

d

c

f e

GOURNIA’S RECENT CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANIMAL STUDIES* Introduction The recent excavations at Gournia (2010-2015) under the direction of L. Vance Watrous have produced much material dating not only to the main period of the site (LM I) but also to the Late Pre- and Protopalatial periods, especially EM II/III-MM IB. As a member of the excavation team, I have been uncovering a pottery workshop at the north end of the site dating primarily to this earlier period. Other trenches at the top of the hill have produced later material especially in Archive room 16 of the Palace. Since I will be publishing the Pottery Workshop and the glyptic and inscriptional material from the new excavations, 1 I present here some of that material which pertains to animals: seals, sealings, and seal impressions; new Cretan Pictographic and Linear A documents; and some incised drawings on potter’s batts/pithos lids, one of which presents a unique and startling representation of a cow pregnant with her calf. Seals and Impressed Nodules I start with a chance find, a red/orange limestone lentoid (inv. 10.452; Pl. LXXIXa) with a caprid standing left, with a schematic bucranium below, and flanked by two vertical lines at the stringholes (“mountguides”).2 It was found by a tourist in the Pit House at the north edge of the site. The seal is a little unusual in three aspects: the horns are shaped like those more commonly given to bovines (but they are serrated like goat horns), the limestone is bright red/orange, and the stringhole is horizontal. The animal belongs to the Cretan Popular Group, one of the few seals from this group at Gournia. Of the four new seal impressions, the earliest is a jar handle (inv. 14.1834 from the Kilns near the Pottery Workshop, Protopalatial context) carrying an impression of a fine Border-Leaf (dentine?) stamp (EM III-MM I; Pls LXXIXb-c)3 with an agrimi rampant left between two sets of triangular forms (mountains?). A similar stamp impressed a sealing at Phaistos, CMS II5 258 with a similar rampant agrimi cornered by a hound. The second new seal impression occurs on a jar neck (inv. 10.872; Pl. LXXIXd) from the North Trench, an EM III-MM I refuse dump from the Kilns. The single impression here is probably from a three-sided prism seal with circular faces belonging to the Malia Workshop (destroyed eventually by fire in MM II): 4 a boar stands left, its head down to snuff the ground. From the excavated workshop itself in Malia Quartier Mu come 147 unfinished and/or broken seals;5 to these an additional 630+ seals can be


*

1

2

3 4 5

I wish to thank the organizers of this conference for the invitation to contribute here. I am grateful to L. Vance Watrous for the invitation to participate in the recent Gournia excavations and the permission to publish the material mentioned here. J.G. YOUNGER, Gournia Excavation Project, 4: The Northern Area, 2: The Pottery Workshop, and 5: Specialist Studies: Seals, Inscriptions, and Pottery Marks, both forthcoming. L.V. WATROUS et al., “Excavations at Gournia, 2010-2012,” Hesperia 84 (2015) 397-465, esp. 449 fig. 35. P. YULE, Early Cretan Seals (1979), 209-210. M. ANASTASIADOU, The Middle Minoan Three-Sided Soft Stone Prism (2011). CMS II2, 86-198

374

John G. YOUNGER

attributed on stylistic and technical grounds, most from East Crete.6 Three other products of the Malia Workshop are attested from Gournia 7 or the immediate area.8 The presence of Malia Workshop seals at Gournia may imply that the site lay under the jurisdiction of Malia in the Protopalatial period. And if the real estate axiom “location, location, location” accurately determines a property’s value, than Gournia’s value may have depended on its location at the north end of the Hierapetra isthmus, possibly in control of the portage across it from the south end of the Gulf of Mirambello to Hierapetra, thereby avoiding the dangerous voyage around Cape Sidero to the south coast.9 From the Gournia Palace’s central Archives room 16 come two new seal-impressed nodules. The earlier is a two-hole nodule (inv. 12.002; Pls LXXXa-b)10 that presumably was attached to a commodity sent to the Palace. The amygdaloid seal that impressed the nodule carried a caprid to right, either regardant with open jaws or standing forward with prominent ears. Stylistically, the seal is close to the Kamilari-Agrimi Group,11 probably MM III in date (context date LM I). If the previous impression, that of a boar from a Malia Workshop prism, implied that Gournia was, at that time, in the ambit of Malia, then the present nodule impressed by an amygdaloid with a KamilariAgrimi caprid and those that follow should imply a shift after MM II from Malia’s regional control to that of Knossos, assuming these finer seals refer to Knossos. The second nodule (Pls LXXXc-d) from the Archives is a document sealing (inv. 12.184) whose clay is dark chocolate brown, much like many of Knossos’s sealings.12 This flat-based nodule13 was impressed by a lentoid that is almost an exact duplicate of CMS I 248 from the Vapheio tholos, chamber deposit (Pl. LXXXe) – but with three major differences: the Gournia lion lies recumbent left with a spear in its chest; the Vapheio lion lies right, felled by two arrows in its flank (one arrow omitted in the CMS drawing). Though the seal that impressed the Gournia nodule was also slightly smaller and more shallowly carved, its style is unmistakably that of the Mycenae-Vapheio Lion group.14 The final seal impression occurs on a boot-shaped nodulus (inv. 11.090; Pls LXXXf and LXXXIa), possibly a unique shape, from the Mycenaean Megaron He, construction fill beneath the floor of the main room (room 32). The nodulus was fired evenly, bright red throughout, obviously deliberately so, as befits an authenticating nodule.15 The impression is from a fine lentoid engraved with two bovines running têtebêche clockwise in PT 35,16 their heads stretched forward bellowing. One bovine, the top one in Pl.


6

7 8

9

10 11 12 13

14

15 16

J.G. YOUNGER, “The Middle Bronze Age Sealstone Workshop at Malia, Crete: Its Seals and Their Role in the Development of Writing,” in S. SCOTT (ed.), Interdisciplinary Approaches to Seals, Sealing Practices, and Administration (forthcoming). CMS II2 272; and inv. 14.2201 from Gournia Trench 133 on the terrace south of the Pottery Workshop. ANASTASIADOU (supra n. 4) 665-666 A.3, Pl. 130, from near Richard SEAGER’S house above Pachia Ammos. J.G. YOUNGER, “The Gournia Megaron,” in J. DRIESSEN ed., RA-PI-NE-U. Studies on the Mycenaean World Offered to Robert Laffineur for his 70th Birthday (2016) 391-398, esp. 396-397. WATROUS et al. (supra n. 2) 450-451, fig. 38. J.G. YOUNGER, Bronze Age Aegean Seals in Their Middle Phase (ca. 1700-1550 B.C.) (1993) 166-167. CMS II8, pp. 95-100, esp. “Gruppe B 1.” WATROUS et al. (supra n. 2) 450, fig. 37; I present here a new photo (Pl. LXXXc). The Vapheio seal was mistakenly attributed to the Vapheio cist. J.G. YOUNGER, “The Mycenae-Vapheio Lion Group,” AJA 82 (1978) 285-299; and “Aegean Seals of the Late Bronze Age: Masters and Workshops, III. The First Generation Mycenaean Masters,” Kadmos 23 (1984) 38-64. In these early studies I was not sure where the Mycenae-Vapheio Lion workshop was located, especially since I attributed several objects from the Mycenae Shaft Graves to it. But I am now reasonably certain that the workshop was in Crete, probably at Knossos: J.G. YOUNGER, “Attributing Aegean Seals: Looking Back, Glancing Ahead,” in W. MÜLLER (ed.), Die Bedeutung der minoischen und mykenischen Glyptik. VI. Internationales Siegel-Symposium aus Anlass des 50 jährigen Bestehens des CMS, Marburg, 9.-12. Oktober 2008 (2010) 413424. J. WEINGARTEN, “Some Unusual Minoan Clay Nodules,” Kadmos 25 (1986) 1-21. J.G. YOUNGER, The Iconography of Late Minoan and Mycenaean Sealstones and Finger Rings (1988).

GOURNIA’S RECENT CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANIMAL STUDIES

375

LXXXIa, has an almond-eye, the other a dot-eye. The seal thus marks the transition between the two main groups of the fifteenth century B.C.E., from Almond-Eyes to Dot-Eyes.17 Since the nodulus was found in the floor fill of the Mycenaean Megaron (House He), which was built in LM IIIA1, it must have come originally from the Minoan settlement. Since a nodulus is not attached to any commodity (“a sealing that does not seal”),18 it must have served as a type of docket or identity card, identifying its bearer as a member of the administration on a mission. If the clay is Knossian and deliberately fired, its bearer would have been a member of the Knossos administration come to Gournia on official business, which the nodulus would thus verify.19 The nodulus could therefore have originated anywhere in the Gournia Minoan settlement, since the seal that impressed the nodulus predates the Mycenaean occupation, but it is the Palace that produced noduli impressed by more important seals and rings than the noduli from House Fg.20 Retaining noduli suggests that they had not yet exhausted their function: an audit could still occur. The style of the lentoid is remarkable. A defining trait of LM I sealstones is the almond-shape of animal eyes; in LM II animal eyes are rendered by simple large dots.21 On the seal that impressed this nodulus, one bull has the almond eye (Pl. LXXXIa, top bovine), the other a dot eye. Consequently, the stylistic date for the seal is the precise transition from Almond-Eyes to Dot-Eyes, as if this seal was consciously declaring this change. Incised and Inscribed Objects I now turn to two inscribed items from Gournia that refer to animals. First, a fragment of a potter’s batt (inv. 14.1278; Pl. LXXXIb-c)22 carries a single Cretan Pictographic sign *084.23 Since the batt fragment breaks just to the left of the sign, it is possible the sign functioned as the logogram at the end of a statement (we thus could transcribe the occurrence here as ]*084).24 The findspot of the batt fragment therefore may be significant: part of a floor deposit in the sottoscala (room 108) of a U-shaped staircase built into the northwest corner of the Pottery Workshop in MM III-LM I. The other sole attested occurrence of sign *084 also ends a statement, on the reverse of a lame from Malia, CHIC #089 (Pl. LXXXId). On the Malia lame, the statement reads: *034-*041 *084 | *051-*051-*051-*041 gt‚ | I I I t (the last sign written small and raised, as if it were an adjunct) As discussed in the Festschrift for Enrica Fiandra,25 the complete statement seems to refer to a quantity of wool (‚) for cloth (t) equal to three double minas of weight (I). The logogram *084 ‚


17

18 19

20 21

22

23 24

25

J.G. YOUNGER, “A Large Stylistic Group of Sealstones Dated to the Mid-Fifteenth Century B.C.,” in I. PINI (ed.), Fragen und Probleme der bronzezeitlichen ägäischen Glyptik. Beiträge zum 3. Internationalen Marburger SiegelSymposium, 5.-7. September 1985 (1989) 339-353. WEINGARTEN (supra n. 15). E. HALLAGER (The Minoan Roundel and Other Sealed Documents in the Neopalatial Linear A Administration [1996] vol. I, 131-132) offers this blanket definition of the function of noduli: “noduli express the receipt by the administration of some kind of service from ‘outsiders’, either locally in which case rations were paid in return, or inter-regionally for lodgings of representatives, officials, or others, in which case the noduli were kept as evidence that the services really had been delivered or paid out.” Ibid., 131. J.G. YOUNGER, “Aegean Seals of the Late Bronze Age: Stylistic Groups, IV. Almond- and Dot-Eye Groups of the Fifteenth Century B.C.,” Kadmos 24 (1985), 34-73; and 1989 (supra n. 17). The rim (est. diameter 28 cm.) is beveled for easy turning. If it had been designed as a lid, the rim would probably have had a pronounced lip so as to fit snugly into the mouth of a large jar. L. GODART and J.-P. OLIVIER, Corpus Hieroglyphicarum Inscriptionum Cretae (1996) (CHIC). If so, this batt fragment would be the second Cretan Pictographic inscription from Gournia. The other inscription, also on a batt (14.1029), is also fragmentary: X *042-*0̣03̣ ̣[ (X c -
^ ̣[). J.G. YOUNGER, “Cretan Hieroglyphic Wool Units (LANA, double mina),” in M. PERNA (ed.), Studi in onore di Enrica Fiandra. Contributi di archeologia egea e vicinorientale (2005) 405-409.

376

John G. YOUNGER

therefore probably depicts a sheep face, which, in Linear B, is rationalized as a ligature comprised of the syllabograms MA+RU, thus giving the logogram *145 , subtitled LANA (wool). We can therefore recognize the ligature MA+RU in Linear A documents as probably referring to wool in documents with mixed commodities 26 (sign *559 and variants *558, *560-*562). It would be this Linear A word that gave rise to the Greek word μαλλός, “flock of wool.” Another Gournia document, a roundel GO Wc 3 (inv. 12.183; Pls LXXXIIa-c), also comes from the Palace Archives room 16. I summarize and amplify my earlier publication of it.27 “The roundel is pinched at the left side with the rim on each side carrying an impression from a single cushion seal (quadruped running right with raised hindquarters; cf. CMS XIII 15D). Each impression is countermarked with one vertical stroke that should convey the numeral “one”, for a total of two”. “The inscription presents a drawing and two sets of numbers. A circle, drawn counterclockwise from the top ending in a divot of clay, encloses two dots, one above the other. To the right of the logogram are two vertical strokes, the number 2, complementing the two seal impressions and the two countermarks. There are also two, apparently deliberate, short horizontal strokes farther to the right, which would otherwise be interpreted as the number 20”. “The two sets of numbers may explain the drawing. The circle with two dots looks similar to Cretan Hieroglyphic signs *074 (with two internal dots) and *075 (with three dots) on Knossos bar CHIC #053; there, the two signs obviously function as collectives for 20 and 30 commodities, apparently the BOS (bovines) that immediately precede signs *074/*075. If the circle with two dots on GO Wc 3 is also a collective, i.e., 20, that would explain the added two horizontal strokes, clarifying that the two vertical strokes refer to the two dots in the circle, but since these are actually tens, the scribe added the two horizontal strokes to refer to the collective 20. What the actual commodity might have been is not known, but bovines would again be appropriate – five bovines are recorded on GO Wc 1, a roundel excavated by Boyd.”28 Finally, a large fragment of another clay disc (inv. 14.539; Pls LXXXIIIa-c), a potter’s batt or more probably a lid, was found south of the Pottery Workshop on a probable floor surface. The fragment carries a deeply incised bovine, within which is a small, more shallowly incised bovine, presumably a mother cow with calf inside, yet to be born. The scene is unique in Aegean art,29 although cows nursing suckling calves are well-known.30 But the concept of placing the offspring inside its mother to denote pregnancy is otherwise unknown in Aegean art, whether in humans or non-human animals.31


26

27 28

29

30 31

Linear A documents are available online: J.G. YOUNGER, “Linear A Texts in Phonetic Transcription & Commentary,” a web site (inaugurated 2000; accessed 22 February 2021): HT 12 and HT 24, PH 3 and KH 43. WATROUS et al. (supra n. 2) 446-448, fig. 33. J.G. YOUNGER, “The Pyrgos and Gournia Roundels Inscribed in Linear A: Suffixes, Prefixes, and a Journey to Syme,” in C.F. MACDONALD, E. HATZAKI, and S. ANDREOU (eds.), The Great Islands. Studies of Crete and Cyprus Presented to Gerald Cadogan (2015) 67-70. The condition, however, may reflect an actual event, detailed on two, possibly three, contemporary Cretan Pictographic documents. CHIC Malia #112 (and probably #108) and Knossos #053 seem to refer to a problematic shipment of ten bovines from Malia to Knossos, which, however, received eleven (J.G. YOUNGER, “Cretan Hieroglyphic Transaction Terms: “Total Paid” and “Total Owed”,” in Cretan Studies [Briciaka. A Tribute to W.C. Brice] (2003) 301-316, esp. 303-306). Perhaps a calf was born en route. See the unfinished cushion seal from Gournia House Tomb I (CMS II3 238). The only possible depiction of a pregnant (human) woman is the late rhyton from Gournia (LM III A2–B context; H. BOYD, B.E. WILLIAMS, R.B. SEAGER, and E.H. HALL, Gournia, Vasiliki and Other Prehistoric Sites on the Isthmus of Hierapetra, Crete. Excavations of the Wells-Houston-Cramp Expeditions, 1901, 1903, 1904 [1908] 46a, Pl. 10.11). The rhyton is shaped like a sitting female with breasts and a round body decorated with stripes and hatching. Her vulva is swollen with her clitoris prominent. At the top of the head, there is a hole for pouring liquids into the vessel and below the clitoris is a small hole for letting the liquids out. For a woman giving birth, there is only one possible depiction: a monochrome black jug from

GOURNIA’S RECENT CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANIMAL STUDIES

377

The date of the disc is MM II by context, and stylistically the longer hindleg of the large bovine and the short triangular legs of the calf find parallels among several sealstones from the Malia Workshop (MM II):32 bovines that have longer hindlegs than forelegs appear on, for example, CMS III 180c, CMS VIII 19a, and CMS XII 59b. John G. YOUNGER







32

Malia, Chrysolakkos (EM III–MM IA; illustrated in J.G. YOUNGER, “Minoan Women,” in S.L. BUDIN and J.M. TURFA [eds.], Women in Antiquity. Real Women across the Ancient World [2016] 573-594, esp. 580-581 fig. 40.2); the jug carries an incised scene of two figures in front of a kneeling or squatting nude woman with a prominent, hatched pubic area. She may be getting ready to give birth. Another unique example of pregnancy, albeit very early (4th millennium BCE) and from Egypt: rock art of an elephant cow carrying a calf inside her (O. JARUS, “5,000 Year-Old ‘Billboard’ of Hieroglyphs Contains a Cosmic Message,” website: https://www.livescience.com/59588-billboard-of-hieroglyphs-containscosmic-message.html, created 22 June 2017; accessed 22 February 2021). ANASTASIADOU (supra n. 4).

378

John G. YOUNGER LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Pl. LXXIXa

Gournia inv. 10.452, lentoid sealstone of red-orange limestone (D. 1.8; Th 0.7 cm.) in the Cretan Popular group (LM I) from the Pit House, plasticine impression (photo author). Pl. LXXIXb Gournia inv. 14.1834, jar handle from the area of the Kilns, impression of a seal (W 1.6 x L 2.2 cm.) in the Border-Leaf group (EM III-MM I) (photo by C. Papanikolopoulos). Pl. LXXIXc Gournia inv. 14.1834 jar handle from the area of the Kilns, impression of a seal (W 1.6 x L 2.2 cm.) in the Border-Leaf group (EM III-MM I) (drawing by D. Faulman). Pl. LXXIXd Gournia inv. 10.872 jar neck from the North Trench, impression of a circular prism face (original D. 2.3-2.4 cm) in the Malia Workshop group (MM II) (photo author). Pl. LXXXa Gournia inv. 12.002, two-hole nodule impressed by an amygdaloid (W. 0.9 x L 1.4 cm) in the Kamilari-Agrimi group (MM III) (photo author). Pl. LXXXb Gournia inv. 12.002, two-hole nodule impressed by an amygdaloid (W. 0.9 x L 1.4 cm) in the Kamilari-Agrimi group (MM III) (drawing by D. Faulman). Pl. LXXXc Gournia inv. 12.184, document sealing from the Palace Archives room 16, obverse impressed by a lentoid sealstone (D. est. 1.3-1.4 cm) in the Mycenae-Vapheio Lion group (LM I) (photo author). Pl. LXXXd Gournia inv. 12.184, document sealing from the Palace Archives room 16, reverse (photo author). Pl. LXXXe CMS I, no. 248, lentoid seal stone (D. 1.8-1.9 cm) from the Vapheio tholos chamber, plasticine impression (photo courtesy the CMS). Pl. LXXXf Gournia inv. 11.090 nodulus from House He, the Megaron, floor fill (photo author). Pl. LXXXIa Gournia inv. 11.090 nodulus from House He, the Megaron, floor fill. Impression on the nodulus base of a lentoid seal (D. 1.6-1.7 cm) at the transition from Almond-Eyes to Dot-Eyes (LM I-II) (photo author). Pl. LXXXIb Gournia inv. 14.1278, potter’s batt from Trench 97 with incised Cretan Pictographic sign CHIC *084 LANA (MM II?) (photo by C. Papanikolopoulos). Pl. LXXXIc Gournia inv. 14.1278, potter’s batt from Trench 97 with incised Cretan Pictographic sign CHIC *084 LANA (MM II?) (drawing by D. Faulman). Pl. LXXXId CHIC #089, lame from Malia Quartier Mu (illustration courtesy of CHIC). Pl. LXXXIIa Gournia inv. 12.183 (GO Wc 3), roundel from the Palace, Archives room 16 (LM I) (photo by C. Papanikopoulos). Pl. LXXXIIb Gournia inv. 12.183 (GO Wc 3), roundel from the Palace, Archives room 16 (LM I) (drawing by D. Faulman). Pl. LXXXIIc Gournia inv. 12.183 (GO Wc 3), roundel from the Palace, Archives room 16 (LM I), impression of a cushion seal (W. 0.9 x L. l 1.3 cm) on the rim (photo author). Pl. LXXXIIIa Gournia inv. 14.539, clay disc (lid?) from Trench 109 (MM II context) with an incised drawing of a cow pregnant with calf inside (photo by C. Papanikolopoulos). Pl. LXXXIIIb Gournia inv. 14.539, clay disc (lid?) from Trench 109 (MM II context) with an incised drawing of a cow pregnant with calf inside (drawing by D. Faulman). Pl. LXXXIIIc Gournia inv. 14.539, clay disc (lid?) from Trench 109 (MM II context) with an incised drawing of a cow pregnant with calf inside (detail photo by C. Papanikolopoulos).

LXXIX

a

b c

d

LXXX

a

b

d c

e

f

LXXXI

a

b

c

d

LXXXII

a

b

c

LXXXIII

a

b

c

CARING FOR AND NOURISHING ANIMALS AND HUMANS IN LINEAR B AND HOMER: IDEOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS* ὁ κύων ὁ ζῶν αὐτὸς ἀγαθὸς ὑπὲρ τὸν λέοντα τὸν νεκρόν A living dog itself is good beyond [i.e. better than] a dead lion Ecclesiastes 9.4

It is clear from the primarily iconographical and textual contributions of Diamantis Panagiotopoulos, Yves Duhoux and Jörg Weilhartner 1 to this volume that intensive and large-scale human-animal interactions in the Middle and Late Bronze Age Aegean were vital to maintaining the existing sociopolitical and economic structures in the many territories, larger and smaller, that made up what we might call polities2 that were parts of the evolving and eventually collapsing palatial systems. Animals, as we define them, were essential to maintaining human lives and human livelihoods, individual and collective, to living well and to furthering good relationships among human beings (via communal feasting and socially justifiable proportional apportionment of food resources) and between human beings and the gods (via ritual sacrifices of animals and offerings of agricultural products). Domesticated animals (like sheep, goats, bovines, pigs, donkeys, mules and horses), therefore, required vigilant human protection, care and attention. Human beings had to beware in looking to their safekeeping. Wild animals (deer, wild horses, wild boar, wild goats [agrimi] and predators like wolves and mountain lions) had to be protected against and carefully hunted. Human beings had to be wary of them in order to exploit them and be safe against them. The physical world in the Aegean in the second millennium BCE, for human beings and animals, was hard and forbidding. Life outside the civilized society defined by the kosmos that the palatial centers created and maintained3 would have been more solitary and poorer, nastier, more brutish and shorter than


*

1

2

3

One of the benefits of being co-editor of a volume of papers even for a conference that never took place in real time and physical space is that in the process of writing your own paper, you can signpost the papers of other contributors. My heartfelt thanks to the scholars who generously helped me with references and especially by discussing technical details both inside and outside my expertise and intellectually challenging problems, several of which are left open for further thought and discussion: Nicholas Blackwell, Erin Brantmayer, Fritz Blakolmer, Janice Crowley, Yves Duhoux, Robert Koehl, Olga Krzyszkowska, Al Martinich, José L. Melena, Gregory Nagy, Jared Petroll, Ian Rutherford, Roger Woodard, and Brent Vine. See D. PANAGIOTOPOULOS, “When Species Meet in the Aegean Bronze Age. Human-Animal Encounters in Seal Imagery and Beyond”; Y. DUHOUX, “The Mycenaean Bestiary: Linear B Data”; J. WEILHARTNER, “Interactions between Humans and Animals in the Aegean Late Bronze Age: The Textual Evidence,” in this volume. Βasic notions of population groups and their sense of identifying with community entities larger than and hierarchically above the genos and dāmos level are hard to trace in our Linear B textual documentation. Yet inhabitants of a specific Mycenaean palatial territory must have had some keen sense of belonging to it, drawing benefits from it and owing obligations to it. One indicator, of course, is the thought, time and energy that the elites around the palatial centers put into presentation of their power and construction of an overall identity that could endure through time. T. PALAIMA “Kosmos in the Mycenaean Tablets: The Response of Mycenaean ‘Scribes’ to the Mycenaean Culture of Kosmos,” in M.-L. NOSCH and R. LAFFINEUR (eds), KOSMOS. Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 13th International Aegean Conference/13e Rencontre égéenne internationale, University of Copenhagen, Danish National Research Foundation’s Centre for Textile Research, 21-26 April 2010 (2012) 697-703; ID., “IE *h2er– Greek *ar– and Order,” MASt@chs Fall 2020 Seminar (2020) §§18-26, https:// classical-inquiries.chs.harvard.edu/mast-chs-friday-november-6-2020-summaries-of-presentations-anddiscussion/ (last accessed March 28, 2021); ID., “Mycenaean *a-mo-te-u, Greek ἁρμόζω, and the Ideology of Joining,” MASt@chs Winter 2021 Seminar (2021) §§1-13, https://classical-inquiries.chs.harvard.edu/ mastchs-winter-2021-seminar/ (last accessed March 28, 2021).

380

Thomas G. PALAIMA

within it.4 Robert Arnott draws the medically informed conclusion that, with regard to factors like life expectancies, decaying of teeth, bone growth interruptions brought on by periods of malnutrition, susceptibility to contagious diseases, contamination or unavailability of water supplies, all linked to general health and well-being, the elites of the palatial centers proper had distinct advantages over the populations of the nearby urban centers, lower towns or more distant rural settlements, but the margin of advantage when it came to longevity was not all that big:5 “In the Middle Helladic period it has been estimated that the average person had 6.5 diseased teeth and, by the Late Bronze Age, 6.6. In contrast, those elites buried in the Grave Circle B had only on average 1.3 diseased teeth. This immunity to dental disease, although it may have had a genetic component, is more likely part of a picture of general good health. The lack of lines of enamel growth arrest, and the rarity of porotic hyperostosis, suggests they enjoyed much better health than the common people, despite the same postural and muscular adaption to rough terrain, and instances of arthritis…. There is evidence that the children of these elites escaped partial starvation and illness, and that their growth was prompted by a relatively good diet, as reflected in the state of their teeth.”

Arnott also points out states of dietary deficiency leading to “clinical malnutrition [that] impairs healing and the body’s resistance to disease.” This chain reaction is caused by a greater dependency on foods that can be stored. We should note these are the kinds of foods (barley and figs) we see in Linear B ration records for work crews and women and child work groups.6 Such foodstuffs are “high in carbohydrates and, with the exception of beans and lentils, they are deficient in iron, vitamin C and calcium.” Protein deprivation, i.e., mainly a lack of regular consumption of meat, would have contributed to a “lowered resistance to disease and infection.”7 Hence the preoccupation of elites, no doubt subliminally understood and motivated, with animal sacrifice and meat consumption at various forms of feasting ceremonies. Access to ‘holding’ farmable or garden-able parcels of land, however small, in return for labor and services was of great importance in improving the diets and therefore the lives of families and clans of individuals who did the work and performed the functions within the overall sociopolitical hierarchy that the elites determined needed doing.8 General measurements of male life expectancy in the Shaft Grave period and later Mycenaean palatial period (roughly 1630-1170 BCE) are hard to come by, but somewhere in the range of 35-40 years for both elites and non-elites seems about right. Health risks among the non-elites in towns or rural areas included (1) overcrowding, (2) poor sanitation, (3) contaminated drinking water and (4) poorer nutrition


4

5

6

7

8

A.R. WALLER (ed.), T. HOBBES, Leviathan, Or the Matter, Forme, & Power, of a Common-Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civill (1904) Part 1, Chapter 13, p. 84. In his introduction, Hobbes stresses that the Business of the State or Common-Wealth is the “Salus Populi (the peoples safety)” (ibidem, xviii). R. ARNOTT, “Disease and the Prehistory of the Aegean,” in H. KING (ed.), Health in Antiquity (2005) 1231, esp. here pp. 29-30. See pp. 27-30 for a general encapsulation of the Mycenaeans. R. PALMER, “Wheat and Barley in Mycenaean Society,” in J.-P. OLIVIER (ed.), Mykenaïka. Actes du IXe Colloque international sur les textes mycéniens et égéens organisé par le Centre de l’Antiquité Grecque et Romaine de la Fondation Hellénique des Recherches Scientifiques et l’École française d’Athènes, Athènes, 2-6 octobre 1990 (1992) 479: “By the Late Bronze Age, the combination of emmer wheat and barley, along with tree crops and various types of beans, represented an agricultural tradition unchanged for over 1,000 years. Deposits of grain found in Late Bronze Age centers reinforce this impression. In nearly all Bronze Age sites where seed material has been excavated and identified, both emmer wheat and barley are present as staple foods.” Palmer also cites ‘a unique record of crop yields’ for Attica 329/8 BCE. It shows that the Athenian farmers produced nine times as much barley as they did wheat. For short-term stored goods attested in the Linear B texts, all plant products except for cheese, animal fat or suet, and meat, see R. PALMER, “Perishable Goods in Mycenaean Texts,” in S. DEGER-JALKOTZY, S. HILLER, O. PANAGL (eds), Floreant Studia Mycenaea (1999) 463-485, esp. 469-480 for plant products with discussion of orchards and irrigation. ARNOTT (supra n. 5) 24-25, 27-28. See also for many more up-to-date particulars on this general subject, R. ARNOTT, “Healers and Medicines in the Mycenaean Greek Texts,” in D. MICHAELIDIS (ed.), Medicine and Healing in the Ancient Mediterranean (2014) 44-53. T. PALAIMA, “The Mobilization of Labor in Mycenaean Palatial Territories,” in P. STEINKELLER and M. HUDSON (eds), Labor in the Ancient World (2015) 617-648, esp. 622-629.

CARING FOR AND NOURISHING ANIMALS AND HUMANS IN LINEAR B AND HOMER

381

causing weakened resistance to diseases such as dysentery, hookworm and tetanus. The elites, however, suffered the deleterious effects of “the stresses of leadership and physical activities.” Life-threatening physical activities for the elites included hunting and military service according to an aristocratic warrior ethos.9 Over the last three decades, I have been thinking about and taking up different aspects of what we might call the ideology or Weltanschauung of the Mycenaean palatial systems, that is: (1) the thought processes about life and the outlook on the world in which the Mycenaeans competed (the Greek concept of eris) that inspired and sustained the elites who devised, developed and maintained the palatial systems; and (2) the ideas and beliefs that were promulgated through verbal (oral song poems) and visual messages (wall paintings, seal images, vase decoration, architectural display)10 in order to keep the populations of the palatial territories united, cohesive, dutiful to their socioeconomic roles and tasks, cooperative within and among their social groups and networks, hardworking at – and satisfactorily rewarded for – their performance of skilled or unskilled labor, reasonably content to be living out their lives in the here and now, and grateful for the relative stability and security that the palatial system provided to the overall society as they conceived of it and their places within it.11


9

10

11

ARNOTT (supra n. 5) 29. R. ARNOTT, “Healing and Medicine in the Aegean Bronze Age,” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 89 (1996) 265. Arnott also reports that the estimated average life expectancy in Crete between the early and late Bronze Ages fell from 35 years to 31 years as a result of population nucleation. The role of the elites in the prevailing war ethos of the Mycenaean palatial period and the effects of military service on their general health and well-being and longevity should not be underestimated. For the virtual omnipresence of war in almost every facet of life, see T. PALAIMA, “Mycenaean Militarism from a Textual Perspective. Onomastics in Context: lāwos, dāmos, klewos,” in R. LAFFINEUR (ed.), POLEMOS. Le contexte guerrier en Égée à l’Âge du Bronze. Actes de la 7e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Université de Liège, 14-17 avril 1998 (1999) 367-378; and S. HILLER, “Scenes of Warfare and Combat in the Arts of Aegean Late Bronze Age. Reflections on Typology and Development,” in LAFFINEUR ed. (ibidem) 319-330, plates LXIX-LXXIII. Overall see S. O’BRIEN, “The Development of Warfare and Society in ‘Mycenaean’ Greece,” in S. O’BRIEN and D. BOATRIGHT (eds), Warfare and Society in the Ancient Eastern Mediterranean (2013) 25-42. On such power ideology in the Mycenaean palatial period and its survival or restoration after the destructions at the end of LH IIIB and beginning of LH IIIC, see J. MARAN, “Coming to Terms with the Past: Ideology and Power in Late Helladic IIIC,” in S. DEGER-JALKOTZY and I.S. LEMOS (eds), Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer (2006) 123-150. On its intentional creation with a view to lasting in memory, see J. MARAN, “Between Remembering and Forgetting: Monuments of the Past and the ‘Invention of Tradition’,” in E. BORGNA, I. CALOI, F. CARINCI and R. LAFFINEUR (eds), MNHMH/MNEME. Past and Memory in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 17th International Aegean Conference. University of Udine, Department of Humanities and Cultural Heritage, Ca’Foscari University of Venice, Department of Humanities, 17-21 April 2018 (2019) 591-599. The classic treatment of how palatial centers inculcate into inhabitants of their territory a sense of communal identity is, of course, J.L. DAVIS and J. BENNET, “Making Mycenaeans: Warfare, Territorial Expansion, and Representations of the Other in the Pylian Kingdom,” in LAFFINEUR ed. (supra n. 9) 105-120 and Pls XIII-XIV. T. PALAIMA, “The Nature of the Mycenaean Wanax: Non-Indo-European Origins and Priestly Functions,” in P. REHAK (ed.), The Role of the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean (1995) 119-139; ID., “Wanaks and Related Power Terms in Mycenaean and Later Greek,” in DEGER-JALKOTZY and LEMOS eds (supra n. 10) 53-71; ID., “Mycenaean Society and Kingship: Cui Bono? A Counter- Speculative View,” in S.P. MORRIS and R. LAFFINEUR (eds), EPOS. Reconsidering Greek Epic and Aegean Bronze Age Archaeology. Proceedings of the 11th International Aegean Conference, Los Angeles, UCLA – The J. Paul Getty Villa, 20-23 April 2006 (2007)129-140; ID., “The Significance of Mycenaean Words Relating to Meals, Meal Rituals, and Food,” in L.A. HITCHCOCK, R. LAFFINEUR and J. CROWLEY (eds), DAIS. The Aegean Feast. Proceedings of the 12th International Aegean Conference/12e Rencontre égéenne internationale, University of Melbourne, Centre for Classics and Archaeology, 25-29 March 2008 (2008) 383-389; PALAIMA 2012 (supra n. 3); ID., “Security and Insecurity as Tools of Power in Mycenaean Palatial Kingdoms,” in P. CARLIER, C. DE LAMBERTERIE, M. EGETMEYER, N. GUILLEUX, F. ROUGEMONT, and J. ZURBACH (eds), “Études mycéniennes 2010 (2012) 345-356; ID., “The Ideology of the Ruler in Mycenaean Prehistory: Twenty Years After the Missing Ruler,” in R. KOEHL (ed.),

382

Thomas G. PALAIMA

There may even have been some generally shared sense among elites and non-elites of a sustainable improvement in the overall quality of life. Such an attitude would have been highly unusual, as can be seen by contrasting it with whatever reflections of Bronze Age outlooks might still be detected in the four masterful Greek epic song poems attributed to Hesiod and Homer within the longstanding tradition of oral folk songs (ἔπεα πτερόεντα) extending back at least to the fifteenth century BCE.12 The idea is clear in these four great epics that without the divinely sanctioned leadership of a religiously pious, ethically honorable, psychologically well-balanced and politically shrewd ποιμὴν λᾱῶν, life would resemble what Thomas Hobbes described as the conditions of human beings living without peace and relying on no other security than their own strength. Consequently without such a leader and a wellfunctioning support system below him in the power hierarchy, there would be no place for economic initiative, no effective agriculture, no trade by sea, no developed architecture, no vehicles or other instruments that make possible large-scale projects like wall building, harbor installations, aqueducts, bridges and roadways, in Hobbes’ words: “no Arts, no Letters, no Society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death.”13 Unless, as war-writer Tim O’Brien puts it, we feel these realities ‘with our stomachs’, we will not come close to understanding the day-to-day mindset of the inhabitants of Mycenaean palatial territories and what motivated them. Here, within the realistic context I have just described as an antidote to the illusion of general secure prosperity that the material remains in the centers of Mycenaean palatial culture create, I will take up the ideology constructed and maintained by the Mycenaean elites as it relates to ζώια / ζῷα and explore how the prevailing ideology is reflected both in the Linear B texts and in the Homeric epics in relationship to human care for animals. I include here in a concluding section a few significant observations on how man’s best and closest friend in the animal kingdom, the domesticated dog, canis lupus familiaris, is used in the Homeric texts to signal that the prevailing leadership ideology documented in both the Linear B texts and in Homer is not being put into practice successfully. The end result is that the λᾱός and even their leaders are suffering. First, we should admit to using something of a misnomer, or at least to using a semantic specialization that was not followed stricto sensu by ancient Greek speakers. As Pierre Chantraine explains, ζώιον and ζῷον means “ ‘animal’ par opposition à ce qui n’est pas animé; dit des plantes, mais aussi de l’homme (Hdt., ion.att., etc.), avec comme emploi particulier ‘image’ (de la vie?), ‘représentation, peinture’, etc., mais il ne s’agit pas nécessairement d’un animal, cf. plus loin ζωγράφος etc. (ion.-att.).”14 The term ζώια therefore was applied to things that were not inanimate. ζώια was used for objects in the material world that possessed the vital inner force defined as an anima. The Indo-European verbal root to which both historical Greek ζώιον and βίος are related *gṷi̯éh3means ‘to live’, and its derivative in historical Greek ζώιον / ζῷον also includes vegetation or plants. The fundamental care given by human beings to what we call plants and animals was keeping them alive in two basic ways: (1) through protection against destructive natural and manmade forces and repair of injury or damage caused thereby; and (2) by nourishing them with proper nutrients and water. The fientive verbal




12

13 14

Studies in Aegean Art and Culture: A New York Aegean Bronze Age Colloquium in Memory of Ellen N. Davis (2016) 133-158; ID., “Basileus and Anax in Homer and Mycenaean Greek Texts,” in C. PACHE, C. DUÉ, R. LAMBERTON and S. LUPACK (eds), Cambridge Guide to Homer (2020) 300-303. C.J. RUIGH, “The Source and Structure of Homer’s Epic Poetry,” European Review 12:4 (2004) 527-542, esp. 527, 530-531. ID., “D’Homère aux origines proto-mycéniennes de la tradition épique. Analyse dialectologique du langage homérique, avec un excursus sur la création de l’alphabet grec,” in J.P. CRIELAARD, Homeric Questions (1995) 85-88. See J. BENNETT, “Representations of Power in Mycenaean Pylos: Script, Orality, Iconography,” in F. LANG, C. REINHOLDT and J. WEILHARTNER (eds), ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΣ ΑΡΙΣΤΕΙΟΣ. Festschrift für Stefan Hiller zum 65. Geburtstag (2007) 14-15, on the secure grounds for oral poetic performance in the Mycenaean palatial world and performances taking place ‘within the framing iconography’ of fresco representations and calling upon ‘bodily memory of tastes, smells, sights and sounds’. WALLER (supra n. 4) 84. PALAIMA 2021 (supra n. 3) §1; 8.1-.2; PALAIMA 2016 (supra n. 11) 138-144. P. CHANTRAINE, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque (2009) 385.

CARING FOR AND NOURISHING ANIMALS AND HUMANS IN LINEAR B AND HOMER

383

form in historical Greek βιῶναι means ‘überleben’ ‘survive’ or ‘gerettet werden’ ‘be saved… and continue living’.15 The roles played by plants and animals in Minoan and Mycenaean ritual iconography speak to the recognition by human beings of the 2nd millennium BCE that the same precious life force that animates human beings keeps plants and animals alive. And on a practical level the regular and necessary acts of ‘feeding’ and ‘eating’ and the regular ritual act of ‘feasting’ together link plants, animals and humans literally symbiotically.16 In a perpetually ironic cycle, human beings care for and nurture the lives of plants and animals until they have to bring death to them in order to sustain human lives. Of course, human beings eventually have to confront death, too, sometimes brought on by animals. There is a natural tension and mutual wariness between human beings and animals in Aegean prehistory. This is because, within thoughts upon the world embedded in folk song poems within the Greek tradition, there is nothing that is equivalent to a collectively accepted divine mandate that places human beings in an authoritative position of rulership over animals in the natural world. Mycenaean Greek ideas as communicated in images and in surviving oral song poems have nothing that resembles the encapsulation of human arrogance captured in Bob Dylan’s “License to Kill”: “Man thinks ’cause he rules the earth he can do with it as he please.” 17 The complexities of thought here are vast; and we are driving home a simplified, but still valid, point. If we want to try to understand how human beings who lived during the broad period of Mycenaean palatial culture thought and felt about their relationship to fellow animals in the natural world, we have to consider what kinds of internal anxieties or notions of confidence they had about their own place, individually and collectively, in the natural order. We may contrast the outcome of Hebraic thought as it is embodied in the Septuagint (ca. 300 BCE) Greek version of Genesis 1.26-28: 26 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός ποιήσωμεν ἄνθρωπον κατ' εἰκόνα ἡμετέραν καὶ καθ' ὁμοίωσιν καὶ ἀρχέτωσαν τῶν ἰχθύων τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ τῶν πετεινῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῶν κτηνῶν καὶ πάσης τῆς γῆς καὶ πάντων τῶν ἑρπετῶν τῶν ἑρπόντων ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς 27 καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον κατ' εἰκόνα θεοῦ ἐποίησεν αὐτόν ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς 28 καὶ ηὐλόγησεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς λέγων αὐξάνεσθε καὶ πληθύνεσθε καὶ πληρώσατε τὴν γῆν καὶ κατακυριεύσατε αὐτῆς καὶ ἄρχετε τῶν ἰχθύων τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ τῶν πετεινῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ πάντων τῶν κτηνῶν καὶ πάσης τῆς γῆς καὶ πάντων τῶν ἑρπετῶν τῶν ἑρπόντων ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς 26 And the god said, “Let us make the ‘human being’ according to our image and according to similitude and let them rule the fishes of the sea and the winged creatures of the sky and the domesticated animals (τῶν κτηνῶν ‘cattle’, i.e., ‘animals that one rules, acquires, possesses’, directly from κτάομαι; cf. κτήματα ‘goods’ ‘landed property’, also ‘domestic animals’ from Indo-European *tkeh2-18) and all the earth and all the crawling creatures, those crawling upon the earth. 27 And the god made the human being, according to the image of the god he made him, male and female he made them 28 and the god praised them saying [to them], “Grow and multiply and fill the earth and be complete master over19 it and rule the fishes of the sea and the winged creatures of the sky and all the domesticated animals and all the earth and all the crawling creatures, those crawling on the earth. (literal translation mine)


15 16

17 18

19

H. RIX, Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben (2001) 215-216. PALAIMA 2008 (supra n. 11); ID., “Sacrificial Feasting in the Linear B Tablets,” in J. C. WRIGHT (ed.), The Mycenaean Feast (2004) 217-246; and ID., “Harnessing phusis: The Ideology of Control and Exploitation of the Natural World As Reflected in Terminology in the Linear B Texts Derived From Indo-European *bhu̯eh2- ‘Grow, Arise, Be’ and * h2eg-ro- ‘The Uncultivated Wild Field’ and Other Roots Related to the Natural Environs,” in G. TOUCHAIS, R. LAFFINEUR, and F. ROUGEMONT (eds), PHYSIS. L’environnement naturel et la relation homme-milieu dans le monde égéen protohistorique. Actes de la 14e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Paris, Institut National d’Histoire de l’Art, 11-14 décembre 2012 (2014) 93-99. https://www.bobdylan.com/songs/license-kill/ (last accessed March 24, 2021). R. BEEKES, Etymological Dictionary of Greek (2010) vol. 1, 788-789 s. κτάομαι. J. LUST, E. EYNIKEL, K. HAUSPIE, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (revised ed. 2003) 736 s. κτῆνος, -ους. LUST, EYNIKEL, HAUSPIE (supra n. 18) 663 s. κατακυριεύω.

384

Thomas G. PALAIMA

The key here is that in the Hebraic tradition a divine presence that is responsible for all of creation makes a decision. After creating all the other animals that live in the world, the divine being creates human beings and then mandates an anthropocentric view of the world in which human beings are given authority by a direct imperative command from the divine being to rule (ἄρχετε) over ‘fishes of the sea’, ‘winged creatures of the sky’, ‘all the domesticated animals᾽ (τὰ κτῆνα) and ᾽all the earth᾽ and ‘all the animals that crawl, or go on all fours’ (τὰ ἕρπετα), the ones now going upon the earth (τῶν ἑρπόντων ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς). That this is originally a thoroughly un-Greek world-view is seen clearly in serious discussions of later philosophical and theological views of the world that do take something like the dominion of human beings over all other animals in the world as a given.20 When the idea appears in Xenophon’s Memorabilia in the 4th century BCE that everything in the natural world has been arranged ἀνθρώπων ἕνεκα ‘for the sake of human beings’, the very idea is declared by scholars to be “alien, un-Hellenic”.21 In the 5th century BCE, we can trace a clear vision of a long history of hard-won progress by human beings within a forbidding and difficult world extending back into what we call the Mycenaean palatial period. That human beings, living in a perpetually hostile natural environment, by tireless persistence domesticated once wild animals and devised protections against those animals that remain wild and ferocious is a key feature of this long historical development.22 This is seen in the famous “Ode to Man” in Sophocles’ Antigone (ca. 441 BCE), where, to speak simply, there is nothing, i.e., no other animals in the physical world, that is δεινότερον than human beings. The adjective δεινός deinos comes from the same Indo-European root *dṷei- as the verb δείδω23 ‘to fear’ and means fundamentally ‘terrifying’ or ‘terrible’, but eventually acquires a related and somewhat positive meaning: ‘awesome’.24 πολλὰ τὰ δεινὰ κοὐδὲν ἀνθρώπου δεινότερον πέλει. 335 τοῦτο καὶ πολιοῦ πέραν πόντου χειμερίῳ νότῳ χωρεῖ, περιβρυχίοισιν περῶν ὑπ᾽ οἴδμασιν. θεῶν τε τὰν ὑπερτάταν, Γᾶν ἄφθιτον, ἀκαμάταν, ἀποτρύεται ἰλλομένων ἀρότρων ἔτος εἰς ἔτος 340 ἱππείῳ γένει πολεύων. κουφονόων τε φῦλον ὀρνίθων ἀμφιβαλὼν ἄγει 345 καὶ θηρῶν ἀγρίων ἔθνη πόντου τ᾽ εἰναλίαν φύσιν σπείραισι δικτυοκλώστοις, περιφραδὴς ἀνήρ: κρατεῖ δὲ μηχαναῖς ἀγραύλου 350 θηρὸς ὀρεσσιβάτα, λασιαύχενά θ᾽ ἵππον ὀχμάζεται ἀμφὶ λόφον ζυγῶν οὔρειόν τ᾽ ἀκμῆτα ταῦρον. (Sophocles, Antigone 332-353) Many are the things of wonder and terror and nothing more terrifyingly wonderful moves than a human being. 335 This creature goes forward beyond the dull gray sea using the wintry south wind pressing onward beneath the swelling engulfing waves and the most high of the gods, Earth,


20

21 22

23 24

D. JOBLING, “ ‘And Have Dominion…’: The Interpretation of Genesis 1.28 in Philo Judaeus,” Journal of the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period 8 (1977) 50-82. JOBLING (supra n. 20) 53 and notes 9-10. G.A. STALEY, “The Literary Ancestry of Sophocles’ ‘Ode to Man’,” Classical World 78 (1985) 562, traces clear interconnections among Sophocles’ Antigone 334-352, Aeschylus’ Choephoroi 585-601 and Homer’s Odyssey 18.130-137. We will only discuss the “Ode to Man” here. BEEKES (supra n. 18) 308 and 310. CHANTRAINE (supra n. 14) 245-246. STALEY (supra n. 22) 563 n. 5, traces how critical attitudes change concerning how to translate forms of the word δεινός in Sophocles’ “Ode to Man” in correlation with the optimism or pessimism engendered in thinking human beings in various periods of the twentieth century.

CARING FOR AND NOURISHING ANIMALS AND HUMANS IN LINEAR B AND HOMER

385

imperishable and un-weary-able, he wears her down, plough blades moving back and forth as year moves to year 340 turning up the soil using the whole family of horses. The tribe of light-minded birds he fetches and crowds of savage beasts and the creature-world in the sea casting about them cords woven into meshes, ever keenly alert the male human is: he forcibly masters with his devices the wilds-dwelling 350 mountain-going beast of prey, and the shaggy-necked horse he takes hold of for his own use, placing the withers yoke on it and on the untiring mountaineer bull. (translation mine)

Human beings by their own cleverness and unceasingly wearying efforts bring creatures of the wild under their control. But some of those creatures remain wild and every generation of human beings must pass down the methods and instruments they use to accomplish these truly stunning and hard-won feats. The Linear B texts reflect most of what is described by Sophocles here. It is this perpetual state of regaining and maintaining dominance over animals that marks Mycenaean palatial culture. Encapsulated by Sir Richard Jebb, the process looks like this: “in this ode, the scale of achievement ever ascends: man (1) conquers inanimate nature: (2) makes animals his captives: (3) trains them to be his servants.”25 We need to go no further than historical naming patterns to understand how important the related concepts of life, survival, and nourishment through feeding and eating were to human beings living in a world where necessary supplies of daily foodstuffs from plant and animal sources were not guaranteed in sufficient quantities and varieties to keep human beings healthy.26 Historical names like Ζώ-βιος and Ζωβίτᾱς hyper-emphasize the importance of animal vitality by having the two members of the compound name derive from the same root.27 Moreover, a historical name like Ζω-φ[ῡ]τίδης might dichotomize the ‘life’ force in what we call animals with the natural ‘growth or even regrowth into being’ that prevails in the plant world (cf. Mycenaean pu-ta φυτά ‘young trees, plants’28 and the historical neuter noun form φυτόν, which Chantraine29 explains as ‘dit surtout de végétaux, par opposition à ζῷον’). The Mycenaean palatial elites did make a guarantee to provide the fundamental Lebensmittel that, given prevailing conditions, would be a daily preoccupation of families and clans and communities that made up their polities (I use the German word for ‘food’ because it clearly gets across that food is the Mittel ‘means’ or ‘method’ of preserving Leben ‘life’). In Bronze Age Messenia, the elites made this guarantee metaphorically in the symbolic vocabulary of palatially appointed officials who presided over and interacted with the two main provinces and the nine and seven second-order centers each within their own surrounding counties. The title of the head figure of each province, da-mo-ko-ro, means “‘que hace crecer, que alimenta el dāmos’. The root here has the fundamental meaning of ‘feed’, ‘nourish’, ‘sate’ (i.e., ‘stuff with food’), ‘cause to grow’, and is found in such important food-related vocabulary as the name of the Latin goddess of grains Ceres and the historical Greek verb κορέννυμι”; while the palatial office-holders (ko-re-te and po-ro-ko-re-te) who interacted with second-order centers and their counties were literally ‘agents of feeding and nourishment’.30 In keeping with grains and plant and tree products being the basic staple food items for most human beings in this time period, the term ko-ro = koros appears in Linear B tablets of the Ft series at Thebes as a


25 26

27 28 29 30

R.C. JEBB (ed.), Sophocles: The Antigone (1900) notes on lines 343-353. CHANTRAINE (supra n. 14) 385 col. 2: “L’importance de ζῷον et certains de ses développements particuliers constituent un trait marquant pour cette famille de mots. Composés avec ζωο- et ζω- : un premier terme Ζωο- parfois contracté en Ζω- joue un grand rôle dans l’onomastique.” F. BECHTEL, Die historischen Personennamen des Griechischen bis zur Kaiserzeit (1917) 186-187. F. AURA JORRO, Diccionario micénico II (1993) 174 s. pu-ta CHANTRAINE (supra n. 14) 1189 col. 1, s. φύομαι. Quoted material and general sense from PALAIMA 2008 (supra n. 8) 385. For an exploration of an alternative interpretation of ko-re-te, see PALAIMA, “Koiranos and *Koirētēr ? = *Korrētēr ? Among Power Titles in Linear B and Homer,” in S. ALLEN, M. LEE, R. SCHON and A. SMITH (eds), Power and Place in the Prehistoric Aegean and Beyond. Studies to Honor James C. Wright (forthcoming).

386

Thomas G. PALAIMA

designation of the ‘fodder’ fed to animals. 31 So there would seem to be no strict dichotomy of spheres (animals vs. plants) between ko-re-te and the Mycenaean terms for those who ‘plant’ and no doubt tend to trees: pu-te φυτήρ and pu2-te-re φυτῆρες (adjectival form pu-te-ri-ja and a related term pu-ta-ri-ja seemingly related to the classical term for orchard, vineyard, arbor). Viewed as we have suggested and as we might feel the term more deeply if life were not so easy for us, the term ko-re-te directly addressed what must have been the major latent anxious questions of daily life in Mycenaean palatial territories: Will today’s and tomorrow’s food and water supplies be sufficient and will the elites get the meat protein they needed in order to fulfil their obligations? We have mentioned the term ποιμήν (poimēn) that apparently is semantically specialized as ‘herdsman’ and most likely mainly as ‘shepherd’ (= ‘herder of sheep’ proper) already in the Linear B tablets and in the Homeric epics. Weilhartner proposes that in the Linear B texts:32 “The term po-me /poimēn/ ποιμήν (from πῶυ, flock [of sheep]) seems to be used in the Linear B texts for the shepherd stricto sensu. In those two cases where this word is found in a directly occupational context it appears once (on PY Ae 134) along with qe-te-ro-po-pi /kwetropopphi/ – which means quadrupeds and which seems to refer, as in the Classical period πρόβατον, to both sheep and goats – and once (on KN Dd 1376) along with the logogram for sheep/OVIS respectively, albeit in the latter case the occupational designation po-me is used instead of a personal name and seems to serve as such.”

The semantically specialized terms for those who tend and care for the essential livestock are su-qo-ta (historical Gk. συβώτης) for pigs, qo-qo-ta (Mycenaean *γwο(υ)-γwοτᾱς) for bovines, and a3-ki-pa-ta (*αἰγιπαστᾱς) for goats. The first member in each term defines the species of animal (pig, bovine, goat). The second member has the frequent (in Mycenaean) agent noun suffix -tās and a verbal root. Both verbal roots have to do with nourishing and feeding. su-qo-ta and qo-qo-ta are related to the historical verb βόσκω ‘feed’ or ‘tend’ from the Indo-European root with the same two meanings *gweh3-. In historical Greek we find both συ-βώ-της and ἱππο-βό-τής. 33 We also find the related form (in Homer, Theocritus and Plutarch) συφορβός that uses another key verbal root (see more on this below). The second member of the compound noun for goatherd -παστᾱς is related to the later Greek deponent verb πατέομαι with aorist ἐπασάμην meaning ‘se repaître de, manger et boire’. In historical Greek πατέομαι is used of both humans and animals, often with an accompanying noun that specifies what is consumed. From the same Indo-European root comes English food (and cf. Latin pāscō and pabulum). The important element to stress here is that the ‘care’ provided to goats, pigs and bovines is specified as ‘feeding’ per se. The root of historical Greek φέρβω, seen here above in o-grade historical Gk. συ-φορβός, is attested in the Mycenaean Greek lexicon of those who tend to, but again specifically ‘feed/nourish’, horses: i-qo-po-qo-i (dative plural). This is no small matter. When we are tracking ideological notions, the name is the thing. The element -φορβος is possibly attested in Mycenaean personal naming practice in two significant usages. The first is on Knossos tablet KN As , which is unfortunately fragmentary and preserved only in a photograph by Sir Arthur Evans. On this tablet, the term ra-wo-po-qo occurs in a veritable catalog of important Mycenaean Greek sociopolitical power terminology:34


31

32

33 34

PALAIMA 2021 (supra n. 3) §1. CHANTRAINE (supra n. 14) 544 s. κορε- cites Lithuanian šer-ti ‘nourrir des bêtes’, and suggests that the Ionian tribal name Ἀιγικορεῖς might mean ‘ceux qui nourrissent des chèvres’. J. WEILHARTNER, this volume, p. 338. J.L. Melena (personal communications March 23) posits that po-me ποιμήν was original and generic and would have been the universal word for ‘livestock-boy’ and that the particular terms for herders of different species came into being when the original practice of mixed flocks was replaced by specialized flocks for pigs and goats. This strikes me as reductionist and does not explain why a specialized term was not devised at that moment for ‘sheep’ as well. There still would have been a need for a non-confusing ‘generic’ term applicable to all animals. There would have been no problem in writing *o-wi-pata or *o-wi-qo-ta or *o-wi-qo-ro. Melena sensibly argues, “I see no problem in creating a Myc[enaean] compound with o-wi-° (cf. o-wi-de-ta-i), but there was no need for it since the unmarked po-me already covered all the nuances.” BEEKES (supra n. 18) 227-228 s. βόσκω. J.L. MELENA and R. FIRTH, The Knossos Tablets Sixth Edition (2019) 27 and frontispiece for photograph.

CARING FOR AND NOURISHING ANIMALS AND HUMANS IN LINEAR B AND HOMER

.1 .2 .3

387

]ẹ-pi-ko-wo , e-qe-ṭạ , e-re-u-ṭẹ[ ]da-mo , / e-ro-pa-ke-u , VIR 1 ko-ki[ ]-jo / ra-wo-po-qo , ze-ro[

In the first line, for what seems restorable as e-pi-ko-wo, Roger Woodard has recently convincingly argued: “Mycenaean Greek preserves e-pi-ko-wo, matching Homeric ἐπί-κουρος; [it] can be reasonably understood as derived from a form *kor-wo- and denoting ‘warrior ally’.”35 e-qe-ta hekwetās is traditionally interpreted as ‘follower’, but I have marshalled arguments that it should be interpreted as ‘an agent who causes others to follow’, i.e., a kind of mobilizer of human resources in military and large corvée labor projects, naturally in the service of the leaders of the Mycenaean state. 36 The e-re-u-te ereutēr is an ‘inspector’ or ‘examiner’ who is also associated with larger-scale projects involving specialized labor personnel, as on Pylos tablet An 18.37 e-ro-pa-ke-u is now generally agreed to be a textile specialist designation corresponding to a correlated feminine occupational term e-ro-pa-ke-ja.38 This then brings us to ra-wo-po-qo. In this context, it has generally been considered a masculine personal name rather than a title, but the possibility of a title cannot be ruled out, especially given the contextual parallelism on lines .2 and .3, unfortunately fragmentary at the start of both lines. The oblique line in transcription indicates here that the word-unit following the oblique line is marked by the tabletwriter by being written in what we might call a smaller font size. It is, therefore, reasonable to see in both lines the recording of a personal name followed by a smaller-sized designation of their role in the context of the particular tablet record. In line .2 the first word-unit ]-da-mo can reasonably be restored as a man’s name with the frequent second member -da-mo seen in many other attested compound names in the Linear B tablets like e-ke-da-mo Ἐχέδᾱμος,39 a-ko-da-mo, a-ko-ro-da-mo Ἀκρόδᾱμος,40 e-u-ru-da-mo Εὐρύδᾱμος, e-u-da-mo Εὔδᾱμος. In line .3 the first word unit is even less well preserved. However, as might be expected, many personal names end in -jo. Taken as a personal name ra-wo-po-qo is, as Aura Jorro explains, “sin duda compuesto de *λᾱ
ός (λαός); quizá *Λᾱ
ο-φοργwος ([= historical] Λεώφορβος (sic), cf. Λεωφορβίδης, compuesto de φέρβω)”; and he prefers taking the second member from φέρβω and not from φόβος.41 Yet given (1) the emphasis on ‘nourishing’ and ‘fully feeding’ contained in ko-re-te, po-ro-ko-re-te, and da-mo-ko-ro, and (2) the importance of the λᾱός element in the high-ranking title ra-wa-ke-ta *λᾱ
ᾱγέτᾱς and the collective body that is connected with his office ra-wa-ke-ja *λᾱ
ᾱγεᾱ, a case can be made that *Λᾱ
οφοργwός ‘nourisher of the people’ is more fitting as an ideologically effective title than as a rather presumptuous, unless aristocratic, personal Wunschname given to a child who is to be known as ‘Nourisher of his lāwos’. Either way, however, the ideological importance of *bhergw- φερβ- is remarkable. The root *bhergw- φερβ- in o-grade yields in Mycenaean Greek the important action noun po-qa, historical Gk. φορβή (Pylos Un 138.2; Thebes Ug 17) and a possible professional term po-qa-te-u


35

36 37

38

39 40 41

R.D. WOODARD, “Coriolanus and Fortuna Muliebris,” Japanese Studies in Classical Antiquity 4 (2020) 24 and n. 80. See comprehensively and persuasively K. MAHONEY, “Mycenaean e-pi-ko-wo and alphabetic Greek ἐπίκουρος revisited,” Kadmos 56 (2017) 39-88, especially 39-41, where attention is called to the fragmentary line .1 in KN As . PALAIMA (supra n. 8) 624 and n. 16, 636-643. PALAIMA (supra n. 8) 636-637, with text of PY An 18 on p. 637. See also now F. AURA JORRO, A. BERNABÉ, E.R. LUJÁN, J. PIQUERO, C. VARIAS GARCÍA, Suplemento al diccionario micénico (2020) 111 s. e-re-u-te-re: “Probablemente título que designa cierto tipo de funcionario: *ἐρευτήρ (cf. cret. ἐρευτᾱς, IC 1 IX.1 D132: οἱ ἐρευταὶ οἱ τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων), ‘inspector’, mejor que antr. masc. o teónimo.” See B. MONTECCHI, “E-qe-ta and e-mi-to on Linear B tablet KN Am(2) 821: military officials and soldiers?” Pasiphae 8 (2014) 84. F. AURA JORRO, Diccionario micénico I (1985) 208 s. e-ke-da-mo. AURA JORRO et al. (supra n. 37) 41-42 s. a-ko-ro-da-mo. AURA JORRO (supra n. 28) 234-235 s. ra-wo-po-qo. J.L. MELENA, “Mycenaean Writing,” in Y. DUHOUX and A. MORPURGO DAVIES (eds), A Companion to Linear B: Mycenaean Greek Texts and Their World (2014) 36, agrees that the second member is more likely to be derived from *bhergw- (historical Greek φερβ-).

388

Thomas G. PALAIMA

/phorgwātēus/(Pylos Qa 1295). There are also feedsacks or halters po-qe-wi-ja φορβειαί (An1282.2) and, as we noted above, horse-feeders or horse-nourishers: i-qo-po-qo (Thebes Fq[1] 198.3) and dative plural i-qo-po-qoi (Thebes Fq[2] 214.6) and the related form i-po-po-qo-i (Pylos Fn 79).42 We should also note that the Homeric epics have two personal names derived from *bhergw- φερβ-: two characters in the Iliad are named Φόρβας. One is described in Il. 14.490 with an appropriate epithet for ‘Mr. Nourisher’ πολύμηλος ‘rich in μῆλα = sheep or goats’. The other in Il. 9.665 is taken to be the king of Lesbos, whose daughter Achilles had taken as a spear captive. The second personal name is Εὔφορβος (Il. 16.808 and 850; 17.12 and 34).43 One final compound term with a second member that may be derived from *bhergw- φερβ- is identifiable in an alternative reading by the late and revered Emmett L. Bennett, Jr. on a complicated doublesided Pylos tablet An 39. The recto of An 39 lists, with one exception, men in groups, ranging from 3 to 23 in number, designated by their occupational skills that seem to be related to food preparation and banqueting: fire-kindlers (pu-ka-wo); honey-masters (me-ri-du-ma-te); mixers (mi-ka-ta); overseers of paraphernalia (o-pi-te-uke-e-we);44 bread-bakers (a-to-po-qo). These banqueting-related professional designations are recorded in two sections, each with the same basic list. These two sections are separated by a single line (.6) on which one man (ka-sa-to Ksanthos) is entered by name and the accompanying ideogram VIR. On the main seven-line section of the verso, however, nine individual men are listed singly by what seem to be their personal names, each, like ka-sa-to on the recto, accompanied by the ideogram VIR. On verso line .9, E.L. Bennett reads:45 teo-po-q̣ọ[, which is interpreted as probably *Θεhόφοργwος with comparison drawn to the historical personal name Θεόφορβος ‘he who is nourished by the god’.46 This is a profoundly pious personal name. However, it could be – or originally have been – a Mycenaean cultic title θεhoφορβός: ‘he who nourishes the god’, i.e., who gives the god due offerings in a symbolic act of caring for the god by providing food.47


42

43

44

45

46 47

MELENA (supra n. 41) 36. For po-qe-wi-ja φορβειαί as feed sacks or halters for feeding, see T. PALAIMA and N.G. BLACKWELL, “Pylos Ta 716 and Mycenaean Ritual Paraphernalia: A Reconsideration,” SMEA NS 6 (2020) 71 and fig. 2. For Φόρβας and Εὔφορβος, see H. VON KAMPTZ, Homerische Personenamen: Sprachwissenschaftliche und historische Klassifikation (1982) 168, 226. The meaning of this professional term is not entirely clear either from its ambiguous main member (te-u-keτευχες-) or from its contexts. See PALAIMA 2004 (supra n. 16) 242 n. 125. See also J. WEILHARTNER, Mykenische Opfergaben nach Aussage der Linear B-Texte (2005) 160: “Die konkrete Bedeutung dieses ‘Aufsehers über die τεύχεα’ ist unklar, doch wird es sich am ehesten um ein Mitglied der palatialen Administration gehandelt haben, das für die Zuteilung von Nahrungsmitteln bei Festen verantwortlich war. Dies legen neben Tafel Un 2 die zweite Texte An 39 und Fn 50 nahe, auf denen er im Zusammenhang mit Berufsbezeichnungen genannt wird, die allem Anschein nach eine Rolle bei der Herstellung und Vorbereitung von Mahlzeiten gespielt haben (a-to-po-qo/Bäcker, me-ri-du-ma-te/Verwalter der Honig, mi-kata/Mischer, pu-ka-wo/Feueranzünder).” E.L. BENNETT, JR., “A Selection of Pylos Tablet Texts,” in OLIVIER ed. (supra n. 6) 106. But τεύχεα can also mean armor and personal weaponry. Cf. Iliad 16.155-156 where Achilles is armoring the Myrmidones πάντας ἀνὰ κλισίας σὺν τεύχεσιν. AURA JORRO et al. (supra n. 37) 354 s. te-o-po-q̣ọ[. José L. Melena (personal communication March 24, 2021) objects that “nourishing a god would be impious” and no mortal would bear such a name. Yet we should recall in historical times the satire in Aristophanes’ Birds. The birds build blockade walls that cut off the burning fat and bone fumes that feed the gods and thereby conduct a successful siege by starvation. The satire is only good if the underlying notion is that human beings are indeed feeding the gods regularly and piously and cutting them off is therefore effective as a weapon. This is a very complicated issue even in historical Greek. Roger Woodard (personal communication March 25, 2021) adduces Rig Veda Hymn 10.79.5 where of the god Agni, it is said “This man who quickly gives him (Agni) food, who offers his gifts of oil and butter and supports him, Him with his thousand eyes he closely looks on: thou showest him thy face from all sides, Agni.” On the whole issue of what food sacrifice means in terms of the relationship between the divine and human spheres, see S. HITCH, King of Sacrifice: Ritual and Royal Authority in the Iliad (2009) esp. 1-59, 93-96. Much depends on to what degree Mycenaean Greek ritual aligns with earlier Indo-European concepts or with historical Greek concepts. In Mesopotamian practice, “[t]he act of killing an animal is almost hidden behind the construct of feeding the god, a construct which emerges out of the earlier offering and storage [of foodstuffs] and the

CARING FOR AND NOURISHING ANIMALS AND HUMANS IN LINEAR B AND HOMER

389

We now can make one very important observation about the relationship between humans and animals and associated ideological notions promoted during the Mycenaean palatial period. For all other herd animals other than sheep (pig, goat, bovine, horse) there is a term in the Linear B (and/or historical Greek) lexicon that speaks directly to ‘feeding’ and ‘nourishing’ those animals. This is in line with the ideology behind the key titles in Linear B relating to the provincial and county structure of the palatial territory of Messenia. We have raised the possibility that the word-unit ra-wo-po-qo may be a similar ideological title emphasizing ‘feeding and nourishing the collective people λᾱός’. Minimally ra-wo-po-qo and te-o-po-q̣ọ, both expressing ‘feeding and nourishing’, are significant elite names stressing the responsibility and the ability of the name-bearer to provide nourishment for the entire people of his community and also to bring it about in the same way, i.e., by proper animal sacrifice or animal-product offering, that the gods themselves are well-disposed. This brings us to the term used for a shepherd of sheep whose herds occasionally also include much smaller numbers of goats which may travel along with sheep: ποιμήν. The term ποιμήν (Linear B po-me) derives from the Indo-European root *peh2-(i-) ‘protect’; cf. Vedic pā́ti ‘schützt’ ‘protect’; Hittite pahhasmi ‘ich bewahre, schütze’ ‘beware, protect’. Applied in the Homeric metaphor ποιμὴν λᾱῶν to the ἄναξ (Mycenaean wa-na-ka), it conveys different fundamental notions than Mycenaean ra-wo-po-qo (*Λᾱ
οφοργwος) historical Λεώφορβος. The metaphorical term ποιμήν certainly does not emphasize ‘feeding’. Sheep, of the animal types we are dealing with, are by far the most docile species and practically defenseless. Goats, pigs, bovines and horses in the wild are aggressive and have formidable defenses. Sheep, however, need protection; and they also are the animals which are maintained within the Mycenaean regional economies recorded at Knossos and Pylos in by far the largest numbers and whose herds are the largest in size. The tablets at these two palatial centers record ca. 90,000-100,00 sheep, 5,300 goats, 1,070 pigs, 510 bovines and 140 horses.48 The vast numbers of sheep, mainly registered in flocks that are multiples of 50, stand parallel to the herds of λᾱοί catalogued in Iliad Book 2. In contrast, we might note the ease with which the smaller-sized and less densely packed herds of goats are identified and how this is used metaphorically of the ease with which their field commanders recognize and assemble their separate contingents of troops in the preface to the great Homeric catalogue of ships: τοὺς δ᾽ ὥς τ᾽ αἰπόλια πλατέ᾽ αἰγῶν αἰπόλοι ἄνδρες ῥεῖα διακρίνωσιν ἐπεί κε νομῷ μιγέωσιν, ὣς τοὺς ἡγεμόνες διεκόσμεον ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθα ὑσμίνην δ᾽ ἰέναι Just as men who are goatherds (αἰπόλοι ἄνδρες) easily and thoroughly distinguish the broad herds of goats (αἰπόλια) when they mix together in a pasture, so were their leaders thoroughly setting them in order (διεκόσμεον) here and there in order to go into combat. (Homer, Iliad 2.474-477 translation mine)

The use of po-me ποιμήν for those who herd sheep would seem to be a conscious selection reflecting Mycenaean palatial realities that sheep, like the large populations of palatial territories, require greater care and care that would take the particular form of protecting.49 This makes the standard formulaic epithet ποιμένα λαῶν (Il. 2.243) ποιμένι λαῶν (Il. 2.254; 2.772; 4.413) as applied to Agamemnon in the Iliad intensify the irony that the supreme commander of the allied Achaean forces at Troy is failing to protect or be wary


48 49

later image of feeding a divine king in his palace.” T. ABUSCH, “Sacrifice in Mesopotamia,” in A.I. BAUMGARTNER (ed.), Sacrifice in Religious Experience (2002) 39-48 at 43, italics mine. Y. DUHOUX, this volume, pp. 331-332, with notes 27-29. We might also add here that the Mycenaean term ra-wa-ke-ta can be reconstructed as *λᾱ
ᾱγέτᾱς ‘he who is the agent of leading the λᾱ
ός’ and, in recognition of what we discuss here about the scale and relative non-singularity of the regional population, as *λᾱ
ᾱγέρτᾱς ‘he who gathers together or collects the λᾱ
ός’ as a shepherd would. See S. NIKOLOUDIS, “The Role of the ra-wa-ke-ta. Insights from PY Un 718,” in A. SACCONI, M. DEL FREO, L. GODART and M. NEGRI (eds), Colloquium Romanum (2008) 592 n. 26 for discussion of the second member of ra-wa-ke-ta being either from ἄγω or from ἀγείρω, as originally suggested by W. WYATT, “Homeric and Mycenaean ΛΑΟΣ,” Minos 29-30 (1994-1995) 159-170.

390

Thomas G. PALAIMA

of dangers that might harm his λᾱός. The formula must have carried even more force and weight in epic song poems in the Mycenaean palatial period when the ideology of nourishing and nurturing by highranking palatially appointed officials and the vocabulary for the human herding of animals would have thrown the unique emphasis on ‘protection’ in the term ποιμήν and in the phrase ποιμὴν λαῶν into high relief. What we have been examining so far has to do with how the Mycenaean palatial elites ideologically promoted positive attitudes towards themselves and about the societies that they directed and dominated, not to say controlled. I have concentrated on how this is done metaphorically in the vocabulary for power figures. The particular emphasis on nurturing and nourishing in the realm of herding with the exception of the single term po-me ποιμήν makes Agamemnon’s failures to live up to the promise of this term to be a protector all the more conspicuous. In concluding, I would like to point out in another power hierarchy relationship between man and animals how a miserable state of human affairs can be signaled by aberrant animal behavior. Dogs do not figure prominently either in Aegean iconography or in the Linear B texts. But they are represented enough in iconography and mentioned enough in the tablets for us to have a sense that the familiar adage that a dog is man’s best friend, animal or human, may have held true at least in elite circles. There are 279 possible images of ‘dogs’ on seals and sealing images in the CMS; 262 in the IconAegean Database. But a singular problem that remains, especially for a non-specialist trying to make sense of this material, is identifying dogs. In the Arachne search engine for the CMS, important scenes for human-animal interaction, e.g., CMS I, 512; CMS II 8, 239; CMS V, 253; CMS X, 161, all say that the animal is ‘Hund oder Löwe’. Even solo animals, e.g. CMS II 2, 222c; CMS III, 506, give the same either/or identification.50 Setting aside this problem and assuming that some of the representations thus ambiguously described are dogs, a large number show what are clearly ‘dogs’ in isolation in various postures (including interestingly scratching themselves) or setting upon or running after animals of prey like boars, agrimi, wild bulls and


50

It is not my place nor is it germane to my discussion here to do more than point out the problem. In personal communications, Olga KRZYSZKOWSKA (March 23, 2021) and Janice CROWLEY (March 24, 2021) both kindly confirmed that in many cases it is difficult to distinguish what kind of animal (lion, hound, even wolf) is represented for a variety of reasons carefully pinpointed by Krzyszkowska: the actual representation of the animal may be ambiguous; the iconography may be ambiguous; the quality of the representation may be poor. These and other factors could prevent ‘a categorical identification as to species’. Of the four examples I first cite as important for human-animal interactions, Krzyszkowska states: “(1) I 512 (LB IIIIIA1) leashed but representation ambiguous, although to my eye the animal looks more like a lion; (2-3) II.8 239 and V 253 both are LM I seals/impressions BUT the representations are rather ambiguous, i.e. neither animal looks very much like a lion (hence Hund-Löwe). However, in terms of iconography only lions make sense here; and (4) X 161 [the] quality of the representation is rather poor (LM I soft stone) and does not allow categorical identification as to species, hence Hund-Löwe. Either would be possible on basis of iconography.” Crowley confirms the problem: “As far as the seals are concerned we are in difficulties immediately because there is no consistent nomenclature across the CMS volumes (many different authors) or across the Arachne entries (though the descriptions in the later books authored by the Marburg team are better especially for the sealing images).” In J.L. CROWLEY, The Iconography of Aegean Seals (2013) 238 and 243, she identifies lion as E217 and hound (= dog) as E227. In her IconAegean Database on the CMS website, she identifies 869 lions and 262 hounds. But many of the hound identifications retrieved by a search are designated as ‘quadruped’ with hound question-marked because of ambiguities caused by style or representation and overall iconographical theme. The poster child here is the detailed discussion in O. KRZYSZKOWSKA, “Seals from the Petras Cemetery: A Preliminary Overview,” in M. TSIPOPOLOU (ed.), Petras, Siteia 25 Years of Excavation (2012) 146-147, explaining the identification of CMS II, 5 300 (Phaistos) along with six other seal images and Cretan Hieroglyphic sign CHIC no. 018 as a wolf’s head characterized by its long curling tongue (as opposed to CHIC no. 017 a dog’s head). J.L. CROWLEY IconAegean 02489 identifies this image as ‘hound head with lolling tongue’. J.G. YOUNGER, Bronze Age Aegean Seals in Their Middle Phase (ca. 1700-1500 B.C.) (1993) identifies it as a dog’s head. The wolf identification would be supported by the Homeric simile of wolves who, having brought down and ripped apart the flesh of a stag, then lap water from a black-water spring with their long slender tongues (Iliad 16.160-161).

CARING FOR AND NOURISHING ANIMALS AND HUMANS IN LINEAR B AND HOMER

391

stags. There are also master and mistress of the hounds scenes, with male and female figures flanked heraldically by dogs. Whether dogs are depicted alone or appear with human-shaped figures, Panagiotopoulos points out that within this repertory “only dogs and horses appear as servants of humans, not on their own terms but embedded in scenes where they could not have been absent.”51 On CMS II, 8 236 (from the East Temple Repository at Knossos MM III/LM IA) a dog in the foreground strides alongside a man who wears a helmet, carries a spear and has what looks like a short shield on his upper arm. Panagiotopoulos takes this as a hunter and his hunting dog. Karetsou and Koehl take it as a ‘soldier procession’. Krzyszkowska takes it decidedly as a hunting scene.52 It certainly is an elite scene and reflects the references within the Linear B texts to ku-na-ke-ta-i kunāgetāhi (cf. historical Greek κυνηγέτης). The term literally means the ‘dog-leaders’. We imagine these individuals serve as masters of the hounds for hunting purposes. They are to be contrasted with the *qe-ra-ta who are the actual ‘hunters’ who are attested in the noun form underlying the adjective qe-ra-si-ja (cf. Homeric θηρητήρ).53 Bernhard Schlag provides a condensed thematic overview of dog images that underscores the interconnections of large, well-groomed and well-bred hounds with human beings in the prelude to hunts, during the pursuit and killing of prey and, we must imagine afterwards, at the celebratory feasting in palatial frescoes from Tiryns and Pylos.54 Sara Immerwahr lays all this out more fully so that we can see that the elites were accustomed to interacting with dogs during these kinds of activities.55 In the Tiryns Boar Hunt Fresco, a fleeing boar is attacked by at least three pursuing dogs and a parallel image in a fresco fragment from Orchomenos shows a fleeing boar and one hunting dog in flying gallop and another biting the boar’s underbelly.56 At Pylos, dogs are interspersed with men carrying tripods in which meat from the hunt would be boiled.57 The dogs are supersized and fill the same space as the tripod-carriers, in fact more or less dwarfing the human beings who are carrying tripods and, it would seem, their own human handlers. This might be a comment on the importance of the dogs to the success of the hunt and subsequent feasting ceremony. We may compare the supra-scale bull in the procession of small offering-bearers in the fresco from megaron complex Room (or Vestibule) 5.58 Finally, in Pylos Hall 64 hunting dogs are depicted life-size and alertly resting in a small pack in a frieze that runs around the large room that forms the entrance room into Hall 65, arguably the hall of the ra-wa-ke-ta *λᾱ
ᾱγέτᾱς. 59 Immerwahr captures the effect perfectly. The dogs “recline in couchant, overlapping positions like the lions and griffins. They varied in color (red, white, and spotted in red or black) and apparently also in sex. This variety, combined with apparent differences in alertness of their pricked ears and open mouths, must have conveyed something of the impression of a real pack of hunting dogs. The


51 52

53

54

55 56 57

58 59

D. PANAGIOTOPOULOS, this volume, p. 16. A. KARETSOU and R.B. KOEHL, “The Minoan Mastiffs of Juktas,” in TOUCHAIS et al. eds (supra n. 16) 340, Pl. CIVc. O. KRZYSZKOWSKA, “Cutting to the Chase: Hunting in Minoan Crete,” in ibidem Pl. CVIa for CMS II, 8 236 and one other seal image with a hunter and spear and dog. In favor of Krzyszkowska’s and Panagiotopoulos’s identification is that the one clear piece of armor, the shield, is also used in hunting, as seen with elaborate tower shields and figure-of-eight shields on the famous Lion Hunt inlaid dagger from Shaft Grave IV from Mycenae, for which, see N.R. THOMAS, “The Early Mycenaean Lion Up to Date,” in A.P. CHAPIN (ed.), ΧΑΡΙΣ: Essays in Honor of Sara A. Immerwahr (2004) 195, no. 11. J. WEILHARTNER, this volume, pp. 339-340 and n. 25; and AURA JORRO (supra n. 28) 195-196, s. qera-si-ja. B. SCHLAG, “Thematische Bindungen der Hundedarstellungen im bronzezeitlichen Greichenland,” in F. BLAKOLMER (ed.), Österreichische Forschungen zur Ägäischen Bronzezeit 1998 (2000) 137-143. S. IMMERWAHR, Aegean Painting in the Bronze Age (1990). S. IMMERWAHR (supra n. 55) 129-130 and 132 and Pl. 70. S. IMMERWAHR (supra n. 55) Pl. 74 and p. 197, suggests that these images are from the floor above Hall 46 and depicted the return from the hunt with tripods for the feast. S. IMMERWAHR (supra n. 55) 118, 135, 197, 198; frescoes Py No. 8 and Py No. 15. DAVIS and BENNET (supra n. 10) 105-119 and Pls XIII and XIV for the dog fresco and the combat fresco together in Hall 64.

392

Thomas G. PALAIMA

effect was more purely representational than emblematic.” 60 That they are found together with the famous combat scene may add a bit more strength to what I consider the less likely interpretation that seal CMS II, 8 236 shows a soldier procession. The seal images and the frescoes give us man’s best friend as elite palatial culture, not too unlike the aristocratic cultures of Great Britain and Germany between 1880 and 1920, incorporated them into pursuits like hunting and feasting that prepared the elites for their roles in organizing society, providing sustenance and protecting it in times of war. These show human beings and dogs together when kosmos prevails. In Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, one such scene would seem to be Odyssey 17.290-310, where Odysseus, wanaks of Ithaca, has returned alone, having lost all his ships and all his men. In the appearance of an itinerant beggar, he has one ally, his faithful συβώτης ‘swineherd’ Eumaeus. He finds his palatial kingdom leaderless and in disarray; and he adds the evils he there sees to the many he has suffered over twenty years in Troy and long heading homeward. Odysseus and Eumaeus are talking to one another. 290 ὣς οἱ μὲν τοιαῦτα πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἀγόρευον: ἂν δὲ κύων κεφαλήν τε καὶ οὔατα κείμενος ἔσχεν, Ἄργος, Ὀδυσσῆος ταλασίφρονος, ὅν ῥά ποτ᾽ αὐτὸς θρέψε μέν, οὐδ᾽ ἀπόνητο, πάρος δ᾽ εἰς Ἴλιον ἱρὴν ᾤχετο. τὸν δὲ πάροιθεν ἀγίνεσκον νέοι ἄνδρες 295 αἶγας ἐπ᾽ ἀγροτέρας ἠδὲ πρόκας ἠδὲ λαγωούς: δὴ τότε κεῖτ᾽ ἀπόθεστος ἀποιχομένοιο ἄνακτος, ἐν πολλῇ κόπρῳ, ἥ οἱ προπάροιθε θυράων ἡμιόνων τε βοῶν τε ἅλις κέχυτ᾽, ὄφρ᾽ ἂν ἄγοιεν δμῶες Ὀδυσσῆος τέμενος μέγα κοπρήσοντες: 300 ἔνθα κύων κεῖτ᾽ Ἄργος, ἐνίπλειος κυνοραιστέων. δὴ τότε γ᾽, ὡς ἐνόησεν Ὀδυσσέα ἐγγὺς ἐόντα, οὐρῇ μέν ῥ᾽ ὅ γ᾽ ἔσηνε καὶ οὔατα κάββαλεν ἄμφω, ἆσσον δ᾽ οὐκέτ᾽ ἔπειτα δυνήσατο οἷο ἄνακτος ἐλθέμεν: αὐτὰρ ὁ νόσφιν ἰδὼν ἀπομόρξατο δάκρυ, 305 ῥεῖα λαθὼν Εὔμαιον, ἄφαρ δ᾽ ἐρεείνετο μύθῳ: ‘Εὔμαι᾽, ἦ μάλα θαῦμα, κύων ὅδε κεῖτ᾽ ἐνὶ κόπρῳ. καλὸς μὲν δέμας ἐστίν, ἀτὰρ τόδε γ᾽ οὐ σάφα οἶδα, εἰ δὴ καὶ ταχὺς ἔσκε θέειν ἐπὶ εἴδεϊ τῷδε, ἦ αὔτως οἷοί τε τραπεζῆες κύνες ἀνδρῶν 310 γίγνοντ᾽: ἀγλαΐης δ᾽ ἕνεκεν κομέουσιν ἄνακτες.’ 290 And so they were talking about such things together and a hound lying there held up his head and perked up his ears Argos, dog of Odysseus, a man of hard resolve, whom Odysseus himself way back when had raised, but had no time to do things with, before he had to go off to sacred Troy. Years back time and time again the young men were leading the dog out to hunt 295 wild goats and roe deer and hares: but right then – take a look! – the dog was lying, cast aside, his master long gone away, in a small mountain of manure from mules and cattle which was heaped up outside the doors waiting for the servants of Odysseus to haul it off and spread it as fertilizer all over his large temenos. 300 There the dog Argos lay, his fur full of canine ticks. Look! Then the dog sensed that Odysseus was nearby, and he started wagging his tail and he lowered both his ears. And yet he no longer had the strength to walk over to his master. But his master, having sized things up from a distance, wiped away a tear 305 easily keeping it secret from Eumaeus; and right then he asked him,


60

IMMERWAHR (supra n. 55) 137 and Pl. 80. See conveniently on-line https://homepage.univie.ac.at/ elisabeth.trinkl/forum/forum0998/08agais08.htm (last accessed April 21, 2021).

CARING FOR AND NOURISHING ANIMALS AND HUMANS IN LINEAR B AND HOMER

393

“Eumaeus, what a strange thing to see, this hound lying there in all that shit. He has a purebred look about him, but there’s this one thing I just can’t figure out, if he still can run swiftly as his fine form suggests, Or is he as table dogs of some men come to be, dogs that their masters take care of just for how they look?” (translation mine)

Argos’s enduring inbred love for his master represents the loyalty that should await an anaks returning home from the war. The dog and the swineherd alone maintain rightful gratitude for and allegiance to their king. The royal dog did his duty taken on hunts by the young Ithacan elites again and again until he became an exhausted resource. The normal two-way system of benefits and obligations is nowhere practiced in the kingdom. Otherwise Argos would be well taken care of in his old age for all the former service rendered on the hunts. He deserves to be cared for in his retirement as a τραπεζεὺς κύων together with other old noble hunting dogs as in the fresco running along the walls in Hall 64 at Pylos. He should not be neglected, tickridden, lying in a manure pile heaped up outside the doors to his long-awaited master’s halls. The contract between man and animal here is broken because the Mycenaean and Homeric ideal of the divinely sanctioned, ritually pious, ethically sound (insofar as his dealings with his subjects), psychologically stable and politically shrewd ποιμὴν λαῶν has long gone out of practice. And it is the man-dog relationship that drives home the point. In Book 22.66-76 of Homer’s Iliad there is a second instance where the ideal state of the man-animal relationship attested in palatial-period iconography and in palatial nomenclature as attested in the Linear B tablets has disappeared, or in this case, to be precise, is anticipated as about to disappear. Again an aberration of the righteous state of human masters and duly rewarded faithful dogs is used to mark out the ruin of the ideal state. It is one of the grimmest images among the many violent scenes in Homer. It is a nightmare. Here the well treated noble τραπεζῆες κύνες ‘table dogs’ who reside in Priam’s royal household are envisioned by Priam himself to be transformed into κύνες ὠμησταί ‘dogs who devour raw human flesh’. This description caps off Priam’s heartfelt and deeply human appeal to his son Hector not to face the berserker Achilles at this point. Priam describes what will ensue once Achilles kills Hector, whose name identifies him as the literal ‘holder’ of the fortunes of Troy and its people. αὐτὸν δ᾽ ἂν πύματόν με κύνες πρώτῃσι θύρῃσιν ὠμησταὶ ἐρύουσιν, ἐπεί κέ τις ὀξέϊ χαλκῷ τύψας ἠὲ βαλὼν ῥεθέων ἐκ θυμὸν ἕληται, οὓς τρέφον ἐν μεγάροισι τραπεζῆας θυραωρούς, 70 οἵ κ᾽ ἐμὸν αἷμα πιόντες ἀλύσσοντες περὶ θυμῷ κείσοντ᾽ ἐν προθύροισι. νέῳ δέ τε πάντ᾽ ἐπέοικεν ἄρηϊ κταμένῳ δεδαϊγμένῳ ὀξέϊ χαλκῷ κεῖσθαι: πάντα δὲ καλὰ θανόντι περ ὅττι φανήῃ: ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε δὴ πολιόν τε κάρη πολιόν τε γένειον 75 αἰδῶ τ᾽ αἰσχύνωσι κύνες κταμένοιο γέροντος, τοῦτο δὴ οἴκτιστον πέλεται δειλοῖσι βροτοῖσιν. Me myself last of all at the outermost doors my dogs, with a taste now for raw flesh, will drag off when someone with sharp bronze having struck me or having hurled it into me takes my life out of my limbs, dogs whom I raised in my great halls as table dogs and door guards, 70 dogs who having drunk my blood and acting restless in their spirits will lie down at the front gates. It is entirely befitting for a young man killed in war cut apart by sharp bronze to lie dead: everything is fine and good once he is dead whatever we see: but when dogs befoul the gray head and the gray beard 75 and the genitals of an old man slain this clearly is the most pitiable thing for miserable mortals. (translation mine)

394

Thomas G. PALAIMA

Finally, the Iliad makes clear in its first ten lines that the extraordinarily long large-scale joint military campaign at Troy became in its final stages a horrendous disaster marked by conspicuous moral failures in decision-taking and in highest command leadership and by gross public acts of impiety by its commanderin-chief. Here again, the aberrant behavior of man’s best friend is used to drive home the grotesque consequences of having the supreme and divinely sanctioned anaks behave impiously, with callous disregard for his ethical responsibilities to all the troops under his command, while acting psychologically unstable and politically maladroit. The key lines (Iliad 1.1-5) describe an aberration of the proper relationship between human beings and dogs. Here dogs, who would ordinarily dine on scraps from the tables of elite warriors and help them in hunting other wild animals, behave like vultures (γῦπες, cf. Iliad 4.237; 11.162; and 16.836 regarding the corpse of Patroclus) feasting upon the flesh of the corpses of Achaean warriors who have died on the plains of Troy. μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε, πολλὰς δ᾽ ἰφθίμους ψυχὰς Ἄϊδι προΐαψεν ἡρώων, αὐτοὺς δὲ ἑλώρια τεῦχε κύνεσσιν 5 οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι, Be singing, goddess, the wrath of the son of Peleus, Achilles destructive and self-destructive, too, which caused the Achaeans countless miseries, and hurled forth into hell many superbly trained and enduring souls of heroes, and it wrought them into carrion for dogs 5 and scavenger birds of all kinds [to devour]. (translation mine)

This disaster in leadership, communicated by means of a vivid aberration of civilized elite behavior, has stood as a realistic monument to the regular failure of elites to live up to the ethos and the propaganda we observe already in Mycenaean palatial iconography and textual documentation. In three key passages in the Homeric poems, the state of society as a whole and the ruinous behavior of the leaders and the elites are made clear by focusing on how the mutually beneficial behavior between humans and hounds has gone grotesquely awry. We can understand the messages in these Homeric passages better now that we have gained deeper insight into the ideology of caring for and nurturing and protecting animals (and humans) that palatial elites developed and practiced, and then promoted in their palatial power terminology, in images on upper-class seals and in palatial wall paintings. These three methods of communicating the Mycenaean palatial world view (official nomenclature, seal images and wall paintings) served as constant reminders of the vigilance necessary to keep civilization intact and the violent forces of nature under control. Bronze Age oral poetic songsters surely had many similar paradeigmatic tales to sing forth at public sacrifices and palatial feasts. Thomas G. PALAIMA