This pdf is a digital offprint of your contribution in B. Davis and R. Laffineur (eds), Neôteros. Studies in Bronze Age Aegean Art and Archaeology in Honor of Professor John G. Younger, ISBN 978-90-429-4179-3 https://www.peetersleuven.be/detail.php?search_key=1079439&series_number_str=44&l ang=en 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 openaccess 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 44 Annales liégeoises et PASPiennes d’archéologie égéenne NEΩTEΡOΣ STUDIES IN BRONZE AGE AEGEAN ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN HONOR OF PROFESSOR JOHN G. YOUNGER ON THE OCCASION OF HIS RETIREMENT Edited by Brent DAVIS and Robert LAFFINEUR PEETERS LEUVEN - LIÈGE 2020 CONTENTS Preface John G. Younger’s vita: “My first 74 years” Bibliography of John G. Younger vii ix xvii A. SCRIPTS AND LANGUAGES Thomas G. PALAIMA Problems in Minoan and Mycenaean Writing Style and Practice: The Strange Case of *33 ra3 on Pylos Tablet Aa 61 3 Yves DUHOUX Minoan Language or Languages? 15 Brent DAVIS and Miguel VALÉRIO Names and Designations of People in Linear A: A Contextual Study of Tablets Ht 85 and 117 23 Alexander UCHITEL Mycenaean ka-ma-e-u and Sumerian engar 33 B. WRITING AND ADMINISTRATION Ilse SCHOEP The Development of Writing on Crete in EM III-MM IIB (ca 2200-1750/00 B.C.) 43 Maurizio DEL FREO Wool Working at Hagia Triada: The HT 24 Tablet and the 45 Noduli from the Quartiere Sudovest 55 C. GENDER Dimitra KOKKINIDOU In Pursuit of the Goddess: Neolithic Imagery, Marija Gimbutas, and Debates in Feminism and Archaeology 67 Susan Heuck ALLEN Engaged Scholarship in Eraly Aegean Archaeology: The Liberal Education of Harriet Boyd, Survival and Success in Crossing the Gender Divide in Scholarship on Greece 81 Loeta TYREE, Louise A. HITCHCOCK and Christopher BARNETT E-QE-TA: Conceptions of Warrior Beauty and Constructions of Masculinity on Postpalatial Crete 91 Lyvia MORGAN Colours of Skin: White Taureadors and Yellow Boys 113 D. ART, SEALS AND ICONOGRAPHY Judith WEINGARTEN, Martina POLIG and Sorin HERMON The Palaikastro Master’s Ring and the Griffin Warrior’s Combat Agate: Drawing Conclusions 131 Helen HUGHES-BROCK Minoan Engraved Ringstones and a Unique Polyonymous Sealstone with Ramifications 141 Olga KRZYSZKOWSKA A Traveller Through Time and Space: The Cut Style Seal from the Megaron at Midea 155 vi CONTENTS Lucy GOODISON “Seeing” Stars… or Suns? 169 Marianna NIKOLAIDOU Blessed (?) Charms: The Figure-Eight Shield in the Aegean Arts of Personal Adornment 181 Josephine VERDUCI Minoan “Warrior Graves”: Military Identity, Cultural Interactions, and the Art of Personal Adornment 193 Anne P. CHAPIN and Marie Nicole PAREJA Peacock or Poppycock? Investigations into Exotic Animal Imagery in Minoan and Cycladic Art 215 Joan ARUZ Art and Transcendence: Another Look at Bronze Age Images of Human-Animal Composites 227 Maia POMADÈRE and Katerina PAPAYIANNIS The Cat: an Exotic Animal in the Minoan World? 237 E. ARCHAEOLOGY Metaxia TSIPOPOULOU Burial Containers in the Pre- and Proto-Palatial Cemetery of Petras, Siteia 251 Christina MARANGOU Rocks and the Sea at Myrina Kastro, Lemnos Island 261 Giorgos VAVOURANAKIS Liquid Consumption and the Mechanics of Ritual in Late Prepalatial and Old Palace Crete 271 Vassilis PETRAKIS The Adventures of the Mycenaean Palatial Megaron 283 F. RECEPTION Christine MORRIS The Usable Past: Minoans Reimagined 313 PEACOCK OR POPPYCOCK? INVESTIGATIONS INTO EXOTIC ANIMAL IMAGERY IN MINOAN AND CYCLADIC ART✽ This investigation begins with two lines in Sir Arthur Evans’s foundational The Palace of Minos at Knossos in which Evans makes an oft-overlooked observation about the highly problematic “Priest-King Fresco” (Pl. XXXVIa): “The central flower [of the crown] is surmounted by a taller waz-lily, to which are attached long triple plumes, flowing gracefully behind. These finely rendered feathers at once suggest those of a peacock, and part of one of the eyes of a deep blue colour has, in fact, been preserved.”1 Whatever one thinks about the Priest-King Fresco, with its poorly recorded archaeological context and its difficult history of restoration,2 Evans writes definitively in his identification of a peacock feather, an observation first made in print in 1903-19043 and repeated in 1935.4 While Evans’s published photograph of the preserved plumes does not include the fragment painted with the eye,5 the 1926 restoration of the fresco made by Emile Gilliéron fils, used as the frontispiece to Part 2 of the second volume of the Palace of Minos at Knossos,6 includes three stylized peacock feathers with blue-ringed eyes, and the fragments restored as the Priest-King Fresco in the Herakleion Museum include a painted fragment situated in the correct location for a peacock eye, though admittedly the colors have faded and it is difficult to confirm the painted design today. Given the problematic nature of the Priest-King Fresco’s restoration, it would be easy to ignore Evans’s assertion that he observed a peacock’s tail feather, but what if Evans was correct? What if the painting does depict the feathers of that most beautiful of birds whose native habitat is not Greece, nor even the eastern Mediterranean, but the subcontinent of India? It is an interesting possibility, and investigating it leads down a rabbit hole of potential trade and cultural contact (whether direct or ∗ 1 2 3 4 5 6 Some years ago, after giving an adventurous lecture on Aegean iconography to an audience of archaeologists in North Carolina, John explained that he very much enjoyed pursuing ideas just to see where they would lead. He warned that the investigatory paths would be unpredictable, and any conclusions were probably going to be highly conjectural, but it was great fun and the intellectual exercise helped draw the disparate facts and theories of Aegean scholarship into meaningful patterns of understanding. That idea stuck with me, and this contribution is my attempt to follow his example. It is offered as evidence of my admiration for John and as thanks for our friendship. Way back when, he was my first professor of archaeology, and although he did not know it at the time, his charismatic teaching, his encyclopedic knowledge, and his enthusiasm for everything archaeological sparked in me an interest in antiquity that eventually became my own life pursuit. I thank John for his help and support over the years – for his enthusiasm for heading down sketchy dirt roads in yet another attempt to find one or another archaeological site, or to climb mountains just because a peak sanctuary might be on top. I thank him for his willingness to discuss with me the ins and outs of my many questions about Aegean archaeology, and for his steady support in all things. Thank you, John. You’re the best (APC). PM II, 2, 777. J. COULOMB, “Le ‘Prince aux lis’ de Knossos reconsidéré,” BCH 103 (1979) 29-50; W.-D. NIEMEIER, “Das Stuckrelief des ‘Prinzen mit der Federkrone’ aus Knossos und minoische Götterdarstellungen,” AM 102 (1987) 65-98; S. SHERRATT, Arthur Evans, Knossos and the Priest-King (2000); S. SHERRATT, “Arthur Evans and the First of the Priest-Kings,” in A. DAKOURI-HILD and S. SHERRATT (eds), Autochthon. Papers presented to O.T.P.K. Dickinson on the occasion of his retirement (2005) 229-241; M. SHAW, “The ‘PriestKing’ Fresco from Knossos: Man, Woman, Priest, King, or Someone Else?,” in A. CHAPIN (ed.), ΧΑΡΙΣ. Essays in Honor of Sara A. Immerwahr (2004) 65-84. A.J. EVANS, “The Palace of Knossos,” BSA 10 (1903-1904) 2: “The centre of the crown was found to be adorned with peacocks’ plumes.” PM IV, 2, 400. PM II, 773, fig. 504A. PM II, 2, Pl. XIV. 216 Anne P. CHAPIN and Marie Nicole PAREJA indirect) between the Aegean and south Asia, home of the contemporary Bronze Age Indus Valley civilization. The Aegean, Mesopotamia, and the Indus The Aegean is often regarded as one region in a trifecta, together with Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, that engaged in strong, long lasting, and far-reaching exchange networks with one another throughout the Bronze Age. Although trade between these areas is well attested, some of the core raw materials that reflect elite status do not originate in any of these three locations. Lapis lazuli, carnelian, and tin serve as strong and direct indicators of trade with regions found beyond the Zagros Mountains. As such, the dates associated with the spread of those materials to the Aegean can aid in the establishment of the earliest possible dates for (in)direct trade with the far east. In the case of lapis lazuli, exchange extends further from its source mines in Badakhshan, Afghanistan, as time progresses: it can be found in Turkmenistan in the mid-fourth millennium B.C., in Mesopotamia during the Ubaid period (5,300-3,750 B.C.), in Ancient Egypt during the second half of the fourth millennium B.C., and in Anatolia in the mid-third millennium.7 The material may appear on Crete during the late fourth millennium, and in the Indus River Valley by the early Harappan period (3,3002,800 B.C.).8 Tracking lapis exchange essentially serves as a terminus-post-quem for contact, regardless of whether it is traded directly or indirectly, overland or by sea.9 The movement of carnelian and tin may be traced in similar ways as well, and their first occurrence in the Aegean may follow lapis lazuli, as the blue stone mines are located considerably closer to the Aegean than the major potential sources of either of the other two materials. Carnelian, which heralds from the Indus River Valley, is found in the Aegean on the island of Aigina, and it constitutes part of a cache of elite goods that predates the EM III period.10 Of particular note are the two distinct yet overlapping styles found on the beads: first, they were originally biconical barrel-cylinder beads, a shape commonly found in the Indus; second, the beads had been reduced in size and etched with popular Mesopotamian designs, which indicate a clear and particular path at least partially overland and through Mesopotamia before the artifacts arrived at Aigina.11 Similarly, the first evidence for tin survives from the EBA sites of Poliochni, Thermi, and Kastri, which have been associated with sources in the Indus River Valley via isotopic analysis.12 Although this conversation only addresses three raw materials, several others constitute contemporary Aegean imports from the east as well, including ivory, gold, chalcedony, and amethyst.13 In instances like the carnelian beads from Aigina, evidence indicates the paths the objects and materials likely traversed: through Mesopotamia. As such, Mesopotamia appears to function as a sort of “middle man,” through which goods and materials passed before reaching the Aegean. The movement of these desirable raw materials strongly buttresses the following exploration of the evidence for exchange in exotic creatures from the Indus region. And with that segue, this investigation returns to its starting point and explores the 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 V.I. SARIANIDI and L.H. KOWALSKI, “The Lapis Lazuli Route in the Ancient Near East,” Archaeology 24 (1971) 12-13; C.S. COLBURN, “Exotica and the Early Minoan Elite: Eastern Imports in Prepalatial Crete,” AJA 112 (2008) 112. SARIANIDI and KOWALSKI (supra n. 7). T.S. KAWAMI and J. OLBRANTZ, Breath of Heaven, Breath of Earth: Ancient Near Eastern Art from American Collections (2013) 3, 172. J. ARUZ (ed.), The Art of the First Cities. The Third Millennium B.C. from the Mediterranean to the Indus (2003) 240-243; C. REINHOLDT, “The Aegean and Western Anatolia: Social Forms and Cultural Relationships,” in ARUZ ed. (supra) 260-261. ARUZ (supra n. 10). L. WEEKS, “Lead isotope analyses from Tell Abraq, United Arab Emirates: new data regarding the ‘tin problem’ in Western Asia,” Antiquity 73 (1999) 2-7. COLBURN (supra n. 7) 210–212; S. RATNAGAR, Trading Encounters: From the Euphrates to the Indus in the Bronze Age (2004) 106-211. PEACOCK OR POPPYCOCK? 217 possibility that Sir Arthur Evans actually did see a peacock eye on the feather crown of the Priest-King Fresco. Peacocks in Minoan Art? Peacocks are peafowl, the common name given to three species of birds in the pheasant family (Phasianidae), and they are among the largest birds to fly.14 Technically, “peacocks” are male peafowl, whereas females are peahens, though the term “peacock” is commonly used to refer to peafowl of both sexes. For most people, the mental image of a peacock is based on the male blue, or Indian, peacock (Pavo cristatus), whose home range is in India and Sri Lanka (Pl. XXXVIb).15 This bird is easily recognizable: large in size, with a body length ranging from 90-130 cm, and strikingly colored with a bright blue neck, a blue crest, and a train of iridescent green tail feathers reaching 150 cm. These feathers are raised into a great fan and shaken during courtship, at which time each feather’s eye spot, ringed with blue and bronze, creates a dazzling display. Females are approximately the same size but lack the bright colors and have a comparatively modest set of tail feathers (Pl. XXXVIc). Peacocks were first brought to mainland Greece through diplomatic contact with Persia in the fifth century B.C.16 In the Roman empire, peacocks became popular as exotic pets and as tasty tidbits at luxury feasts. 17 The sacred bird of Hera/Juno and the animal that drew her chariot,18 Roman legends of peacocks claimed their flesh was incorruptible, and the birds came to symbolize immortality. 19 In subsequent centuries, peacock imagery entered Early Christian iconography as funerary decoration on catacombs and sarcophagi. 20 But incontrovertible evidence for the presence of peacocks in the Mediterranean world prior to historical times is notably lacking. No physical remains of peacocks have been excavated from either Minoan or Mycenaean contexts, nor do any unmistakable representations of peacocks appear in Aegean artworks. But a few tantalizing clues to the (probably rare) prehistoric presence of peacocks as exotic animal imports can perhaps be identified in the documentary and artistic records of Bronze Age cultures from the native home of peacocks in south Asia through Mesopotamia and possibly into the Aegean. What follows is an exploratory survey of surviving clues, not a comprehensive review of all available evidence. Peacocks, being native to modern India and Pakistan, first appear in art on a decorated vase from Cemetery H at Harappa dating to ca 2300 B.C. They are mentioned in two Old Babylonian poems and count among the riches (in association with gold, silver, ivory and apes) that King Solomon acquired through trade.21 Peacocks were, however, unknown in Egyptian art until the Ptolemaic period. In the Aegean, a few images of birds made from precious materials are depicted with the long necks and luxuriant tails that are reminiscent of peafowl, both male and female. The strongest case can be made for an image of a long-necked bird with an ample tale carved onto an ivory plaque found at Palaikastro, identified by R.M. Dawkins in 1904 as a peacock alighting on the ground in a rocky landscape (Pl. XXXVId).22 Indeed, the bird’s overall proportions, with its distinctively high crest, long neck, exaggerated 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Unknown Author, “Peacock (bird),” Britannica Online Encyclopedia, accessed 15 July 2019. The other two species of peafowl are the green (Javanese) peacock (P. muticus), native to southeast Asia, and the Congo peacock (Afropavo congensis) from the Democratic Republic of the Congo in Africa. S. LEWIS and L. LLEWELLYN-JONES, The Culture of Animals in Antiquity (2018) 272, citing M.C. MILLER, Athens and Persia in the Fifth Century BC (1997) 189. LEWIS and LLEWELLYN-JONES (supra n. 16); Pliny, NH X.45. See Ovid, Metamorphoses I, 624, on the death of Hera’s watchman, the many-eyed giant Argus, and Hera’s transformation of his hundred eyes into the eyes of a peacock’s tail. N. GREEN, “Ostrich Eggs and Peacock Feathers: Sacred Objects as Cultural Exchange between Christianity and Islam,” Al-Masaq 18 (2006) 32-33. LEWIS and LLEWELLYN-JONES (supra n. 16) 272. LEWIS and LLEWELLYN-JONES (supra n. 16) 273; Hebrew Bible, Kings 10.22-3. R.M. DAWKINS, “Excavations at Palaikastro. IV,” BSA 11 (1904-1905) 284, fig. 14a; S. HOOD, The Arts in Prehistoric Greece (1978) 120-122, fig. 109. 218 Anne P. CHAPIN and Marie Nicole PAREJA tail, and longish legs (proportionately shorter than those of a heron) support the peacock identification. An iconographic parallel can be found in a cultic scene decorating a gold ring found in a cave chamber tomb at Poros, near Herakleion, Crete (HM 1629; Pl. XXXVIIa).23 This ring depicts a male figure saluting a seated female figure (a goddess?) who is flanked antithetically by large birds with raised wings and long tails lowered. The bird on the left has the long neck and modestly long tail of a female peahen; the bird on the right, with a noticeably shorter neck, seems more like a pheasant.24 A similar bird with a long tail and shortish neck flies daringly towards a male figure bent over a baetyl in a gold ring from Sellopoulo, Knossos (Pl. XXXVIIb).25 The magnificent tail suggests that of a peacock; the shorter neck, a pheasant. Perhaps the artist conflated the two species? A similar pair of antithetical birds appears with a female figure on a gold ring (no. 3) recently excavated from the tomb of the so-called Griffin Warrior (Pl. XXXVIIc).26 These birds, also large in size with similarly long tails, longish legs and upraised wings, touch down on rocks in a manner strongly reminiscent of the bird depicted on the ivory plaque from Palaikastro. They come to rest on either side of a staff-bearing female figure whose pointed toes and streaming hair suggests epiphany. The necks of these two birds, however, also seem too short to identify them with confidence as peacocks – perhaps they might also depict pheasants?27 At this point the journey down the investigative rabbit hole takes an unexpected turn – the common pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) is not native to Greece, but originates in Asia, and the species’ original range extended far and wide, from the Black Sea to Taiwan. The subspecies found today in rare pockets of northern Greece, P. c. colchicus (Caucasus pheasants), “appear[s] to have been introduced to Greece in prehistoric times, probably from Colchis on the southeast shores of the Black Sea.”28 So, it seems that the Minoan images surveyed thus far of large, long-tailed birds – whether pheasants or peacocks (or both?) – depict exotic birds whose images (and in the case of the pheasant, actual birds) may well have been introduced to the prehistoric Aegean from points far east. Their consistency (even though the sample is small) suggests further that Minoan artists and their patrons had specific ideas about the appearance of these birds. And to prehistoric audiences, both species, whether the common pheasant or blue (Indian) peacock, would have made spectacular viewing. They belong to the same family (Phasianidae), and their relatively minor physiognomic differences (long vs short necks, differences in size) may have seemed insignificant when compared to the experience of encountering living works of art, whether in physical or artistic form. Unlike John’s oral presentation made years ago, referenced in this contribution’s dedication, this foray into Minoan iconography will not venture further into the realm of possibility. Even though the appearance of a Minoan goddess in the company of a peacock-like bird does seem to anticipate Hera’s iconography by more than a thousand years, there are too many unknowns and too many gaps in the timeline. Instead, this essay will shift its focus to explore another odd detail of Minoan iconography. 23 24 25 26 27 28 N. DIMOPOULOU and G. RETHEMIOTAKIS, “The ‘Sacred Conversation’ Ring from Poros,” in W. MÜLLER (ed.), Minoisch-mykenische Glyptik. Stil, Ikonographie, Funktion. V. Internationales Siegel-Symposium Marburg, 23.-25. September 1999 (2000) 39-56. Contra DIMOPOULOU and RETHEMIOTAKIS (supra n. 23) 48, who suggest an eagle or hawk identification, which is not supported by the length of the birds’ tails. M. POPHAM and H.W. CATLING, “Sellopoulo Tombs 3 and 4: Two Late Minoan Graves near Knossos,” BSA 69 (1974) 223 J8, fig. 14d, Pl. 37a-c. J.L. DAVIS and S.R. STOCKER, “The Lord of the Gold Rings: The Griffin Warrior of Pylos,” Hesperia 85 (2016) 643-645, fig. 11a-e. Alternately, long-necked birds (e.g., swans, geese, herons, etc.) including peacocks often sit (or roost) with their necks folded comfortably over their bodies. G. HANDRINOS and T. AKRIOTIS, The Birds of Greece (1997) 153; see also S. MADGE, P.J.K. McGOWAN, and G.M. KIRWAN, Pheasants, Partridges and Grouse. A Guide to the Pheasants, Partridges, Quails, Grouse, Guineafowl, Buttonquails and Sandgrouse of the World (2002). PEACOCK OR POPPYCOCK? 219 The Snake Goddess and her Serpents As famous as the Priest-King Fresco and embraced worldwide for its depiction of powerful femininity, the so-called “Snake Goddess” faience figurine from the Knossos Temple Repositories is similarly problematic for its heavy restoration and for the complexity of its interpretation (Pl. XXXVIId).29 Yet her (restored) face is familiar, and she continues to serve as the artistic paradigm for Minoan womanhood: creamy skin tones, svelte hour-glass figure, a distinctively Minoan flounced costume cut to display her generous breasts, and of course her symbols of power – a cat crown and upraised arms holding snakes. Perhaps the Snake Goddess remains unquestionably beloved because she meets modern expectations of womanhood. For Evans, the two restorable figurines (the one illustrated here and her larger companion) were evidence of a chthonic cult of the Snake Goddess, the underworld form of his great Minoan Goddess.30 But recently, Emily Miller Bonney has challenged both Evans’s restoration and conception of the Snake Goddess, piece by piece. She has questioned the figure’s identity as a snake handler and has suggested that the one original fragment of an object held in the Snake Goddess’s right hand and restored as a snake’s tail is actually un-snakelike in its form. Miller Bonney wrote, ‘Evans, who had played with the reptiles since childhood’, 31 knew that snakes never have ‘peppermint stripes.’ Indeed the textured surface of the upper original portion of the ‘serpent’ seems to reflect the craftsman’s intent to depict a twisted object such as a rope or cord.”32 And perhaps Miller Bonney is correct, since the more one looks closely at the snake’s tail, the odder it appears (Pl. XXXVIIe). It is not pointed as one would expect of a snake, but neither does it hang like a rope or a cord. In fact, it appears flattened and shaped like a paddle. What might it be? One possibility is that the striped, paddle-shaped tail belongs to a sea snake like the one depicted in Pl. XXXVIIIa. Sea snakes are found in the Indian and Pacific Oceans as far west as the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, but not in the Mediterranean Sea. They are highly venomous, and like all sea snakes, they breathe air and regularly come up to the sea’s surface to breathe. A recent study identified ten species of sea snake currently living in the Persian Gulf, five of which are banded light and dark. 33 Among these is the Persian Gulf sea snake (Hydrophis lapemoides), which is characterized by a paddle-shaped tail and distinctive dark and light banding along the length of its body (Pl. XXXVIIIb). It, like the other banded sea snakes of the Persian Gulf, closely resembles the creature or object held by the Snake Goddess. Perhaps an even closer match in terms of appearance and behavior is the yellow-lipped sea krait (Laticauda colubrina), alternately known as the banded sea snake or the colubrine sea krait. This sea snake also has distinctive black and white banding and a paddle-shaped tail (Pl. XXXVIIIa), but adults are semi-aquatic and frequently come up on dry land to rest and reproduce. Their venom is highly toxic, but the snakes are not aggressive and people can easily pick them up.34 The parallel with the Snake Goddess figurine is uncanny. Today yellow-lipped sea kraits are found along coral reefs from the eastern Indian Ocean as far west as the Indian subcontinent, so if the yellow-lipped sea krait did find its way to the Aegean as an exotic import, the creature is surely an intrepid traveler. In all, the sea snake identification, tentative though it is, offers a potentially tidy solution to the tricky iconographic problem of the paddle-shaped tail. The snakes held by the Snake Goddess’s taller companion, however, are spotted and clearly describe a different species. As always in Minoan art, questions linger. 29 30 31 32 33 34 PM I, 500-505; M. PANAGIOTAKI, The Central Palace Sanctuary at Knossos (1999). PM I, 500. J.A. MacGILLIVRAY, Minotaur. Sir Arthur Evans and the Archaeology of the Minoan Myth (2000) 223. E. MILLER BONNEY, “Disarming the Snake Goddess: A Reconsideration of the Faience Figurines from the Temple Repositories at Knossos,” JMA 24 (2011) 178. M. REZAIE-ATAGHOLIPOUR et al., “Sea snakes (Elapidae, Hydrophiinae) in their westernmost extent: an updated and illustrated checklist and key to the species in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman,” ZooKeys 622 (6 October 2016) 129-164, https://zookeys.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=9939, accessed 20 June 2019. See, for example, the tourist photographs at http://www.mysabah.com/wordpress/snake-island-ofpulau-tiga/, accessed 20 June 2019. Anne P. CHAPIN and Marie Nicole PAREJA 220 Monkeys An important distinction must be noted between the exotic species discussed here. Peacocks, pheasants, and sea kraits belong to animal types that are generally represented throughout the Aegean: birds and snakes are indigenous to most areas, regardless of particular species. At least in general family, they are familiar, identifiable, and they constitute parts of the core Aegean iconographic arsenal from which exotic species are distinguished. It is essentially the different traits of these particular species that visually set them apart from the local fauna: the banded body and flattened ends (head and tail) of the sea krait, distinguish it from the spotted and rounder bodies of local snakes, and the outlandishly large, iridescent plumage of the peacock sets it well apart from the comparatively dumpy partridge or rock dove. No evidence indicates that any species of monkey, however, is native to Mainland Greece, the Cycladic Islands, or Crete during the Bronze Age.35 As such, Aegean people had no familiar creature with which to compare monkeys; they are inherently something else that originates from elsewhere. Perhaps because of this, and due to the proximity of Egypt as a possible source for monkeys and their associated imagery, traditional scholarship tends to regard Aegean monkey iconography as related to or even descended from Ancient Egyptian monkey imagery, in terms of iconography and often ideology.36 Before continuing, it is integral to note that the authors are proposing an additional potential region from which monkey iconography may come, as opposed to arguing that the Indus is the only region from which it comes. The polyvalent relationships between Crete and Egypt have long been explored and continue to be referenced, at times almost canonically, and these connections cannot and should not be denied. Rather than retrace those footsteps, however, the authors seek instead to buttress preexisting work by attempting to address some of the outliers that do not quite fit with the model of Aegean iconography as largely Egyptianized. Three distinct aspects of Aegean monkey iconography indicate possible connections to the Indus: figurines, glyptic art, and wall paintings. The earliest evidence for such far-reaching trade survives as an ivory monkey seal figurine from EM III Trapeza, Crete. The next two elements manifest in wall paintings and in glyptic art from the LC IA site of Akrotiri, at Thera. Although from disparate periods, these artifacts bear evidence for both exchange as far as the Indus River Valley and the route such iconography may have taken to arrive in the Aegean. The earliest known possible evidence for such trade in monkey imagery survives as one of the EM III ivory monkey figurines found at Trapeza, Crete (Pl. XXXVIIIc).37 Recovered from a funerary context, this early artifact bears multifaceted iconographic indicators that mark it as a clear outlier from the other Early Minoan Egyptianizing monkey figurines. The figurine and seal clearly originate further afield than 35 36 37 E.D. Van BUREN, The Fauna of Ancient Mesopotamia as Represented in Art (1939) 22-24; M.E.L. MALLOWAN, Nimrud and Its Remains (1966) 528-530; S. DUNHAM, “The Monkey in the Middle,” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 75 (1985) 234-235. C. GREENLAW, How Monkeys Evolved in Egyptian and Minoan Art and Culture (2005) 71; ID., Monkeying Around the Mediterranean: A Fresh Perspective on Ancient Primates (2006) 63; ID., The Representation of Monkeys in the Art and Thought of Mediterranean Cultures: A New Perspective on Ancient Primates (2011) 7; J.A. PHILLIPS, Aegyptiaca on the Island of Crete in Their Chronological Context: A Critical Review I (2008) 170-182. J.D.S. PENDLEBURY, The Archaeology of Crete: An Introduction (1939) 87, Pl. 13.2; C. ZERVOS, L’art de la Crète Néolithique et Minoenne (1956) Pl. 208; CMS II.1; P. YULE, Early Cretan Seals. A Study of Chronology (1980) 100, 151; C. LAMBROU-PHILLIPSON, 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, Plus Orientalia, A Catalogue of Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Mitannian, Syro-Palestinian, Cypriot, and Asia Minor Objects from the Bronze Age Aegean (1990) 270, fig. 236, Pl. 59; J.A. PHILLIPS, The Impact and Implications of the Egyptian and Egyptianizing Material Found in Bronze Age Crete ca. 3000-ca. 1100 B.C., Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Toronto (1991) 784, fig. 387; A. KARETSOU, Κρήτη-Αιγυπτος. Πολιτισμικοί δεσμοί τριών χιλιετιών. Κατάλογος (2000) fig. 154; M.N. PAREJA, Monkey and Ape Iconography in Aegean Art (2017) 53-54, fig. 5.1. PEACOCK OR POPPYCOCK? 221 the Aegean or its immediate environs.38 The three key iconographic indicators are the animal’s pose, the lean and lanky style in which the subject is rendered, and the cross-and-chevron pattern on the bottom of the seal. In contrast, the other figurines show one or two massy creatures, carved from vaguely pyramidal shaped raw materials – most often ivory, but with alternate materials such as steatite, as well (Pl. XXXVIIId). The knees are pulled up to the chest so that the body is one solid mass, only topically carved to show the animal’s distinguishing features. Importantly, no voids are created in the bodies of the figurines except for the drilling of suspension holes. In stark contrast to these thick, stumpy figurines, the outlier from Trapeza clearly features carefully articulated legs, arms, and even part of its tail. The unfurled pose and lanky proportions show a figurine strikingly different from the others known from contemporary Crete. The motif of a monkey seated on a stool hearkens to Altyn Tepe in Bactria, a region just west of the Indus River Valley.39 The compartmented metal stamp seals from Altyn Tepe often show monkeys in profile that either sit or crouch on stools,40 and although the item from Crete is a figurine rather than a seal motif, the parallels in pose and composition are clear. The other figurines from EM III Crete do not sit on a stool or seat (or base) of any kind, yet the upright-seated figurine appears not only as though sitting in an upright human pose, but also possesses a spherical base, on the bottom of which the seal pattern is inscribed. Notably, other entities are shown seated on stools in compartmented metal stamp seals as well, but they all constitute fantastic creatures.41 The monkey is the only “real” animal depicted, which may belie its special status as something considerably more than a commonly occurring creature.42 Finally, the bottom of the figurine functions as a seal, and as such, it bears a cross-and-chevron motif inside a circular field. Although the pattern is uncommon in Crete during this period, it is known from contemporary Near Eastern metal molds,43 as well as from seals found in EBA southern Afghanistan, Seistan, and Altyn Tepe, where the technology of seal carving and use was certainly established by the EBA.44 From even earlier contexts in the Indus (ca. 3,500 B.C.), the cross-and-chevron motif is widespread and its use continues through the Late Harappan Period (1,500 B.C.). Of particular note is the dual nature and portability of this single piece. As such a small object, it is easy to carry and thus particularly given to physical transport and ideological transmission. These aspects are amplified with the polyvalent identity of the item (figurine/bead/seal) as an object of personal adornment and possibly personal identification – key aspects of elite identity during the EBA. The object’s distinctly far-eastern style, pose, and seal motif set it starkly apart from other EBA monkey and ape 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 M.N. PAREJA, “Early Evidence of Aegean-Indus Trade,” in L. RECHT and K. ZEMANWISNIEWSKA (eds), Animal Iconography in the Archaeological Record: New Approaches, New Dimensions (forthcoming 2020). H. PITTMAN, Art of the Bronze Age: Southeastern Iran, Western Central Asia, and the Indus Valley (1984) 53, 56. P.O. HARPER, J. ARUZ, and F. TALLON (eds), The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre (1992) 97. HARPER, ARUZ, and TALLON (supra n. 40). H. PITTMAN (supra n. 39). REINHOLDT (supra n. 10) 257-259, figs 163b, 163c, and 164; C. REINHOLDT, “The Early Bronze Age Jewellery Hoard from Kolonna, Aigina,” in ARUZ ed. (supra n. 10) 260. H. PITTMAN (supra n. 39) 52; J.M. KENOYER pers. comm. April 2019. Parallels are found throughout the surrounding regions as well, to include Chanhu-Daro, Pirak, Kot Diji, and the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex; V. SCHINDE, G.L. POSSEHL, and M. AMERI, “Excavations at Gilund 2001-2003: The Seal Impressions and Other Finds,” in U. FRANKE-VOGT and H.-J. WEISSHAAR (eds), South Asian Archaeology 2003. Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference of the European Association of South Asian Archaeologists (7–11 July 2003, Bonn) (2005) 159-264, figs 8 no. 3, 9 nos 2 and 3, 11 nos 2 and 4; E.J.H. MACKAY, “Chanhu-daro Excavations 1935–1936,” American Oriental Series 20 (1943) Pl. LXIX.2, no. 3; J-F. ENAULT, Fouilles de Pirak. Fouilles du Pakistan 2 (1979) Pl. XLV, C; P. AMIET, “Antiquities of Bactria and Other Iran in the Louvre Collection,” in G. LIGABUE and S. SALVATORI (eds), Bactria. An Ancient Oasis Civilization from the Sands of Afghanistan (1988) fig. 13; V.I. SARIANIDI, Myths of Ancient Bactria and Margiana on its Seals and Amulets (1998) seal no. 551. 222 Anne P. CHAPIN and Marie Nicole PAREJA figurines. When this is coupled with notions of Aegean identity construction and negotiation in relation to Near Eastern, Mesopotamian, and Egyptian elite cultures, an image emerges in which the figurine may be read as an indication of elite personal identity that seeks to both maintain and negotiate ties farther east. Trade between the Aegean and Indus is not steady and constant throughout the Bronze Age. Rather, evidence for this early far-reaching trade appears predominantly during the EBA II-III periods, and it virtually disappears at the end of the Early Bronze Age as the result of the widespread dessication period that heavily affected Egypt, the Near East, and to a lesser extent the Aegean.45 The ramifications of the event are visible in the archaeological record in terms of general population movement (abandonment and invasion, among others).46 From the cessation of this period onward, these regions not only reestablish and resecure trade with their immediate neighbors, but they reforge relationships from earlier extended exchange networks. This ebb and flow of long-distance trade relations underlines a recent advancement in the understanding of two key wall paintings from the Cyclades: the Offering to the Seated Goddess Fresco47 (Pl. XXXIXa) and the Monkeys Fresco (Pl. XXXIXb-c).48 The first of these two wall paintings clearly depicts a composition that belies a strong and longstanding relationship between the Aegean and 45 46 47 48 P.P. BETANCOURT, The Bronze Age Begins. The Ceramics Revolution of Early Minoan I and the New forms of Wealth that Transformed Prehistoric Society (2008) 103; M. WIENER, “Contacts: Crete, Egypt, and the Near East circa 2000 B.C.,” in J. ARUZ (ed.), Cultures in Contact. From Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. (2013) 34. H. WEISS, M.-A. COURTY, W. WETTERSTROM, F. GUICHARD, L. SENIOR, R. MEADOW, and A. CURNOW, “The Genesis and Collapse of Third Millennium North Mesopotamian Civilization,” Science 261 (1993) 995; H. DALFES, H. NÜZHET, G. KUKLA, and H. WEISS (eds), Third Millennium B.C. Climate Change and Old World Collapse. Proceedings of a Conference Held at Kemer, Turkey, September 19-24, 1994 (1997); G. FIORENTINO, V. CARACUTA, L. CALCAGNILE, M. D’ELIA, P. MATTHIAE, F. MAVELLI, and G. QUARTA, “Third Millennium B.C. Climate Change in Syria Highlighted by Carbon Stable Isotope Analysis of 14C-AMS dated plant remains from Ebla,” Palaeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 266 (2008) 51; WIENER (supra n. 45) 34; D.B. REDFORD, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (1992) 61-62; A. MAZAR, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 10,000-586 B.C.E. (1990) 151-173; S.E. FALCONER, “Village Economy and Society in the Jordan Valley: A Study of Bronze Age Rural Complexity,” in G.M. SCHWARTZ and S.E. FALCONER (eds), Archaeological View from the Countryside. Village Communities in Early Complex Societies (1994) 121-132, 140-142; G.M. SCHWARTZ, “Taking the long view on collapse: A Syrian perspective,” in C. KUZUCUOGLOU and C. MARRO (eds), Sociétés humaines et changement climatique à la fin du troisième millénaire. Une crise a-t-elle eu lieu en Haute Mésopotamie? Actes du collque de Lyon, 5-8 décembre 2005 (2007) 52; H.W. CATLING, “Archaeology in Greece, 1973-1974,” Archaeological Reports 20 (1973-1974) 34; C. NOWICKI, Defense Sites in Crete, c. 1200-800 B.C. (LM IIIB/IIIC through Early Geometric) (2000) 31-32; L.V. WATROUS, “State Formation (Middle Minoan IA),” in L.V. WATROUS, D. CHATZĒ-VALLIANOU, H. BLITZER, and J. BENNETT (eds), The Plain of Phaistos. Cycles of Social Complexity in the Mesara Region of Crete (2004) 266-267; J. MOODY, “Environment Change and Minoan Sacred Landscapes,” in A.L. D’AGATA and A. VAN DE MOORTEL (eds), Archaeologies of Cult. Essays on Ritual and Cult in Crete in Honor of Geraldine C. Gesell (2009) 245-246. S. MARINATOS, Excavations at Thera VII (1976) 30-38, Pls B-E, K, 42b-42d, 59-61; N. MARINATOS, Art and Religion in Thera. Reconstructing a Bronze Age Society (1984) figs.- 40-42, 44; EAD., Minoan Religion. Ritual, Image, and Symbol (1993) fig. 213; C. DOUMAS, The Wall Paintings of Thera (1992) 126, figs 122-128; C. PALYVOU, Akrotiri Thera. An Architecture of Affluence 3,500 Years Old (2005) 30, fig. 27; A.G. VLACHOPOULOS, “The Wall Paintings from the Xeste 3 Building at Akrotiri, Thera: Towards an Interpretation of the Iconographic Programme”, in N.J. BRODIE, J. DOOLE, G. GAVALAS, and C. RENFREW (eds), Horizon. A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Unviersity of Cambridge, March 25–28, 2004 (2008) 451-456, figs 41.19-41.21. S. MARINATOS, Excavations at Thera II (1969) 53-54, fig. 1.31; ID., Excavations at Thera III (1970) 36-37, 6364; ID., Excavations at Thera IV (1971) 45-46; MARINATOS 1984 (supra n. 47) 19, 106-116; EAD., “MinoanCycladic Syncretism,” in D.A. HARDY, C.G. DOUMAS, J.A. SAKELLARAKIS, and P.M. WARREN (eds), Thera and the Aegean World III. Proceedings of the Third International Congress, Santorini, Greece, 3-9 September 1989 (1990) 370-371; S.A. IMMERWAHR, Aegean Painting in the Bronze Age (1990) 41-43; DOUMAS (supra n. 47) 120-123, figs 85-89; GREENLAW 2005 (supra n. 36) 71; PALYVOU (supra n. 47) 30, 64, figs 27, 76. PEACOCK OR POPPYCOCK? 223 Mesopotamia. The second wall painting illustrates the intimate knowledge of Cycladic artists with a species indigenous to the Indus. The Offering to the Seated Goddess wall painting from Room 3a of Xeste 3 at Akrotiri, Thera shows a composition in which a young woman and monkey face toward the right and approach a Seated Goddess, who faces left to meet them. A leashed griffin stands behind the seated deity on her raised tripartite platform. Parallels and abbreviations of this scene survive in Aegean seals and sealings (Pl. XXXIXd).49 This Cycladic scene references a long tradition of Presentation Scenes in Mesopotamian art, which survives particularly well in cylinder seals. For instance, a chlorite cylinder seal from Ur dates to the early third millennium B.C. and shows two female figures facing right, approaching a larger seated figure in a flounced skirt who sits on a raised platform and faces left (Pl. XXXIXe).50 The seated figure extends a hand toward the approaching pair, and a monkey floats in the space between the two parties. The basic composition of these two images is nearly identical, and it bears great implications for the artistic and perhaps even ideological and ritual parallels between the Aegean and Mesopotamia.51 The centrality of this Cycladic wall painting to Bronze Age scholars’ understanding of the LC IA period cultic behavior is pivotal, and when taken in tandem with its prime location in a ritual structure, it may be considered one of the core components of ritual imagery in Aegean wall painting. Both Aegean and Mesopotamian presentation scenes raise an important question, however: from where did the monkeys in these scenes come? As previously stated, monkeys are not indigenous to the Aegean, Near East, or Mesopotamia, and so scholarship traditionally holds that they are exotic imports from Egypt. A recent collaborative study between primatologists, a taxonomic illustrator, and art historian/archaeologist yielded a new identification for the monkeys from room 6 of Building Complex Beta at Akrotiri, Thera. 52 Rather than the vervet or grivet (Chlorocebus aethiops; Pl. XLa-b),53 the species depicted in these wall paintings is instead the Hanuman langur (Semnopithecus; Pl. XLc-d). Essentially, vervets do not exhibit the tail positions or general proportions of the animals depicted in the Monkeys Fresco; the C-shaped and S-shaped tails as well as the lanky yet graceful proportions belong to langurs, a species native to modern-day Bhutan, Nepal, and India. The identification of this species by primatologists and the taxonomic illustrator bears significant implications for both the precision and skill of the Cycladic artists’ rendering, as well as the larger network that must have been in place to allow for such a keen observation in order to render an image with this high degree of specific detail. At present, the authors do not suggest here that langurs were imported to the Aegean. Rather, extensive evidence indicates that elite members of society in Mesopotamia imported not only monkeys, but many animals from the Indus by the beginning of the Late Bronze Age.54 It is possible, especially in light of the longstanding and strong relationship between the Aegean and Mesopotamia, that Aegean peoples (in this instance, likely artists) travelled to Mesopotamia and observed langurs first-hand. The details rendered in the wall painting are so distinctly precise that direct examination of the animals was necessary to create the preliminary sketches that would presumably have been used for the wall painting.55 With extended study and perhaps even interaction, the Bronze Age artists are capable of recording details 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 CMS II.3 103, an oval seal ring from LM IIIA Kalyvia, presents a particularly striking parallel. British Museum object number 115418. For an extended discussion regarding Mesopotamian Presentation Scenes with monkeys, as well as the interpretations and relationships that have with the Offering to the Seated Goddess Fresco, please see PAREJA (supra n. 37) Chapters 4, 12, and 13. M.N. PAREJA, T. McKINNEY, J. MAYHEW, J.M. SETCHELL, R. HEATON, and S. NASH, “A New Identification of the Monkeys Depicted in a Bronze Age Wall Painting from Akrotiri, Thera,” Primates (forthcoming 2020). GREELAW (supra n. 36, 2011) 43-45; PHILLIPS (supra n. 36) 171-173. PAREJA (supra n. 38); DUNHAM (supra n. 35) 234-264. The authors are not currently arguing that the wall painting was created with animals nearby, and so the only remaining explanation for such a precise rendering of the langur is to advocate for the existence of some sort of study and/or preliminary sketch. 224 Anne P. CHAPIN and Marie Nicole PAREJA of physical form, varieties between facial markings, as well as impressions of the animals’ graceful movements – all of which are hallmarks used and readily understood by those who closely study and frequently interact with monkeys today: primatologists and tanxomonic illustrators. Conclusions This foray into exotic animal iconography in Minoan and Cycladic art of the Aegean Bronze Age suggests the existence of past interactions, communications, and exchanges of goods and/or information among peoples in lands far distant from one another. How these exchanges occurred – whether by direct or indirect contact, through merchant trade or elite gift exchange, or perhaps via other means – remains unknown and perhaps unknowable. Other scholars may debate those questions. Our point is simply that art preserves visual evidence of past interconnections among peoples and places, and these contacts are likely to be more complex and far-ranging than is generally understood today. Even if definitive conclusions cannot yet be drawn about Aegean familiarity with Indian blue peacocks, sea snakes of the Indian Ocean, and langurs of the Indian subcontinent, then at least some pieces to the puzzles are fitting together in new and adventurous ways. Anne P. CHAPIN Marie Nicole PAREJA PEACOCK OR POPPYCOCK? 225 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Pl. XXXVIa Pl. XXXVIb Priest-King Fresco. Photo: Anne P. Chapin. Male blue (Indian) peafowl (Pavo cristatus) in Hodal, Faridabad District, Haryana, India. Photo: J.M. Garg. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indian_Peacock_(Pavo_cristatus)_at_a_rooftop_near_Hodal _ I_Picture_2176.jpg Pl. XXXVIc Female blue (Indian) peafowl (Pavo cristatus). Photo: swoop1981-Pfau. https://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Indian_peafowl#/media/File:Pavo_cristatus_Tierpark_Hagenbeck,_Hamburg,_Germany_-female -8a_(1).jpg Pl. XXXVId Ivory plaque depicting a peacock, from Palaikastro, Crete. Drawing: R. Byrd after DAWKINS (supra n. 22) fig. 14a. Pl. XXXVIIa-c Possible depictions of peacocks or peacock-like birds: a. Gold ring from Poros, Crete (HM 1629). Drawing: R. Byrd after DIMOPOULOU and RETHEMIOTAKIS (supra n. 23) fig. 4c. b. Gold ring from Sellopoulo, Crete. Drawing: R. Byrd after POPHAM and CATLING (supra n. 25) fig. 14d. c. Gold ring from the Tomb of the Griffin Warrior, Pylos. Drawing: R. Byrd after DAVIS and STOCKER (supra n. 26) fig. 11a. Pl. XXXVIId-e “Snake Goddess” faience figurine, from the Temple Repositories, Knossos: d. Front view of the figurine. Photo: A. Chapin. e. Detail of the figurine showing the paddle-shaped tail of a possible sea snake. Photo: Anne P. Chapin. Pl. XXXVIIIa Yellow-lipped sea krait (Laticauda colubrina) with its paddle tail clearly visible. Photo: Jens Petersen. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Laticauda_colubrina#/media/File:Laticauda_colubrina_L embeh.jpg Pl. XXXVIIIb Persian Gulf sea snake (Hydrophis lapemoides). Photo: Keith D.P. Wilson. https://www.flickr.com/ photos/wislonhk/16130668827 Pl. XXXVIIIc Upright Seated Monkey Figurine from Trapeza, Crete. After KARETSOU (supra n. 37) 173, fig. 154. Pl. XXXVIIId Seated Monkey Figurine from Tholos Tomb A, Platanos. Drawing: M.N. Pareja. Pl. XXXIXa Offering to the Seated Goddess Fresco, Room 3A, Xeste 3, Akrotiri. Drawing by Anne P. Chapin. Pl. XXXIXb-c Monkeys Fresco, Room 6, Building Complex Beta, Akrotiri, Thera: b. West Wall. Image courtesy of the Photo Archive of the Thera Akrotiri Excavations. c. North Wall. Image courtesy of the Photo Archive of the Thera Akrotiri Excavations. Pl. XXXIXd CMS II.3 103. Drawing and Photograph of an Aegean Presentation Scene. Image Courtesy of the CMS Heidelberg. Pl. XXXIXe Line Drawing of Presentation Scene on a Cylinder Seal from Ur. British Museum Object Number 115418. Pl. XLa-b Images of Vervets: a. At Rest, image courtesy of Arkive.org, Photo: Thomas M. Butynski and Yvonne A. de Jong. b. Leaping, image courtesy of Arkive.org, Photo: Thomas M. Butynski and Yvonne A. de Jong. Pl. XLc-d Images of Hanuman Langurs: c. At a Temple with S-Shaped Tail. d. With a C-Shaped Tail. XXXVI [couleurs] b a c d [couleurs] XXXVII a b c d e XXXVIII b a c d [couleurs] XXXIX a c d b e XL [couleurs] a b c d