Bronze Age Aegean Religion

Minoan and Mycenäean religion

David A. Warburton

The earliest historical religions in Europe were those of the Bronze Age Aegean. Although"historical" in the sense that there are texts, the administrative texts which are preservedrefer only incidentally to religion and do not throw much light on larger issues; myths,hymns and rituals were not recorded in the material preserved. It is thus hardly sur-prising that this era is frequently understood as being "prehistoric": our evidence con-sists for the most part of archaeological materials, mostly figurines, seals, votive objects,offerings, paintings and so forth, from shrines, tombs and palaces. These are, however,complemented by a few details that can be gleaned from the contemporary texts, offer-ing information that would otherwise be unavailable in the mute world of prehistoricarchaeology.

We distinguish these civilizations of the second millennium BcE as the "Minoans" andthe "Mycenaeans". Although the terms are misleading (in the sense that the Ancients willnever have understood them as we use them), both are retained here as they are widely rec-ognized. By,(a) "Minoanl we understand the culture of the Middle and early Late BronzeAge Aegean islands (effectivelyMiddle Minoan IB-Late Minoan IB, ca. 1900-1500 ncr),most particularly Crete, before and partially overlapping with (b) the Mycenaeans of theGreek mainland in the Late Bronze Age (Middle Helladic III/Late Helladic I-Late HelladicIII, ca. 1700/1600-1050 BcE). Obviously, Mycenaean materials are prominent on Crete,and Minoan materials appear on the mainland, but the division is as clear as are the links.

Both cultures shared traditions of funerary architecture, particularly the thölos tombs(steep domed structures of stone erected with corbelled vaulting) with a dr1mos-pathleading to an entry allowing passage into the tomb. Although they shared a few gods,neither culture seems to have practised temple worship of the deities in a monumentalurban or rural fashion. Both would appear to have been societies dominated by palaces,but not under central control - so the palaces pursued their interests and the peoplepursued theirs. However, the ideology and what documentation there is comes from theelite (and suggests that ordinary people were following elite practices).

103

104 ANCIENT EUROPE IN THE HISTORICAL PERIOD

In this chapter, I will begin with a brief summary, in two parts, of what can be viewedas something approaching "facts" drawn from the evidence, first concerning the Minoanworld, and then that of the Mycenaeans. This presentation is followed by a necessarilylonger third part in which I discuss the debates about history and evidence. An epilogueon the later religion of the Greeks has been appended to these discussions in order to linkthe context of the Bronze Age religion discussed in this chapter to the forms of religionknown from classical antiquity and the West discussed in the rest of the book.

Chronology and historyBut first a word on the temporal context. Crete was first reached by humans moving fromthe Near East, Anatolia and Cyprus around 6000 BcE. However it is only millennia later,with the Early Bronze Age (Early Minoan, Early Helladic, ca.3L00*2000 ncE) of Greece,that we have substantial evidence of the beginnings of urban civilization. It is to the thirdmillennium that the celebrated Cycladic figurines belong (see Figs l2.Ia and 12.1b). Theseenigmatic figurines from the Cyclades group of islands in the Aegean are probably theoldest category of Bronze Age European plastic art. Associated with grave offerings, theyhave also been linked to shrines, but it is impossible to draw any conclusions about themeaning of the figurines or even what role they played.

Thus the cultures we associate with Crete and Greece did not really begin until afterthe end of the Early Bronze Age. The origins of what later became the dominant Minoanculture begin to appear around 2000 BcE (Middle Minoan IA), a century before the firstpalaces. Yet what is typical of the Bronze Age Aegean culture is that dominated by the

Figure 12.1 (a) Photo ofa Cycladic figurine found on Crete (ca.20 cm tall) (Evans 1921-35: I. 115).(b) Evans's sketch of a "typical" figurine from the Cyclades (figures are usually less than half a metre inheight) (Evans 1921-35: IV.42S).

(b)

MINOAN AND MYCENAEAN RETIGION

Figure 12.2 One of Evans! last reconstructions of the ground plan of the Minoan/Mycenaean palace atKnossos (ca. 125 x 125 m) (Evans l92l-35: IV, followinguv).

Minoan palaces which are scattered around Crete (ca. 1900-1500 ncr) and the Mycenaeancitadels of Greece (ca. 1600- 1050 ncn). Around 1900 ecB, the first palaces (Fig.12.2) wereerected on Crete (Protopalatial phase). Around 1700 BcE, after a destruction, the Minoansrebuilt their cultural heritage (the Neopalatial phase), and reached the highpoint of theircivilization. Then, from the end ofthe seventeenth century onwards, a series ofevents(including the eruption ofthe volcano at Santorini/Thera, the subsequent destruction ofsettlements on Crete, the Mycenaean conquest of Crete) followed one another swiftly (inarchaeological terms),leading to the decline and collapse of Minoan political power. Thussome time after 1500 BcE the Mycenaeans took over Crete after having dominated themainland for some time. The surviving artwork implies that Minoan traditions survivedin parallel with the Mycenaean Greeks for some time after the conquest.

The origins of the Mycenaean culture on the mainland are unclear, but tombs preceded

the emergence of the citadels (Fig. 12.3) which dominated the Mycenaean world in the

second half of the second millennium BcE. The Mycenaean culture is quite different fromwhat was present in third millennium mainland Greece, and thus represents a new phe-

nomenon which expanded throughout the Greek world, taking hold along the Anatoliancoasts of the Aegean as well as the island of Crete.

105

106 ANCIENT EUROPE IN THE HISTORICAT PERIOD

Figure 12.3 A plan of the citadel at Tiryns (ca. 300 x 100 m) (WfümediaCommons, Tiryns, Napoleon Vier).

By around 1050 BcE, the Mycenaean culture, based on the political power of the cita-dels of the mainland and the palace at Knossos, had itself succumbed to the migrationsin Europe and the Mediterranean at the end of the Bronze Age. This collapse led the wayinto the "Sub-Mycenaean" period which opens the Dark Ages, out of which archaic Greece(beginning sometime in the eighth century BcE) gradually emerges several centuries later.The cultural blossoming of Greece took place in the classical era (479-323 BcE), whichwas followed by the Hellenistic and Roman periods taking Greece into the Christian foldunder half-Oriental, half-Roman Byzantium. The Mycenaean culture was decisive for thelong-term development of the Greeks, and their understanding of their own origins. Butby that time, the Bronze Age Aegean civilization had completely disappeared and thereremained nothing but ruins and dim memories.

A note on the study of the Bronze Age AegeanThe study of the Bronze Äge Aegean is overshadowed by two giants who worked in thedecades around the beginning of the twentieth century CE: on the one hand, HeinrichSchliemann ( 1822- 1390) who excavated at Mycenae and Troy and, on the other, Sir ArthurEvans (185i-1941) who excavated Knossos. Although scores of archaeologists and philolo-gists have made contributions since, the study of the actual material is still dominated bythese two men because of the sheer energy of their efforts and the material which flowedinto museums as a result. In terms of archaeological mythology, it was doubtless Schliemannwho has the greater claim to fame because he found treasures at the sites he associated withthe Trojan War - and was probably correct (although hardly working alone: see Allen 1999).

In terms of the intellectual impact, it is without doubt Sir Arthur who has had the fargreater influence on the development of the discipline - and it must be stated that althoughhe was working a century ago, he hit upon many ideas which are still valiö and devisedterms and systems which are still used today. He excavated the palace at Knossos, and in thecourse of analysing and publishing his material he devised the chronology of the Aegean,aside from making significant advances in the study of the religion and culture of Crete(Evans I92L-35).

One example of Evans's contribution concerns the written materials from Crete. Whileworking on his various projects, Evans studied virtually every type of inscription knownfrom Crete - on seals, jars and other objects. At Knossos, Evans himselfhad found inscribedclay tablets. Although he realized that they treated the same things and used many of the

MINOAN AND MYCENAEAN RELIGION

same Pictographic and cursive signs, Evans recognized that there were in fact systematicdifferences among the inscribed tablets and this allowed him to distinguish two differentgroups: one older (going back to the first palaces) and a later one (linked to the last centu-ries of the palace). Evans used a number of different terms to identify the two scripts, butabbreviated versions of his terms "Linear Script A' and "Linear Script B" are still used torefer to the scripts and the associated languages. Evans also realized that texts which closelyresembled his "Knossiart'' Linear B were also found on the Greek mainland. After due study,Evans was also able to recognize narnes and grammatical forms in the texts, and frequentlyto identifr the genre and subject. But there was no way to vocalize the texts or to recognizethe language in which they were recorded. Evans could not read them.

It is at this point that Michael Ventris (1922-56) enters the picture. His contributionwas not archaeological. Using a purely logical and scientific methodology combined withextraordinary intellect and perseverance, he managed (almost single-handedly) to identi$'and decipher the language recorded in the texts ofthe Bronze Age Aegean script Evansdesignated as Linear B. A dozen years after Evans's death, this effort (Chadwick 1958) estab-lished that the Greek language was used and spoken in Greece and the Aegean islands inthe Bronze Age.

The decipherment completely changed the nature of the study of the Bronze Age Aegeanand an entire sub-discipline based on the study of the texts has since emerged. However,writing was not an important part of Mycenaean culture. It was used only for administra-tive records covering short periods of time and the art seems to have disappeared from theGreek world at the end of the Bronze Age. The administrative records give us some idea ofthe economy, but the real surprise was that the texts contained personal names and archae-ologists found themselves confronted with names which came right out of the Iliad - thatwork which marks the birth of European mythology.

Thus, when writing was reborn in Greece, its social role stood in stark contrast to therecords of the Mycenaeans - but tales of the Mycenaeans now lay at the heart of the creativeefforts of the later Greelcs. Written in archaic Ionian Greek, using Greek letters, Homer'sIliad not only marks the birth of Greek civilization as we know it .The Iliad is also the oldestworkof Western literature. The copies that we have are much more recent, but the originaltext must date to somewhere in or after the eighth century BcE. By that time, the Greekshad adopted the Phoenician alphabet to write their language, but apparently wanderingbards could also recite lengthy and complicated rhythmic texts. The tradition of oral poetryseems to have developed in parallel with the alphabetic writing and thus it does not repre-sent a continuation of the writing traditions of the Bronze Äge Aegean. Instead, it is a newstart.

Although not historical, as it had been composed centuries after the events, Homer'sIliadwas written in Greek and describes incidents from the Trojan War which comple-ment what is known from other sources (cf. Latacz2004). Although many of the details inHomer and these later sources were invented or imaginatively enhanced, we can now say

that Troy probably lay where Schliemann said it did (at Hisarhk at the Aegean end of theDardanelles in modern Turkey) and that the conflict which led to the fall of Troy (probablyca. 1185 BCE) actually took place in the course of the wars at the end of the Bronze Age.

Thus the archaeology of the Bronze Age Mediterranean takes us back not only to thebeginnings ofEuropean history, but also back to before even the beginnings ofEuropeanm1'th. And forwards to the birth of modern archaeology and philology.

107

ANCIENT EUROPE IN THE HISTORICAT PERIOD

THE MINOANS

As preserved, the Minoan religion is largely known to us through (a) palaces, urban-typesettlements and villas, (b) so-called "peak sanctuaries" and (c) tombs from the island ofCrete. The centre of the system seems to have been the palace at Knossos. Regardless ofwhether the Minoan ruler at Knossos controlled the entire island or even parts of theAegean, s/he certainly controlled the region around the palace of Knossos, and the entireculture in terms of iconography and language; Knossos had a leading role in the repre-sentation of Minoan civilization. The identity of the ruler in the palace there is difficultto specifr. Dominant ruling males in the Bronze Age Aegean are conspicuously absent inthe sense that they do not dominate the iconography (as is the norm in the contemporarycivilizations of Egypt and the Near East). However, a male figure does occasionally appear,

sometimes closely (Figure 12.4) and sometimes loosely (Figure 12.5) associated with lionsand griffins, and this can be related to Near Eastern expressions of political power. Menalso appear in the context of the "divine epiphany'iwhere the divinity appears to be female,

frequently beheld by women as well as men.One seal found at Knossos was drawn and discussed by Evans (Fig. 12.5). It shows what

appears to be a goddess standing atop a mountain peak flanked by lions. The goddess is

firmly holding a simple staff (a symbol of power in the Near East and Aegean), display-ing it to the man in the plain below who is overwhelmed by the sight of the goddess.

What appears to be a corner of a palace with the typical Minoan "horns of consecration"is on the plain in the background. Thus from the art, one is under the impression thatwomen appear dominantly and frequently, and indeed that society was dependent upon

Figure 12.4 Evans's copy of Minoan or Mycenaean seal with male figure between

crouching lions (original less than 2 cm across) (Evans 1921-351V.467).

108


Figure 12.5 Evans's copy of a seal found at Knossos (original ca.2 cm across) (Evans 1921-35:rrr.463, rr. 809).

the worship of the goddess who assured the welfare of the state and its representatives.If the iconography is understood cbrrectly, power belonged to her, and thus it is hardlysurprising that in the Mycenaean texts we probably encounter her as Po-ti-ni-a, llötvra/P6tnia, the "Mistress" (see below).

Tombs and treatment of the deadMany of the seals and other artifacts which provide similar iconographic information werefound in tombs. Care for the dead was important for a small part of the population. Thestone tombs are among the earliest monumental structures on Crete, erected in the centurybefore the earliest palaces. A variety of burial forms are documented but the removal andcollection of indMdual skulls for deposition in collective burials is probably one of themost striking practices, and one which can be traced back to practices in the NeolithicLevant and Anatolia. The importance of caves distinguishes Minoan burial customs fromboth the Near East and Mycenaean traditions.

Cult objects and practicesAmong the most prominent features of Minoan traditions are (a) the "horns of con-secration", (b) the double-axes, (c) small stone altars, (d) female figurines, (e) "lustralbasins" and (f) scenes which seem to imply some ecstatic rites or divine epiphanies (as inFig. 12.5). Whatever they are, the "horns of consecration" come in a variety of sizes and

109

M I


materials, and are abundant, being prominently displayed in both "ritual" (sanctuaries,deposits, tombs) and "political" (palatial) contexts. To a lesser extent, the same is trueof the 'double axes", and some of these made of gold have been recovered from contextswhich imply ritual use and deposition. The lustral basins played a role in various purifica-tion ceremonies.

In some cases, elements can be combined into single scenes (Fig. 12.6). There are alsoscenes where the activities clearly take place outdoors, some of which can be interpretedas rituals, such as saffron gathering. Aside from this, plants (or trees) can also appear onaltars, approached or touched by adoring humans (occasionally as a sign of grief). Otherscenes are ambiguous but an outdoor context can be assumed. Processions are amongthe most prominent features of Aegean religion; these can also be related to the divineepiphany (as, e.g., perhaps in Fig. 12.7).Ihis allows one to conclude that the depictions

Figure 12.6 Evans's reconstruction of a small altar surmounted by"horns ofconsecration", Mycenae (Evans 1921-35: IL 187).

Figare 12.7 Evans's reconstruction of a procession or adoration scene where the youthful male worship-pers face the goddess or her priestess who is holding the tlpical Minoan double axes (this section of thetotal scene is ca. 5 m long) (Evans 192l-35 11.723).


imply tha! divine epiphany took place outdoors (in nature and not in temples). If so, flimsystructures will have been erected for temporary ceremonies, and disassembled afterwards,the various cult utensils being removed with due care.

Sanctuaries and templesWhile what must be interpreted with Sir Arthur Evans as "temple repositories" were indeedfound in the palace at Knossos, there is no evidence of a temple there - or practicallyanywhere else in Crete (with the possible exception of a strange building at Anemospilia:see below). There may have been small shrines outside of the earliest palaces. Thus ritualparaphernalia, figurines and shrines were part of the Minoan religion, but seemingly notthe major urban buildings which one associates with religion. The sanctuaries are those ofthe mountain peaks which seem to have played a major role in the religion. Significantly,the number of peak sanctuaries declined over the centuries and one of the most importantsurviving ones was that at Mount Iuktas near Knossos.

The peak sanctuaries (Dietrich 1969,1974; D. iones 1999) were places where banquetsand festivals took place. So much is clear from the archaeological traces. The seals foundin the palaces and settlements of the plains also show women in rocky landscapes, and 'thus these can also be associated with the peak sanctuaries (as in Fig. 12.5). Among theinscriptions found at the peak sanctuaries are some thirty which give several versions of aIibation formula celebrating one single goddess: |a-sa-sa-ra (Younger & Rehak 2008: I77).

The palacesThe most important of the palaces is that at Knossos (Fig.l2.2),but there are a number ofothers strung along the coasts. The palaces must have been centres ofpower. Whether therewas a central authority in Knossos with governors in the other palaces is unknown (andimprobable), but even if independent princes are to be associated with the various palaces,Knossos was in some way dominant. Certainly each palace was linked to a harbour, andeach will also have had a hinterland to tax. Obviously, each palace has its own specificarchitecture and like any palace, a good deal ofeach consisted ofapartments for the rulersand servants and storerooms for the goods. Significantly, each usually had a courtyard; inseveral cases, low monumental stairways appear outside the buildings. It is possible thatthese courtyards and stairways were scenes of ritual and pageantry.

Several scripts were used in the palaces, and the name of the goddess |a-sa-sa-ra isfound on sealings, pottery vessels and clay tablets on Crete. The double axe is also usedas a sign in one of the scripts. It is also in the palaces that we find the small figurines andother appurtenances, in storage rooms, or Sir Arthur Evans's "temple repositories" inKnossos (Fig. 12.8; cf. Panagiotaki 1993). It would appear that the objects were portable,and'laken out" in processions. This is what is elliptically mentioned in the later Linear Btexts of Mycenaean date, but the physical nature of the materials found would imply thatthe later practice was a survival. fust where they went is not clear: perhaps to the largestaircases of the palaces (where groups could have assembled as in later theatres) or evento the peak sanctuaries.

A peculiar activity was "bull-leaping" (erroneously described as "tauromachy", a termthat is better reserved for bullfighting): the athletes seemed to have jumped over the bulls

111

112 ANCIENT EUROPE Iil THE HISTORICAL PERIOD

Figure 12.8 Evanst photo of his reconstruction of the elements of the temple repositories, Note thefigurines ofthe woman left and right, and in the background (figurine standing at left, ca. 3a cm high)(Evans 1921-35: I. 518).

by grasping their horns front-on and then doing a handstand before landing upright andthen jumping offthe bull's back Whatever this activity may have meant, both young menand women seem to have been involved in the acrobatics; it must have been some kind ofspectator sport organizedby the palaces, perhaps taking place in the courtyards.

Gods and goddessesAs important as the ritual materials in the storerooms are the written documents in thepalaces. From the Mycenaean Linear B tablets, we can perhaps identifr Pi-pi-tu-na andA-ma-tun-na as Minoan goddesses worshipped in Mycenaean times.

Most important, however, was the goddess Ia-sa-sa-ra, the object of offerings at thepeak sanctuaries, as she is also found in seal impressions and on seals related to the palaces.It is thus clear that among the most important deities identified as being worshipped in thepeak sanctuaries was the same one known in the palaces. |a-sa-sa-ra is the most promi-nent goddess and she is probably to be associated with the figurines (depicting either sheherself or her priestess). Etymologically, Ia-sa-sa-ra herself is probably to be linked to theLevantine goddess Astarte or Asharah (originally Akkadian Ishtar and Sumerian Inanna).The Greek Pdtnia ("mistress'i 'Queen" = "she who has power"), known from the Mycenaeantexts, is clearly an inheritance from the Minoan world, and might be a "translatiorf' of aMinoan epithet of the goddess Ja-sa-sa-ra. Athena also appears in the Mycenaean sources,referred to as P6tnia in Knossos, but the form of the name - Athänä - betrays a foreign(potentially Minoan?) origin.

The evidence can be interpreted as implying that one single goddess lay at the centre ofMinoan practices, and that the various forms are merely different manifestations of this


Figure 12.9 Evans's version ofthe earlier figurine (left in Fig. 12.8)(Evans 1921-35: I. frontispiece).

one goddess. This would be the implication of the texts which distinguish the goddess.Alternatively, the various divinities may have been different individuals - or there mayhave been roles for a goddess and her priestesses. In any case, any conclusions probablydepend upon one's understanding of divinity.

It is practically impossible to identi$r the goddesses named in the texts and the meaningof the figurines such as those depicted in the figures here (including Figs I2.5,12.7-12,9).These female figurines may have depicted goddesses, priestesses or even members of aroyal family.

THE MYCENAEANS

The citadel of Mycenae on the Peloponnese of mainland Greece has given its name to theperiod - and the palace at the citadel of Mycenae is larger than those of the other known

113

1',l4 ANCIENT EUROPE IN THE HISTORICAL PERIOD

Mycenaean citadels of the Mycenaean states at Tiryns and Pylos, so it can claim someleading role. Given their walls and hilltop positions, the Mycenaean citadels differ signifi-cantly in layout from the unwalled Minoan palaces lying in the plains; whereas Mycenaeitself lay a good distance from its own harbour, the Cretan palaces and villas did not neces-sarily lie far from the harbours. Where the Minoans spread their architectural forms acrossthe landscape, the Mycenaeans adapted their architecture to the landscape, preferringhills to plains. While seals and sealings are typical of the Minoan age, weapons appear inabundance in the tombs at Mycenae. One cannot escape from thinking of the Mycenaeansas robber-barons and pirates differing distinctly from the self-confident Minoan manager-rulers who organized trade networks in the Aegean. Yet each Mycenaean king (&va\länax= Mycenaean wa-na-ka) also maintained the iconographic traditions of the past in hisown city, as, for example, on the "lion gate" at Mycenae.

Tombs and treatment of the deadThe Mycenaeans used both (a) built domed circul ar (thölos) tombs of stone and (b) cham-bers cut into the rock to accommodate their dead. The types may have been inheritedfrom the Minoans, and like them, the tombs were also designed so that one could openthem with ease to install the following generations. There were also simple tumuli andshaft tombs, the latter in particular being designed to accommodate several generations.Some of the types are found in geographically distinct areas (e.g. in Messenia thölos-tombs dominated and chamber tombs were rare; the people of Eleusis likewise built tombswhereas their Attic neighbours preferred rock-cut tombs). However, rock-cut chambertombs become much more common everywhere and thus widespread towards the endof the Mycenaean era.

The abundance of offerings in the tombs includes weapons such as swords, but alsomanagerial items such as seals and commercial paraphernalia including elaborate balancescales designed exclusively for the grave. Among the most curious items is the extraor-dinary quantity of amber in the Mycenaean tombs which contrasts with its rarity in theMinoan period, meaning that Mycenaean trading networks reached as far as the Balticwhereas the Minoans had concentrated on contacts to the east (such as Clprus and theLevantine coast), and the northern islands of the Aegean. The abundance of amethyst inMycenaean contexts likewise confirms that close contacts were maintained with Egypt.And the elaborate tombs themselves reveal that a bureaucracy was already guiding theskilled craftsmen working on the thölos-tombs.

Iconographic evidence from clay coffins (lärnakes) reveals that before the bodies wereplaced in the tombs, women played a prominent role in both mourning and purificationofthe body. The body appears to have been on display before burial and this will have beenthe scene of funerarybanquets. Oils were used to prepare the corpse, and it was envelopedin a shroud. Within the tomb, the deceased were placed on the floor, after having beentransported there in a procession. From Mycenae, we have the 'death masks" that wereplaced over the face of the deceased. In contrast to the more commonly used glass pastejewellery, some of these masks were made of gold. The rich offerings of cosmetics, food anddrink also occasionally include personal items: tools, weapons and paraphernalia of a priestor of a musician have been recovered. After the burial, the tombs may have been openednot merely for additional burials, but also for a ceremony where\ bones were rearranged.


Cult objects and practicesThe Mycenaeans used double axes and "horns ofconsecrationi but to a far lesser degreethan the Minoans. One of the most common obviouslycultic items are small clayfigurinesdesignated by us as phi- and psi- idols (because of the resemblance of the figurines to theGreek letters g and y, where\ the latter is like a schematic human raising its arms in anair of adoration; it is difficult to judge, but presumably the former had its hands on itships). They are apparently popular votive offerings placed in sanctuaries to represent thepresence of the donor in the proximity of the god - but they are also found in graves andprivate houses reflecting the personal type of religion known in the later Greek world.

Like the Minoans, the Mycenaeans performed sacrifices, feasts, processions and liba-tion rituals. The extent to which encounters with the gods took on the ecstatic form attrib-uted to the Minoans is not clear, but in the iconography it does not play the same centralrole as among the Minoans. However, they seem to have adopted the idea of processionssince the texts refer to the 'tarrying" ofthe gods. Yet these processions did not lead totemples, but rather to shrines (as we understand them; in the texts'temples" are present).Whereas the small (and cheap) votive figurines hint at the popular nature of the religionand participation, the absence of major urban temple architecture accentuates the conceptof a low-key popular religion.

The citadelsFor most of the Mycenaean states, the citadels are dominated by a centrally placed megaronwhich seems to have been the centre of political power. The megaron was a large imposingroom with a hearth at its centre, marked by four thick pillars (Fig. 12.3, the building at thecentre, beside the number "8"). The throne room (on the north-west side of the courtyard;Fig.l2.2, upper left) at Knossos is diminutive by comparison. Even this is probably littlemore than a Mycenaean renovation of a Minoan installation: the centres of power werefar clearer in the Mycenaean world. Both the texts and the archaeological evidence (boneswith butchers' marks and large quantities of pottery) confirm that many people took partin the feasts celebrated by the palace. It can be assumed that the rituals performed by the"king" or "princd' in a Mycenaean state in and around the megaron of the citadel will havebeen intended to serve the welfare of the entire political unit (as well as the ruling family).The hearth will thus have symbolized both the community and the royal household.

Shrines and templesThe Mycenaean documents include the word "templd' (vaöc,lnaös = Mycenaeanna-wi-jo),but hitherto no major temples have been found. What is preserved archaeologically arethe'tultic areas" on the citadels (Whittaker 1997) and there is phitological evidence ofcults outside the immediate area of the capital. The texts from Pylos indicate that asidefrom Dionysus, the most important gods were all worshipped in the immediate vicinityof the palace. In the case of Mycenae there is also a 'tult centre" within the enclosurewalls of the citadel, but well away, lower down and to the east of the main megaron. Thisarea can be linked to the small figurines and the processions, with their small portablegods, in proposing a parallel form of religion which was related to popular cults worship-ping gods in a sense which differed substantially from any rituals practised in the major

115


megarons. Yet the transports must have started somewhere and the cultic paraphernaliamust have been kept somewhere. Among the items which stayed in place were apparentlylow benches upon which figurines and other objects were placed in cult places (apparentlyalso including those peak sanctuaries which the Mycenaeans also adopted: see Marinatos1995; D. Jones 1999).

DivinitiesThe Mycenaeans worshipped divinities (teoiltheoi) which we can clearly recognize as such.Aside from the deities mentioned above, P6tnia, Athena, Pi-pi-tu-na and A-ma-tu-na, theMycenaean written sources also confirm that theyworshipped Poseidon, Zeus (the dativeform written as the recognizably Indo-European form Diwei), Dionysus, Hera, Hermes(Hermähäs) and Artemis (as Artimis). These are all known from the contemporarywrittendocuments and from the later pantheon. The Mycenaeans worshipped other gods as well,such as an Eleuthia, but also including a female equivalent to Zeus, a goddess prob-ably named Diwia, probably a sky goddess of Indo-European origin (possibly a consort,but definitely separate from Hera [E-ra]). I would likewise concur with Palaima (2008:

349-50) that Demeter was probably at hand, but also concealed under the broad mantle ofP6tnia. (This is, however, also related to the discussion of the Minoan goddess: see below).Persephone may also have been present as the "girl" (ko-walkorwa),

The importance of the Minoan gods in the Mycenaean system is not clear. The writingof Artemis implies that she belongs to the gods inherited from earlier. The same is true ofAthena. In Mycenaean times, this Athena was certainly more than "merely" the goddessof the city whose name celebrates her to this day (although associated with the site ofthe city already in the Bronze Age). Obviously these goddesses were fully incorporatedinto the Mycenaean and Greek systems, but Athena may have been of at most subsidiaryimportance in the Minoan system.

DEBATES AND DISCUSSION

Many aspects of these earliest documented European religions are matters of intensedebate. I can now discuss a few of the controversial questions involved, as a means ofexploring the issues and perhaps gaining some insights into the Bronze Age Aegean world,or at least providing a platform for debate about the interpretation of the world presentedhere in rather sketchy fashion.

lnternal evolution and lndo-EuropeansOne of the major academic controversies about the Minoans concerns their relationshipsto the Near Eastern civilizations. Before the 1970s, it was widely assumed that the originsof the Minoan civilization lay in the Near East. With the appearance of Renfrew's (1972)Emergence of Civilisatio,n this interpretation was reversed, and it was asserted that theorigins of the Cretan palaces were a local development, unrelated to the Near East. InAegean archaeology, Renfrew's general interpretation has not been entirely discarded (cf.e.g. Barrett & Halstead 2004). Yet I would argue that the actual archaeological evidence

MIHOAN AND MYCENAEAN RELIGION

and philological analysis which has grown progressively since has largely confirmed theoriginal diffusionist interpretation.

Indeed, the interpretation of the evidence has gone much further, and contradicted thefundamental claims about the economy advanced by Renfrew (1972:476ff.), which werethe basis of his entire project. Among these was Renfrew's rejection of migrations, a viewwhich is widely forgotten today when Bennet (2007: I84) concludes that "Immigration,not internal growth, presumably accounts for much of" what led to the Cretan palaces.Renfrew also stressed the importance of internal trade within the Aegean world as thedecisive motor of growth, while dismissing the importance of trade with the Levant. YetShelmerdine and Bennet (2008: 307) note that the Mycenaean administrative "texts showalmost no sign of interaction among" the various Mycenaean polities, refuting Renfrew'sargumen| by contrast, the links with the Levant are universally recognized. Similarly,Renfrew's analysis disputed the similarity of the state economic systems of the Aegeanto those of the Near East, yet this interpretation is routinely contradicted by scholarsworking with the material who suggest that the two systems shared manybasic principles(cf. e.g. Bennet 2007: I90). In any case, students ofreligion have generally recognized thelinks with the Near East (e.g. Dietrich 1974;L6pez-Ruiz 2010) and are thus in line withthe general trend ofthe archaeological and philological evidence (although not all thearchaeologists).

Renfrew (1987) was also responsible for an interpretation which eventually led toplacing the origins of the Indo-Europeans in Anatolia and related them to the developmentof agriculture. From there, they will allegedly have moved into Greece where the Greeklanguage developed. This argument is quite difficult to follow for many reasons (amongthe most important being that neither DNA nor potsherds can be related to the speakersof a family of languages; there are also no texts until millennia later so the language issue isultimately impossible to solve and therefore irrelevant). Various different arguments havesince been proposed. Originally, preferences for the arrival of the Greeks ranged from thethird millennium to the end of the second, or later. However, the Linear B texts (writtenin Greek) confirm that the Indo-Europeans were present in the second millennium. Yeton the other hand, the archaeological evidence for an arrival ofthe Indo-Europeans inthe third millennium is far weaker than widely assumed; Pullen (2008; 40) notes that thevarious arguments about the interpretation of the archaeological material "have not yethad the impact they should'i

To me, it seems more reasonable to allow that the indo-Europeans came out of thesteppe (cf. e.g. Mallory 1999) in a series of waves, one of which reached Greece andAnatolia in the early second millennium BCE; others led them into India at the sametime. Later arrivals are correctlyviewed as "infiltrations" as more Indo-Europeans arrived,gradually changing the makeup of the population. The nature of the original populationis difficult to identi$r: the earliest waves will have come from the east, but there were cer-tainly many different population groups in the east, using different tFpes of pottery andbuilding different types of architecture.

There is a break in the Middle Helladic II period (roughly contemporary with the eraof the earliest palaces in Crete, ca. 1900-1700 ncn) when there are few settlements on themainland. When life resumes, this leads straight into the era of the Mycenaean citadels:there is virtually no cultural breakbetween the Middle Helladic III and the Late HelladicI (beginning ca. 1600 BCE) associated with the citadels - which bear no comparison to

117


what was known elsewhere and previously. And those citadels emerged where popula-tions began to coalesce during Middle Helladic II. Whoever the Mycenaeanr and theitpredecessors were, it would be reasonable to assume that the Mycenaeans arrived atsome time (well before the appearance of their citadels) in the cultural vacuum of MiddleHelladic II.

In this article I have referred to the Mycenaeans as "Greeks" since the language theyused was effectively Greek (but apparently an east Greek dialect). More cautious scholarsprefer to reserve the designation "Greek" for those peoples who appear after the Dark Ageswhen we are certain that there was a consciousness of a "Hellenic" identity.

History, language families and textual contentOne other matter which still remains a matter of discussion is the decipherment of LinearA, and the implications for Aegean prehistory. The Linear B texts associated with thelatest phases of the palaces and citadels are written in an early form of Greek (as notedabove, probably an east Greek dialect) which we term Mycenaean. For the greatest part,the Linear B texts use signs known from the earlier Linear A texts associated with theMinoan palaces. The Linear B script was not suitable for writing Greek and thus obviouslyadopted from Linear A, which was equally obviously devised to write a different type oflanguage, using syllabic signs (as was the norm in Akkadian cuneiform). Although it wasonce widely assumed that the written form of Linear B Mycenaean appeared much laterthan the language of the Linear A texts, it is now known that the origins of Linear B (i.e.mainland Mycenaean Greek) go back to an era perhaps no more than a century or twolater than the first attested use of Linear A (i.e. Late Helladic I, ca. 1600 ncr against MiddleMinoan IB, before ca. 1800 ncr).

Linear A probably records the same language as Cretan hieroglyphic which is cer-tainly a little older than the Linear A script, but the degree to which the earlier formsactually recorded a "languagd' cannot be clarified, whereas Linear A definitely recordeda language, as did the hieroglyphs of the Phaistos disc which remains undeciphered. Thelanguage recorded in Linear A is likewise widely assumed to be an undeciphered Indo-European language, yet persistent efforts over the last halfcentury have failed to identifyany relevant support for this idea. The fact that the concept behind the script which wasused for writing both Linear A and B is not really suitable for an Indo-European languageshould also be drawn into consideration, as should adjustments in Linear B which suggÄtmodifications necessary to write an Indo-European language - meaning that Linear Aprobably was not one.

This should encourage scholars to adopt the idea of a north-western Semitic dialect,as originally proposed in the 1950s by Cyrus Gordon (cf. Gordon lg6s,1966), but thisidea continues to be disputed, at least partially because of the bias against Near Easterninfluences supporting, and generated by, Renfrew's work. The basis of Gordon's approachwas to apply the phonetic values assigned to Linear B which were the basis for establishingthat the words could be read once it was recognized that the language was Greek. Thusthe vocalization of the language depicted in the Linear A script is not really a matter ofdebate. On this basis, one can "read" the Linear A texts, in the sense of vocalizing them,but one cannot understand the texts unless one can link identifiable words with syntaxand grammar which makes sense.

119MINOAN AND MYCENAEAN RELIGION

Gordon and a few others claim to recognize a West Semitic language in the texts as

they read them. Even those who are not persuaded by the Semitic argument can recognizethat, for example, based on the vocalization of Linear B applied to Linear A the word for'total" at the end of a series of figures is probably Semitic (ku-ro = kullo, "all'l "entird').Nevertheless, the claim for the successful decipherment of the language as Semitic is con-tested, although as noted, not one single effort to identify an indo-European has succeededin persuading anyone; even Etruscan, which is not recognized as an Indo-European lan-guage, has been unsuccessfully argued. However, as noted, the archaeological and philo-logical evidence largely contradicts Renfrew and the presence of Semitic words in thevocabulary of Linear A is not contested. On the other hand, however, Semitic words inGreek are also found in Linear B, such as "gold" found in Linear B as ku-ru-so, which isGreek lpuoöc,lkhrusös, but also Akkadian l,turäsum. Since it can likewise be argued thatSemitic elements in Linear A are mere "loanwords" (Younger & Rehak 2008: i76), therecognition of a successful decipherment of the language is probably the only hope ofresolving the issue.

Of key importance, in any case, is that the Mycenaean Greeks were an Indo-Europeanpeople who appeared in mainland Greece at the same time as their Indo-European rela-tives and contemporaries, the Hittites, who established themselves in Anatolia early inthe second millennium BCE. It is clear from the iconography and artifacts found in theirtombs and citadels that when the Mycenaean Greeks arrived, they came into contact withthe Minoan civilization, which they obviously perceived as being superior to their own.However, in addition to adopting certain Minoan customs, they also brought their ownIndo-European heritage with them.

The behaviour of the Hittites was largely similar: as the Mycenaeans adopted the LinearA of the Minoans to write their language, the Hittites adopted the cuneiform writinginherited from the Sumerians to write their own language and used the Semitic Akkadianlanguage for diplomatic communications. Like the Mycenaeans, the Hittites had their ownpantheon, rituals and iconography (for literature, cf. the contributions and bibliographiesin Richter et al.200l).Interestingly, like the Mycenaeans, the Hittites shared the conceptof situating their capital in a citadel on a mountain.

Significantly, the people we call the "Mycenaeans" appear in the Hittite texts as those ofthe kingdom of Aft-riyawa, who are the 'Achaeans" known from Homer, and thus this des-ignation is probably the one which would be more appropriate for the culture (rather than"Mycenaeart''). The Hittites actually came into contact with the Mycenaeans/Achaeans onthe Aegean coast where Miletus was among their capitals, and the Hittite texts also allowus to locate Troy/Wilusaillios in the Troad and thus probably at the site identified bySchliemann. Yet the capital and the homeland of the Mycenaeans clearly lay in mainlandGreece and they only began their expansion to the east at the end of the Late Bronze Age(see Latacz 2001; Taracha 200L; Mee 2008: 373-4; R. Fischer 2010; Beckm an et al.20L2).

As Mycenaean appears to be east Greek, this might mean that the Mycenaeans hadarrived on the eastern coasts of the Aegean, and it was only later that they moved to themainland Greece when they established their states and began writing (using the Linear Ascript, as the Greeks would later use the Phoenician alphabet) in the middle of the secondmillennium sCE. Thus it was as the Mycenaeans moved further east in historical timesin the Late Bronze Age that they came into conflict with the Hittites. Evidently, the vastdifference between the Hittite and Mycenaean languages means that the two developed

120 ANCIENT EUROPE IN THE HISTORICAI. PERIOD

independently and separately for some time, meaning that the two separated from Proto-Indo-European long before the two came into conflict in the eastern Aegean around thefifteenth century BCE.

Nevertheless, this allows us to understand the destruction ofTroy in the sense depictedby Homer: as a conflict between peoples with efectively similar cultures and a sharedpantheon. In fact, the weather god pre-eminent in the Levantine cultures was also centralto the Hittite pantheon, just as Zeus with his thunderbolt stands before the other gods ofthe Greek pantheon.

But, peculiarly, the end of Troy was accompanied by the destruction of the citadels ofthe Mycenaeans and Hittites as well. The fact that Pylos (in western Greece) and Ugarit (onthe Syrian coast) were among the states also threatened and destroyed at this time indicatesthat the conquest of Troy was part of a general upheaval in the eastern Mediterranean.We now know that the end of the Bronze Age was in part due to a pattern of moyementsof peoples; in the eastern Mediterranean several of the groups, many Indo-European, areamalgamated and known to us as the Peoples of the Sea (a name drawn from the Egyptianinscriptions, cf. Oren 2000). These developments led to the total collapse of the HittiteEmpire, the Egyptian abandonment of their colonies, and the Assyrian withdrawal fromthe Levantine coast. The fall of Troy was therefore not a unique event and not the workof the Mycenaeans alone but rather an incident in the course of larger demographic andmilitary movements. Parts of this tale were transformed in the memory of the later Greeksin the following centuries, and some of the names mentioned in Homer are mentionedin Hittite and Eglptian texts, confirming that memory of the events and people was notcomplete invention.

Significantly, the Minoans had dominated trade in the Aegean before the Late BronzeAge and the Mycenaean expansion; the earliest texts at Miletus (on the Anatolian coast) areMinoan Linear A, and it would appear that there was also a Minoan palace at Miletus (|.L. Davis 2008: 199). Thus the Mycenaeans apparentlymoved into the Minoan world fromthe north when approaching Crete and from the west when approaching the Anatoliancoast which had also been previously dominated by the Minoans. When dislodging theMinoans, the Mycenaeans came into conflict with the Hittites who had been expandinginto Syria until halted by the Egyptians and Assyrians.

The question of languages is also related to the content of the texts and the means ofcommunication. I would argue that the texts as preserved represent whatever discoursethere was in the society, tlrat is, that economic activities were carefully tracked in writtenform. By contrast, I would contend that religion was largely conveyed through images andpractices without accompanying texts in the sense of liturgies or hymns (let alone myths).As noted, one can read a certain amount from the images presented here, but one cannotget at the "meanings" which are usually assumed to lie in the written texts.

What should be particularly striking for students of religion is the fact that complicatednarrative-type iconographywith scenes does not appear anywhere in the world until afterthe appearance of the states with writing systems in the Near East. Since then such imageryhas appeared in societies with little or nothing in the way of writing traditions. But thearchaeological record from prehistory does not reveal parallels, and thus the stimulus ofthe development of complicated iconography must be taken into account when tryingto understand the early development of religion. For the Minoans and Mycenaeans, it ishighly improbable that "meanings" were transmitted at the same time that the iconography

MINOAN I\ND MYCENAEAN RELIGION

and principles were. Whether any clear meanings (of any kind) were read into the scenesis difficult to know, but doubtful.

Likewise, the fact that a single basic libation formula is preserved from the Minoan - butnot the Mycenaean - world should be taken at face value. The only clear elements preservedin this genre of Minoan text name the deity and the place and perhaps the donor (Younger& Rehak 2008: 176-7). Such information does not do anything except confirm a religiouspractice which could be interpreted from the archaeological material alone: there is nohint ofa coherent body ofthought behind the practice. Although it is correctly observedthat the principle of making offerings implies that one performs actions for the gods sothat the gods might respond in kind, even this simple thought is not actually recognizablyexpressed in any of the known texts from the Bronze Age Aegean. Yet precisely such simpleexpressions with such specifications are routine in the contemporary Near East, wherenarrative myths only gradually developed long after the iconography had outpaced theeconomic texts and religious formulae. Coherent narratives took time to develop.

Furthermore, Shelmerdine (2008: 11-14) stresses that there is substantially moreevidence for literacy and widespread use of writing-media in the Minoan than in theMycenaean world. Indeed, Shelmerdine (ibid.: U) stresses that "no evidence suggests" thatthe Mycenaeans "used parchment as the Minoans did'i By contrast, what we have fromHomer seems to give a garbled image of historical memories of the turmoil at the end ofthe Late Bronze Age - and certainly nothing that takes us back much earlier. Only later,with Hesiod, do we have evidence that the Greeks incorporated Near Eastern thoughtinto cosmogonies.

Given the fact that the Mycenaean material seems to reflect an even less sophisti-cated society than the Minoan, I would argue that the more elaborate forms of religiousthought only emerged during the Dark Ages that followed the fall of Mycenae. Ventrisand Chadwick (1956: 107-8) allow that there may have been oral traditions but do notcontend that literacy was widespread or that any poetry was written down. Yet the laterGreek traditions do not seem to imply the conservation of memories going back to beforethe Mycenaeans. L6pez-Ruiz (20L0) correctly notes that it was through the Phoeniciansthat the Greeks seem to have acquired the ancient Near Eastern conceptual basis of thecosmological system prevalent in classical Greece. However, she also suggests that thepractices of cosmology and mythmaking were already present in the Late Bronze Age,for which there is no evidence.

On the other hand, however, Louden (2011) stresses not only links with the ancientNear East, but also the Old Testament. Although Louden (ibid.:322) does suggest thatthe exchanges to which the Odyssey bears testimony could have occurred before 900BCE, he does recognize that "much of Genesis clearly postdates the Odyssey". Whetherthe Old Testament influenced Homer or Homer the Old Testament is immaterial. Whatis reasonable is to date the borrowings in an era when exchanges of this type were knownto be taking place, that is, the first half of the first millennium ncn. I would thus arguewith Dietrich (1974) that there is some considerable continuity in Mycenaean places ofworship from the Bronze Age into the classical era, but against Dietrich and L6pez-Ruiz(2010) on the issue of the inheritance of myths from the Mycenaean era (where Dietrichconsciously tried to follow Nilsson 1934).

To judge by their legacy, the Mycenaean Greeks were not active thinkers and not recep-tive to the contemporary development of religion in Egypt and the Levant. Their history,

121


and especially the tales of the end of the Bronze Age, probablygave birth to the traditionsabout the Mycenaean world. The Mycenaeans themselves could hardly have had (or left)any real poetic legacy. Thus in my view, it was not the ancient Near Eastern conceptualsystems that reached the Aegean in the second millennium BcE, but rather the funda-mental building blocks of cult practice and iconography. The independent developmentof both cult and burial rituals will have culminated in elaborate systems of practice, butnot necessarily systems of belief. The Minoans may have adopted the iconographic andadministrative practices of the Near East, but their own approach to religion would appearto have been quite different, developing in a different direction: one which the Mycenaeansmay have inherited and narrowed while enlarging it with their Indo-European heritage.

The implications are that the Mycenaean Greeks arrived in mainland Greece from theeastern Aegean, but originally entered the Aegean from the north, and came into contactwith the Minoans who were already present in the Aegean and Crete. The Hittites probablycame into Anatolia over the Caucasus at the same time as other Indo-Europeans arrivedin India. A millennium later, at the end of the Bronze Age, the Peoples of the Sea likewisecontributed to the mixing of the peoples in the eastern Mediterranean, many of these willhave flowed out ofthe steppe.

Significantly, however, the Celtic archaeologist Vincent Megaw (pers. comm.) suggeststhat most cultural exchange did not take place across the steppe itseli but that instead thevarious streams flowed into the Mediterranean from east and west, and then again north-wards to Europe and Asia, so the concept of a Eurasian cultural domain should probablybe abandoned. This interpretation accounts for many curious aspects of the variation,preservation and distribution of iconographic motifs across Eurasia. At the same time itwould also explain why so much originalitf will be found in the eastern Mediterranean:it was the crucible where cultures and concepts collided, melted and crystallized.

It was in the eastern Mediterranean that the Levant and the Aegean met, and it wasin the eastern Mediterranean that the dramatic events at the end of the Bronze Age tookplace. It was here that generations of new traders representing the new peoples will havedeveloped new trade networks after the collapse of the great empires of the Bronze Age.The spirit of Greece arose in this era: there are no tales taking us back to an era beforethe Mycenaeans.

Thus Homer's tales bear no historical relation to events, but are rather a reworkingbased on dim memories and imagination. But memories there were. The Hittite textsidentift one of the contemporary fourteenth-century nCE kings of Troy as 'Alaksandu",the feminine form of which is preserved in the Linear B texts as A-re-ka-sa-da-ra (=Greek Al,elcvöpalAlexändra), which means that the Hittite texts probably identifr anAl,€(ovöpoq/Al6xandros/Alexander. This is the name of the prince whose behaviourunleashed the Trojan War (admittedly due to the wiles of Aphrodite) albeit two centurieslater than the Hittite texts.

In this sense, one can date the origins of Greek mythology to the Dark Ages at the startof the first millennium ecE. The tales of the end of the Mycenaean world gave rise to thisearliest European mythology. Curiously, the emergence of Israel owes its origins to thesame era and the same political context, and the creation of the national identity is basedon mythology founded on the same principle of forgotten events used to develop heroictales based on the ruins in the landscape, while incorporating fragments of reworkedBabylonian myth.

MINOAN AND MYCENAEAN RELIGION 123

Regardless of the debate, one neglected point is that the classical Greek and Mycenaeantraditions seem to include aspects of the Indo-European tradition which are typical ofHindu religion, such as the association of divinities with springs and groves, viewed asaesthetically pleasing and pleasant places where the divine might wish to linger (and notnecessarily mere sources of water and wood: cf. e.g. odyssey 5.59-76). Based on archaeo-logical finds and descriptions by the authors of classical antiquity, parallels might be foundamong the Celtic and Germanic tribes as well. Thus the issues of migration and difrrsionharbour many insights into shared philosophies which have been insufficiently stressedwhen dwelling on identities, continuity and regional interaction.

Egyptian connectionsOf crucial importance for the exchange of conceptual beließ are obviously the Egyptianconnections. From the evidence as we have it, regardless of any borrowing, there is noreason to believe that the Aegeans adopted Egyptian conceptual systems when drawingon iconography or practice. Yet significantly, recent evidence has confirmed the absolutepriority of Egyptian materials in Crete and the Aegean, even before the earliest palaces (cf.Manning 2008). The links between the earliest Bronze Age Aegean civilizations and Egypthave been recognized since the beginning ofthe serious study ofAegean Bronze Age reli-gions (e.g. Evans 192 1-35; Nilsson 1927). Yet there are three significant changes since thoseearly studies. First, the dates of the Egyptian civilization no longer assign Egypt a chrono-logical priority over Mesopotamia (as had been assumed in the earlier part of the twenti-eth century Ct): instead, the great urban literary civilizations of Egypt and Mesopotamiaemerged in parallel in the third millennium BcE. However, the origins of urbanMesopotamia are slightly older; above all, the goddess whom we know as the sumerianInanna (the later Akkadian Ishtar) is certainly documented from before 3000 BcE (whichis when Egyptian civilization effectivelytakes off). Yet, given the Minoan dominance of thesea, the presence of Egyptian materials in Crete at an early date is hardly surprising. Thusthe diffusion of Mesopotamian motiß and iconography and direct trade contact with theEgyptians will have played a role before and during the highpoint of Aegean Bronze Agecivilization. However, there is no reason to assume conceptual borrowings in that era.

The second fundamental change is the gradual realization that (at least in the MiddleEast, which is the only region in the world where myths can be demonstrated to haveexisted more than four thousand years ago) myths are a relatively recent development.Assmann has long argued that Egyptian myths did not really appear until the secondmillennium BCE. Recently, however, Alster (2011) has suggested that even the Sumerianversions of the Inanna myths did not appear until around the end ofthe third millenniumBCr. This means that myth was only gradually appearing in the periphery of the easternMediterranean at the time that the Minoan palaces began to appear. But that at that timethe borrowing was probably limited to Egypt and Mesopotamia and did not extend muchfurther.

The third change is the gradual recognition that the Minoan and Mycenaean tradi-tions were distinctly different, in contrast to what Nilsson (L927 , 1934) had argued. Andret here the evidence accumulating since then has contributed substantially to confirm-ing that the Egyptians had direct contacts with both the Minoans and the Mycenaeans,*'hich corresponded to Nilsson's interpretation, stressing Egyptian influence. Thus, we can


confidently assert that the Egyptians did in fact enjoy closer contacts with the Aegean thandid the Mesopotamians, but also recognize that there is virtually no trace of conceptualinfluences from Egypt in the Aegean practices.

Interestingly, the Mycenaean funereal customs as describedby Cavanagh (summarizedabove from Cavanagh 2008) bear a striking resemblance to Egyptian practices. Thus boththe Minoans and the Mycenaeans enjoyed direct borrowing from the Egyptians whichwas far more important than the indirect borrowing from Mesopotamia. In the case ofthe Mycenaeans, it is clear that this was probably a direct contemporary borrowing andnot part of some ancient inheritance from the Minoans (as the practices differ distinctlyfrom the Minoans). However, although many details have direct parallels in Egypt, it isclear that there are also other older Indo-European influences involved - aside from whathas become part of a set of universal funerary practices. These include the procession,banquet and preparation of the body, but also the symbolism of the tomb architectureitself which included the tripartite organization whereby a threshold separated the worldof the living from the world of the dead. But more significantly, Cavanagh (2008: 340)specifically stresses "ancestor worshiy'l which can clearly be connected to later traditions inclassical Greece but also perhaps to much older traditions taking us back to the Neolithicand Palaeolithic (see Petrasch, Damm and Kaul, this volume, Chs 7-9).

Significantly, the use of the Egyptian name Taweret in modern Aegean studies (fromEvans 1921-35: IV. 433ff. through Younger & Rehak 2008: 168) is due to modern schol-arship rather than the ambiguity of Minoan sources. The discussion arises because ofthe appearance of a rather bizarre "Minoan genius": usually upright, with the head of ananimal such as a lion or crocodile (Fig. 12.10). Evans referred to this Aegean creature as a"Minoan genius" and discussed at length an Egyptian goddess, "Ta-urt", whom we know as

Figure 12.10 Evans's drawing of a seal from Vaphio withtwo antithetical "Minoan genius" creatures (original less

than 2 cm diameter) (Evans 1921-35: IV. 453).

MINOAN AND MYCENAEAil RELIGION

Taweris or Taweret (Greek Th6öris), arguing a relation (and delving at length into detailsof the Eglptian and Aegean representations). The classic version of the Egyptian goddess

is that of a standing expectant hippopotamus with the head gradually merging into jaws

which can be associated with those of an hippopotamus (but also of a lion or crocodiledepending upon the inspiration, intentions and skill of the artist and the imagination ofthe observer); the feet are those of a lion; the breasts and arms human; in astronomical ver-sions it has a crocodile on the back (for the Egyptian goddess, cf. Gundlach 1986). Taweretshould be distinguished from the "Devourer of the Dead" known from the Egyptian Bookof the Dead (who likewise has features of a crocodile and a lion, but above all the jaws ofa crocodile).

In treating Taweret and her relations to the Minoan genius, Evans went on to discuss

astronomical aspects of the Egyptian iconography, which are actually quite important, as

well as the protective/apotropaic elements of the goddess in the Egyptian religion. Frommy own standpoint, Eyans was rather generous in including the crocodile jaws as partof Taweret, but in his own work Evans stressed the crocodile on the back of the figurewhen drawing parallels with the Aegean. Regardless, the Minoan representations are on

occasion far more persuasively lion-like than the supposed Eglptian parallels. Evans's

advocacy of the equivalency has been adopted more forcefully by recent scholarship as

a shorthand means of referring to this bizarre Minoan creature. In any case, the actualEgyptian name of the goddess is not found anywhere in the Aegean: the link is thus based

on rather far-fetched interpretations ofexceptional iconography rather than philology.That the Egyptian iconography may have inspired the Minoan artists is not impossible,but the designation and identification of the creature is an invention of modern research.

By contrast, the Egyptian term "Taweret" basically means "the (female) great one", andis thus not far from Pötnia. Interestingly, an Egyptian version of Pdtnia would, however,also be Taweseret, "the (female) powerful one", and both Taweseret and Taweret are prob-ably to be identified as (independent) manifestations of the Egyptian goddess Hathor.

The goddessThis does not, however, resolve the nature of the Minoan evidence of religion as such.

One of the major features of the Minoan religion is the woman depicted prominently infrescos and seals, and in the form of figurines found at Knossos. The most important ofthese is the woman holding at least one snake in her hands (and is probably identical tothe woman holding the staffsymbolizing power in the Minoan and Mycenaean worlds).Many of these items belong to both Minoan and Mycenaean traditions (although clearlyMinoan in inspiration and less important in the Mycenaean period). It is unclear whetherthis woman (or any of the others) should be interpreted as a priestess, a goddess or a ruler.

It is also far from clear whether we can conclude from the prominence of women thatthe religion was based on fertility cults and/or a system of matriarchy whereby the womenheld power. Based on their interpretation ofthe evidence, Younger and Rehak (2008: 182)

suggest that women may have "dominated Neopalatial society, perhaps even politics".

Evans had originally preferred a young priest-king. I tend to suspect that women do indeed

dominate the iconography, but stress that women, while appearing widely, do so in benigncontexts of symbolic importance whereas real power lay in the hands of the men. I thusinterpret the seal shown above in Fig. 12.5 as meaning that the goddess is promising or

125

125 ANCIENT EUROPE IH ?HE HISTORICAL PERIOD

offering the staffof power to the ruler in return for worship and obedience. In this fashion,the goddess is a source of legitimacy required by the self-effacing rulers. It is important tonote that for the Mycenaeans, we know that their society was ruled by men, but there as

well, the male rulers are not conspicuous. Certainly, in the Minoan era, the goddess ruledthe mountain peaks and was thus prominent, but out of the way.

The absence of monumental temples is quite important for the understanding of theMinoan and Mycenaean worlds. Apparently the gods were not suffrciently important tomerit their own monumental architectural dwellings, despite the fact that the Mycenaeantexts use the Greek word 'temple" (naös) to designate the shrines. Although many laterGreek temples are built in urban contexts, there were also major temples in relativelyobscure corners of the Greek world; this distribution corresponds to the phenomenon inthe Bronze Age Aegean. Yet in the Bronze Age, in architectural terms, the houses of thegods were nowhere near as important as either the tombs or the palaces. Obviously, thisalone stresses the importance of both ancestors and power.

As noted, in the Mycenaean world, the megaron in the palace was the centre of power.Significantly, the megaron structure of the Mycenaean citadel at Tiryns seems to havebeen gradually transformed into a temple-like building in the sub-Mycenaean period(Maran 200I: ll3-2L;2006).It is indisputable that the megaron structure played a fun-damental role in the later Doric temples but there is no reason to believe that the majormegarons themselves were temples in the Mycenaean era. The major megarons belongedto the ruling household. Yet a megaron-tFpe building was certainly situated in the 'tultcentre" at Mycenae (and indeed megarons are also prominent at, e.g., Early Bronze Troy),and thus the conceptual link between the architecture and the gods was latently present.The transformation of the central megaron at Tiryns can thus be read as reflecting thisdevelopment in the direction of religion as the worship of the gods in the Greek world,meaning that this came later, after the collapse of the Bronze Age civilization. The sub-sequent process is visible in the Iron Age Heroon at Lefkandi which incorporates themegaron plan in a primitive fashion, adumbrating some details of the development ofthe later Greek temples. Although we can trace origins, the main point is, however, thatBronze Age monumental temples for the gods are significantly lacking.

This, however, does not diminish the importance of the goddess in Bronze Age society.Significantly, the characteristics and epithets of the great goddess of the Near East tendto be more or less shared between different deities in the Near East, applied to SumerianInanna, Egyptian Hathor, Akkadian Ishtar - and her Levantine equivalents - with equalease (cf. Stucky 2003; Westenholz 2003; Cornelius 2004), meaning that the idea of a majorgoddess is completely compatible with the male-dominated society. Furthermore, thisgoddess may be important, but can be associated with eroticism rather than fertility.

With the ritual gesture of holding a snake in a stretched out hand, |a-sa-sa-ra can alsobe associated with the Egyptian goddess Qadesh (herself a Levantine import, her namemeaning "the sacred one" in Semitic; see Fig. I2.Il). "Pötnia" might thus be some form ofa rendering of "Qadesh I applied to fa-sa-sa-ra. Furthermore, I would postulate that a rela-tionship between Ja-sa-sa-ra, Pdtnia and Pythia is also possible; the oracle at Delphi datesback to the Mycenaean period and the presence ofsnakes is striking. Thus, the goddess canalso undergo a change as she moves from culture to culture, even perhaps being reducedto a priestess. Such an explanation might go some way to reducing confusion: but only inthe sense of recognizing that the ambiguities may have existed in antiquity.

MINOIIN AND MYCENAEAN RELIGION

Figure 12.11 A schematic sketch by Evans (1921-35: III. 420) ofthe Egyptian version of the Syrian goddess Qadesh (with two dif-ferent headdresses: left, the Levantine schematic version of Hathor's

locls; right, the Levantine/Mesopotamian version of the Hathorlocks with the crescent moon). (The version is an idealized one, butthe figures are rarely more than 30 cm high in the reliefs.)

In fact, however, the prominence of bulls and women in the Minoan and Mycenaeanworlds has also been related to the women and bulls so prominent at Qatal Höyük inAnatolia millennia earlier, and these can be traced even further back, to the Neolithic as

Cauvin (2000) argues (and indeed to the European Palaeolithic with the bulls of Lascauxand the Venus figurines: cf. Renfrew & Morley 2009). And this takes us into the debateabout continuity, pursued by Burkert, Dietrich and others. Certainly, there is some possi:bility of a long-term inheritance in Bronze Age Greece combining elements from NeolithicAnatolia and the prehistoric steppe along with Bronze Age Egyptian and Levantine influ-ences. However, I would argue that a good deal of what appears in the later Greek reli-gions owes its origins to the stories accumulating from the end of the Bronze Age and theinteractions with the Phoenicians in the Early Iron Age.

ldentity, tradition, change and continuity: ritual practice and understandingFurthermore, I would argue that there will have been changes over time during the Minoanand Mycenaean periods respectively, and that changes will also have taken place in the

127

r28 ANCIENT EUROPE IN THE HISTORICAT PERIOD

centuries between the fall of the Mycenaean citadels and the beginnings of classical Greece.We can demonstrate some kind of continuity, and it is probably wise to follow Palaima(2008: 355) in concluding that "the Homeric poems may be more useful in preservingsome form of authentic memories of the Bronze Age religion than it is now fashionable toaccept". However, distinguishing the memories from the contemporary Iron Age practicesmay be difficult. As in later Greece, attention to ritual will have been highly important,and the fear of offending the gods decisive in the behaviour of all members of society. Theconcept of feasting will also have played a key role. On the other hand, however, Homeralso clearly belongs to archaic and classical Greece in a way that Mycenae did not. Yet, thiswould allow us to posit that in Mycenaean times there were already distinctions betweenpriests and rulers.

Furthermore, aside from changes over time, there will also have been regional differ-ences within the Minoan and Mycenaean worlds. To take one example: peak sanctuariesare effectively rare in western Crete while being virtually typical for Minoan culture onthe rest of the island (although there is an overall trend for most of them to be abandonedover time in favour of major shrines such as Mount luktas). The case of the distinctly dif-ferent tomb types on the mainland in Attica and neighbouring Eleusis has already beenmentioned. The general tendency for chamber tombs to become more common during theMycenaean era was not mentioned but is equally relevant. Thus the version of these worldsas presented here has been oversimplified. Yet we must continue along the same vein.

The Minoans were probablyin averydifferentworldwhere rituals may not have hadthesame strength and importance, but feasting will have played a very important role in boththe Mycenaean and Minoan worlds. This brings us to one ofthe most controversial featuresof Aegean ritual the possibility of human sacrifice and the practice of cannibalism. Thearchaeological evidence, as always, is ambiguous. There are, however, a number of refer-ences in the later Greekliterature which imply ancient traditions of cannibalism associatedwith the Mycenaeans. These can be related to one specific find of Minoan date on Cretewhere the bones of small children were clearly cut. The marks on the bones can be con-strued as evidence of butchery favouring ritual cannibalism rather than mere defleshing.This case is actually quite clear in that alternative explanations can probably be ruled out,and the practice can be related to the textual sources, as Warren (1981) argues. The clarityof this one find means that one should be diffident about dismissing other cases where theevidence is not compelling. More controversial, for example, is the argument for evidenceof a Minoan human sacrifice in a shine at Anemospilia between Mount Iuktas and Knossos.The excavator (Sakellarakis & Sapouna-Sakellaraki l98I; 1997:268-31 1) concluded that hecould reconstruct a human sacrifice but the interpretation has been dismissed by Youngerand Rehak (2008: 170). Significantly, the interpretation hinges upon understanding thebuilding as having had an altar, but temples and shrines are highly exceptional in theMinoan and Mycenaean traditions. Yet the structure may have been unique because itserved a unique purpose. In this case, speculation and critical study alike are required.

This tendency to avoid the ritual practice of human sacrifice and cannibalism represents

a trend which combines a highly justifiable critical attitude towards the interpretation ofarchaeological reports with a tendency to skirt the issue where possible (for a detaileddiscussion and interpretation of the evidence, cf. Hughes L99I: passim, esp. 13-48). Iam inclined to accept the evidence in favour of cannibalism and human sacrifice in theMinoan and Mycenaean worlds, and this can perhaps be linked to the unexpected Bronze

MIilOAN AND MYCENAEAN RELIGION 129

.{.ge presence of Dionysus on the mainland (Pylos) and Crete (at Kydonia). yet its signifi-cance must remain a puzzle as we have no contemporary sources which could coifirmits meaning, and the later texts treat the issue with the revulsion familiar to us. Whetherthe ecstatic behaviour of the Minoans beholding the gods was transformed into frenziedritual banquets among the Mycenaeans must remain a moot question.

Obviously, we have difficulties combiningthe clear stylized naturalistic beautyofMinoanart with cannibalism. Yet Minoan art does tend to draw on the forms of the world around. us(Vesa-Pekka 2006), with animals, plants and landscapes figuring far more prominently thanwas the case in the cultures ofthe Near East andEgypt. Amongthe onlytypes of sanctuariesthat can be recognized are the "peak sanctuaries;i These .* b. linked io the use ofcavestbr burials and reflect a trend for the Minoans to embed themselves in their environment.

Nevertheless, the palaces representing Minoan culture imposed orthogonal organiza-tion on irregular nature. Thus, one does not know whether the Minoans were stressingthe environment, or whether they simply used the environment as a background to rituajpractices. By contrast, it is certain that Mycenaean art is dominated by a tendency to stylizeand the creation of schematic renderings which are far from the more naturalistic tenden-cies of the Minoans. Where the Minoans aimed at a pleasure in detail, the Mycenaeanspreferred schematic renderings. Such thoughts imply a religion that is far closer to thethoughts of the later Greeks.

Regardless, the earliest traces ofboth Minoan (Cretan) and Mycenaean (mainland) tra-ditions are tombs. However, tombs play an important role in the later Mycenaean trad.itionassociated with the citadels while they are, at most, of subsidiary importance in the earlier\[inoan palatial tradition. Thus, in terms of burial customs thetwo are linked and this issupplemsnlsd by the Minoan heritage of gods and practices present in the later Mycenaeanand Greek religion. The Mycenaean tombs can be undersiood as ancestor woiship andLinked to the Indo-European heritage while the Minoan traditions can be linked tä age-old,customs whereby they lacked the need for anchor-points. Furthermore, both Minoanand Mycenaean practices are probably similar to the Bronze Age Near Eastern religions inbeing intimately and intricately bound up with power structrires while using the"naturalenvironment as the context of human life. In the Mycenaean Aegean, the toÄbs maywellhave been linked to ancestor cults in a stronger äshion than-that recognizable in the\linoan world: some scholars associate even the earliest shaft tombs in giave circle B atI{vcenae (end Middle Helladic III, before 1600 BcE) to lineages and cläns, which mayrr-ell be legitimate in a warrior society where access to power is contested but restrictedbn' rules of inheritance allowing the princes of the citadels considerable advantages. It isprobably too simplistic to state that these religions were mere legitimizing dev[es, butit r'r'ould not be inaccurate to confirm that we can hardly separate religion-from society,culture, politics and administration.

Thus the relationships with the numinous and the ancestors will not have been restricted:o any particular social stratum, but rather part of an open social system in which theruling classes will have had a vested interest in preserving their prerogatives and con-rections with the Beyond. Obviously, in the absence of widely disseminated competingtritten traditions, there will not have been any major dogmas. The houses of the godi1er1bo1h literally peripheral and subsidiary to the palace. of th" living and the tomüs of:he dead. Thus, the understanding of ritual probably did not go beyondihe mere necessityof practice. Obviously, this ritual can probably be associated with the idea that efforts by


humans could encourage the gods to be well disposed, but the paradoxical tale of divineinterventions presented by Homer does not encourage one to believe in a coherent conceptof paci$'ing the gods let alone complex theological developments.

There is thus no reason to believe that a discourse about concepts of belief will haveexisted in the Minoan and Mycenaean worlds, although there will have been a numberofvague thoughts about death and the Beyond, as well as the relevance ofthe gods for thepreservation of power. The Mycenaean texts and figurines clearly reveal the emergence ofa worship of the major gods who would come to dominate later Greece; indeed, the post,Mycenaean era reveals the changes in the importance of the princes, heroes and gods leadinginto the Greek religions of later times. Personal piety on a popular level increased with theend ofthe Bronze Age,symbolizedbythe abundance of cheap terracotta figurines depositedinthe shrines.In the Bronze Ageitself, however, most ofthis was onlyjustbeginning.

But the stage was set, and the trend developing during the Bronze Age would take theGreeks into a different religious universe. Many aspects of the religions of classical Greeceand Rome can indeed be understood in terms of the changes and continuities from BronzeAge and archaic Greek religions. However, other aspects are new related to developmentsin the Iron Age. Specific information on the religions of classical antiquity will be foundin several of the chapters in the present volume. The following remarks are intended tocontextualize that information in a broader historical context, linking the two worlds ofthe Bronze and Iron Ages.

EPILOGUE TO THE BRONZE AGE AND PROLOGUETO THE RELIGIONS OF EUROPE

The Parthenon stands on the Athenian acropolis where the Mycenaean palace once domi-nated the city, and it is the Parthenon of classical Athens (and not Mycenae or Knossos)which is the hallmark of ancient Greece. In the same fashion, the goddess Athena has beenlinked to the city since Mycenaean times (and known to Homer as'Athena potnia"), butit is the classical Athena, associated with philosophy, independence and steadfastness,who symbolizes the West.

However, Phidias' renowned khruselephantine ("gold and ivory'') statue of AthenaParthenos which once stood at the centre ofthe Parthenon has long since disappeared(as have the hundreds of tons of silver which were once stored on the other side of thewall behind Athena). Indeed, the building itself has seen better days: quite aside from themissing segments of columns and the roof, the magnificent sculptures which adorned itspediments are spread around the globe. Yet even bereft of its artistic treasures, the ruinsof the building still dominate the imagination of the West.

Architecture and iconographyHowever, when it was built in the mid-fifth century BCE, the ideology of Greece's mostpowerful citywas also sculpted in the decoration. The most important and overwhelmingdecoration was that of the pediments which literally crowned the building. The theme ofthe eastern pediment was the birth of Athena; that of the western pediment was Athena'svictory over Poseidon to become patron deity of the city. Below these were the panels


just below the roof structure (all around the building on the outside) which presentedPanhellenic images of war: war with Asia, war with the Amazons, war with the Giants.The frieze within dealt largely with Attica and Athens.

In the eastern pediment, it is the game-changing arrival of Athena, born from thecrown of Zeus'head, which is celebrated. In the western pediment, the wealth of the city- agriculture and sea-faring - is the background to the dispute betrveen Athena who offersthe olive and Poseidon who offers a briny spring. Beside Zeus, Athena and Hera will havebeen some of the Olympian gods - perhaps Hephaestus, Dionysius, Aphrodite, Demeter,and so on - along with Helios the sun god rising over the horizon with his chariot at oneend and Selene the moon-goddess descending at the other end. Given the fragmentarystate of the statuary, scholars will debate the layout for all eternity, but it is not clear thateven if everything had been perfectly preserved there would be complete agreement onall points in the interpretation ofthe iconography.

GodsWhat is clear is the celebration of the city and the goddess who protected the city and ren-dered it brilliant. In her city, Athena was responsible for everything from craftsmanship tothe cultivation of the olive through spinning and weaving to political festivals. Athena wasalso one of the great gods of classical Greece. Yet even Nilsson (L967:433) did not hesi-tate to trace Athena back to what he calls the Minoan "snake-goddess" (Schlangengöttin).Therefore, like Zeus, Athena's origins lie in the Bronze Age, before the collapse of the citadelsand rise of the city-states of classical Greece - and before the days of temples. Yet over thecenturies, Athena of Greece had somehow remained associated with the citadel of Athens,iust as Zeus hadsomehowbecome associatedwith thecityof Olympia. Each thus developedthe identities that we know in the classical era where they were each associated with a specificcity. Yet each also belonged to the Greek nation, along with a number of other major gods.

Among the major (Olympian) gods, we can numbertZeus, first among the gods; hisdaughter the virtuous Athena; his long-suffering but wily wife Hera; his brother Poseidon,lord of the Sea, and another brother Hades, lord of the Netherworld. Reigning over theNetherworld was Persephone, consort of Hades and daughter of Demeter, a chthonic deityof fertility as an attribute of the earth itself. Hermes was the messenger of the gods and aherdsman in contrast to Artemis, the huntress and mistress of the wild animals. Aphrodite,the goddess of beauty and love, preferred the company of Ares, the god of war, and thusbetrayed her consort Hephaestus (son of Hera, and bother of Ares), the competent butcrippled smith of the gods. Apollo was the prophet of the gods but became a patron of thearts, being ultimately compared to Helios, the god of the sun, for the light he brought toHellas. Most popular was probably Dionysius, the god of wine.

There were, of course, many other deities, but these can suffice for the moment. Mostof these were viewed as the Olympian gods, the most important ones surrounding Zeusand the origins of divine rule, as defined by reference to Homer's view (but Homer's viewwas slightfy biased against, e.g., Dionysius and Demeter). In a way, these gods form a pan-theon covbring the full scope of the world and human life: Zeus as the god of the heavens,Poseidon the sea, Hades the Netherworld, Demeter the earth, Artemis the hunters, Hermesthe herders, Athena the city, Ares war, Aphrodite love, Apollo the arts, Hephaestus thecrafts, and Dionysius festivity. Each had their cults and temples, some were more popular

131


(e.g. Artemis), some had more temples (e.g. Apollo), and some have left more images (e.g.

Hermes); none were more hated than Hades and Persephone.

MythsMyths were created to link these various deities into groups, and some of these mythsreveal fundamental philosophical views. These myths grouped and organized variousdisparate ideas about the origins and nature of the world, dealing with creation, and theruses and combats by which the gods overcame the primeval enemies (the Titans and theGiants) and established their domain as the blessed immortals who lived a carefree exist-ence, accepting the offerings of the humans and pursuing their own games.

One example is Hades, whose case is of interest as he was not worshipped in temples,nor prominent in art or myth. After their victory over the Titans and the Giants, Zeusand his family divided the domains among themselves. As that brother of Zeus whoselot was the Netherworld, Hades allegedly looked for a consort and kidnapped Kore, thedaughter of the fertility goddess Demeter, and thus elevated her as Persephone to Queenof the Netherworld. Demeter eventually found out what happened and negotiated thatKore could return to the earth, but Kore/Persephone is obliged to return periodically tothe Netherworld every year. In this fashion, cosmological relations (heaven, earth, theNetherworld, fertility, the seasons, etc.) are created simply by assigning domains andadding minor details to stories.

In this case, the building blocks came from the plains of Mesopotamia, where urbanlife had started. One point of origin was the early-second-millennium BcE Babylonianepic of the Creation, Enuma Elish.There, it was related how the god Marduk played a rolein separating the heavens from the earth and the gods took power for themselves fromthe monsters that preceded their rule. Another point of origin was a tangled group ofSumerian tales, the origins of which must date to the mid-third millennium BcE. There,we find Ereshkigal, the merciless Sumerian queen of the Netherworld and her sisterInanna (the Mesopotamian goddess of love and war) along with her consort Dumuzi (thesimple herdsman). Inanna foolishly and arrogantly insisted on going into the Netherworld.The result was not only that pleasure disappeared on earth among mankind, but also thatInanna was humiliated. To get out, Inanna was good enough to sacrifice her own divineconsort Dumuzi, who was obliged to descend to the Netherworld in her place as theransom for freeing herself. Obviously, aside from Persephone, the Graeco-Roman legendof Orpheus who descended into the Netherworld to seek his wife Eurydice is also basedon the same material, but used in a very different fashion (and this version is incidentallylater incorporated into Christian theology).

Eventually, in the Greek versions, each element could be related to the others in a coher,ent fashion, although there were always a few contradictions over the issue of paternityand maternity left over from the translations and various versions transmitted before thecreation ofthe pantheon and the organization ofthe gods by authors such as Hesiod. Likethe Greek versions, the content of the Sumerian and Babylonian versions dealt with theseasons, human life cycles, civilization and death, the Netherworld and the Beyond, as wellas conflicts among siblings, couples and generations; but the teleological Mesopotamianstress was on the rule of the gods which was essential to divine kingship; in Greece thiswas less relevant, and the philosophical issues were given higher priority.

133MIT{OAN AND MYCENAEAN RELIGION

Divine identitiesStrangely, the gods of the Romans more or less matched those ofthe Greeks, with Jupiter as

Zeus, |uno as Hera, Venus as Aphrodite, Mars as Ares, Diane as Artemis, Pluto as Hades,llercury as Hermes, Bacchus as Dionysius, Neptune as Poseidon, Sol as Helios, and soon. There were differences: the equivalent of Athena is divided into Roma as the goddessof the city, and Minerva (whose name is apparently Etruscan in origin) as the goddess ofthe crafts, warfare and letters. But these were easily explained and thus when the Greelcs

{e.g. Herodotus) and the Romans (e.g. Tacitus) encountered other lands, they then clas-sified the foreign gods according to the scheme which had dominated classical Greece.When the peoples of the Middle Ages gradually incorporated the Christian calendar intotheir way of thinking, the names of the days of the week were adopted from the Romancalendar; thus they themselves confirmed the identifications made by the Romans. So, forexample, the 'day of Mars" is mardi in French, meaning that the Celts of Europe acceptedthe Roman definition of their god of war; Tuesday in English is derived from the name ofthe Norse god Tfr and thus the Nordic peoples recognized T\y'r as their Mars. And whenthe modern study of religion was born, it was the gods of the Greeks and their mlthswhich offered parts of the foundations of the discipline, along with the Bible and earlyanthropology. And in the same fashion as Herodotus, these early scholars sought similardivinities in all cultures and civilizations,leading to difficulties in the definitions of "gods"and even "religion' (since they were working on the principles of evolution combined withdilfusion which presupposed parallel developments).

AttributesHowever, the ancient activity was not a mere matter of analysis where the observer isimposing his views on the identification of the deity. Each of the gods had an attribute:Zeus the thunderbolt (which could be related to the Levantine Hadad and Norse Fdrr/Thor); Athena had her helmet, as did Minerva; Poseidon a trident, as did Neptune; Hermesrringed footgear and a cap, as did Mercury, and so on.

One also finds, for example, that the Egyptian goddess Neith has a bow and arrows,as does the huntress Artemis, but Herodotus (Histories 2.22) identified Neith with thewarlike Athena probably because Neith also had a shield, like Athena (who had a spearrather than bow and arrows). And indeed, modern researchers suggest that Athena shouldalso be related to Ugaritic Anat, who is typical of the armed goddesses of the Levant, wholikewise bear spear and shield. Significantly, Ishtar's star seems to have been transferredto Aphrodite and Venus without complications, indicating that this clearly represented a

different line. Incidentally, one can note that all of this is a long way from the snakes of theBronze Age Aegean. Thus the attributes are acquired and shift with identifications that areiluid but occasionally constant, with the basic ideas remaining stable from the Iron Ageonwards (with cases such as Isis, who usurp the roles of others, remaining exceptions: see

Chapter 18 by Birgitte Bogh in the present volume).The concept ofattributes (and epithets) being associated with particular gods can be

uaced back to third-millennium BcE Mesopotamia, and became particularly commonin the eastern Mediterranean by the end of the Bronze Age (ca. 1200 BcE). Among theillustrative cases is the goddess of fate and chance Ty.he. Like all the Greek gods, she waslully anthropomorphic in form but had her own attributes, a city wall on her head and

134 ANCIENT EUROPE IN THE HISTORICI\L PERIOD

a cornucopia in her hand. The cornucopia represented abundance, which was what onewished of fate. The wall was understood as representing the city, stressing that 'thance"bore the city - but it was probably also a play on words related to the Greek words for'thance" fti:ytlltukh1) and "wall" (reixoq, rcixoslteikhos, toikhos).In the Roman worldTyche was transformed into Fortuna, with the same attributes. Interestingly, the ChristianSt Barbara had a tower as her attribute, allegedly because she was imprisoned in one, buther legends have no historical basis. St Barbara was the patron saint ofthe builders (amongothers), and thus one can trace her back to Tyche with her walls. Because of her attributesand persona, the goddess is easily recognizable,and the development continued over time,across boundaries and religions. It is significant that one can follow her evolution fromthe beginning as well. Although her origins may lie earlier, the Greek goddess Tyche wasparticularly popular in Hellenistic times, and it is from this age that what we would call"religion" (where the gods have clearly defined spheres and attributes) gradually becomesmore important, not only in Greek and Roman thought, but elsewhere as well (particularlyin those areas under or in contact with Roman influence).

Gods. temples and citiesThe gods of the Greeks thus lie at the origins of Western civilization and their attributesmoved through the cultures while the names were usually changed (but the case ofApöllön/Apollo is interesting, as he is found under the same name in both Greek and Latin, as is hisson Asklepios/Aesculapius [Asclepius in US English]). Clearly, diftrsion disseminated theattributes which would be associated with the gods, and the various peoples arranged themin their own worlds, assigning names and attributes to deities with specific responsibilities,and gathering the gods together into assemblies (as was the case from Mesopotamia toIceland). The greatest Eg)?tian gods ofthe (loosely defined) first generations are on occa-sion depicted as interminably banqueting on an inaccessible island, guarded by a divine(but corrupt) ferryman. In Greece, the "Olympiart'" gods were the greatest those select fewof the first generations who lived a never-ending, carefree, life of ease on the distant peakof Olympus, descending to the earth when bored to pursue their antics among mortals.

The carefree existence of the gods was at least partially their own birthright, butthere was also a tradition that they could be propitiated (i.e. bribed) by human offer-ings. Individuals could appeal to them directly and make token offerings of objects orfood. Cities and rulers could build elaborate temples and fill them with treasure, alongwith booty won in wars where the gods were repaid for the victory they had granted.Individuals, cities and rulers could commission statues of the gods to be placed on displayin the sacred areas. Statues ofworthy individuals could also be erected here, but none ofthese should be confused with the magnificent cult images sheltered within the temples,which were viewed as representations of the god.

In this sense, the Parthenon is at once unique, typical and paradigmatic. It is uniquebecause it represents the pinnacle ofa certain type ofarchitecture and because it representsthat citywhich itself represents the birth of European civilization. It is typical because mostcities of the ancient world had at least one temple or shrine dedicated to one single deitywhom they viewed as their patron deiry and that god was tied into the larger pantheon.It is paradigmatic because it represents ancient religion, architecture and art - aside fromGreece itself.

135MINOAN AND MYCENAEAN RELIGION

In many cities of the ancient world, the building dedicated to the chief deity was amongthe most impressive pieces of urban architecture. In terms of ancient religion, what hasremained for the most part are these temples, constructed to house the divine imageswhich are lost today. Virtually all of the temples with which we are familiar today arededicated to the gods.

There are few urban shrines which leave us with the impression of merely being holyplaces without links to some deity, and major shrines and temples among non-urbanpeoples are rare. The Celts of France and Germany had a practice of excavating and main-taining enclosed square sanctuaries with a small shrine (made of flimsy materials) set inthe centre, seemingly in the middle of nowhere. The shrines seem to have survived into theRoman era and even to have been copied by the Germanic tribes. Yet the cults practisedthere remain enigmatic, never having been assigned any clear role either with regard tothe pantheon of the gods or even to the society. Seemingly, the building of solid templesof stone, brick and cement is related to urban society, and to cult images which fulfil a rolein both human and divine society; these then give birth to myths and legends. The godsof the urban societies filed out into the rural periphery, and in some cases temples wereerected in the newly emerging cities (as in Rome and Etruria).

The realm of the deadRelated to this urban world were the cemeteries (Greek necropoleis) which were "beyondthe walls" (extra muros). It was here that the urban dwellers buried their dead or theirashes, and after the ceremonies they withdrew to the city. The rites differed from regionto region, but festivities and monuments formed an essential part of the celebration oftaking leave of the departed. While the tombs of the dead became increasingly lavish,Hades enjoyed little more than an occasional altar on the edge of sanctuaries dedicated toDemeter. It is not insignificant that, because of the abduction of Kore/Persephone, Hadesthus appears on the fringes of the mysteries at Eleusis (which are the oldest in Greece,but cannot be traced back to the Bronze Age). Death and the Beyond were intrinsicallyrelated to fertility and the earth; mysteries were frequently related to issues of liminaliryand the line separating the dead and the living is among the most liminal. In the classicalr"'orld, the gods of the dead were not appreciated, but the ancestors were. And yet in theurban environment of the classical world, both the gods of the dead and the ancestorsr,.'ere literally outside of society.

Divine and royal origins!{any of the mythical figures of ancient Greece are demigods, the sons of Zeus throughhis various affairs (such as Heracles and the Dioscuri) or of Poseidon (Theseus). Some arethe sons of goddesses who fell in love with mortals (such as Achilles, son of Thetis); othersof mortals who fell in love with gods (Aesculapius, son of Apollo). These heroes carriedout the decisive deeds: it was only with the help of Heracles that Zeus and the Olympiangods could overcome the Giants who were the successors of the Titans and thus the lastdefence of the gods against the primeval powers of the earth and heavens. This age of thedivine heroes lay just on the edge of the dawn of history, forming the border between ther-orld inhabited by men and that where gods and men mingled on earth. The Romans tied

136 IINCIENT EUROPE IN THE HISTORICAL PERIOD

these Greek stories into their own world, so that, for example, the |ulian family (whichcreated the empire) traced their ancestry back to Aeneas of Troy, the son of Aphrodite.

Peculiarly, decades of archaeological research have confirmed that the origins of Greekiconography and temples seem to lie in the Early Iron Age, around 800 BcE or so, withbuildings such as the possible Heroon at Lefkandi that may have been some kind of tombmonuments for fallen heroes. These mayhave been places of communal offerings, sacrificesand feasting, as well as celebrations of the community. The basic pattern in Greece seemsto have been atemple in antis; and this was derived from the megarons used as the central"throne rooms" of the Mycenaean palaces.r However, the Iron Age buildings were erected inthe ruined palaces or desolate villages. The age of the cities came in the following centuries.Over time, in the Greek cities, the concept of a temenos - an area that is sacred and figura-tively'tut off" from the rest of the city - contributed to the isolation of the divine temples.By the fifth century BcE, the earliest forms of the temples had reached perfection, and thetemples were henceforth symbolically separated from the rest of the urban surroundings.

TemplesEach temple had its own god and its own customs. The Parthenon was the storehouseof the treasures of Delian League and the celebration of the Panhellenic victory over thePersians (who had destroyed the earlier Parthenon). The temple of Demeter at Eleusiswas the site of the mysteries mentioned above (and below). The temples of the healinggod Aesculapius allowed patients to seek medical help. The temple of Zeus at Olympia(on the Peloponnese, and not on the distant mountain Olympus in Thessaly) was one ofthe most monumental constructions of antiquity, and site of the games (for which truceswere declared during wars) supposedly since 776 ßcE (but this date is probably likewisean invention, as the archaeology cannot confirm it). Of equal renown as a Panhellenicsanctuary was the temple of Apollo at Delphi where the priestesses answered questions byoffering their interpretations of the words of the god. Offerings were made at altars stand-ing outside before the temples; all could participate, for the people made and consumedsome of the offerings, while the gods profited from the smoke of the burnt offerings.

ReligionAlthough many of the gods were shared, it is possible that there was a fundamental differ-ence separatingthe Greeks from the Romans on the matter ofthe will ofthe gods. Naturally,both sought out the support ofthe gods and rewarded them for their support in war, andalso sought out knowledge about the will and intentions of the gods. However, whereas theRomans stressed the importance of reading and understanding signs as a guide for behav-iour in auspicious circumstances, the Greeks may have been more concerned about propi-tiating them and understanding their will independent of human action. Thus, the Romansstressed ritual divination whereas the Greeks understood oracles as playing a similar role.For the Greeks, rituals were related to practice, for the Romans part of the work of divina-tion. For both, however, the temples and the gods within them were central to their lives.

Yet the temples of Greece are a mere background for the gods in the daily life of theGreeks. For the Greeks, the gods were visible in the form of statues, but also in the paint-ings on the Attic vases - and more so as the sponsors of festivals and games. The literature

MINOAN AND MYCENAEAN RETIGION

of mlth exploded in the mid-first millennium BcE, and the tales of the gods multipliedas different authors and vase painters sought to reconcile or develop diverging versions.Central to the Greek way of thought was that the gods represented a means of expressingconcepts - loyalty, wealth, the world, and so on - and resolving conflicts.

However, beyond the gods and their temples lay a philosophical debate about the natureof the human. In Greece, this debate was expressed using the terminology of that distantday, and thus appears to us to be a form of religion. Peculiarly, in the case of Greece, wecan see that the religion and the philosophy developed in parallel with the gods and theirtemples in the first millennium BcE, and thus to understand this distant world, we mustcombine the art and architecture with the philosophy to understand the metaphors of phi-losophy and the reality of religious practice. The imagery and the sculptures aimed at con-veying messages. Today, however, those messages are as disputed as are the details of thetexts, and this was already the case before scholars began debating in Plato's academy andin Hellenistic Alexandria. Yet those debates cannot be traced back to long before Homerand Hesiod early in the first millennium BCE. Some gods, attributes and rites may have

been inherited from the Bronze Age, but the temples, the concepts and the myths were not.By contrast, the religion of the Romans may have been quite different. For the Romans,

moral codes were familiar and philosophy a superfluous luxury. As far as the Romans wereconcerned, the Greeks had solved many problems of epistemology, morals and mathemat-ics but they had failed to develop a practical method of political activity. Thus, as theyunderstood it, the role of the Romans was to use the conceptual systems of the Greelato impose their will and values on others. In this sense the Roman religion was probablyquite different from that of archaic Greece. Some aspects of Roman popular and elitepractice, such as the cults of isis and Mithras, developed on conceptual systems borrowedfrom Hellenistic and Oriental cults. These were generally marginal to the mainstreamstate religion, but were significant because of the large geographical region where Romanlaw prevailed and retired legionaries could settle. Some of these practices were prob-ably far closer to our own conceptions of what religion implies than to what the Romanruling classes viewed as religious practice. This situation obviously offered an opening toChristianity as a popular new form of religion which satisfied popular perceptions of needswhich were not accommodated within conventional Roman practice.

Yet for both the Greeks and the Romans, the gods and their temples were a funda-mental part of the landscape and it was only towards late antiquity that the philosophicalscepticism of the Greek-speaking critics will have had an impact on the understanding ofthe gods. Obviously, this was the era of the confrontation of Christianity with the pagan

religions, and was a decisive era for those interested in the phenomenon of religion and theorigins of Christianity. Most of this debate - for pagan and Christian alike - was presentedin written form, and the material religion could be neglected. This has led to a peculiarsituation whereby the study of religion has generally followed a route which is based ontexts and seeking philosophical meanings in the texts whereas archaeology has tended tostress the buildings, attributes, domains and names of the gods.

Thus, basic books on the gods of Greeks differ depending upon whether they wererrritten by philologists (such as Otto 1947 who sought values, order and structures) orarchaeologists following the methods of Art History (like Simon 1985 who studies mate-rial and iconography and relates these to the m1.ths). There are occasional authors (such

as Nilsson L927) who combined archaeology and philology in a synthetic fashion, but the

137


approach seems to find more interest among archaeologists. In the case of the Greeks, a

good deal is available and thus all these avenues are possible, but they are usually pursuedby neglecting material where texts are available.

In general, the study ofreligion tends to focus on structural features (and to developthese beyond what is done by the philologists) where texts are sufficiently abundant (as

for the Greeks and Romans), but to fall back to the basics, such as identifing objects andgods, where less information is available (as in the case of the Germanic tribes and theCelts). The studies in this volume reveal both tendencies.

One issue of fundamental importance is whether or not the deeper meanings frequentlyascribed to religious practice or observance were invariably present, or whether this was

exceptionally the case with the Greeks. The philosophical discussions of the Greeks are

expressed in terms referring to the gods, but the Greek philosophical traditions clearlytook leave of the popular forms of religion, with Epicurus (34I-270 scr) specificallydismissing the popular impressions of the gods as "impious" (Otto 1963: 33-4).In thissense, the Parthenon (and not the philosophy) is a unifying point where the values of thepeople, the state and the philosophers met - and where each approach could see its owninterpretation vindicated.

NOTE

l. Amegaronisarectangularroomwithasingleentrancewherethetwosidewallsperpendiculartothewallwith the entrance extend beyond the doorway to form a kind of porch. A temple in antis is a megaron-typebuilding, frequently with two columns in front of the entrance, closing the porch.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Dr B. Kündiger provided the photos, which were drawn from Evans's work.

SUGGESTED READING

Cavanagh, W 2008. "Death and the Mycenaeans". See Shelmerdine (2008),327-41.

Deger-Jalkotzy, S. & I. S. Lemos (eds) 2006. Anclent Greece from the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer(Edinburgh Leventis Studies 3). Edinburgh.

Duhoux, Y. & A. Morpurgo Davies (eds) 2008-11. Ä Companion to Linear B: Mycenaean Greek Texts and theirWorld (Bibliothöque des cahiers de I'institut linguistique de Louvain). Leuven.

Hägg, R. & N. Marinatos (eds) 1981. Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age. Stockholm.Lafrneur, R. (ed.) 19S7. THANATOS: Les coutumesfunöraires en Egöe äIAge du Bronze (Aegaeum l). Liöge.

Laflineur, R. & R. Hägg (eds) 2001. POTNIA: Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age (!rcgaerm 22). Liöge.

Morris, S. & R. Laffineur (eds) 2007. EPOS: Reconsidering Greek Epic and Aegean Bronze Age Archaeology

(Aegaeum 28). Liöge.

Nilsson, M. P. 1967. Geschichte der Griechischen Religion,4th edn. Munich.Otto, W. F. 1947 . Die Götter Griechenlands: Das BiId des Göttlichen im Spiegel des griechischen Geistes,3rd edn.

Frankfurt,Otto, W F.1963. Die Wirklichkcit der Götter: Von der {Jnzerstörbarkeit griechischer Weltsicht, Munich.Palaima, Th. G.2008. "Mycenaean Religiort'l See Shelmerdine (2008), 342-6LSimon, E. 1985. Die Götter der Griechen. Darmstadt.Younger, I. D. & P. Rehak 2008. "Minoan Culture: Religion, Burial Customs, and Administratiorf'. See

Shelmerdine (2008), 1 65-85.

Bronze Age Aegean Religion

Documents