This pdf is a digital offprint of your contribution in

E. Alram-Stern, F. Blakolmer, S. Deger-Jalkotzy, R.

Laffineur & J. Weilhartner (eds), Metaphysis. Ritual, Myth
and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age (Aegaeum 39),
ISBN 978-90-429-3366-8.

The copyright on this publication belongs to Peeters

Publishers.

As author you are licensed to make printed copies of the

pdf or to send the unaltered pdf file to up to 50 relations.
You may not publish this pdf on the World Wide Web –
including websites such as academia.edu and open-access
repositories – until three years after publication. Please
ensure that anyone receiving an offprint from you
observes these rules as well.

If you wish to publish your article immediately on open-

access sites, please contact the publisher with regard to
the payment of the article processing fee.

For queries about offprints, copyright and republication

of your article, please contact the publisher via
peeters@peeters-leuven.be
 AEGAEUM 39
Annales liégeoises et PASPiennes d’archéologie égéenne

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

Edited by Eva ALRAM-STERN, Fritz BLAKOLMER, Sigrid DEGER-JALKOTZY,

Robert LAFFINEUR and Jörg WEILHARTNER

PEETERS
LEUVEN - LIEGE
2016

98738_Aegaeum 39 vwk.indd 1 25/03/16 08:06

 CONTENTS
Obituaries ix
Preface xiii
Abbreviations xv

KEYNOTE LECTURE

Nanno MARINATOS
Myth, Ritual, Symbolism and the Solar Goddess in Thera 3

A. FIGURINES

Eva ALRAM-STERN
Men with Caps: Chalcolithic Figurines from Aegina-Kolonna and their Ritual Use 15

Florence GAIGNEROT-DRIESSEN
The Lady of the House: Trying to Define the Meaning and Role of Ritual Figures with Upraised Arms
in Late Minoan III Crete 21

Reinhard JUNG and Marco PACCIARELLI

A Minoan Statuette from Punta di Zambrone in Southern Calabria (Italy) 29

Melissa VETTERS
All the Same yet not Identical? Mycenaean Terracotta Figurines in Context 37

Eleni KONSOLAKI-YANNOPOULOU
The Symbolic Significance of the Terracottas from the Mycenaean Sanctuary at Ayios Konstantinos,
Methana 49

B. HYBRID AND MYTHICAL CREATURES

Fritz BLAKOLMER
Hierarchy and Symbolism of Animals and Mythical Creatures in the Aegean Bronze Age: A Statistical
and Contextual Approach 61

Karen Polinger FOSTER

Animal Hybrids, Masks, and Masques in Aegean Ritual 69

Maria ANASTASIADOU
Wings, Heads, Tails: Small Puzzles at LM I Zakros 77

C. SYMBOLISM

Janice L. CROWLEY
In the Air Here or from the World Beyond? Enigmatic Symbols of the Late Bronze Age Aegean 89

Marianna NIKOLAIDOU
Materialised Myth and Ritualised Realities: Religious Symbolism on Minoan Pottery 97

Helène WHITTAKER
Horns and Axes 109

98738_Aegaeum 39 vwk.indd 3 25/03/16 08:06

 iv CONTENTS

Olga KRZYSZKOWSKA
Warding off Evil: Apotropaic Practice and Imagery in Minoan Crete 115

Emilia BANOU and Brent 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 123

Nancy 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 129

Malcolm H. WIENER
Aegean Warfare at the Opening of the Late Bronze Age in Image and Reality 139

D. SPACE / LANDSCAPE

Santo PRIVITERA
The Tomb, the House, and the Double Axes: Late Minoan IIIA2 Hagia Triada as a Ritual
and ‘Mythical’ Place 149

Sam CROOKS, Caroline J. TULLY and Louise A. HITCHCOCK

Numinous Tree and Stone: Re-Animating the Minoan Landscape 157

Barbara MONTECCHI
The Labyrinth: Building, Myth, and Symbol 165

Birgitta EDER
Ideology in Space: Mycenaean Symbols in Action 175

Lyvia MORGAN
The Transformative Power of Mural Art: Ritual Space, Symbolism, and the Mythic Imagination 187

E. FUNERALS

Luca GIRELLA
Aspects of Ritual and Changes in Funerary Practices Between MM II and LM I on Crete 201

Anna Lucia D’AGATA and Sara DE ANGELIS

Funerals of Late Minoan III Crete: Ritual Acts, Special Vessels and Political Affiliations
in the 14th and 13th Centuries BC 213

Ann-Louise SCHALLIN
The Liminal Zone – The Evidence from the Late Bronze Age Dendra Cemetery 223

Mary K. DABNEY
Mycenaean Funerary Processions as Shared Ritual Experiences 229

Michael LINDBLOM and Gunnel EKROTH

Heroes, Ancestors or Just any Old Bones? Contextualizing the Consecration of Human Remains
from the Mycenaean Shaft Graves at Lerna in the Argolid 235

F. RELIGION / DEITIES

Jeffrey S. SOLES
Hero, Goddess, Priestess: New Evidence for Minoan Religion and Social Organization 247

98738_Aegaeum 39 vwk.indd 4 25/03/16 08:06

 CONTENTS v

Ute GÜNKEL-MASCHEK
Establishing the Minoan ‘Enthroned Goddess’ in the Neopalatial Period: Images, Architecture,
and Elitist Ambition 255

Veronika DUBCOVÁ
Divine Power from Abroad. Some New Thoughts about the Foreign Influences on the Aegean
Bronze Age Religious Iconography 263

Cynthia W. SHELMERDINE
Poseidon, pa-ki-ja-na and Horse-Taming Nestor 275

Irene SERRANO LAGUNA

di-u-ja 285

G. SANCTUARIES

Mercourios GEORGIADIS
Metaphysical Beliefs and Leska 295

Wolf-Dietrich NIEMEIER
Ritual in the Mycenaean Sanctuary at Abai (Kalapodi) 303

Olga PSYCHOYOS and Yannis KARATZIKOS

The Mycenaean Sanctuary at Prophitis Ilias on Mount Arachnaio within the Religious Context
of the 2nd Millennium B.C. 311

H. RITUALS / OFFERINGS

Barbara HOREJS and Alfred GALIK

Hunting the Beast. A Reconstructed Ritual in an EBA Metal Production Centre in Western Anatolia 323

Philip P. BETANCOURT, Thomas M. BROGAN and Vili APOSTOLAKOU

Rituals at Pefka 329

Alessandro SANAVIA and Judith WEINGARTEN

The Transformation of Tritons: Some Decorated Middle Minoan Triton Shells
and an Anatolian Counterpart 335

Artemis KARNAVA
On Sacred Vocabulary and Religious Dedications: The Minoan ‘Libation Formula’ 345

Monica NILSSON
Minoan Stairs as Ritual Scenes. The Monumental Staircases of Phaistos “66” and Knossos
“Theatral Area” under the Magnifying Glass 357

Bernice R. JONES
A New Reading of the Fresco Program and the Ritual in Xeste 3, Thera 365

Andreas G. VLACHOPOULOS
Images of Physis or Perceptions of Metaphysis? Some Thoughts on the Iconography
of the Xeste 3 Building at Akrotiri, Thera 375

Fanouria DAKORONIA
Sacrifice on Board 387

98738_Aegaeum 39 vwk.indd 5 25/03/16 08:06

 vi CONTENTS

Jörg WEILHARTNER
Textual Evidence for Burnt Animal Sacrifice and Other Rituals Involving the Use of Fire
in Mycenaean Greece 393

Chrysanthi GALLOU
Mycenaean Skulls: “ἀμενηνά κάρηνα” or Social Actors in Late Helladic Metaphysics and Society? 405

Assaf YASUR-LANDAU
The Baetyl and the Stele: Contact and Tradition in Levantine and Aegean Cult 415

I. MYTH / HEROES / ANCESTORS

Magda PIENIĄŻEK and Carolyn C. ASLAN

Heroic Past, Memory and Ritual at Troy 423

John G. YOUNGER
Identifying Myth in Minoan Art 433

Joanne M.A. MURPHY

The Power of the Ancestors at Pylos 439

Elisabetta BORGNA and Andreas G. VORDOS

Construction of Memory and the Making of a Ritual Landscape: the Role of Gods and Ancestors
at the Trapeza of Aigion, Achaea, at the LBA-EIA Transition 447

Anne P. CHAPIN
Mycenaean Mythologies in the Making: the Frescoes of Pylos Hall 64 and the Mycenae Megaron 459

J. METAPHYSIS

Robert B. KOEHL
The Ambiguity of the Minoan Mind 469

Thomas G. PALAIMA
The Metaphysical Mind in Mycenaean Times and in Homer 479

Alan PEATFIELD
A Metaphysical History of Minoan Religion 485

POSTERS

Eva ALRAM-STERN
A New Mycenaean Female Figure from Kynos, Locris 497

Katrin BERNHARDT
Absent Mycenaeans? On Mycenaean Figurines and their Imitations on Crete in LM IIIA–IIIB 501

Tina BOLOTI
A “Knot”-Bearing (?) Minoan Genius from Pylos. Contribution to the Cloth/Clothing Offering
Imagery of the Aegean Late Bronze Age 505

Dora CONSTANTINIDIS
Proximity Analysis of Metaphysical Aegean Ritual Spaces During the Bronze Age 511

98738_Aegaeum 39 vwk.indd 6 25/03/16 08:06

 CONTENTS vii

Stefanos GIMATZIDIS
The Tree of Life: The Materiality of a Ritual Symbol in Space and Time 515

Louise A. HITCHCOCK, Aren M. MAEIR and Amit DAGAN

Entangling Aegean Ritual in Philistine Culture 519

Petros KOUNOUKLAS
Griffin at Kynos. How, Why, and When? 527

Tobias KRAPF
Symbolic Value and Magical Power: Examples of Prehistoric Objects Reused in Later Contexts
in Euboea 531

Susan LUPACK
pu-ro, pa-ki-ja-ne, and the Worship of an Ancestral Wanax 537

Madelaine MILLER
The Boat – A Sacred Border-Crosser in Between Land and the Sea 543

Sylvie MÜLLER CELKA

Caring for the Dead in Minoan Crete: a Reassessment of the Evidence from Anemospilia 547

Marcia NUGENT
Portals to the Other: Stepping through a Botanic Door 557

Marco PIETROVITO
Beyond the Earthly Shell: the Minoan Pitcher Bearers. Anthropomorphic Rhyta
of the Pre- and Protopalatial Periods (Differentiating the Sacred from the Divine) 563

Jörg RAMBACH
Early Helladic Romanos/Messenia: Filling a Well 567

Caroline THURSTON
New Approaches to Mycenaean Figurines in LH IIIC 571

Michaela ZAVADIL
Souvenirs from Afar – Star Disk Pendants Reconsidered 575

ENDNOTE

Joseph MARAN
Towards an Anthropology of Religion in Minoan and Mycenaean Greece 581

TO CONCLUDE …

Thomas G. PALAIMA
WI Fc 2014: When is an Inscribed Cigar Just a Cigar? 595

98738_Aegaeum 39 vwk.indd 7 25/03/16 08:06

 DIVINE POWER FROM ABROAD.
SOME NEW THOUGHTS ABOUT THE FOREIGN INFLUENCES
ON THE AEGEAN BRONZE AGE RELIGIOUS ICONOGRAPHY

It is very well known that the effects of the multiple and diverse interconnections between
Aegean and Near Eastern Bronze Age cultures on the field of religious iconography (which have been
convincingly demonstrated many times), are of crucial importance for our reconstruction and
understanding of Aegean religion.1 To use the visual similarities of iconographical elements appearing
in the individual cultures for their mutual comparison and consistent reconstruction is legitimate,
largely due to the intense contacts between those cultures, and the more or less flexible polytheistic
religious systems with numerous shared ideas.2 We can follow the influx of foreign motifs in almost all
periods of the Aegean Bronze Age.3 When attempting to analyse what are assumed to be ‘foreign’
motifs and use them for the reconstruction of more complex phenomena – religious beliefs or the
whole theological profiles of depicted deities – several problems appear. The remarkable uniqueness of
the Aegean cultures, and the creativity and innovation of their art caused major transformations of
almost every foreign element.4

I would like to thank to the organizers of the Metaphysis conference for giving me the opportunity to
present my contribution and especially to Fritz Blakolmer, the supervisor of my dissertation, for his
constant support, stimulating discussions and advice concerning my research. I also thank Claire Malleson
for reading this paper and checking my English.
1 Originating in the (so far most complex) work of Arthur Evans, EVANS, PM I-IV, this approach has been
used rather sporadically since then and only for chosen motifs, see: L.V. WATROUS, “The Role of the
Near East in the Rise of the Cretan Palaces,” 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) 65-70; Ch. SUGAYA, “A Foreign Goddess in the Minoan World,” in A. KARETSOU et al. (eds),
Pepragmena H' Diethnous Kritologikou Synedriou, Irakleio, 9-14 Septemvriou 1996, Vol. A3: Proïstoriki kai Archaia
Elliniki Periodos (2000) 273-286; A. MACGILLIVRA.Y, J.M DRIESSEN and L.H. SACKETT, The
Palaikastro Kouros. A Minoan Chryselephantine Statuette and its Aegean Bronze Age context (2000); M. MOSS, The
Minoan Pantheon: Towards an understanding of its nature and extent (2005); until the most recent work of Nanno
Marinatos (N. MARINATOS, The Minoan Kingship and the Solar Goddess: A Near Eastern Koine [2010]), with
suggested reconstruction of the principal Minoan deities, achieved by the comparison with the Near
Eastern religious and iconographical systems.
2 W. BURKERT, “Migrating gods and syncretisms: Forms of cult transfer in the Ancient Mediterranean,”
in M.L. GEMELLI MARCIANO et al. (eds), Kleine Schriften II: Orientalia (2003) 17-36; MARINATOS
(supra n. 1) 188-192.
3 See e.g.: H. KANTOR, The Aegean and the Orient in the second Millennium B.C. (1947); 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); P. WARREN, “Minoan Crete and Pharaonic Egypt,” in V.W. DAVIES and L.
SCHOFIELD (eds), Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant: Interconnections in the Second Millennium BC (1995); J.L.
CROWLEY, “Iconography and Interconnections,” in 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) 171-182; J. ARUZ, Marks of Distinction: Seals and Cultural Exchange between the Aegean and the Orient
(ca. 2600 - 1360 B.C.) (2008); J. PHILLIPS, Aegyptiaca on the Island of Crete in Their Chronological Context: A
Critical Review Vol. I-II (2008).
4 For discussions on the process of iconographical transfer see: P. WARREN, “A Model of Iconographical
Transfer. The Case of Crete and Egypt,” in I. BRADFER-BURDET, B. DETOURNAY and R.
LAFFINEUR (eds), Kris Technitis. 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) 221-227; J. PHILLIPS, “Why?... And Why Not?
Minoan Reception and Perceptions of Egyptian Influence,” in E. CZERNY et al. (eds), Timelines: Studies in
Honour of Manfred Bietak, 2 (2006) 293-300.
264 Veronika DUBCOVÁ

Another aspect to consider is the ideology behind the visual expression. This also constitutes a
great problem in cultures for which we have proper written sources.5 Many of the foreign motifs might
have come from a variety of different cultural traditions, and thus could have several different
meanings. With their accession into the Aegean imagery, they could have changed not only their visual
form, but most probably also their meaning and imbedded values. Via some selected examples, I will
indicate the preferences which were probably connected with the selection of motifs and suggest their
possible sources, their use, and to some extent also their meaning.

Minoan ‘genius’ and its Near Eastern connections

The most prominent and eloquent example of the Aegean treatment of foreign motifs is the
Minoan ‘genius’. Its derivation from the Egyptian hippopotamus deity has been convincingly
demonstrated,6 and the eclectic nature of its form and function has been frequently discussed.7 The
original form of this hybrid creature underwent a large transformation shortly after its first appearance
in the Aegean, from monstrous corpulent hippopotamus with pendulous breasts and crocodile or
dorsal appendage on its back, to slender, muscular youthful male with waspish waist.8 It might have
been the taste and special needs or preference of society, which caused this massive change and which
were expressed with help of various different pictorial elements.
In spite of the connection of both the Egyptian hippopotamus deities and Minoan ‘genius’ with
water and purification, and of their shared apotropaic violent nature,9 the functions of ‘genius’ are
depicted in completely different ways to the Egyptian deity. The figure is characterized with different
objects, gestures and appears in different compositions. Its heroic character and likeness, domineering,
combative and protective nature, found its expression in struggling, mastering or carrying animals (Pl.
LXXXVIa)10 as well as flanking a central object or human figure: all motifs coming most probably

5 J.A. BLACK and A. GREEN, Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia. An Illustrated Dictionary (1992)
15-21; P. AMIET, “Zur Ikonographie der Siegel und ihrer Interpretation,” in E. KLENGEL-BRANDT
(ed.), Mit Sieben Siegeln versehen: das Siegel in Wirtschaft und Kunst des Alten Orients (1997) 82-91; A.
BERLEJUNG, “Die Reduktion von Komplexität. Das theologische Profil einer Gottheit und seine
Umsetzung in der Ikonographie am Beispiel des Gottes Aur in Assyrien des 1. Jt. v. Chr.,” in B.
GRONEBERG and H. SPIECKERMANN (eds), Die Welt der Götterbilder (2007) 9-56.
6 J. WEINGARTEN, The transformation of Egyptian Taweret into the Minoan Genius. A Study in Cultural
Transmission in the Middle Bronze Age (1991); identified already by Evans: EVANS, PM IV 430-467.
7 M.A.V. GILL, “The Minoan ‘Genius’,” AM 79 (1964) 1-21; C. BAURAIN and P. DARCQUE, “Un
triton en pierre à Mallia,” BCH 107:1 (1983) 3-73; M. J. MELLINK, “Anatolian libation pourers and the
Minoan Genius,” in A.E. FARKAS et al. (eds), Monsters and Demons in the Ancient and Medieval worlds. Papers
presented in honor of Edith Porada (1987) 65-72; C. BAURAIN, “Pour une autre interprétation des génies
minoens,” in P. DARCQUE and J.-C. POURSAT (eds), L’iconographie minoenne. Actes de la table ronde
d’Athènes (21-22 avril 1983) (1985) 99-118; Ch. SAMBIN, “Génie minoen et génie égyptien, un emprunt
raisonné,” BCH 113 (1989) 77-96; 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 : IVe symposium
international, 10-12 septembre 1992, Clermont-Ferrand (1995) 215-231; S. CHRYSSOULAKI, “A New
Approach to Minoan Iconography - An Introduction: The Case of the Minoan Genii,” in
MELETEMATA, 111-118; PHILLIPS (supra n. 3) Vol. I 165-167; L.A. HITCHCOCK, “Knossos is
burning: gender bending the Minoan genius,” in K. KOPAKA (ed.), Fylo: Engendering Prehistoric
‘Stratigraphies’ in the Aegean and the Mediterranean. Proceedings of an International Conference, University of Crete,
Rethymno 2-5 June 2005 (2009) 97-102; J. WEINGARTEN, “The Arrival of Egyptian Taweret and Bes(et)
on Minoan Crete: Contact and Choice,” in L. BOMBARDIERI et al. (eds), SOMA 2012. Identity and
Connectivity. Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Florence, Italy, 1-3 March 2012 I (2013)
371-378.
8 WEINGARTEN (supra n. 7) 372; PHILLIPS (supra n. 3) Vol. I 165-166; HITCHCOCK (supra n. 7) 98-
99.
9 WEINGARTEN (supra n. 7) 10-11.
10 See by: BAURAIN (supra n. 7) 102-110; REHAK (supra n. 7) 217-229; CHRYSSOULAKI (supra n. 7)
115-116; HITCHOCK (supra n. 7) 101-102.
 FOREIGN INFLUENCES ON THE AEGEAN BRONZE AGE RELIGIOUS ICONOGRAPHY 265

from the Near Eastern tradition.11 Considering this presumption, similar practice can also be suggested
for the motifs of libation and the incorporation of the figure into the adoration scenes.12
This accumulated variety of functions can be found on various worshippers, semi-divine figures
or hybrids, appearing in the Syro-Palestinian and Anatolian glyptic. In Syria-Palestine, it is the
antithetical group of humans, falcon headed figures or bull-men flanking/worshipping central figures
or objects, such as palm trees, stylized plants, pillars or standards. Being derived from Mesopotamian
or Egyptian tradition, their meaning was to secure fertility and prosperity, royal status and world
order.13
An affinity with Anatolian and Syrian artistic imagery, suggested already by M. Mellink,14 is
recognizable by the positions and gestures of contesting lions, heroes, bull-men or
supporting/protecting lion-dragons/griffins (Pl. LXXXVIb).15 The popular heroes are associated with
water through holding the elixir-vase, and libation and adoration is performed by interceding deities,16
worshipers and monkeys.17 The combination of diverse artistic traditions and motifs of various origin in
the Aegean is best demonstrated by the golden signet ring from Tiryns.18 On this ring, the whole
composition of the procession/presentation scene, as well as the seated divine figure with various filling
motifs clearly shows the connection with Near Eastern and particularly Anatolian tradition.19 The ring
demonstrates the creation of a newly designed presentation using foreign motifs of different origin, but
reflecting existing Minoan ideology. By choosing the hippopotamus deity – by no means one of the
most hideous hybrids – and connecting it with motifs and functions of other demons and cult servants,
the Minoans have created an universal multifunctional creature that was original, representational and
understandable throughout the Eastern Mediterranean at that time.

11 The combination of these Near Eastern motifs with the figure of Minoan Genius has been discussed by
CROWLEY (supra n. 3) 273-275; for the ‘Mastering of animals’ composition in the Aegean see: E.
SPARTZ, Das Wappenbild des Herrn und der Herrin der Tiere in der minoisch-mykenischen und frühgriechischen Kunst,
(1962) 22-39; CROWLEY (supra n. 3) 25-33; A. BARCLAY, “Potnia Theron: Adaptation of a Near
Eastern Image,” in POTNIA, 373-386; ARUZ (supra n. 3) 66, 199-200.
12 MELLINK (supra n. 7); ARUZ (supra n. 3) 84-85.
13 The motifs from both traditions are differently combined and seem to be interchangeble: O. KEEL, “Zur
Identifikation des Falkenköpfigen auf den Skarabäen der ausgehenden 13. und der 15. Dynastie,” in O.
KEEL et al. (eds), Studien zu den Stempelsiegeln aus Palästina, Israel (1989) 247-259; B. TEISSIER, Egyptian
Iconography on Syro-Palestinian Cylinder Seals of the Middle Bronze Age (1989) e.g. nos. 25, 28, 30, 73, 85, 190-
193, 214, 266-268; S. SCHROER, Die Ikonographie Palästinas, Israels und der Alte Orient. Eine Religionsgeschichte
in Bildern. Die Mittelbronzezeit (2008) 120-121, nos. 325-326; 128-129, nos. 339-340; 188-191, nos. 416-418;
306-307, nos. 550-552.
14 MELLINK (supra n. 7).
15 N. ÖZGÜÇ, The Anatolian Group of Cylinder Seal Impressions from Kültepe (1965) 70-73; for the contesting
scenes compare especially CMS III, no. 369 and CMS II.3, no. 105 with pl. XVI, fig. 49a, libation: nos.
29, 38, 40, 49b, 52, and probably protection: CMS XI, no. 208 with pl. II, figs. 5, 7. The so-called
‘Hunting demons’ are carrying animals on seals in C. DOUMET, Sceaux et cylindres orientaux : la collection
Chiha (1992) nos. 272, 277; also in A. OTTO, Die Entstehung und Entwicklung der klassisch-syrischen Glyptik
(2000) 244-245; bull-men are carrying animals-offerings also in the Old Babylonian glyptic, see: B.
BUCHANAN, Early Near Eastern Seals in the Yale Babylonian Collection (1981) 330-331, no. 937.
16 Anatolian male version of Babylonian suppliant goddess Lama, ÖZGUÇ (supra n. 15) 62-63; for the
Mesopotamian tradition see also E.D. VAN BUREN, The Flowing Vase and the God with the Streams (1933).
17 ÖZGÜÇ (supra n. 15) 73-74; J.-F. DE LAPÉROUSE, “Technical Notes on the Metropolitan Museum
Ivories,” in J. ARUZ (ed), Beyond Babylon. Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C. (2008) 90,
no. 54.
18 CMS I, no. 179.
19 J. ARUZ, “Syrian Seals and the Evidence for Cultural Interaction between the Levant and Crete,” in
MÜLLER ed. (supra n. 7) 1-21; also in ARUZ (supra n. 3) 175; compare with ÖZGÜÇ (supra n. 15) pl.
XV, fig. 46.
266 Veronika DUBCOVÁ

The hippopotamus deity was not the only hybrid creature which enriched the corpus of Aegean
religious images in the end of the Protopalatial period. Next to widespread sphinxes and griffins,20
there are several more rare examples, which were most probably inspired by different Near Eastern
prototypes. The animal-headed demons depicted on the bone plaque from Phaistos,21 are – according
to their form, position and gestures – clearly derived from Egyptian iconography, transmitted to the
Aegean either directly on the well-known magic wands22 or more probably intermediated through the
Old Syrian glyptic. 23 This type of barely identifiable hybrid creatures probably do not represent
specific deities, but instead concentrate as much divine power as possible into one figure.24 Similar
meaning might also be assumed for other Aegean hybrids combining animal and anthropomorphic
elements which appear in different periods.25

Frontal-headed creatures

Another association with Egyptian iconography has been raised by the discovery of the agade
seal in Petras, which depicts the most elaborate fantastic creature, found in the Aegean to date (Pl.
LXXXVIc). 26 Its resemblance to the Egyptian lion-demon Bes has been recognized by Olga
Krzyszkowska and its derivation from the female version Beset has been recently suggested by Judith
Weingarten. 27 However, comparing its highly transformed shape with the contemporary male or
female lion-demon images 28 and considering the process of the hippopotamus deity adaptation
(demonstrated above), one could wonder whether it were only Bes or Beset figures which served as
inspiration for this remarkable creature. Although we do not have more examples and thus cannot

20 For their adoption from the Near East see CROWLEY (supra n. 3) 40-53; ARUZ (supra n. 3) 106-108.
21 A. DELLA SETTA, La conchiglia di Phaistos e la religione micenea (1908); M.P. NILSSON, The Minoan-
Mycenaean religion and its survival in Greek religion (1950) 372-373; L. PERNIER and L. BANTI, Il palazzo
minoico di Festos, II: Il secondo palazzo (1950) 139, 583, fig. 90; C. LAMBROU-PHILIPSON, Hellenorientalia.
The Near Eastern presence in the Bronze Age Aegean, ca. 3000 – 1100 B.C. Interconnections based on the material record
and the written evidence (1990) 240-241, no. 158, fig. 63; A. KARETSOU (ed.), Krt-Aigyptos, politismikoi desmoi
trin chilietin. Meletes (2000) no. 137; F. M. CARINCI, “Western Messara and Egypt during the
Protopalatial period: A Minimalist View,” in KARETSOU (supra n. 21) Katalogos 35, fig. 1.
22 These are the auxiliary figures and protectors of the sun god on the magic wands, see: W.M.F. PETRIE,
Objects of Daily Use (1927) 42, pl. XXXVI, fig. 11; to their usual identification: H. ALTENMÜLLER,
Apotropaia und die Götter Mittelägyptens I (1965) 143-162; II (1965) 121, fig. 16.
23 In particular piece in the Metropolitan Museum New York, Accession Number: 1999.325.154,
http://www.metmuseum.org/collection/the-collection-online/search/327750 (access on 25.06.2014); see
also: TEISSIER (supra n. 13) 119-120, nos. 146, 256-259.
24 E. HORNUNG, “Komposite Gottheiten in der ägyptischen Ikonographie,” in Ch. UEHLINGER (ed.),
Images as Media. Sources for the cultural history of the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean (1st Millennium BCE)
(2000) 20; this seems to be the case of many hybrid creatures in Syro-Palestinian glyptic; also TEISSIER
(supra n. 13) 119: describes them as part of ‘nature mythology’ with various roles and attributes.
25 From the Protopalatial period see e.g. the griffin-demon by ARUZ (supra n. 3) 112; as well as other
combinations in the Neopalatial era: ARUZ (supra n. 3) 173-174; later examples are especially seals of the
Zakro Master-Workshop: J. WEINGARTEN, “The Zakro Master and Questions of Gender,” in K.
KOPAKA ed. (supra n. 7) 139-149.
26 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), 153-155, fig. 8.
27 KRYSZKOWSKA (supra n. 26) 154; WEINGARTEN (supra n. 7) 373-374.
28 See J.F. ROMANO, The Bes-Image in Pharaonic Egypt (1990): originating already in the Old Kingdom, it
gained importance mostly during the Middle Kingdom, where it appears under name the Aha, mostly on
the magic wands, statuettes and amulets, but also in other media and occurred rarely also in Syro-
Palestinian (Ch. EDER, Die ägyptischen Motive in der Glyptik des östlichen Mittelmeerraumes zu Anfang des 2. Jts. v.
Chr. [1995] 131-134, no. 32, 123; TEISSIER [supra n. 13] 78-79, no. 132); and Anatolian region (H.
KOSAY, Alaça Höyük [1944] 31, pl. XLIV; ROMANO [supra n. 28] no. 47). Its frequent appearance as
Bes began from the New Kingdom onwards.
 FOREIGN INFLUENCES ON THE AEGEAN BRONZE AGE RELIGIOUS ICONOGRAPHY 267

consider its further functions and roles, its shape reveals a strong transformation of the initial
prototype.29 The inspiration for this artistic portrayal may have come from several sources and cultural
tradition, and although it may not have found a firm place in the Aegean pictorial repertoire, the
individual elements composing it were perceived and used for other depictions – singularly or in
combinations – in different contexts, media and periods.
The essential element of this image is the frontal rendition of the body and the face. The
presentation of the facial features, the ears and the two streamers projecting from its head, can (over
time) be seen as the Minoanized version of the feline face, ears and mane of Bes/Beset.30 Nevertheless,
the close relationship of this image with a group of seals depicting the isolated frontal heads with curly
locks and surrounding objects, indicates a different tradition, visible also on other Minoan examples.31
Especially in the case of the frontal heads from Malia32 and central Crete,33 the two locks resemble the
Hathor hairstyle, typical for the frontal head rendering of this Egyptian goddess. 34 This motif
symbolizes the beauty and erotic aspect of the goddess and although it originated in Egypt, it was one
of the most popular motifs on scarab and cylinder seals coming from Middle Bronze Age Syria-
Palestine and was used also in Anatolia.35 Considering the later date of most of the Syro-Palestinian
scarabs, they were probably not the immediate prototypes,36 but might reflect the influence of Hathor
iconography, its similar use and protective/apotropaic character.37 The Minoan acquaintance with
this motif or with its more schematic version, so called ‘Hathor symbol’38 could also possibly be
suggested by other images, often nicknamed ‘Goblin-like’ creatures with enigmatic tripartite
extremities or streams, raised limbs and curious grimaces, known from seals or painted on vessels.39
There are nevertheless other fantastic creatures, the so called ‘nude heroes’, whose combination
of curls and bristly hair on the top of the head, could have played some role in the creation of the
Aegean figures; considering their identification with the name Lahmu – ‘Hairy’. The naked heroes
were mythical protective demons, contesting animals and other creatures and assisting the gods,

29 WEINGARTEN (supra n. 7) 373-374.

30 Compare e.g. the statuettes in ROMANO (supra n. 28) 153-155, no. 48 from Esna (D. DOWNES, The
excavations at Esna 1905-1906 [1974] 106, 129, fig. 90), 53B from Byblos (M. DUNAND, Fouilles de Byblos
II, 1933-1938 [1950] 767, pl. XCV) or the bone plaque from Alaça Höyük no. 47 (KOSAY [supra n. 28]).
31 KRZYSZKOWSKA (supra n. 26) 154-155, fig. 9; J. YOUNGER, “Ruler Iconography: A Conspectus,” 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) 166, nos. 68-70, Pl. LVII, e-g; to the other frontal heads see: H. BIESANTZ, “Die Minoischen
Bildnisgemmen,” MarbWPr (1958) 11-18: so-called ‘Zerrmasken und Mischwesen’/ ‘Gorgoneia’, esp. nos.
20-27, Pl. 12-13; J. WEINGARTEN, The Zakro Master and his Place in Prehistory (1983) 73-74; Pl. 10A-J.
32 CMS III, no. 237b; CMS III, no. 238.
33 CMS VI, no. 101a.
34 EVANS, PM III 419-420; YOUNGER (supra n. 31) 166; WEINGARTEN (supra n. 7) 143.
35 S. SCHROER, “Die Göttin auf den Stempelsiegeln aus Palästina/Israel,” in KEEL et al. eds (supra n. 13)
139-207; associated with Hathor were various other goddesses (Astarte, Qadesh) and hybrid creatures
(sphinxes, Bull-men) wearing its hairdo.
36 Most of the Palestinian scarabs are dated into the period MBIIB (1700-1550 BC), succeeding the Old
Palace Period (SCHROER [supra n. 13] 100, nos. 301-302), but the tradition of Hathoric iconography is
much older, see SCHROER (supra n. 13) 146-153.
37 The motif seems to be transmitted trough the Anatolian region, e.g. on seal in Oxford (CMS VI, no. 128),
from Knossos (CMS VI, no. 130) or on the terracotta plaque from Quartier Mu, Malia, ARUZ (supra n. 3)
106-107, nos. 221-222.
38 SCHROER (supra n. 13) 146-151, especially figs. 68 and 92.
39 CMS II.2, no. 251; EVANS, PM I 703-704, fig. 526-527; WEINGARTEN (supra n. 31) 108-109, Pl. 10;
H-G. BIESANTZ (supra n. 31) no. 27; L. MORGAN, “Frontal Face and the Symbolism of Death in
Aegean Glyptic,” in MÜLLER ed. (supra n. 7) 136-137, fig. 1-3. Very similar depiction can be found on a
seal from Malia (interpreted as ram’s head, CMS III, 156b; an imported scarab with Hathor symbol
comes from Mycenae (Grave circle A, LH IIA context): LAMBROU-PHILLIPSON (supra n. 21) no. 436;
compare also with the so-called Omega-symbol on the stone mould from Anatolia in the Layard
Collection, K. EMRE, Anatolian Lead Figurines and their Stone Moulds (1971) no. 40, Pl. II.4.
268 Veronika DUBCOVÁ

together with the already mentioned bull-men and human headed bulls (Pl. LXXXVId).40 Their full
cheeks, starring eyes and opened mouth evoke the full-faced rendering of the Aegean frontal heads.41
These familiar demons, widespread in the Near East, symbolized power over nature. Via their
superhuman character and staring frontal gaze, they were mediators between the mythical and
exterior world, providing the object with amuletic value, and its owner with magical protection.42 That
a stronger tradition of frontal heads associated with bulls might have existed is possibly indicated by a
group of later seals, which bear human frontal face associated with bull or bull head.43 The influence of
the faces of heroes or bull-men seems to be even clearer on some other seals44 as well as on some
decorated vessels.45 A second possible source for the frontal-face images is the well-known face of the
monstrous giant Humwawa/Humbaba, symbol of evil forces, defeated by Gilgamesh and Enkidu –
often linked with the hero and bull-man.46 Its face, shown either isolated or with a full body, is often
related to the Hathor-head, with which it can often fuse,47 as well as to Bes, according to its leonine
and dwarf-like nature.48 Its common representation on terracotta reliefs49 might have had greater

40 BLACK and GREEN (supra n. 5) 115; F.A.M. WIGGERMANN, Mesopotamian Protective Spirits. The ritual
texts (1992) 164-166.
41 Possible relationship between these figures and frontal headed figures in the Aegean has been suggested
by MORGAN (supra n. 39) 135-136.
42 Occurring on the seals mainly from the Early Dynastic period onwards, the symbolical role of these
demons was to protect the hoards and the whole culture (for their further functions see also supra n. 15).
The so called heroes with their interchangeable counterparts bull-men and human-headed bulls were
popular mostly in the Akkade period, occur often in the Old Babylonian, Old Syrian and Anatolian and
Mitanni period. See H. FRANKFORT, Cylinder Seals. A Documentary Essay on the Art and Religion of the Ancient
Near East (1939) 62-67, 85-91; R.M. BOEHMER, Die Entwicklung der Glyptik während der Akkad-Zeit (1965) 3-
46; D. COLLON, First impressions. Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East (1989) 23-31; in Syrian glyptic:
OTTO (supra n. 15) 242-244; in Anatolia: ÖZGÜÇ (supra n. 15); S. SCHROER, Die Ikonographie Palästinas,
Israels und der Alte Orient. Eine Religionsgeschichte in Bildern. Vom ausgehenden Mesolitikum bis zur Frühbronzezeit
(2005) 187-188; S.K. COSTELLO, “The Mesopotamian ‘Nude Hero’: Context and Interpretations,” in
D.B. COUNTS and B. ARNOLD (eds), The Master of Animals in Old World Iconography (2010) 25-35. For the
discussion of their frontal gaze see K. SONIK, “The Monster’s Gaze. Vision as Mediator between time
and space in the art of Mesopotamia,” in L. FELIU (ed), Time and history in the ancient Near East. Proceedings of
the 56th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Barcelona 26 - 30 July 2010 (2013) 293-296.
43 E.g. CMS II.3, no. 115, CMS II.8, nos. 217-220; see discussion in BIESANTZ (supra n. 31) 10-11, pl. 12:
so called ‘non-individual human heads’; YOUNGER (supra n. 31) Pl. LVIIe-f, Pl. LVIIa-c.; also in R.
JUNG, “Menschenopferdarstellungen? Zur Analyse minoischer und mykenischer Siegelbilder,” PZ 72
(1997) 144-146.
44 Striking similarity provides the seal in Oxford: V.E.G. KENNA, Cretan Seals. Together with a Catalogue of the
Minoan Gems in the Ashmolean Museum (1960) 154, pl. 20, no. 1952.107 (attributed originally to Gemmae
dubitandae): with its animal ears and probably horns, see the discussion of this seal by KRZYSZKOWSKA
(in this volume); compare with Early Dynastic Syrian style on: D. HOMÈS-FREDERICQ, Les sceaux-
cylindres de Syrie : 3300-300 avant J.-C., Exposition 11 mars au 26 avril 1981, Rolzegels uit Syrië (1982) 20, no. 21;
other possible examples: CMS III, no. 105; CMS I, no. 467, no. 431; also in WEINGARTEN (supra n. 31)
pl. 8C, 10E; J. YOUNGER, “The Knossos ‘Jewel Fresco’ Reconsidered,” in C. GALLOU et al. (eds),
Dioskouroi. Studies presented to W.G. Cavanagh and C.B. Mee on the anniversary of their 30-year joint contribution to
Aegean Archaeology (2008) fig. 7.
45 E.g. from Malia, see J.-C. POURSAT, “Iconographie minoenne : continuités et ruptures,”, in
DARCQUE and POURSAT eds (supra n. 7) 52-54, figs. 1-3; or on a cup rhyton from Knossos,
WEINGARTEN (supra n. 31) pl. 10K.
46 BLACK and GREEN (supra n. 5) 106; COLLON (supra n. 42) 183-186; W.G. LAMBERT, “Gilgamesh in
Literature and Art. The second and first millennia,” in FARKAS et al. (eds) (supra n. 7) 37-52; D.
COLLON, “The Depiction of Giants,” in H.U. STEYMANS (ed), Gilgamesch. Ikonographie eines Helden
(2010).
47 In the Syro-Palestinian glyptic, by gaining its locks: TEISSIER (supra n. 13) 102, no. 201.
48 Compare the Bes plaque in M.T. BARRELET, Figurines et reliefs en terre cuite de la Mésopotamie antique. Potiers,
termes de métier, procédés de fabrication et production (1968) pl. LXXIII, no. 758 with ROMANO (supra n. 28) no.
46.
 FOREIGN INFLUENCES ON THE AEGEAN BRONZE AGE RELIGIOUS ICONOGRAPHY 269

influence also in the later time as is indicated by the fragments of an animal-shaped faience vessel from
Mycenaean Tiryns.50
The amuletic value of frontal human heads was also employed in different media, other than
seals as illustrated by the example of a human-headed pendant, creating the necklace depicted on the
‘Jewel Fresco’ in Knossos (Pl. LXXXVIe).51 The existence of such necklaces, as we know them (for
example from Egypt)52 is also indicated by a human-headed bead from Kastri on Kythera.53 On the
Knossian fresco, the facial features and big ears are somewhat reminiscent of the Hathor heads.54
Related human heads with this type of great circular ringlets are known from seals or amulets
depicting Nude goddess, originate from the Assyrian Colony Period in Anatolia, but are known very
well from the entire Eastern Mediterranean (Pl. LXXXVIIa).55 Two imported pieces from Troy and
Crete indicate that such amulets were popular and may have been imported or served as inspiration
for local production of jewellery.56
In spite of the different cultural traditions, the monstrous apotropaic and mediatory faces of Bes,
Humbaba, Hero/Bull-man and protective of Hathor/’Naked goddess’ seem to have had an impact on
several images, all found in the Aegean. They reflect the sharing of elemental ideas of magical power
of frontal headed deities and demons. Although there are good reasons to connect some of the frontal
heads, mostly of animals, with death, the liminal sphere57 and sacrifice,58 the primary function of their
human counterparts appears to be apotropaic and protective.

Bowlegged dwarfs and ‘Baubo-position’

Another important feature – visible on the Petras figurine, which is also to be found on different
Aegean pictures, is the bowlegged position, typical for the dwarf-like form and the nature of Bes. The
connotations of this position are of comic, monstrous and erotic nature and it was used for dwarf-like
beings, not only for Egyptian Bes,59 but also for male bowlegged dwarfs, appearing as protective and
salutary demons in the Old Babylonian glyptic.60 There are a couple of seals from the Aegean, in

49 BARRELET (supra n. 48) 196-198, pl. XVI-XVII, nos. 174-183; pl. LXXIII, nos. 758-760.
50 M. KOSTOULA and J. MARAN, “A Group of Animal-Headed Faience Vessels from Tiryns,” in I.
GRUBER MAYER et al. (eds), All the Wisdom of the East: Studies in Near Eastern Archaeology and History in Honor
of Eliezer D. Oren (2012) 208-209. There seems to be continuous tradition of this motif on the mainland, see
e.g.: J. BURR CARTER, “The Masks from Ortheia,” AJA 91 (1987) 355-383.
51 EVANS, PM I 312, fig. 231; 525-526, fig. 383; M. CAMERON, “Notes on Some New Joins and
Additions to Well Known Frescoes from Knossos,” in W.C. BRICE (ed.), Europa. Studien zur Geschichte und
Epigraphik der Frühen Aegaeis. Festschrift für Ernst Grumach (1967) 45-74, fig. 1, 5; J.G. YOUNGER,
“Representations of Minoan-Mycenaean Jewelry,” in EIK
N, 182, no. 52; K.P. FOSTER, “Visage and
likeness in Minoan Art,” in TEHNH, 136; D. EVELY, Fresco: A Passport into the Past. Minoan Crete through the
Eyes of Mark Cameron (1999) 164; F. BLAKOLMER, “Afrikaner in der minoischen Ikonographie? Zum
Fremdenbild in der bronzezeitlichen Ägäis,” Ägypten und Levante 12 (2002) 71-94; YOUNGER (supra n. 44)
76-89.
52 See e.g. the necklace with Hathor heads from Tell el-Dabca in the Metropolitan Museum New York:
http://metmuseum.org/collection/the-collection-online/search/546025 (access on 8th of July 2014).
53 J.N. COLDSTREAM and G.L. HUXLEY (eds), Kythera. Excavations and Studies conducted by the University of
Pennsylvania Museum and the British School at Athens (1972) 208, no. V63; 134, tab. 59, 63.
54 Supra (n. 35).
55 J.V. CANBY, “Early Bronze ‘Trinket’ moulds,” Iraq 27, no. 1 (1965) 42-61: compare esp. pieces 43-44,
pl. IXb, d, e; EMRE (supra n. 39) nos. 34-35, 37-38; Pl. I.2-3, Pl. II.1,2, 3a.
56 A. EVANS, Cretan Pictographs and Prae-Phoenician Script (1895) 132, fig. 137; K. BRANIGAN, Aegean
Metalwork of the Early and Middle Bronze Age (1974) 50-51, 121, Pl. 24, nos. 3129 (Troy), 3130 (Crete); piece
from Troy see EMRE (supra n. 39) pl. I.1, no. 32; LAMBROU-PHILLIPSON (supra n. 21) 200-201, no
38.
57 MORGAN (supra n. 39).
58 JUNG (supra n. 43) 164.
59 ROMANO (supra n. 28) 26-27, manifested already on late Old Kingdom amulet, no. 4.
60 BLACK and GREEN (supra n. 5) 73; various examples in BUCHANAN (supra n. 15) nos. 734, 861, 865,
270 Veronika DUBCOVÁ

which similar figures can be identified.61 An example of experimentation with such motifs is the amulet
from Protopalatial Phaistos, resembling the form of monkey,62 but with ram-shaped horns and arched-
shaped limbs in a squatting position.63
Even more common is the squatting position with widespread legs, the so-called ‘Baubo-
position’ by female figures, often interpreted as parturient. We know it also from the Near East, where
it has two main meanings. The image of the child-giving position is limited to vessels and objects,
which are directly connected or designated for pregnant or nurturing women, which might be the case
also in the Aegean, where we have few such examples.64 However, this seems never to be the case for
seals and amulets images, where the position has clearly erotic significance and is used for mortal
women,65 and in Old Syrian glyptic for special depictions of the so-called ‘Naked goddess’, squatting
and often holding the boarders of her dress (Pl. LXXXVIIb).66 This motif found its way into the
Aegean iconography in the Protopalatial period, as is demonstrated by a prism from Malia, depicting a
(probably naked) female figure with widespread legs, raised arms and open-mouthed frontal gaze with
bristly hair on her head (Pl. LXXXVIIc).67 Although this whole figure (similar to the Petras figurine),
seems not to become a firm part of the repertoire, we find the motif of ‘Baubo-position’ in other
depictions such as the painting on a vessel from Malia,68 on pendants69 and on other seals,70 especially
later on many seals of the Zakro Master Workshop, for which this Syrian connection has already been
proposed.71

872, 879 etc.; L. AL-GAILANI WERR, Studies in the chronology and regional style of Old Babylonian Cylinder seals
(1988) e.g. no. 126, pl. XVI.1, no. 190g, pl. XXVII.6; U. WINTER, Frau und Göttin. Exegetische und
ikonographische Studien zum weiblichen Gottesbild im alten Israel und in dessen Umwelt (1983) figs. 94, 100.
61 CMS XI, 255; CMS XII, 15b.
62 Compare the amulet from Kommos: J.W. SHAW and M.C. SHAW (eds), Kommos: an Excavation on the
South Coast of Crete. Vol. I. The Kommos Region and Houses of the Minoan Town (1996) Pl. 4.40, no. 39.
63 D. LEVI, Festos e la civita minoica I (1976) 2, 560, fig. 886, pin. 163h, LXIXd-e; KARETSOU (supra n. 21)
Katalogos no. 37, 59-60; PHILLIPS (supra n. 3) Vol. II 217, no. 451, also 413, no. 271.
64 For example the figurine from Phaistos (PHILLIPS [supra n. 3] Vol. II no. 452; KARETSOU [supra n.
21] Katalogos 59, no. 36) or from Gournia (KARETSOU [supra n. 21] Katalogos no. 263). For the
‘Gravidenflaschen’ see E. BRUNNER-TRAUT, “Gravidenflasche. Das Salben des Mutterleibes,” in A.
KUSCHKE and E. KUTSCH (eds), Archäologie und Altes Testament. Festschrift für Kurt Galling zum 8. Jan.
(1970) 35-48; M. WEIPPERT, “Kanaanäische ‘Gravidenflaschen’. Zur Geschichte einer ägyptischen
Gefäßgattung in der asiatischen Provinz,” Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina Verein 93 (1977) 268-282: because
of their later date, the Egyptian vessels are usually not considered to serve as prototypes for the Aegean
objects. However, there have also been older examples from the MBIIA-B, connected with the Syro-
Palestinian tradition, see vessels from Byblos WEIPPERT (supra n. 64) 269, no. 1, fig. 1; and from Tell el-
Dabca: D.A. ASTON, B. BADER and G.K. KUNST, “Fishes, Ringstands, Nudes and Hippos. A
Preliminary Report on Pit Complex L81,” Ägypten und Levante 19 (2009) 80, pl. 12, no. 9019G.
65 J. ASSANTE, “Sex, magic and the liminal body in the Erotic Art and texts of the Old Babylonian
Period,” in S. PARPOLA (ed), Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 47th Rencontre
Assyriologique Internationale, Helsinki, July 2-6, 2001 (2002) 44-47, Figs. 10-12; motif on seals, see: WINTER
(supra n. 60) 343-346; figs. 332-346.
66 OTTO (supra n. 15) 211; in particular SCHROER (supra n. 13) 181-182, no. 403.
67 M. ANASTASIADOU and M. POMADÈRE, “Le sceau à ‘la figure féminine aux bras levés’ du secteur
Pi de Malia,” BCH 135.1 (2012) 63-71.
68 J. WEINGARTEN, “Aspects of Tradition and Innovation in the Work of the Zakro Master,” in
DARCQUE and POURSAT eds (supra n. 7) 175, fig. 22; similar position can be seen also in CMS II.2,
no. 127.
69 PHILLIPS Vol. II (supra n. 3) 155-156, no. 312.
70 Other prism from Malia, see CMS VS3, no. 22.
71 J. WEINGARTEN, “The Zakro master and questions of gender,” in KOPAKA ed. (supra n. 7) 142-145.
 FOREIGN INFLUENCES ON THE AEGEAN BRONZE AGE RELIGIOUS ICONOGRAPHY 271

Covered nakedness?

The most significant feature of the ‘Baubo-position’ is the erotic aspect of the naked human (in
most cases), female figure. Although full nakedness never became common and was only rarely
represented in Aegean art, it is possible that its regular presentation in Near Eastern art could have
had substantial impact. 72 I have already mentioned the ‘Naked goddess’, which was surely not
unknown to the Aegeans, since it was one of the most widespread and influential divine figures in the
whole of the Near East. The image of the naked female figure – as a symbol of fertility and magical
power used to protect its owner, and an intermediate between the owner and other gods to secure him
the desired benefits – was used in many ways, in both the private and official sphere since the earliest
time. Her divine power was also manifested through her association with other deities, animals and
adorants. Thus, we can see the ‘Naked goddess’ as the partner of the weather god, as a kind of
suppliant goddess, or just a protective deity, often identified with aspects of the great goddesses such as
Ishtar, Ashera or Hathor.73 The huge amount of popular, mass-produced and omnipresent images
throughout the entire 2nd Millennium cannot have gone un-noticed by the Aegeans. From the
Protopalatial period, especially from Malia, we have several examples of naked female figures. Besides
the afore-mentioned steatite prism and painting on the rhyton, there is another seal image74 which
evokes depictions of the ‘Naked goddesses’.
The pendulous breasts with underlying hands, together with the striking frontal face of the
female was applied on a bridge-spouted jar (Pl. LXXXVIId)75 providing the vessel with a symbol of
fertility. Its rounded features and larger belly were linked with the Egyptian tradition of the
‘Gravidenflaschen’, 76 but its style and iconography show similarities with Syrian and Babylonian
terracotta reliefs (Pl. LXXXVIIe) and relief-decorated vessels, where an image of a naked female
holding her breasts or laying her hands on her often corpulent belly was a common motif.77 From the
Neopalatial Period on Crete up to the Late Helladic III on the Mycenaean mainland, the connection
between the Near Eastern ‘Naked goddesses’ is visible on faience,78 glass,79 ivory80 or clay plaques,81

72 On nakedness in the Aegean art see: S. BÖHM, Die “nackte Göttin”. Zur Ikonographie und Deutung unbekleideter
weiblicher Figuren in der frühgriechischen Kunst (1990); comparison between the Near Eastern and Aegean
tradition see also in N. MARINATOS, The Goddess and the Warrior. The Naked Goddess and Mistress of Animals
in Early Greek Religion (2005).
73 SCHROER (supra n. 13) 47-48; OTTO (supra n. 15) 206-211; Ch. UEHLINGER, “Nackte Göttin,” in
D.O. EDZARD (ed), Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie IX (1998) 46-64; SCHROER
(supra n. 13) 92-138; F. BLOCHER, Untersuchungen zum Motiv der nackten Frau in der altbabylonischen Zeit
(Münchener vorderasiatische Studien 4, 1987).
74 CMS II.2, no. 127.
75 B. DETOURNAY, J.-C. POURSAT, and F. VANDENABEELE, 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) 118-120, no. 170, figs. 166-168; WEINGARTEN (supra n. 31) 94, Pl. 19D.; KARETSOU
(supra n. 21) Katalogos 58, no. 35; PHILLIPS (supra n. 3) Vol. II no. 378.
76 See supra (n. 64).
77 Its un-Minoan appearance has been noticed by PHILLIPS (supra n. 3) Vol. I 216. Compare it with
examples of relief-decorated vessels and plaques, BARRELET (supra n. 48) 79-84, figs. 55, 56, pl. XLVI,
487-488, pl. LV, 584.
78 From Knossos see KARETSOU (supra n. 21) Katalogos no. 78.
79 S. MÜLLER-CELKA, “Les personnages féminins des perles mycéniennes en verre bleu,” in POTNIA,
277-290.
80 Fragmentary ivory statuette from Mycenae: BÖHM (supra n. 72) 15, no. M3, Taf. 1; also A. XENAKI-
SAKKELARIOU, Oi thalamotoi tafoi ton Mykinon: anaskafis Chr. Tsounta (1887-1898) (1985) 289, fig. 144, no.
4940: although its gender has been questioned (see JUNG in this volume), the form of its body, hips and
chest, as well as the joint legs and pubic triangle point to a female rather than male figure. Compare with
Anatolian figurine from Kültepe in WINTER (supra n. 60) fig. 79 or plaques and statuettes: figs. 68-69;
because of its uniqueness in Aegean art, it may be an import.
81 SHAW and SHAW (eds) (supra n. 62) 689, pl. 4.43; G. RETHEMIOTAKIS, Anthropomorphiki Piloplastiki
stin Kriti: apo ti Neoanaktoriki eos tin Ypominoiki periodo (1998) fig. 7, nos. 108-109: this gesture is usually
272 Veronika DUBCOVÁ

beads or figurines, via the gesture of holding/supporting breasts.82

Exactly as their Near Eastern counterparts, they were used and found in various contexts and
seem to depict divine protective and intermediary figures. The greatest difference – with the exception
of the ivory statuette from Mycenae –,83 is that they are not naked. The only fully naked figures, whose
Near Eastern derivation has never been doubted, are the golden plaques from Mycenae.84 Often
compared with the later so-called ‘Astarte plaques’, their form, as well as the connection with
birds/doves indicate possible inspiration also from the Anatolian lead figurines.85 On most of the other
depictions, the exposed bare breasts are the only motif reminding us of the ‘Naked goddesses’, the rest
of the body is covered. This phenomenon is also seen on the figurine from Petras, as a kind of Minoan
transformation, rejecting the full nudity, but leaving the breasts exposed.86 This may also be the case
for the numerous images of exposed breasts of the Aegean goddesses.87 Clothed in the long flounced
skirt (which is also most probably of Near Eastern origin),88 they resemble the Mesopotamian deities,
which are above all the suppliant goddess Lama/Lamassu89 the most frequently depicted goddess in
the whole Old Babylonian and Old Syrian glyptic. Simultaneously with the ‘Naked goddess’, they are
protective angels, intermediating between the worshiper and the god. Thus, according to their
appearance in elaborated skirts and bodices leaving the breasts exposed, the character of the Aegean
goddesses might have been very similar. This could be also the possible answer for the problematic
identification of their character with un-clearly defined functions/sphere of their influence, as well as
an explanation for the assumption of this “goddess-look” by earthly women – the participants of
various palace activities (Knossos) or rituals (Akrotiri, Xeste 3) 90 and their problematic mutual
differentiation. On the other hand, these motifs might have been combined with other aspects of other
well-known protective deities (e.g. Beset), enlarging their magic-protective power.91

Conclusion

Without implying that all the motifs discussed here are of entirely foreign origin, there is
sufficient evidence to suggest that they are at least inspired by, or related to, foreign ideas, although
further evidence is needed to fully corroborate this hypothesis. Looking at the examples discussed, we
can at least to some extent follow the process of their adaptation, and the selection preferences. The
motifs seem to be transformed,92 organized into distinctive design, combined with other motifs or

interpreted as ‘chest gesture’ and conected with praying: E. SAPOUNA-SAKELLARAKI, Die bronzenen
Menschenfiguren auf Kreta und in der Ägäis (1995) 106-108.
82 Most of these ‘Astarte-plaques’ appear in the 2nd half of the 2nd millennium, see examples in WINTER
(supra n. 60) figs. 38-56; also L. BADRE, Les figurines anthropomorphes en terre cuite à l’Âge du Bronze en Syrie
(1980) Pl. VII-VIII, XI.8-11; BARRELET (supra n. 48) pl. XXXVIII – XLIII from Tello (Girsu).
83 That nakedness and sexuality was not unfamiliar to the Aegeans, is also suggested by the bronze statuette
from Makrygialos with its emphasized genitals; see E. MANTZOURANI, “Sexuality or Fertility Symbol?
The Bronze Figurine from Makrygialos,” in E. MANTZOURANI and P.P. BETANCOURT (eds),
Philistor: Studies in Honor of Costis Davaras (2012) 105-112.
84 G. KARO, Die Schachtgräber von Mykenai (1930) Pl. XXVII, 27-28.
85 SCHROER (supra n. 13) nos. 400, 442; also BURKERT (supra n. 2) 21-22, fig. II.1-3.
86 Also suggestion by WEINGARTEN (supra n. 7) 373.
87 On their possible meaning see Ch. MORRIS, “The iconography of the bared breast in Aegean Bronze
Age art,” in KOPAKA ed. (supra n. 7) 247.
88 B. JONES, “The Minoan ‘Snake Goddess.’ New Interpretations of her Costume and Identity,” in
POTNIA, 259-265.
89 A. SPYCKET, “La Déese Lama,” RA 54 (1960), 73-84; D.J. WISEMAN, The goddess Lama at Ur (1960)
166-171; AL-GAILANI WERR (supra n. 60) 19-20; OTTO (supra n. 15) 211-212.
90 See JONES, VLACHOPOULOS etc. in this volume.
91 Compare the wooden statue from Thebes J. QUIBELL, The Ramesseum (1898) 3, pl. III no. 12;
ROMANO (supra n. 28) no. 52 with the s.c. “Snake Goddess” EVANS, PM I 500-505, figs. 359-362.
92 This phenomenon is very well known by other imported motifs referred to as ‘aegeanisation‘ by
CROWLEY (supra n. 3) 282; or ‘Ent-orientalisierung’ F. BLAKOLMER, “Gottheiten auf Tieren. Zur
Transformation orientalischer Bildmotive in der minoisch-mykenischen Ikonographie,” Ägypten und Levante
 FOREIGN INFLUENCES ON THE AEGEAN BRONZE AGE RELIGIOUS ICONOGRAPHY 273

incorporated into scenes and compositions, sometimes coming from different cultural areas, visual
traditions and also from various time periods. Deities of lower rank, monsters, demons, motifs of
frontal faces, curious headdress, and squatting position or nakedness, are the motifs which the
Minoans were interested in and which stay for protection, benefit, intermediary and fertility purposes.
Beside the pictorial representation of all the ‘inspiring’ deities mentioned here, there are also numerous
descriptions of their forces and inscriptions, which mention their character. Taweret, Beset, other
Egyptian demons and the Hathor-head/symbol are often labelled with the SA-sign – meaning
protection and power, or inscriptions such as: “All protection and life around him”.93 The term
lamma/lammasu has widely been used for “protective/protective spirit” 94 and together with lahmu,
general term for the heroes, consorts of god Ea, they described the guardians of gateways, protectors
and intermediaries.95 The most important phase of the perception of foreign motifs was the late
Protopalatial and early Neopalatial period, although the influx of foreign inspiration seems never to
have disappeared completely. Many of the incoming motifs are of Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Syro-
Palestinian origin, but seem to be transmitted through the region and art of Syria-Palestine and
Anatolia with their own transformation, mostly on seals and amulets, maybe jewels. Nevertheless, the
great variety of potential prototypes and sources of inspiration clearly shows, that in order to interpret
the pictures we have to consider all the possibilities.

Veronika DUBCOVÁ

23 (2013) 72.
93 PHILLIPS (supra n. 3) Vol. I 159, n. 790.
94 O. KEEL and S. SCHROER, Eva – Mutter alles Lebendigen. Frauen und Göttinnenidole aus dem Alten Orient
(2004) 21, 95-96, 102-103, nos. 49-50, 54-55; SPYCKET (supra n. 89).
95 COSTELLO (supra n. 42) 32.
274 Veronika DUBCOVÁ

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Pl. LXXXVIa Rock crystal lentoid seal from Knossos, LM II-IIIA1 (after CMS III, no. 369).
Pl. LXXXVIb Cylinder seal impression from Kültepe Lev. II (after ÖZGÜÇ [supra n. 15] pl. XVI, 49a).
Pl. LXXXVIc Agade seal from Petras, MM (after KRZYSZKOWSKA [supra n. 26] 154, fig. 8).
Pl. LXXXVId Akkadian cylinder seal impression from Tello (after P. AMIET, “Cylinder seals of the Agade
period,” in E. PORADA [ed.], Ancient Art in Seals [1980] fig. II-2).
Pl. LXXXVIe Reconstruction of the ‘Jewel Fresco’ from Knossos (after M.A.S. CAMERON, “ ‘Palatial’
Thematic System in the Knossos Murals. Last Notes on Knossos Frescoes,” 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] 323, fig. 5).
Pl. LXXXVIIa Anatolian mould impression in Louvre (after EMRE [supra n. 39] pl. II, 3a).
Pl. LXXXVIIb Old Syrian cylinder seal (after SCHROER [supra n. 13] 181, no. 403).
Pl. LXXXVIIc Steatite prism from Malia, MM (after ANASTASIADOU and POMADÈRE [supra n. 67]
66, fig. 3).
Pl. LXXXVIId Terracotta vessel protome from Malia, MM (after DETOURNAY et al. [supra n. 75] 119, fig.
168).
Pl. LXXXVIIe Old Babylonian terracotta relief from Sinkara (Larsa) (after BARRELET [supra n. 48] pl. LV,
584).
 LXXXVI

a
b
c

e
LXXXVII

c
e