Birds in the Aegean Bronze Age

Julia Karin Binnberg

Merton College

University of Oxford

A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of

Philosophy
 ii

Acknowledgments
Firstly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Dr Lisa Bendall for her
generous support and her invaluable advice on all parts of the thesis. I am indebted to her for
advocating a rigorously critical approach without which this thesis would not have been
possible.

I would also like to thank the following members of the Institute of Archaeology and the
Department of Classics at the University of Oxford: Professor Irene Lemos for providing both
useful academic advice and emotional support, and Professor Amy Bogaard and Dr Linda
Hulin for making important suggestions for improvement during the Transfer and
Confirmation of Status. For providing funding I thank Merton College, the Craven Committee
of the School of Archaeology and the Vronwy Hankey Fund of the BSA.

Very special thanks go to Dr Andrew Gosler from the Edward Grey Institute of Field
Ornithology for taking the time to discuss and looking at several bird images. I owe him
gratitude for giving me valuable insights into the ornithological identification methods. I also
thank Colin Turvey, the administrator of the website Crete Birding, for giving me permission
to use several of his photographs in my work.

I thank the following museums for providing information, references and illustrations of
particular objects: Heraklion Museum (Dr Georgia Flouda), Sitia Museum (Lasithi Ephoria),
Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden (Dr Saskia Wetzig) and Badisches Landesmuseum
Karlsruhe (Dr Katharina Horst). Dr Eleni Konstantinidi-Syvridi from the National Museum at
Athens is due a special mention for giving me the opportunity to study and draw several
objects not on display.

Special thanks go to Dr Lyvia Morgan, Dr Doniert Evely and Dr Andreas Vlachopoulos for
providing inspiration, discussion and references; Dr Andrew Shapland for kindly sharing his
dissertation with me as well as Dr Martin Schottky for commenting on earlier drafts. For the
patient enduring of endless discussions about birds and the sharing of preliminary research
results and photographs, I thank Erin McGowan, Angela Catania, Dr Christine de Vree, Dr
Stephanie Aulsebrook and Dr Nick Soderbergh.

Last but not least, my deepest and sincere gratitude goes to my parents and my grandmother
for their continuous all-encompassing support. Throughout the PhD process, my husband
Etienne has been a great source of encouragement and help, not least because of his perfectly
designed online database, which provided an indispensable basis for the present catalogue.
His interest in philosophical problems has significantly inspired the development of ideas set
out in this thesis.

I would also like to mention our cat Paris whose optimistic attitude was of great help - may
his interest in birds be an inspiration to us all!
 iii

Abstract
The thesis discusses bird depictions in the Aegean Bronze Age. The iconographical study is
based on a catalogue of almost 2000 objects showing bird images from Crete, the Cyclades,
the Greek Mainland and the Dodecanese dating to EB I – LB IIIC. Three research aims are
addressed. The first aim is the reliable and accurate identification of the depicted bird species
by finding a middle ground between the two approaches that have prevailed in past
scholarship, which either consisted of overambitious attempts at species identification or
resorted to overgeneralised accounts of bird imagery. A systematic identification
methodology, based on a combination of techniques from iconography, ornithology and in
particular anthropological studies of folk taxonomies, is developed. The second aim is the
interpretation of any specific symbolic functions and ideological roles of birds in different
regions and periods. This analysis rests on the combined study of media and find contexts as
well as the chosen bird species and iconographical associations. The third aim is the
reconstruction of types of ontologies prevalent in different regions. Based on a structuralist
model of ontologies developed by the anthropologist Descola, the bird depictions are studied
by looking for features that are typical of analogical, naturalist, totemic or animist art.

Each research aim has yielded numerous results, which deepen our understanding of
biological knowledge and cultural diversity in the Aegean Bronze Age. First, the vast
majority of bird depictions can be identified as belonging to one of the following folk-
taxonomical groups: columbids (doves), birds of prey/corvids, waterbirds, wading birds, owls,
hoopoes, galliformes, swallows and seabirds. Second, the existence of a multitude of
particular functions and roles of birds is revealed. These vary significantly according to time
and regions, mirroring historical developments and the presence of different cultural attitudes
towards birds. Third, marked regional differences are detectable with regard to ontologies.
Cretan and Cycladic bird art is consistent with animist iconography discernible because of a
pronounced artistic naturalism, an emphasis on movement and agency, and the presence of
shamanic imagery. The images from the Greek Mainland can be characterised as being
consistent with an ontology termed analogical by Descola because of a preference of stylised
and modular depictions and the persistence of symbolic functions through time. This work
lays a foundation opening up a new perspective on interpreting iconography of the Aegean
Bronze Age.
 iv

Table of contents
Volume I: Text
1. Introduction

1.1 Birds and people………………………………………………………… 1

1.2 Avian epiphanies – Birds in previous research…………………………. 4
1.2.1 Catalogues of bird depictions in previous research……………….. 4
1.2.2 Bird identification in previous studies…………………………….. 8
1.2.3 Interpretations of bird images in previous studies……………….... 11
1.3 Conclusion…………………………………………………………….... 15

2. Bird identification in iconography

2.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………... 17
2.2 Methodology of bird identification in iconography…………………….. 17
2.2.1 Iconography and typology………………………………………… 17
2.2.2 Ornithology and scientific taxonomy……………………………... 20
2.2.3 Anthropology and folk taxonomies……………………………….. 24
2.3 Conclusion……………………………………………………………… 33

3. Ontologies and modes of human-animal relationships

3.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………... 35
3.2 Ontologies and their reflection in iconography…………………………. 35
3.2.1 Analogism…………………………………………………………. 36
3.2.2 Naturalism…………………………………………………………. 38
3.2.3 Totemism………………………………………………………….. 40
3.2.4 Animism…………………………………………………………… 41
3.3 Ontologies of the Aegean Bronze Age…………………………………..47
3.4 Conclusion……………………………………………………………….52

4. Columbids (doves)

4.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………... 53
4.2 EB I – MB II……………………………………………………………. 53
4.3 MM II – MM III………………………………………………………… 59
4.4 MB III – LB II…………………………………………………………... 63
4.5 LB II – LB IIIC…………………………………………………………. 70
4.6 Conclusion……………………………………………………………….75

5. Birds of prey and corvids

5.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………... 78
5.2 EB II – MB II……………………………………………………………78
5.3 MB III – LB II…………………………………………………………... 81
5.4 LB II – LB IIIC…………………………………………………………. 97
5.5 Conclusion……………………………………………………………… 103
 v

6. Waterbirds

6.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………... 105

6.2 EB I – MB II……………………………………………………………. 105
6.3 MB III – LB II…………………………………………………………... 108
6.4 LB II – LB IIIA1………………………………………………………... 118
6.5 LB IIIA2 – LB IIIB……………………………………………………... 124
6.6 LB IIIB – LB IIIC………………………………………………………. 134
6.7 Conclusion……………………………………………………………… 142

7. Wading birds

7.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………... 145

7.2 EB III – MB II…………………………………………………………... 145
7.3 MB III – LB IIIA1……………………………………………………… 149
7.4 LB IIIA2 – LB IIIC……………………………………………………... 153
7.5 Conclusion……………………………………………………………….160

8. Miscellaneous

8.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………... 162

8.2 Owls (EB III – LB II)…………………………………………………… 162
8.3 Hoopoes (EB III – LB II)………………………………………………...165
8.4 Galliformes (EB III – LB IIIC)…………………………………………. 168
8.5 Human-bird hybrids and combinations (MM II – LM I)………………...173
8.6 Swallows (MB III – LB I)………………………………………………..178
8.7 Seabirds (MB III – LB II/IIIA1)………………………………………... 184
8.8 Conclusion……………………………………………………………….187

9. A bird`s eye view - human-bird-relationships in the Aegean Bronze Age

9.1 Crete…………………………………………………………………….. 190

9.2 Cyclades………………………………………………………………… 193
9.3 Greek Mainland………………………………………………………… 195
9.4 Conclusion……………………………………………………………… 197
List of tables……………………………………………………………………. 198
Bibliography………………………………………………………………….... 199
 vi

Volume II: Figures and catalogue

Figures………………………………………………………………………….. 263
Sources of figures……………………………………………………………… 353
Catalogue
Introduction to the catalogue…………………………………………………..363
A – Vessels…………………………………………………. ………………….. 367
B – Figurines……………………………………………………………………. 422
C – Jewellery……………………………………………………………………. 486
D – Seals and sealings…………………………………………………………... 517
E – Frescoes…………………………………………………………………….. 819
F – Weapons…………………………………………………………………….. 845
G – Vase-paintings……………………………………………………………… 849
H – Larnakes……………………………………………………………………..1277
I – Other………………………………………………………………………….1296
 1

1. Introduction

1.1 Birds and people

In Aegean Bronze Age iconography, birds of all kinds feature very frequently, a fact
demonstrated by the almost two thousand depictions assembled in the exhaustive catalogue.
In Cretan art, their number equals that of quadrupeds such as cattle, lions and goats and
surpasses depictions of humans.1 The large number of bird depictions contrasts with the
scarcity of (reported) osteological material in the archaeological record and the sparse
references to birds in the deciphered written sources (Linear B). Therefore we need primarily
to concentrate on iconography when discussing birds in the Aegean Bronze Age.

Birds have often held a preeminent status in art, literature, folklore and mythology of many
cultures, both past and present.2 What is so special about birds to warrant this important place
in human imagination? First, they are ubiquitous, even inhabiting the Polar Regions and
desert areas, and they are often conspicuous because of their colourful plumage or notable
vocalisations. Second, birds have much in common with humans such as their elaborate
courting behaviour and their bipedalism; their songs have often been likened to music and
their nest-building can be compared to the construction of houses. Despite these shared
attributes, there is one thing setting most birds apart from and above normal humans: their
ability to fly. Thus, birds are both like and unlike us thereby opening up many possibilities for
metaphorical and relational links between humans and birds. Third, birds come in a vast
variety of different families and species, resulting in a broad spectrum of appearances, habits
and habitats. Compare for example a pelican – a large fish-eating aquatic bird – to a tiny
sparrow which feeds on seeds and lives in hedges. With this diversity, birds not only live in a
wide geographical range but also occupy every possible niche in the imaginary landscapes
that have been created by humans.

The present study of bird depictions in the Aegean Bronze Age has four aims. The first aim –
and a necessary prerequisite for this study – is to assemble an exhaustive catalogue of bird
images from the Cyclades, Crete, the Greek Mainland and the Dodecanese dating from EB I
to LB IIIC. The catalogue includes bird depictions in various types of media which are
reflected in the catalogue numbers – vessels (A), figurines (B), jewellery (C), seals (D),

1
As was shown by Shapland (2009, Figure 5.28).
2
Cf. Cocker 2013.
 2

frescoes (E), weapons (F), vase-paintings (G), larnakes (H) and other (I). As we will see
(Section 1.2.1), the previous lack of a comprehensive catalogue has often hindered systematic
identification and interpretation of bird depictions in the past. Therefore, it was essential to
compile a catalogue that permits a thorough analysis of Aegean Bronze Age bird images
without being constrained by temporal, geographical or typological limits.

The second aim is to develop a coherent methodology of species identification that can be
applied to all images, no matter how stylized they may seem. In our review of past
identification attempts (Section 1.2.2) we will see that previous scholars mostly focused on
relatively detailed images, e.g. in frescoes, while more schematic depictions or those
exhibiting mixed features were often dismissed as unidentifiable. Also, it has been doubted
that western scientific taxonomy is applicable to pre-modern sources. We will return to these
issues in Chapter 2 when we develop a systematic and flexible identification method by
drawing on insights and methods from iconography, ornithology and anthropology.

Our third aim is to interpret the meaning/function of bird images. As we will see (Section
1.2.3), the variety of birds depicted in iconography has seldom been taken into account in
interpretations. Rather, generalizing explanations, for example as avian epiphanies, have
prevailed. This study attempts to address this imbalance by paying particular attention to the
species of birds depicted and to the ways in which their specific characteristics are
emphasized to gain valuable – and hitherto overlooked – clues to their meaning. Such an
approach is based on the observation that most bird symbolism is not random or general but
usually takes attributes of different species into account.3 For example, the tiny seed-eating
sparrow hardly conveys notions of power and strength, while the large and predatory eagle
perfectly epitomizes these qualities, which is why eagles have become power and status
symbols in many cultures. In art, efforts are usually made to depict the most suitable species
and to emphasise the anatomical or behavioural features which are most relevant in the
respective context. For example, predatory features of an eagle are often especially
highlighted in a scene that we know from contextual evidence is supposed to evoke an
association of physical strength and/or social dominance.

Our fourth aim is the reconstruction of ontologies that may have been prevalent in the Aegean
Bronze Age by studying form and content of bird images. As we will see in Chapter 3,
anthropological studies of the ways people see themselves in relation to non-human entities

3
Cf. examples in Gosler – Tidemann 2010 and Cocker 2013.
 3

and their reflections in art can offer a theoretical model for the reconstruction of past
conceptual frameworks. Although earlier scholars have done some work in this area, either
suggesting animism or analogism as prevalent ontologies in the Aegean Bronze Age (Section
3.3), such studies have focused on depictions of other animals, for example lions, and cult
scenes. By studying stylistic and other details of bird imagery, e.g. the degree of attention
paid to species-specific behavior, an important contribution can be made to this debate,
especially given the relative frequency of bird depictions.

In Chapters 4 to 8, we will discuss the bird images assembled in the catalogue according to
the aims defined above. In keeping with the importance attached to the variety of bird species,
the chapters are organized around the different types of birds identifiable in the iconography.
These are columbids (doves), birds of prey and corvids, waterbirds (ducks, geese and swans),
wading birds and miscellaneous birds such as owls, swallows or galliformes (Table 1).

Table 1: Distribution of bird types in Aegean Bronze Age iconography.

Bird species Number of depictions Percentage

Columbids (doves) 184 9.0 %
Birds of prey/corvids 325 16.0 %
Waterbirds 803 39.3 %
Wading birds 418 20.5 %
Owls 21 1.0 %
Hoopoes 6 0.3 %
Galliformes 76 3.7 %
Hybrids 104 5.1 %
Swallows 31 1.5 %
Seabirds 5 0.2 %
Unidentifiable 70 3.4 %
Total 2043 100 %

The order of discussion follows a roughly chronological rationale. Thus, columbids and birds
of prey/corvids are analysed first because these were particularly popular in the Cycladic and
Cretan cultures which flourished from the EB period to the end of LB I, while waterbirds and
wading birds are discussed later because they tend to be more frequently depicted in the
 4

succeeding periods LB II – LB III, during the heyday of Mycenaean culture and influence in
the Aegean.

Before going deeper into theoretical considerations in Chapters 2 and 3, it is useful to first
review the history of research on birds in the Aegean Bronze Age. Identifying inherent
strengths or weaknesses of past approaches helps show in what ways this project can
complement earlier work and address previously neglected areas of research.

1.2 Avian epiphanies – Birds in previous research

Four aims of this study were identified above:

• the compilation of a comprehensive catalogue of bird depictions

• the development of a systematic identification methodology
• the interpretation of the meaning/function/significance of bird images by including the
result of the identification and/or any emphasised traits
• the reconstruction of ontologies by studying the style and content of bird images

In the following, we look at research that has been done on the first three aims in past
scholarship. The fourth aim – the reconstruction of ontologies – has never been attempted on
the basis of bird images alone. Different categories of evidence, especially depictions of cult
scenes, have been considered more important in this context, using anthropological studies of
ontologies as the basis for such attempts. We will discuss this anthropological background in
Chapter 3 (especially Section 3.3). The rest of the present chapter examines research done on
the first three aims one by one.

1.2.1 Catalogues of bird depictions in previous research

In this section we look at catalogues of bird depictions that have been created in past
scholarship. Only a very few scholars have compiled typologies, lists, or catalogues of bird
depictions in general terms, cross-cutting species, regions or media. Occasionally, lists of bird
depictions have been included in larger catalogues of animal images. Most catalogues,
however, focus on specific bird species (especially swallows), while others limit themselves
to bird depictions from certain regions and/or in specific media. A comprehensive catalogue
such as the one compiled for this study has hitherto been lacking. We will first discuss general
lists before looking at catalogues that have a specific focus.
 5

There are only two general studies of bird images not limited to certain species or media and
they are divided by several decades. The first typology of Aegean Bronze Age depictions of
birds was established by Krüger who subdivided birds in several media into five groups
according to pose and position of the wings.4 He was primarily interested in flying birds and
differentiated four types depending on the shape and number of wings visible. In his
discussion, he compared Aegean bird images to similar ones from the Near East and Egypt
and noted some differences such as enhanced liveliness in Aegean art.

Another, but much later and hence more extensive, list of bird depictions was devised by
Vanschoonwinkel as part of two articles about animals in Theran and Minoan art. 5 He
included information about the type of object, date and provenance, and categorised the
images as birds, doves, ducks, hoopoes, partridges, waterbirds, pelicans, swallows and storks.
He drew attention to diachronic changes in preferences of media and degree of naturalism.
Like Krüger, he compared the appearance of the birds to similar ones from the Greek
Mainland and discussed possible inspirations from Egypt.6

Most other lists of bird depictions are characterized by a focus on certain species, usually
prompted by the discussion of one specific image. An important example is Morgan’s study
of the Miniature Frieze at Akrotiri on Thera (E16), where she traced predecessors and
parallels for the various motifs depicted in this fresco.7 Her discussion of doves and waterfowl
in the East Frieze mentions depictions of these birds in other media, for example seals, vases,
as well as other wallpaintings.

After Morgan’s study of dove and waterfowl depictions, the swallow was the species that has
received most scholarly attention (Section 8.2). Key articles on swallow images are those by
Immerwahr, Foster and Marthari.8 Immerwahr examined the swallow in Cycladic art and
interconnections of this motif in frescoes and vase-paintings, including some from Crete, but
mainly focusing on Cycladic depictions.9 Foster compiled a catalogue of swallow depictions
in various media in Aegean art, prompted by her discussion of the so-called Spring Fresco
from Akrotiri showing swallows and lilies (E29).10 She also included some uncertain images
and wrote short descriptions of the poses and associations. The most recent and extensive
4
Krüger 1940, 27-32.
5
Vanschoonwinkel 1990, 333, 337-341 and 1996, 365-367.
6
Vanschoonwinkel 1990, 338-339.
7
Morgan 1988.
8
Immerwahr 1990; Foster 1995, 424-425; Marthari 2009.
9
Immerwahr 1990.
10
Foster 1995, 424-425.
 6

discussion of the swallow motif is Marthari’s analysis of a Cretan MM seal showing a bird
(D20) and tracing its parallels with images in Theran art.11

All the compilations discussed above are characterized by the cross-cutting of medium
boundaries. The majority of catalogues, however, focus on bird depictions in certain media,
usually vase-paintings.

Bird motifs on MB III – LB I Cycladic and the related Mainland polychrome vases (Section
5.2) have been catalogued by Mylonas, Davis, MacGillivray, Crouwel and Porter. 12 They
mainly focused on chronological and regional variations of style and shape, both of the birds
and the vases. Although various bird types were differentiated, no systematic attempts were
made in these studies to identify or interpret them. A notable exception is the article by Porter
whose interpretation will be discussed below (Section 1.2.3).

The most detailed typology of birds on LB II - IIIC Cretan and Mainland vases was developed
by Furumark in his classic study of Mycenaean pottery. 13 He created charts showing various
types of birds (Furumark Motif 7) found in vase-paintings, arranged according to similarity
and pose of the wings.14 Although some of the bird types illustrated are hypothetical “missing
links”, most of them can be found on vases, thus allowing a detailed reconstruction of the
various stages of stylistic development. He also suggested that frescoes were the ultimate
source of LM II vase-paintings of birds.15

A large catalogue of bird depictions was included in a comprehensive discussion of LM II –

LM IIIA2 pictorial pottery from Knossos by Crouwel and Morris.16 Bird depictions on vase-
paintings from other regions on Crete were also compared stylistically and typologically to
the ones from Knossos. The authors noted considerable variation in types of depictions (small
sketchily painted ones and larger detailed birds), but did not link this variation to the depiction
of different species. They argued that the origins of the bird motif in LM II vase-painting lie
in other media (frescoes) and/or Egyptian art, especially the so-called Nilotic landscape.17

11
Marthari 2009.
12
Mylonas 1969, 1970; Davis 1976; MacGillivray 1983; Crouwel 1989; Porter 2011.
13
Furumark 1941, 250-255.
14
Furumark 1941, figs. 29-31.
15
Furumark 1941, 251-252.
16
Crouwel – Morris 1995.
17
Crouwel – Morris 1995, 176.
 7

In their fundamental book about Mycenaean pictorial vase-painting, Vermeule and

Karageorghis dedicated several sections to the bird motifs in different phases.18 An extensive
list covering the Greek Mainland, the Dodecanese, Asia Minor and Cyprus was established
which proved essential for further studies in this field. Although not complete, their catalogue
gives a good impression of the prevalent types of birds in the respective periods. In the
discussion, they noted diachronic changes in the way of depicting birds, e.g. the decreasing
number of flying birds from the early to the late Mycenaean period.19 The role of these
depictions in a social or ideological context, however, was not addressed.

The bird motif in Aegean and Cypriot vase-paintings in LH IIIC and EIA was the main focus
of a study by Lenz who listed them in a catalogue with detailed descriptions and an extensive
bibliography.20 He not only focused on style and type, but also attempted some
interpretations, which will be further discussed below. His rather selective catalogue in terms
of medium (only vases) and time (only LH IIIC and EIA) did not provide a sufficiently large
basis for the interpretation of his material and in his discussion Lenz had to take recourse to
several bird depictions in other media or those dating from earlier periods.

Only two studies focused on birds in media other than vase-painting. Desborough catalogued
all vessels in the shape of (water)birds from Crete, the Cyclades, the Greek Mainland and
Cyprus.21 He noted important variations in style and shape of bird vases from different
regions, but did not consider varying functions, being mainly concerned with the possible
origin of these vessels on Cyprus.

The second catalogue, by Ruuskanen, concentrated on bird images on Minoan seals and
sealings.22 He developed an extensive and detailed typology of birds on seals. Most notably,
he attempted to link these bird types to the identification of different species and his approach
will be further discussed below (Section 1.2.2). He also detected diachronic changes in the
preference of certain types/species in glyptic (e.g. waders in MM II), but did not attempt to
explain them.23

This brief survey has observed that most previous catalogues of bird depictions were
restricted to a certain species or region/medium. The lack of a comprehensive up-to-date

18
Vermeule - Karageorghis 1982.
19
Vermeule - Karageorghis 1982, 76, 103.
20
Lenz 1995.
21
Desborough 1972.
22
Ruuskanen 1992.
23
Ruuskanen 1992, 51.
 8

catalogue has had major implications for the study of bird depictions. For example, the
limitation to certain species meant that their relative frequency has largely remained unclear.
Considering this, it seems questionable that the relative rarity of the swallow motif
(comprising just 1.5% of the whole corpus) justifies the amount of scholarly attention
awarded to this species. Moreover, the restriction to a certain type of object often meant that
other images of the same birds could not be used in a systematic way to inform the depictions
in the medium discussed, thereby potentially ignoring valuable evidence. The lack of a
comprehensive catalogue may also have contributed to the fact that the associated discussions
typically focused on morphological variations, chronological developments and origins of
bird depictions rather than on identification or interpretation. In the next section, we will see
how this shortcoming has affected previous identification attempts.

1.2.2 Bird identification in previous studies

In the following we look at ways the second aim of our study – species identification – has
been approached in previous research. As we will see, many scholars refer to relatively few or
only to a single image without taking note of depictions of similar birds in other media.24

Since the early days of research several scholars have attempted to identify bird images of the
Aegean Bronze Age by comparing their morphological features to bird species illustrated in
ornithological field guides. In ornithology, bird species are commonly identified by paying
attention to the shape and in particular the plumage details of birds (Section 2.2.2). Using this
approach, Evans made several identifications of bird images, which do seem to be correct
according to the findings of the present study.25 A typical example is the identification of the
birds in the fresco from the Caravanserai (E26) as hoopoes and chukar partridges because of
the close correspondence of colour patterns (yellow plumage of hoopoes, red legs of chukar
partridges).26 Similarly, Oulié, in her study of Aegean animals in frescoes and on vases, made
some suggestions about the depicted bird species, based on the same approach. 27 She further
noted the close correspondence of the plumage of the birds in the Caravanserai Fresco, e.g.
the stripes on the belly, to those of real partridges.28 Both scholars pointed out differences
from Egyptian bird images, which are generally more detailed and accurate in the depiction of

24
Cf. identification of partridges on Cycladic vases by McGillivray (1983, 153) or the occasional identifications
made by Vermeule – Karageorghis (1982) for images on some Mycenaean vases.
25
Many instances in Evans 1921.
26
Evans 1928a, 110.
27
Oulié 1926.
28
Oulié 1926, 67.
 9

colour and plumage patterns, and Oulié noted an increasing difficulty in identifying species in
later Aegean art.29

Benton focused on species identification of some birds on Cretan and Mycenaean vases.30 In
keeping with the ornithological approach and its focus on certain morphological features, she
identified the birds on a vase from Palaikastro (G159) as great northern divers or black-
throated divers because of the plumage details (bands of dots).31 In addition, she noted
behavioural characteristics of birds on Mycenaean vases which allowed their identification as
cattle egrets.32

Ruuskanen explicitly sought the help of ornithologists in his ambitious attempt to identify the
species of birds on Minoan seals which he had assembled in a detailed typology.33 He argued
that identifications are possible “more exactly than has been formerly suggested”.34 Because
of the lack of colour on seals, the ornithologists were forced to only focus on the silhouettes
of the birds rather than on plumage details. Although the bird experts were certain about the
identity of the birds in many cases, e.g. the identification of cranes and herons on MM II
seals, they could not agree over the identity of several flying birds on MM III – LM I seals
which seemed to exhibit mixed features of different species (eagles, crows or gulls). We will
return to this problem in the next chapter (Section 2.2.3) and see how the structure of “non-
scientific” folk taxonomies can offer a possible solution to this problem.

A similar approach to identification was suggested by Warren in an article about a seal image
of an unusual bird (D464).35 Like Ruuskanen, he paid specific attention to the shape of
individual parts of the body (beak, neck etc.) because of the lack of colour on seals which
prevented focusing on plumage details. According to this method, he identified the bird as a
crowned crane although this species is not native to the Mediterranean. We will return to this
particular identification in the next chapter when we discuss the importance of archaeological
typology in the identification process (Section 2.2.1). As we will see, comparison with similar
– and more detailed – bird images might lead to a different identification result.

29
Evans 1928a, 110-111; Oulié 1926, 55-78.
30
Benton 1961, 1972.
31
Benton 1972, 172.
32
Benton 1961, 44.
33
Ruuskanen 1992.
34
Ruuskanen 1992, 62.
35
Warren 1995.
 10

Ornithological methods were most recently applied by Masseti and Harte.36 The former
looked at Minoan frescoes, relief carvings and jewellery, and the latter concentrated on
Theran frescoes. By comparing the morphological features of swallows in the Theran frescoes
to biological specimens, Harte was even able to determine sex and age of the birds. He also
remarked upon occasional deviations of the birds in Theran art from “real” birds as illustrated
or photographed in ornithological guides.37 Masseti tried to determine if the represented birds
were wild or domesticated by focusing on possible alterations of plumage colour or patterns.38

While all these scholars adopted a confident stance regarding the possibility of species
identification, others have been more hesitant. For example Nilsson, in his influential book
about Minoan and Mycenaean religion, emphasised that species identification is not possible
in many instances. He mentioned two reasons for this. First, the frequent stylization of images
in media lacking colour (e.g. seals, vases, figurines) prevented focusing on plumage details
which in turn hindered identification of certain scientific species as defined by modern
ornithology.39 For example, he criticized the frequent identification of bird figurines as doves
because in his opinion they are too stylised and the colours of the plumage seem to be
“entirely imaginary”.40 Second, he considered the scholarly disagreement over the identity of
the birds on the Ayia Triada sarcophagus (H2) as proof that any further identification attempts
are fruitless and they were simply meant to be “birds”. 41 He argued that any interpretation
attempts should therefore be based on this general idea. The confusion over the Ayia Triada
birds seems to be due to a mismatch of their body shape, which suggests that they are ravens,
and their plumage colour, which is yellow instead of black as we would expect in the case of
ravens. Similar reasons have induced many subsequent scholars, for example Morgan,
Vanschoonwinkel and Nikolakopoulos, to speak in terms of rough categories such as
‘waterfowl’ or ‘doves’ or even the more general category of ‘birds’ to avoid overambitious
identification attempts in cases where a certain species cannot unequivocally be identified.42

In addition to these two obstacles – uncertainty because of stylization/lack of detail and

disagreement because of mixed features – a third problem of animal identification in general
has been raised by Morgan. She expressed doubts whether the modern western scientific
36
Masseti 1997; Harte 2000.
37
Harte 2000, 691-695.
38
Masseti 1997, 361.
39
Nilsson 1950, 290-292. Cf. also Philips 2008, 188, footnote 1002.
40
Nilsson 1950, 291.
41
Nilsson 1950, 291-292.
42
Morgan 1988, 64; Vanschoonwinkel 1996, 366; Nikolakopoulou 2010, 214.
 11

system can be applied to the iconography of past societies and commented in her discussion
of the theory of iconography:

Consider zoological taxonomy: classification according to genus/species (lion,

cat, bull, deer) or family (Felidae, Bovidae, Cervidae) is effective, but I
wonder if it adequately reflects the system of animal classification revealed in
Minoan iconography?43

Instead, she suggested that other classification criteria (such as the ritual value of
animals) may have been more important. More recently, Shapland has similarly
emphasised the alleged arbitrariness of ancient classification systems which is why he
did not attempt a systematic identification of animals on species or family level in his
study of human-animal relations on Minoan Crete.44 We will return to these
important points in Chapter 2.

This brief survey of previous identification attempts demonstrates that most scholars used the
established ornithological methods to identify species, i.e. they primarily focused on plumage
colour and patterns compared to scientific species as shown in field guides or museum
specimens or when this was not possible, for example in the case of seals, paid primary
attention to the shape of the bird and its constituent parts. Although these approaches taken
from ornithology often resulted in relatively unequivocal identifications, they reached their
limits in the case of more stylized depictions or images exhibiting mixed features. These
factors as well as doubts about the applicability of the scientific system to past iconographies
have led other scholars to argue that it was safer to discuss such images in more generalizing
terms simply as those of “birds”.

1.2.3 Interpretations of bird images in previous studies

The reluctance to identify more images of birds more closely has had a direct effect on
interpretation attempts, which have often been rather vague. The deep link which frequently
exists between the choice of a specific bird, its associated behaviour/habitat and the
symbolism of images has only rarely been utilized to inform the functions of bird

43
Morgan 1985, 6.
44
Shapland 2009, 30-31, 230.
 12

depictions.45 This may explain why the most pervasive interpretation of bird images as avian
epiphanies has been repeated again and again, regardless of the significant variations of bird
depictions in time, contexts, regions, media or species. This is worth discussing in more
detail.

The interpretation of birds as avian epiphanies goes back to Evans and Nilsson. In his
discussion of the MM II terracotta columns with doves (B41) from a ritual context in the
palace of Knossos, Evans interpreted them as symbols or embodiments of the divine,
comparable to the Christian idea of the dove as embodiment of the Holy Ghost. 46 Earlier
depictions of doves from the Prepalatial Period were thus considered to “illustrate the
antiquity of the Minoan cult of the Dove Goddess”.47 In his book about Minoan-Mycenaean
religion, Nilsson followed Evans and emphasized the religious and symbolic roles of birds in
general.48 Significantly, he applied his interpretation as divine attributes or avian epiphanies
to various kinds of birds, for example the dove on the Kalyvia gold ring (D11) and the ravens
on the Ayia Triada sarcophagus (H2).49 Such a blanket explanation was deemed correct
because of his opinion that it is in most cases impossible and hence unnecessary to identify
the depicted birds more closely.

In the following decades, theistic readings of birds were repeatedly applied to images of all
kinds of birds. For example, a religious meaning of birds in the Aegean Bronze Age was
advocated by Pollard in his book Birds in Greek Life and Myths.50 Birds associated with trees
were interpreted as “…representing the epiphanies of the deities to which the trees were
sacred”.51 By drawing analogies to the Homeric similes of deities who could assume the
appearance of birds he also proposed a continuity of this idea into later times.52

Although Morgan interpreted the birds in the Miniature Frieze as having different functions
(e.g. as defining a certain natural environment or as navigation aids), birds, especially doves,
were also seen as messengers or attributes of deities.53 Thus, doves “may indicate the sanctity

45
Although this link has not been systematically studied, ethno-ornithological research has provided numerous
examples for this. See especially Gosler – Tidemann 2010 and Cocker 2013.
46
Evans 1921, 222-224.
47
Evans 1921, 222.
48
Nilsson 1950, 292-294.
49
Nilsson 1950, 285-294, especially 285-286, 288, 294.
50
Pollard 1977, 149-161.
51
Pollard 1977, 154.
52
Pollard 1977, 154-161.
53
Morgan 1988, 63-67.
 13

of a place or a holy presence”, whereas waterfowl depicted in wetland habitat were said to
have “nothing esoteric” about them.54

Cycladic swallow and waterbird images of MC III – LC I date have likewise been linked to a
presumed function as avian epiphanies or divine symbols by Foster, Russell and
Vlachopoulos.55 Foster suggested that the depiction of swallows in the Spring Fresco (E29)
was due to the assumed function of the room as designed for an epiphany ritual. 56 Russell
proposed that the images of flying swallows on nippled ewers could be explained by their
being symbols of the epiphany of a goddess.57 Vlachopoulos argued that the mallards in the
Reed Fresco from Xeste 3 at Akrotiri (E14) were also linked to the divine sphere.58 He
suggested a relationship of the Reed Fresco with those of the nearby ‘Frescoes of the Saffron
Gatherers’, and tentatively interpreted it as providing the backdrop for the enthroned goddess,
who is thus shown “in a symbolic milieu of serenity, fertility and natural life”.59

Such theistic readings of birds were not limited to LB I depictions, but also applied to the LM
IIIA2 Ayia Triada sarcophagus (H2) and the LM IIIC Goddesses of Upraised Arms (Section
4.6).60 Alexiou saw the birds attached to female figures as divine attributes or avian
epiphanies, while Gesell in an article about bird and snake depictions in Cretan art interpreted
them as symbols of bird or sky deities.61

In cases where birds were not interpreted as directly connected to divine agents, their presence
in nature scenes was often rather vaguely seen as indicating “spring”, “seasons” or “fertility”
(sometimes connected to a “goddess of nature”). Such interpretations were proposed mainly
for Cretan and Cycladic frescoes, for example by Marinatos, Shaw, Chapin and Lovelace.62
Frequently, these readings were inspired by characterisations of the bird poses as “life-like”
and the habitat as “lush”.63 The fresco from Delta 2 at Akrotiri showing four birds, one pair
and two single ones, was called the Spring Fresco (E29) because Marinatos interpreted their
behavior as courtship rituals.64 The specific choice of a certain bird species in a fresco, for

54
Morgan 1988, 65-66.
55
Foster 1995; Russell 2006; Vlachopoulos 2000.
56
Foster 1995, 413-415.
57
Russell 2006, 149.
58
Vlachopoulos 2000.
59
Vlachopoulos 2000, 642.
60
Alexiou 1958, 252-263; Gesell 2006.
61
Gesell 2006, 320-321.
62
Marinatos 1971, 24, 50-51; Marinatos 1984, 92-93; Shaw 2005, 101-105; Chapin 2004; Lovelace 2015.
63
Shaw 2005, 105.
64
Marinatos 1971, 50-51.
 14

example partridges, doves or swallows, was usually not considered important for the
interpretation.

One of the few scholars who have criticized such theistic or vague explanations, emphasizing
that they do not do justice to the variety and accuracy of bird depictions, was Shapland.65 In
his work about human-animal relationships in Minoan Crete he studied both
zooarchaeological and iconographic evidence.66 Instead of concentrating on the cultic
significance of birds he drew attention to indications for hunting of birds (fowling) which had
hitherto only rarely been discussed.67 According to him, types and variants of birds on seals as
identified by Ruuskanen could express various movements made by birds in different hunting
practices.68 Also, he stressed the palatability of partridges in the Caravanserai Fresco (E26)
from Knossos, following a suggestion by Evans.69 Similarly, scenes of felines attacking birds
(Section 6.1) were considered “of social significance if cats were involved in fowling”.70
Fowling practices were also suggested by Papageorgiou for depictions of birds caught in nets,
one of them recently restored in Xeste 3 (E6).71 A further example of the pervasiveness of the
theistic readings of bird images, she suggested that birds were caught alive to be sacrificed in
honour of the “goddess” shown in the same building.

Attempts to counter generalizing accounts by linking the specific choice of a particular bird
with an interpretation of the function of the object are notably rare. Examples include studies
undertaken by Laffineur, Yon, Lenz, and Porter.72 Laffineur interpreted the choice of owls as
ornaments in Mycenaean graves as being inspired by apotropaic concerns.73 He argued that
owls are especially suited to protect the dead because they know the dangers of the night due
to their nocturnal habits (Section 8.2). Yon linked the depiction of waterbird protomes on
Mycenaean ships (Section 6.5) to their unique ability to connect land, water and air.74 Lenz
was able to identify many different roles and functions of bird images in the Aegean Bronze
Age via comparisons made across media and periods. Following Evans and Nilsson, he saw

65
Shapland 2009, 228.
66
Shapland 2009; 2010a.
67
Shapland 2009, 86.
68
Shapland 2009, 230.
69
Evans 1921, 114; Shapland 2009, 230-231.
70
Shapland 2009, 243.
71
Papageorgiou 2014.
72
Laffineur 1981; Yon 1992; Lenz 1995; Porter 2011.
73
Laffineur 1981.
74
Yon 1992.
 15

birds as attributes of deities and symbolizing the epiphany,75 but also considered a function as
symbols of sacrifice possible due to the frequent association of birds and bulls.76 He explained
the choice of birds of prey in the shaft graves by their function as status symbols. Moreover,
he observed the frequent depiction of waterbirds in connection with music (Section 6.2) and
ships (Section 6.5).77 Porter explained the depiction of raptors on Cycladic vases and the
association with disks as being due to a distinct sun symbolism, which he argued was adopted
from Egyptian Horus imagery (Section 5.2).78

In this survey of interpretations of bird images we have observed that the most pervasive
readings have been theistic ones. Birds have been seen as embodying the divine or as being
attributes and messengers of deities, regardless of variations in time, region, medium or
species depicted. More recently, possible evidence for fowling and eating practices has gained
attention, although such images were sometimes also tied to a divine agent by way of
sacrifice. One reason for the pervasiveness of a certain type of interpretation applied to all
kinds of birds lies in the reluctance to identify birds more closely. Attempts to take the species
identification into account in the interpretation are notably rare. The present study will argue
that a more systematic methodology for species identification provides a more nuanced basis
for interpretation.

1.3 Conclusion

Previous studies of bird images in the Aegean Bronze Age have consisted of the compilation
of catalogues and identification or interpretation attempts. Most catalogues of bird depictions
have focused either on only one medium/region or on one species. The lack of a
comprehensive catalogue has led to the underrepresentation of some media (e.g. figurines) or
species (e.g. corvids or large waders vs. swallows) and had a direct bearing on identification
attempts. Therefore, a comprehensive catalogue of bird depictions as compiled in this thesis is
an invaluable asset.

Scholars trying to identify bird species have usually used ornithological methodology with its
primary focus on plumage details and colour. This can be done most easily for frescoes and
scholars working with colour-less images have had to focus on silhouettes which were

75
Lenz 1995, 48-55.
76
Lenz 1995, 93-96.
77
Lenz 1995, 96-103, 132-147
78
Porter 2011.
 16

compared to the contours of “real” birds. Obstacles such as schematisation, mixed features or
uncertainty about the applicability of modern taxonomy were often taken as reasons to abstain
from detailed identification attempts, making it seem wiser to discuss depictions simply as
“birds”. This generalised approach may seem to decrease the likelihood of misidentifications
– and hence misinterpretations – but it also increases the danger of overgeneralizations by
subsuming notably different kinds of birds and their different meanings under one heading.

The lack of a systematic identification methodology has usually led to rather vague
interpretations which did not take the species into account. Thus, generalizing explanations of
birds as divine attributes, avian epiphanies or as symbols of fertility/spring have been applied
to very diverse depictions. Attempts to link the specific choice or appearance of a bird to
function have been rare. Yet, such an undertaking is promising in order to elucidate the
various roles assumed by different birds in the Aegean Bronze Age. In the next chapter we
will concentrate on the prerequisite of this task, namely the development of a sound
theoretical framework for identification.
 17

2. Bird identification in iconography

2.1 Introduction

This chapter provides the methodological basis for the identification of the various bird
depictions that follows in Chapters 4 – 8. Our review in the previous chapter made clear that
there have only been a few attempts to identify systematically the bird images in Aegean
Bronze Age art. The reasons for this were primarily due to the lack of a comprehensive
catalogue, a supposed impossibility of identification because of a high degree of stylisation,
or disputed identifications because of mixed features. Linked to the question of whether
different species can be identified at all in the iconography is the issue of the applicability of
the modern Western scientific system to ancient sources, because it seems reasonably unlikely
that the people of the Minoan, Mycenaean or Cycladic world had a similar classification
system.

In the following three sections we will see how a systematic yet flexible identification
methodology can be developed by combining approaches and insights from iconography,
ornithology and anthropology. We will first discuss the contribution of archaeological
typology and knowledge of local artistic traditions to the identification process. Subsequently,
we look at ornithological identification methods and see how far the particular structure of
modern Western scientific taxonomy may permit animal identification in iconography. In the
final section, we will discuss anthropological studies of folk taxonomies and examine ways
they can help with refining our identification methods. To begin with, it is useful to analyse in
what ways the study of the iconographical context can contribute to species identification.

2.2 Methodology of bird identification in iconography

2.2.1 Iconography and typology

In this section we discuss how studying the wider iconographical context of the bird images is
a necessary first step for making reliable identifications. Two aspects are especially relevant
for our purposes. First, the establishment of a typology of bird depictions, and second, the
consideration of local artistic traditions and stylistic conventions.
 18

When we attempt to identify a particular bird image, it is advisable to try and find as many
other depictions of the same bird as possible. Therefore, birds showing the same combination
of features, e.g. long legs, long neck, long spear-shaped beak, rounded back and down-ward
hanging tail, should be grouped together in a typology based on the assumption that they are
meant to represent the same kind of bird, e.g. a crane (Figure 1). The works of Furumark and
Ruuskanen who established typologies of bird images on vase-paintings and seals are
especially helpful in this regard and can serve as models for typologies in other media.

The analysis of multiple images serves three purposes. First, it reduces the risk of
misidentifications because the consistent combination of the same elements makes it more
likely that they indicate a particular species.79 Second, complete images can be used to gain
information about fragmentary depictions of the same type, which would otherwise have been
unidentifiable. For example, there are many Mycenaean vase fragments which only show legs
of birds. By comparing those to the legs of better preserved images of birds, we can quickly
see that many belong to a certain type of bird which can be identified as a crane (Section 7.5)
(Figure 2).

Third, more detailed or naturalistic depictions can be used to identify more stylized images of
the same type. Often, a depiction may look like a certain bird to an ornithologist´s eye, but the
typology and the development from a relatively accurate to a relatively stylized bird image
can suggest another species. For example, an offering table from Tiryns (I6), dating to LH II,
shows birds which resemble a kind of parrot, especially because of their beak shape (Figure
3). However, by looking at the overall shape and colour we can compare them to some likely
predecessors such as a MM III wallpainting from the House of the Frescoes at Knossos (E1)
and the LC I fresco of the Porter´s lodge at Akrotiri on Thera (E5) (Figure 4). Since the birds
in these frescoes can be identified as rock doves because of their shape and plumage patterns,
it is more likely that the birds on the offering table are also rock doves, albeit less accurately
depicted ones (Section 4.4).

In the creation of such typologies, a comprehensive catalogue is an indispensable tool because

images of the same types of birds often cross-cut media, regions or periods. A good example
of where pitfalls may lie is the identification of a bird on a seal (D464) as a crowned crane by
Warren.80 When we look for other similar birds in the iconography which also exhibit an

79
Also noted by VanPool – VanPool 2009, 537.
80
Warren 1995.
 19

elongated body, large wings, big feet, a relatively long neck with a strong beak, a crested head
and a relatively long broad tail we find similar schematic ones on other seals (e.g. D466) and
a detailed one on an ivory plaque (I12) (Figure 5). These features and especially the fan-
shaped crest as shown on the most detailed bird are more indicative of a peacock than a
crowned crane, whose crest is almost spherical (Figure 6) (Section 7.4). Thus, the
consideration of various media provides valuable clues when attempting bird identification in
iconography.

Another issue to consider in the study of the iconographical context is that certain artistic
conventions can be misleading because they may resemble species-specific features. For
example, the plumage of rock doves in frescoes is painted blue rather than grey which is why
they were first identified as rollers (Coracias garrulous) (Figure 7).81 However, the fact that
other animals and plants that are actually green or grey are also painted blue suggests that this
is a colour convention of Aegean fresco painters and thus does not preclude identification as
rock doves. Moreover, it is necessary to discriminate between mainly decorative interior
fillings and species-specific patterns. The frequent use of certain ornaments (e.g. dots) in the
depiction of several different animals or for decorative borders increases the probability that
this is an embellishment.82 In contrast, if dots appear on an animal in an artistic tradition
which rarely uses them for decoration, they may be more likely to represent species-specific
features. For example, one could be tempted to see the striped rows on the birds on the
Palaikastro cup (G159) as indicating the plumage of certain types of divers, as has been
suggested by Benton (Figure 8).83 However, when we look at other depictions of similar
birds, e.g. on a vase from Kalyvia (G160), we find similar rows used for the decoration of
other motifs such as rocks (Figure 9). This weakens the case for the identification as divers,
which is only based on the striped rows.

In sum, the creation of typologies of bird images which can cross-cut media, regions or
periods can greatly contribute to the identification process because more detailed and better
preserved images can provide valuable information about stylized and fragmented depictions
of the same kind of bird. Moreover, knowledge of the stylistic conventions can help to
distinguish decorative elements from species-specific features. These steps need to precede
the actual identification attempts to make sure we are aware of any deviations from “reality”

81
Evans 1928, 454.
82
VanPool - VanPool 2009, 537.
83
Benton 1972, 172.
 20

because of artistic conventions or stylistic developments. We can then begin to bring this
perspective to the application of ornithological methods to bird identification in iconography.

2.2.2 Ornithology and scientific taxonomy

When confronted with bird images in iconography, archaeologists usually turn to

ornithological field guides to see if they find a match between the bird depicted and any of the
bird species illustrated or photographed. Alternatively, they consult ornithologists directly and
ask for their opinion on the identity of the birds in iconography. 84 The methods used have
systematically been laid out by the ornithologist Wyatt who worked on ancient Egyptian bird
images.85 Species identification in ornithology is made possible by focusing on the physical
appearance of the bird such as size, proportions, fieldmarks (unique features which allow a
certain species to be identified, e.g. the tail of a peacock) and especially colouring and
patterns of the plumage.

Such an approach has fruitfully been used for the many bird depictions from Egypt, where the
accuracy of proportion, and especially plumage colours and patterns often closely correspond
to those of the bird species in an ornithological guide book.86 Using this method, about 100
different bird species have been identified in Egyptian iconography. 87 As we saw in the
previous chapter (Section 1.2.2), several scholars have successfully applied these principles to
images in Aegean Bronze Age art, especially to depictions in frescoes. For example, as was
mentioned earlier, rock doves can be identified in wallpaintings not only because of their
blue/grey plumage, but also because of their red feet, red eyes and pink dots around the neck
which correspond to the shimmering neck feathers (Figure 10).

Wyatt also emphasized that further ornithological information should be taken into account,
for example the distribution range and/or migration behaviour of the identified species.88
Species lists provided by birders for separate regions in the Aegean can be of great use for our
purposes because they also include migrating birds.89 Such information can also help to
exclude certain species. For example, the identification of the birds on the cup from

84
Cf. Ruuskanen (1992) who asked ornithologists to identify birds on seals. For the present study, several bird
images were shown to Dr Andrew Gosler from the Edward Grey Institute for Field Ornithology, Oxford, who
had kindly agreed to aid with the identifications.
85
Wyatt 2012.
86
Houlihan 1986; Wyatt 2012.
87
Wyatt 2012, 83.
88
Evans 2007, 2012.
89
For example the website http://www.crete-birding.co.uk/, accessed 19/08/2017.
 21

Palaikastro (G159) as great northern divers or black-throated divers is unlikely because these
species only occur on the Atlantic coast, and not on Crete.90 It must be noted that the past
range of bird species may have changed over the millennia due to climate change and
developments brought on by humans. For example, the collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto)
which is now ubiquitous on Crete spread there only in the last century from its original habitat
in India.91 Therefore, it is unlikely that this species appears in Aegean Bronze Age
iconography as has occasionally been suggested.92 Due to the incomplete state of osteological
material of birds from the Aegean Bronze Age, historical data are especially important in this
regard, although they too have significant gaps.

Ornithological field guides usually present the bird species in an order according to its genus
and family and then focus on morphological features relevant for distinguishing one bird
species from another. This arrangement is a direct consequence of the structure of western
scientific taxonomy and it is worth examining this classification system more closely to assess
its applicability to ancient iconographical sources.

Scientific taxonomy is a globally used ranked classification system of biological entities with
the species level (e.g. the Rock Partridge) as the basic module. Different species are grouped
together within eight major ranks, which are in ascending order (using the Rock Partridge as
example):

• species (Rock Partridge, Alectoris graeca)

• genus (Alectoris)
• family (Phasianidae)
• order (Galliformes)
• class (Aves = birds)
• phylum (Chordata = vertebrae)
• kingdom (Animalia = animals)
• life or domain level (Eukarya = life forms whose cells possess a nucleus)

The entities in these individual levels, for example Rock Partridge or Alectoris or Aves, are
known as taxa.

90
Benton 1972, 172; Buxton 1974; Svensson et al. 2009, 61-62.
91
Stresemann – Nowak 1958.
92
For example Cadogan 1977-1978, 71.
 22

The species concept is subject to different definitions: termed the phenetic, the biological and
the evolutionary species concepts. The most widespread in biology is the phenetic species
concept, which pays attention to “inwardly continuous and outwardly discrete”93 features, in
other words, the basic morphological similarity which an individual of a species shares with
other individuals of the genus level, but a different outward appearance (often plumage
patterns). For example, the mallard (Anas plathyrhynchos) has a similar body shape as other
birds of the genus Anas = dabbling ducks, but notably differs in its plumage patterns from
other species of dabbling ducks, e.g. the gadwall (Anas strepera) (Figure 11). Biologists
mostly focus on the phenetic species concept because of its relatively easy applicability for
everyday identification tasks. With the help of binoculars, fine plumage details can be
observed even from afar and compared to those illustrated in ornithological guide books. In
cases where individuals of two different bird species happen to resemble one another very
closely, for example the rock partridge and the chukar partridge (Figure 12), the phenetic
species concept is complemented by the two other definitions, the biological species concept,
which considers the production of fertile offspring as the decisive factor, and the evolutionary
species concept, which emphasises common descent (in doubtful cases determined by DNA
analyses).94

The phenetic species concept is the result of certain historical developments in scholarship
and has specific limitations of which we need to be aware if we want to use it for identifying
animals in iconography. The focus on the morphology of physical features of animals as
primary classification criterion in western biology goes back to the work of the Greek
philosopher Aristotle who first developed some of the basic principles of the scientific system
in his works about animals.95 Inspired by extensive dissection, he noted tiny differences
between the anatomies of animals, for example the shape of the oesophagus in different
birds.96 By comparing and differentiating – or “division and assembly”97 of – some essential
organs of animals such as the wings of birds, which correspond to the fins of fish, he
developed a classification system by which all kinds of animals could be arranged in a system

93
Andersson 1990, 375.
94
Andersson 1990, 376.
95
Especially relevant are the following Aristotelian works: History of Animals, Generation of Animals,
Movement of Animals, and Parts of Animals. See Atran 1985; Atran 1998, 564; Lunczer 2009, 12-20.
96
Aristotle, History of animals 2, 509a 1–3.
97
Atran 1998, 564.
 23

according to similarity and dissimilarity of those essential organs. A good example of the
Aristotelian classification criteria at work is presented by Atran:98

“The generic species of each life form are then differentiated by degrees of “more or
less” with respect to essential organs. Thus, all birds have wings for moving about and
beaks for obtaining nutriments. But, whereas the predatory eagle is partially diagnosed
by long and narrow wings and a sharply hooked beak, the goose – owing to its
different mode of life – is partially diagnosed by a lesser and broader wing span and
flatter bill.”

The Aristotelian principle with its focus on morphology was readopted much later in the 16th
and 17th centuries AD, following the discovery of new regions of the world.99 Since thousands
of unfamiliar plants and animals needed to be classified in relation to the familiar European
counterparts, the distinction between species and genus was developed as morphological
similarities and differences between scientific species became more apparent. Drawing on
ideas of the Enlightenment, Linnaeus developed the modern taxonomic system – the Linnaean
system – by consistently concentrating on the species as core module and labelling them in a
binomial nomenclature, e.g. Anas plathyrhynchos for mallard.100 Adanson and Lamarck
created further higher-order ranks such as families and orders in the 18th and early 19th
century.101 Their groupings differed in details from the Linnaean system, but they also
focused on anatomical features of species as classification criteria. Cuvier added the rank of
the phylum (branch), which distinguishes organisms according to their general body plans.102

The focus on anatomical details of animals and plants in western biology led to an increasing
tendency to view them in a decontextualised setting. In other words, illustrations concentrated
on the entities themselves, separated from their surroundings.103 Similarly, birds of different
species are commonly shown in only one or two poses (mostly standing and flying),
artificially positioned next to each other, in ornithological field guides, often with little
reference to their natural environment (Figure 13). Scholars using such guides for the
identification of birds in ancient iconography need to be aware that their structure is the
outcome of particular historical developments and need not necessarily reflect the

98
Atran 1998, 564.
99
Atran 1998, 564.
100
Linnaeus 1735, 1751.
101
Adanson 1763; Lamarck 1809.
102
Cuvier 1829.
103
Jacobs 1980, 162.
 24

composition of “non-scientific” taxonomies. In fact, the problems encountered when trying to

identify depictions that are stylized or show mixed features of different species are due to
fundamental differences between the structure and principles of modern western taxonomy
and those of other “pre-modern” and/or non-western taxonomies, as we explore next.

In sum, western ornithological taxonomy traditionally focuses on morphological features and

the scientific species concept. Such principles go back to Aristotle and were readopted in the
Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment. Ornithological methods can be of great help in
cases where details given in the depiction allow us to find a close match with a certain
scientific species. Also, information about past and present distribution ranges can provide
corroborating evidence about the likelihood that a certain species was depicted. However,
there are cases when this approach reaches its limits, especially if we encounter more
schematic images or those showing hybridised features of various scientific species. In the
next section we will examine possible solutions to these problems by looking at the structure
of folk taxonomies.

2.2.3 Anthropology and folk taxonomies

The study of folk taxonomies, which is part of a growing field in anthropology called folk
biology, is concerned with the everyday recognition of biologically different entities and how
they are classified across cultures in relation to the scientific system.104 Three types of
methodologies are used to identify the structure of modern folk taxonomies. First and
foremost, the names people of a given culture use for different animals and plants are
recorded and then “translated” into the western scientific system.105 Second, experiments have
been undertaken to establish folk taxonomies by asking people to name animals on
photographs or specimens and to tell which are “most similar to each other”. 106 Third, studies
with children can provide evidence for “non-scientific” ways of naming and grouping
different animals and plants.107

All these studies have consistently shown that whereas the scientific system sees the species
as the core module, a less detailed category is the primary focus of folk taxonomies. Studies
done on folk names, for example those of the Kalam in New Guinea (Bulmer), the Tzeltal

104
Berlin et al. 1973; Berlin 1992; Healey 1993, 19; Atran 1998; Medin – Atran 1999; Casagrande 2004, 352;
for a history of ethnobiology as a discipline see Hunn 2007.
105
Cf. Hunn 1975; Brown 1985; Berlin 1992.
106
Cf. Atran 1998. For a critique of the experimental approach due to experimenter’s bias see D’Andrade, 1995,
101.
107
Cf. Waxman 1999; Hatano – Inagaki 1999.
 25

Maya in Mexico (Berlin) and the Itzaj Maya in Guatemala (Atran) have shown that in folk
taxonomies the species and genus of scientific taxonomy are usually combined in one
category.108 This grouping is called “generic species” and corresponds to English terms such
as ‘partridge’, ‘oak’ or ‘dog’.109 In experiments described by Boster, people of different
cultures who had no detailed knowledge of the scientific system (North American students
and Jivaro Indians of South America) repeatedly sorted specimens of birds according to
generic species.110 Moreover, experiments with children of different cultural backgrounds
have shown that they all seem to favour the generic species level (e.g. dog) when asked to
make inferences about animals. This level is also developed earlier in infancy than non-basic
levels (either higher: animal, or lower: poodle).111

Folk taxonomies seem to have a hierarchy of groups, comparable to the scientific ranked
system.112 Most often, different generic species are grouped into life forms (bug, fish, bird,
mammal/animal, tree, herb/grass, bush) and folk kingdoms (e.g. animal, plant). Some
experiments with children suggest that these groups are due to universal cognitive abilities
because children usually distinguish animals and plants from non-living entities.113 Similarly,
quadrupeds, sea and air animals are usually differentiated by children, categories which
correspond to the folk rank of “life form”.114

The most common folk taxonomical ranks documented are, in ascending order and using the
partridge as example:115

• Generic species (partridge)

• Life form (bird)
• Folk kingdom (animal)

In addition to these ranks, there can be further groupings between “generic species” and “life
form” whose structure is more variable, e.g. ground-dwelling birds or game birds. Their
classification criteria will be discussed in more detail below. Also, generic species can

108
Bulmer 1967; Berlin 1992; Atran 1998.
109
Hunn 1975; Berlin (1992, 19) called generic species“folk generics”; Atran 1998, 549-550.
110
Boster 1987.
111
Waxman 1999, 236.
112
Berlin et al. 1973; Berlin 1992, 22; Atran 1998, 548-549; Hunn – Thornton 2009, 206.
113
Cf. Hatano – Inagaki 1996 for experiments done with six, eight and ten year old children from Israel, Japan
and the United States.
114
Mandler 1992. Hatano – Iganaki (1996, 333-334), however, showed that this differentiation is difficult for
second- and fourth-year graders in Japan.
115
Berlin 1992; Atran 1999a, 233-234.
 26

sometimes be further subdivided into the so-called “folk specific” (e.g. rock partridge) or
“folk varietal” (e.g. Cretan rock partridge), the groupings of which may or may not
correspond to scientific species in western scientific taxonomy.116

Ranking seems to be a universal feature of folk taxonomies, but there are variations in scale.
A comparative study conducted by Brown yielded evidence that biological taxonomies of
small-scale agriculturalists – which he defined as societies where most people are involved in
agricultural food production – are around three times larger than those of hunter-gatherers.117
Also, the number of binomially labelled classes, e.g. ‘white oak’, is significantly larger in
small-scale agricultural societies, and the ranks of folk specific and folk varietal are less often
used by hunter-gatherers.118 In other words, the breadth of folk taxonomical classification –
and often the depth, i.e. the number of ranks – is generally higher in farming societies.119
However, this does not mean that the biological knowledge of foragers is in any way inferior
to that of agriculturalists. The results only suggest that this is not reflected in specialized
lexical categories.120 Agriculturalists, on the other hand, further differentiate their ranks,
which sometimes leads to a closer correspondence to scientific species.

Experiments by Atran yielded informative results about differences between taxonomies of

small-scale agriculturalists and people in modern nation-state societies.121 Two groups of
people were compared in the first experiment: Lowland Maya, who still maintain their
traditional way of life in Central America, and Midwest American students. The folk
taxonomies of both groups were established by asking them to sort photographs of animals
and plants. Both groups of people used generic species when asked to make inferences about
the likelihood of the spread of disease, but the Maya had names for the generic species while
the higher life-form level was the preferred rank for the American students (i.e. they just
called different kinds of trees ‘tree’). Atran and others observed that the decline of direct

116
Atran 2001, 316. See Sinclair et al. 2010, for a high accuracy in the recognition of species of Megapodes by
Melanesian people and Hunn – Thornton 2010 for the high correspondence between local names of birds in
Alaska and scientific species.
117
Brown 1985, 47.
118
Brown 1985, 43; for a summary see Holman 2005, 74-75.
119
Holman 2005, 75-78.
120
Ellen 1999, 108-109.
121
Atran 1998.
 27

contact with nature and agricultural food production seems to lead to a decrease of the number
of labelled taxa in modern nation-state folk biologies.122

In a second experiment by Atran, a third group from one of the cultures, namely North
American bird experts, was included. Again, the groups were first asked to do sorting tasks of
North and Central American birds to evaluate the respective taxonomies.123 The system of the
bird experts was more similar to that of the Maya than to that of the American students. This
shows that the degree of familiarity with the natural world varies considerably within a
nation-state society where a layperson knows much less than a bird expert whose base of
knowledge may be more similar to that of small-scale agriculturalists.124 This fact should be
borne in mind when making assumptions about the general degree of knowledge in past
societies. In our context, it seems likely that the taxonomies of the people in the Aegean
Bronze Age corresponded more to those of small-scale agriculturalists than to those of laymen
in modern nation-states and we may thus expect that the generic species was used more
commonly than the life-form level (e.g. bird).

Returning to generic species, the reasons for the cross-cultural similarities in the recognition
and importance of this rank seem to be threefold. First, the distinction between genus and
species becomes most apparent to people when many species of different regions are
systematically compared to each other. As we have seen, this was done in the 16th and 17th
centuries AD and ultimately led to the scientific species becoming the core principle of the
Linnaean system (Section 2.2.2). Folk taxonomies are usually limited to a certain area – in
contrast to the scientific system which aims at global validity – and the relevant differences
may not be obvious to the respective societies.125 An anthropological study by Berlin
observed that it is more likely for folk taxonomies of animals to divide a generic species
further if the local fauna includes more than one scientific species of one genus.126

A second reason for the prevalence of the generic species level seems to lie in the fact that
folk taxonomies often use different visual classification criteria than the scientific system.127
The shape and proportions of body parts of animals seem to be more important than the focus
on fur or plumage patterns. For example, the Ketengban of New Guinea have been found to

122
Brown 1985, 47; Atran 1987; Coley et al. 1997; Ellen 1999, 108.
123
Atran et al. 2002.
124
Anderson 1985, 53-54.
125
Atran 1998, 12.
126
Berlin 1992, 87; Holman 2005, 83.
127
Berlin 1992, 9-11; Hunn 1977.
 28

distinguish birds in the dense rainforest by their posture and shape in contrast to western
ornithologists who primarily attend to fine plumage details (often with the help of
binoculars).128 Body shape and size is most variable between different genera, so attention
paid to these aspects often results in the creation of generic species. An example would be the
generic species of ducks and the generic species of swans in English folk taxonomy whose
recognition seems to be due to their different body shapes because of the conspicuous
variations in size and length of their necks.

Further to this point, compared with the modern taxonomy, under- and over-differentiation of
scientific taxa are common. Different types of correspondence have been systematically
identified by Seixas and Begossi.129 An example of under-differentiation in English folk
taxonomy would be the generic species ‘geese’, which includes species from two different
scientific genera, those of Anser (Grey Geese) and Branta (black geese). The reason for this
deviation of folk taxonomies from Linnaean taxonomy again seems to lie in the fact that they
all have a similar body shape (Figure 14). Also, in many societies, songbird species whose
body shapes are very similar to each other are not distinguished by name if they do not exhibit
other special characteristics.130 Less frequent are cases of over-differentiation which can occur
when folk taxa differentiate between the life phases of one scientific species, e.g. the
caterpillar and butterfly.

A third reason for the widespread use of the generic species seems to lie in behavioural and
ecological considerations. Behaviour and habitat play a more important role in folk
taxonomies compared to the primarily morphological criteria of scientific taxonomy. Like
body shape, variations in lifestyle are most obvious on the generic species level. For example,
most bears are large omnivore wood-dwelling mammals. Such criteria can lead to situations
where generic species correspond to parts of higher scientific ranks such as ‘families’.131 For
example, the family Accipitridae includes both eagles and vultures, whereas in folk
taxonomies vultures are usually categorized as a different generic species, probably due to
their conspicuous carrion-eating habits which sets them apart from most eagles.

128
Diamond – David Bishop 1999, 33-34.
129
Seixas – Begossi 2001, 111-113. For a useful summary see VanPool - VanPool 2009, 534. For under-and
over-differentiation of bird species by the Ketengban in New Guinea see Diamond – David Bishop 1999, 35-38.
130
Hunn – Thornton 2009, 203-206.
131
Atran 1999b, 234-235.
 29

An interesting observation in our context is that because the variability in physical, ecological
and behavioural characteristics is greatest between different generic species, symbolic
meanings are often linked to these rather than to scientific species.132 A good example is the
generic species of eagle, which includes several different scientific species such as the
Bonelli´s Eagle, the Golden Eagle or the Steppe Eagle (Figure 15). Because the most
important traits – large size, powerful beaks and claws, predatory habits, soaring flight – are
shared by all those different species, the generic species eagle has often inspired symbolic
associations, as can be seen on the German Euro coin (Figure 16).

Similar criteria to the ones responsible for the recognition of generic species are also applied
to the creation of higher ranks in folk taxonomies. Shared habitat and behaviour seem to be
especially important in this context. For example, the commonly encountered folk taxonomic
group of “waterbirds” (words for which exist in various languages, for example German
“Wasservogel”, French “oiseau aquatique” or modern Greek “υδρόβιο πουλί”) seems to
include a wide variety of generic species living near (fresh) water such as ducks, geese,
swans, as well as herons and egrets. Dupré has shown that whales have often been categorised
as fish in folk taxonomies because of their way of swimming and their marine habitat, despite
the fact that they are mammals in the scientific sense.133 In some cases, such criteria can result
in the exclusion of certain animals from the major rank of life form. These are called outliers
in the studies of folk taxonomies. An example is that the cassowary is not considered to be a
bird by the Kalam of New Guinea.134 This may have to do with the fact that the cassowary is a
large flightless bird and hence does not belong to birds whose prime attribute is their ability to
fly. The same can be seen in ostriches in local African taxonomies.135

Another way that animals or plants can be grouped together or differentiated is according to
criteria that pertain to a cultural function in the respective society, e.g. for medical or culinary
purposes.136 For example, ptarmigans, pheasants and partridges can be classified as game fowl
because people eat them. In Atran’s experiments it was found that for the Maya and American
students, e.g. felines and canines were seen as more similar to each other than to other
carnivores, which is not correct according to the Linnaean system. Other factors such as
132
Compare the way Cocker (2013) organises his book about bird symbolism around folk taxonomical groupings
rather than scientific species.
133
Dupré 1999.
134
Bulmer 1967.
135
Atran 1999a, 125.
136
Cf. Morgan 1985, 6-7.
 30

familiarity with humans were more important because both are common pets.137 Moreover,
usefulness for humans and animal habitat and behaviour can also be combined and result in
categories such as ‘edible fruit-eating tree birds’ in Itzay Maya folk taxonomy.138

How can the results of anthropological studies of folk taxonomies help refine our
identification methodology? Three aspects are especially important. First, since the generic
species seems to be the focus of folk taxonomies, archaeologists trying to identify animals
should aim primarily to identify them on the level of the generic species before trying to
determine certain scientific species. A similar suggestion was made by Wapnish, who worked
on translations of animal names in Near Eastern texts, and by Müller who discussed
translations of bird names from ancient Hebrew.139 Both scholars observed that translators
should primarily concentrate on the generic species concept and translate names as ‘eagle’ or
‘raven’ rather than as ‘steppe eagle’ or ‘fan-tailed raven’. Literary studies of past societies
can thus serve as models for iconographical methodology.

In iconography, the generic species can primarily be determined by focusing on the

proportions and shape of the body and its component parts. Characteristic features such as the
size and shape of the body, the length and shape of the legs, neck, head and beak can be
determined by looking at the silhouette of the bird depicted. For example, several birds on
Minoan seals can be identified as cranes because of their shape (Figure 17) (Section 7.2).
Plumage patterns or colour as they are used to identify scientific species should only be paid
attention to after the generic species has been identified. The focus on the generic species and
the body shape/silhouette helps provide a solution to bird depictions that are stylized and/or
do not show colour.140 With this method, we can go beyond the limits imposed by the
structure of the scientific taxonomy and current ornithological approaches with their primary
focus on plumage patterns and details.

The second insight is that behaviour and habitat need to be taken into account in the
identification process because these criteria seem to be equally important in the recognition of
generic species in folk taxonomies. Again, translators of Near Eastern texts have frequently
applied this method when attempting to identify animals mentioned in the documents. For
example, in Sumerian texts over 30 different bird species, such as grey heron, black francolin

137
Atran 1998, 558.
138
Atran 1999a, 172-173.
139
Wapnish 1985; Wapnish 1995, 235-236; Müller 1995, 146.
140
Cf. Ruuskanen 1992, 53; Warren 1995; cf. emphasis on shape by Wyatt 2012, 85-87.
 31

or hoopoe could be identified by taking contextual information about habitat and behaviour
into account.141 In iconography, we can focus on the posture, feeding and mating behavior,
the setting, and the associated plants or animals. It should be borne in mind, however, that if
the behavior or surroundings do not match that of the bird identified according to the
silhouette, this is not a reason to reject the identification altogether because there may be other
reasons for such deviations and they should be part of the subsequent analysis rather than the
identification.

A third insight from the study of folk taxonomies can provide a solution to the conundrum of
bird depictions showing mixed features of different species. As we have seen, generic species
and higher groupings in folk taxonomies can include various different (generic) species, and
such groupings may be directly reflected in art. A recent study by Van Pool and Van Pool in
which they discuss animals on the ceramics of the Mimbres people in the American
Southwest (ca. 1000 – 1250 AD), argued that anomalies in the appearance of the animals, for
instance mixed traits and hybridism, can actually be used to identify the underlying
conceptual framework.142 For example, a bird which shows characteristics of a greylag goose
and an Egyptian goose could be an indication that these two scientific species were seen as
similar and thus put in one group, possibly as a generic species. Moreover, the flying birds on
seals which presented a problem for the ornithologists in Ruuskanen’s study because they
showed features of passerines/corvids and birds of prey might be an indication that they
reflect a folk taxonomical group including both kinds of birds (Section 5.4).

We need to be aware, however, that hybridized depictions of animals could also represent
fantastical or mythological creatures.143 In such cases, there may be some physical
indications, for example if the attributes do not correlate with those of any biological taxa or
traits are arranged in ways which do not occur in the natural world, e.g. a winged horse. Also,
the corporeal combination of two taxa, for example those of a bird and a lion, which do not
share any close morphological and behavioral similarities would suggest an imaginary
creature (a griffin) rather than a folk taxon. The context can provide further clues: the griffin,
for example, is often shown in Aegean Bronze Age art in association with certain people,
often led on a leash, thus indicating a special status of this creature.

141
Contra Salonen (1973) who mainly used linguistic considerations. Veldhuis 2004, 117-122; 209-305, 331, see
Mynott 2009, appendix 1, for a short list of generic species. According to Veldhuis (2004, 119) the ostrich´s
eggs are said to be “bigger than a mountain”.
142
VanPool – VanPool 2009, especially 530, 534-536.
143
VanPool – VanPool 2009, 537-538.
 32

Ancient and modern folk taxonomical groupings may also be reflected by the ways different
animals or bird species are combined with each other in iconography. Again, this has been
convincingly demonstrated by studies of Near Eastern texts. For example, Wapnish deduced
from the comparison of separate lists of various animals that the Sumerians had five major
folk life-forms: fish, bird, snake, mammal and invertrebrates/amphibians.144 Other Sumerian
texts group animals according to their livestock or offering value.145 A lexical list with bird
names from Ebla allows a detailed reconstruction of an ancient classification system of birds:
it is a list with ‘flying animals’ including several birds, but also locusts and bats. All raptors
are mentioned first, followed by several dove species, other birds and then locusts, swallows,
bats and raven/crows, an arrangement which allows the reconstruction of different groupings
of birds and locusts.146 The rationale behind these groupings seems to lie in behavioural
characteristics, for example the small swallows have a similarly “flinching” flying style as
locusts.

Similar groupings and combinations of different animals and birds can be identified in ancient
iconography.147 As a case study, VanPool and VanPool proposed that the frequent depiction
of owls, rattle snakes and coral snakes on the same vessel indicates that they were grouped
together in Mimbres folk taxonomy using the common trait ‘nocturnal predator’ as a
classification criterion.148 In Aegean studies, a similar approach was advocated by Morgan
who suggested that classification as predators and prey, or according to the iconographic
context (e.g. animals in rituals) might have been more important to the Minoans than
morphological features.149 Zeimbeki suggested that the combination of dragonflies and ducks
as depicted in the Xeste 3 fresco (E14) was chosen not only because they share the freshwater
habitat but also because they live in the narrow liminal zone between water and air. 150 She
argued that this might have been a classification criterion in the context of a ritual taxonomy,
given that they accompany an enthroned woman interpreted as a deity. Berg made a similar
argument, proposing that the depiction of octopi, argonauts and shells on Minoan marine style

144
Wapnish 1995, 270-272.
145
Wapnish 1995, 243.
146
Bonechi 2000, 253-254.
147
VanPool – VanPool 2009, 531-533.
148
VanPool – VanPool 2009, 540.
149
Morgan 1985, 6-7.
150
Zeimbeki 2005, 244-248.
 33

vessels which were often found in shrines was due to their habitat on the bottom of the sea. 151
In her view, this might have been a relevant grouping criterion in a cultic taxonomy.

In sum, the study of folk taxonomies can help refine our identification methodology in many
ways. In contrast to the scientific taxonomy which focuses on the scientific species level, in
folk taxonomies the generic species level is more important. This difference seems to be due
to both the geographically restricted validity of most folk taxonomies and the use of other
classification criteria. Variations in shape and habitat/behaviour are the most relevant factors
in the recognition of generic species as opposed to plumage details in scientific taxonomy.
The importance of the generic species in folk taxonomies suggests that this level should be
focused upon in identification attempts before trying to identify scientific species. In other
words, attention needs to be paid first to the shape/silhouette of the birds before we focus on
plumage details. Using this approach, it becomes also possible to identify stylized or colour-
less bird images.

As noted above, generic species can sometimes be grouped together in higher ranks, the most
widespread being the life form (birds) and folk kingdom (animal). In addition, folk
taxonomies, in particular those of agriculturalists, can have more groupings of generic species
below the rank of life form. Such groupings are very variable because different criteria
(appearance, habitat/behaviour and cultural significance) can be applied and are also
combined with each other. In iconography, bird images displaying features of different
(generic) species can be identified as reflecting such ranks. In some cases, the groupings and
associations can provide clues to the classification criteria relevant in a certain context,
allowing a detailed reconstruction of the ranks of ancient folk taxonomies.

2.3 Conclusion

In this chapter, a systematic yet flexible methodology of bird identification in iconography

based on insights and approaches from different disciplines was advocated. First, the wider
iconographical context needs to be considered by grouping similar-looking birds into
morphological typologies and analysing local artistic conventions. This allows the study of
fragmentary and stylized depictions and avoids confusion of decorative colouring/patterning

151
Berg 2011, 131.
 34

with species-specific elements. A comprehensive catalogue cross-cutting different media,

regions and periods is essential for the discernment of typologies.

For identification purposes, ornithological approaches such as focusing on plumage patterns

as they are emphasised in field guides can be used for detailed and coloured depictions of
single scientific species, especially in frescoes. Also, study of past and present distribution
ranges can add valuable information. However, because of the traditional focus of scientific
taxonomy on particular morphological features and the scientific species concept,
ornithological methods are less suited for the study of stylized images or those displaying
mixed features. For such depictions, insights from the study of folk taxonomies are more
relevant.

In contrast to the modern western taxonomy, folk taxonomies usually focus on the generic
species concept, a combination of the scientific species and genus. This is due to differing
aims (local validity) and recognition criteria (shape, habitat/behaviour and relevance to
humans), and these factors also govern the creation of higher ranks. By taking the generic
species concept and other higher folk taxonomical ranks into account, our identification
methodology can be refined. Thus, attention paid to the shape/silhouette should precede the
focus on plumage patterns. This approach can permit the identification of stylized depictions
or bird images displaying features of more than one species. We can thus circumvent a false
dichotomy which sees bird depictions either as unidentifiable or as necessarily showing a
certain scientific species. Furthermore, specific contextual arrangements of different (generic)
species in iconography can help reconstruct the particular ranks of ancient folk taxonomies.

A fundamental insight that should be kept in mind from the above discussion is that the
conceptual framework of past societies may have been notably different from that of modern
western culture. In the next chapter, we further pursue the question how past perceptions of
the natural world might have been different from our own and how insights from
anthropology can help elucidate the particulars of ancient ontologies.
 35

3. Ontologies and modes of human-animal relationships

3.1 Introduction

In discussions of Aegean Bronze Age iconography scholars traditionally have tended to

assume that the people of the Cyclades, Crete and the Greek Mainland had a view of nature
that was comparable to that of either Classical Greece or Egypt or to modern Western
perceptions. Such assumptions have been challenged by some researchers, most notably
Groenewegen-Frankfort, Morgan, Berg, Morris and Peatfield, Herva, Goodison, Shapland and
most recently Crooks et al.152 These scholars have argued that some Aegean Bronze Age
societies had a worldview which was radically different from our own.

In the first part of this chapter, we explore the characteristics of different ontologies and see
how they are reflected in iconography, following recent theories of the French anthropologist
Descola. This will help us assess the arguments brought forward by scholars in their
discussion of Aegean imagery, which will be the subject of the second part of this chapter.

3.2 Ontologies and their reflection in iconography

Different worldviews or ontologies have long been studied by anthropologists. The most
recent and most comprehensive account of these various modes is the structuralist model
developed by Descola.153 His work provides a valuable systematic basis for our analysis
because he aims to present all possible ontologies and their reflection in material culture,
especially iconography.

According to Descola, there are four basic ontologies – naturalism, totemism, analogism and
animism. One of these is usually dominant in a given culture, but elements or aspects of other
ontologies may be present as well. The four ontologies differ from each other by the way
interiority and physicality of other-than-human entities are understood as similar or different
to those of humans (Table 2).154 Interiority refers to the mind, intentionality, consciousness,
feelings, vital energy and so forth, while physicality is concerned with anatomical
characteristics, and external behaviour patterns, e.g. relating to diet or habitat.

152
Groenewegen-Frankfort 1951; Morgan 1985; Berg 2004; Morris – Peatfield 2004; Herva 2006a, 2006b;
Shapland 2009, 2013; Goodison 2011; Crooks et al. 2016.
153
Descola 2005, 2006, 2009a, 2009b, 2010, 2013.
154
Descola 2013, 116.
 36

Table 2: The four modes of human-animal relationships after Descola 2013, fig.1.

Physicality Physicality
different similar
Interiority Analogism Naturalism
different
Interiority Animism Totemism
similar

In the next four sections, we will examine each of these in more detail. We begin with
analogism which has been suggested by Shapland to have had a particular relevance in the
Aegean Bronze Age (Section 3.2).155 Naturalism will be discussed next because it seems to
have developed from a certain form of analogism in Europe. Finally, we move on to totemism
and animism.

3.2.1 Analogism

Analogism sees both interiority and physicality of humans and animals (and plants etc.) as
different from each other.156 In this view, the world is composed of multiple radically distinct
entities. Connections existing between these entities are conceptualized as various
analogies/metaphors. The multitude of beings is often organized into a leveled, usually
hierarchical, structure, according to principles of similarity and dissimilarity. The structuring
criteria, however, can differ considerably. For example, in Linnaean taxonomy (Section 2.2),
which resembles an analogical model, morphological features of various species are used to
arrange them in a ranked structure. Medieval and Renaissance analogism, on the other hand,
used the criteria of existence, life, and reason/spirit to create a stratified chain of being with
rocks at the bottom (only possessing existence) and god at the top (being the highest spiritual
entity).157 Descola argued that human beings often occupy a privileged place in such systems
because they can serve as a fixed standard for orientation in this web of affinities. In Chinese
philosophy, for example, the different parts of the human body are linked to certain elements

155
Shapland 2013.
156
Descola 2006, 145, 152; Descola 2013, 201-231.
157
Descola 2013, 202-205.
 37

of the macrocosm such as zodiac signs.158 Shapland has drawn attention to the fact that
analogism is most prevalent in stratified societies, e.g. Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Classical
Greece, Imperial China or Medieval Europe, because the rigid hierarchy of human and non-
human entities often mirrors a similarly stratified social structure.159 As we will see (Section
3.3), this is the primary reason why he thought that this model was also applicable to the
stratified societies of the Aegean Bronze Age.

Analogism can be reflected in art in various ways.160 The analogical system may be directly
illustrated as for instance in European medieval images of the Great Chain of Being, where
the different entities (trees, quadrupeds, fish, birds, humans, angels and god) are shown in
mutually exclusive hierarchical levels (Figure 18).161 One could also expect the hierarchy of
beings to be indirectly expressed, for example by differences in size between entities or by
narratives showing some entities as clearly inferior or superior to others. In analogical
imagery, entities often appear multiple times in identical fashion to emphasise the regularity
of the prevalent order which is more relevant than the depiction of individual beings.

Other typical analogical motifs are depictions of composite beings which are constructed from
distinct classes of entities, e.g. the Greek chimera.162 Analogical hybrids appear rather static
and the visual emphasis does not lie on dynamic metamorphosis.163 Thus, the chimera is
always composed of a lion’s front part, a goat’s head in the middle and a snake as tail, and
there are no variations in appearance. Wengrow has drawn attention to the modular thinking
reflected by such hybrids, i.e. the perception that entities are composed of multiple irreducible
parts which can be combined with one another in an anatomically correct way. 164 Another
characteristic of analogical hybrids is that these beings, their origin and/or their defeat, are
often embedded in mythological/narrative scenes. For example, the Greek chimera is shown
being killed by Bellerophon (Figure 19). This is necessary to such conceptualisation because
such beings are usually viewed as “monstrous” given that they transcend the rigid inherent
boundaries between entities.165

158
Descola 2013, 205, 218.
159
Shapland 2013, 193-194. See also Lloyd 2011.
160
Descola 2009a, 34-36.
161
Lovejoy 1936; Descola 2013, 439-458.
162
Descola 2009a, 34.
163
Descola 2013, 213, 215-216.
164
Wengrow 2013, esp. 21.
165
Descola 2009b, 811.
 38

A third and more abstract way of expressing analogical notions is via the visual and
contextual connections established between multiple heterogeneous beings in art. As there are
many possible structuring criteria it can be difficult to identify the metaphorical relationships
between different entities.166 However, certain patterns should be detectable which might
make it possible to reconstruct the structuring criteria.167 For example, if a certain animal
depicted in a scene is substituted by a human in an identical scene it could indicate that an
analogy is established between this animal and the human being. European analogical notions
provided the basis for the development of naturalism, an ontology which we will look at in
the next section.168

3.2.2 Naturalism

Naturalism is the model prevalent in modern Western societies. As we have seen in the
previous section, in the European analogical model humans held a special place in creation
because they partake in the spiritual realm by way of god-given reason and other living beings
were thus seen as a priori inferior.169 Naturalism similarly insists that humans are inherently
different from other entities by having feelings, consciousness, agency, language and culture.
However, driven by progress made in the natural sciences from the 16th century onwards,
naturalism also recognises that humans share a common physicality with animals by being
subordinate to the same natural laws (e.g. chemistry or physics) or by way of evolution.170
The idea of the internal human uniqueness because of reason was already formulated by
Aristotle and became prevalent again in the 17th and 18th centuries, most notably in the
writings of Descartes and Kant.171 Descartes stated that – based purely on observation – an
animal could be mistaken for a machine/automaton because:

“internal movements of the appetites and passions, and finally the external
movements of all the limbs […] follow from the mere arrangement of the

166
Descola 2009a, 34-36; cf. also Lloyd 2011 for differences between analogical Greece and China.
167
Descola 2009b, 812-813.
168
Hurn 2012, 41; Descola 2013, 57-88.
169
Genesis 1, 26; Descola 2013, 66-68.
170
Descola 2013, 172-200.
171
Regan - Singer 1989, 4-19; Katsafanas forthcoming, 14-18; Hurn 2012, 45.
 39

machine’s organs every bit as naturally as the movement of a clock or other

automaton follow from the arrangement of its counter-weights and wheels.”172

Although Descartes maintained that animals seem to possess basic emotions such as hunger
or fear (thereby implying that they are not really automata), he goes on to say that human
beings are notably different because they alone are characterized by the possession of
language, thought, a rational soul and self-consciousness.173 As Katsafanas has observed, this
human-animal divide had implications for the attribution of personhood to animals in
naturalism.174 Kant for instance stated that:

“Beings the existence of which rests not on our will but on nature, if they are
beings without reason, have only a relative worth, as means, and are
therefore called things, whereas rational beings are called persons because
their nature already marks them out as an end in itself, that is, as something
that may not be used merely as a means…”175

As we will see, this limitation of personhood to humans in naturalism contrasts sharply with
totemism and animism. Although recent scientific findings demonstrate that the interiority of
some animals may not be so different from that of humans, humans are still seen as the
standard other species must conform to (cf. the different treatment of pets vs. livestock).176
Also, western zoologists are trained to see animals not as individuals but primarily as
members of a species to avoid unscientific anthropomorphism.177 That naturalism continues to
be the dominant ontology in the modern western world needs to be taken into account when
making statements about ontologies of past societies, which may not conform to this
particular, historically developed mindset.

In art, naturalist ontology is reflected by a tendency to emphasise the presumed unique

interiority of humans, for example by way of life-like portraiture of people (Figure 20).178 The
development of the central perspective in the Renaissance, most notably in landscape
painting, also gives the human viewpoint primacy over others and defines it as an objective

172
Descartes [1985], vol. 1, 108, cited in Katsafanas forthcoming, 5.
173
Cottingham 1978.
174
Katsafanas forthcoming, 13-14, 17-19.
175
Kant 1785/1998, vol. 4, 428, cited in Katsafanas forthcoming, 13.
176
Russell 2010, 6.
177
Barber 1994, chapter ten.
178
Descola 2009a, 29-31.
 40

way to see the world.179 Photographic realism – or artistic naturalism – in the depiction of all
other entities, for example in still life paintings (Figure 21), serves to underline the notion of a
shared physical reality.

Minoan art has often been characterized as ‘naturalistic’ because of life-like and truthful
depictions of animals, but there is the danger of confusing this with ‘naturalist’ art. As we will
see, Minoan art is anything but ‘naturalist’ because it lacks portraiture and visual perspective.
Also, photographic realism is mostly absent and depictions with mixed features abound. 180 In
the next section, we look at totemism, an ontology which is radically different from
naturalism.

3.2.3 Totemism

The third ontology according to Descola is totemism, which is characterized by the view that
both the interiority and the physicality of humans and animals are the same.181 Here, both
humans and non-humans can be considered to be members of a class which share a number of
physical and spiritual/moral attributes of which a totem animal or plant is the embodiment.
This view was first identified among indigenous people of Australia. Previous scholars such
as Durkheim and Lévi-Strauss interpreted such notions as merely conceptualising
metaphorical relationships between certain humans and animals which are “good to think”, as
Lévi-Strauss described the symbolic potential of animals.182 However, such a model would be
more similar to analogical notions. In more recent scholarship it has been argued that totems
are more indicative of a perceived shared ontological continuity thereby emphasizing the
common origin or kinship between two classes of entities. 183 In totemism, a person or a
segment of society completely identifies with the totem and statements such as that of the
Bororo of Brazil who say “we are red macaws” become possible, not as analogy but as a
perceptual fact.184

In iconography, totemic notions are reflected by images which show the outer and interior
features of humans and other beings in a similar manner with no important visual or
contextual differences. The art of Australian Aborigines shows both human and animal

179
Descola 2013, 57-63.
180
Groenewegen-Frankfort 1951, 196.
181
Descola 2013, 144-171.
182
Durkheim 1915; Lévi-Strauss 1963.
183
Fernandez 1991; Hurn 2012, 70-78.
184
Hurn 2012, 70.
 41

silhouettes with an accurate rendering of the skeleton and the organs in the so-called X-ray
style, thus revealing both the outer and the inner similarities between human and non-human
entities (Figure 22).185 Ingold observed that totemic images appear relatively lifeless,
emphasizing the eternal and consistent order of the world because the emphasis lies not on
transformation, but on being.186 In this regard it radically contrasts with animism, the
ontology of the next section, which thinks that the world continually changes its appearance.

3.2.4 Animism

The final ontology, animism, has a particular relevance in our context and will thus be
discussed at greater length.187 Animism perceives non-human entities as having the same
interiority as humans, but their physicalities are seen as radically different.188 The concept of
animism has a long history in anthropological research and goes back to Tylor who defined it
as the belief that everything, even trees or stones, has a soul.189 He characterised the idea as
primitive and child-like, which led to animism – like totemism – as a concept being seen as
“wrong” until relatively recently.190 In 1960, Hallowell, after studying the ontology of the
Ojibwa people of Canada and North America, evoked a new interest in animism which he
defined as the view that personhood is not only possessed by humans, but also encompasses
animals, plants, things, spirits, places and events.191 Hallowell observed that animals are:

“(…) believed to have essentially the same sort of animating agency which man
possesses. They have a language of their own, can understand what human
beings say and do, have forms of social or tribal organisation, and live a life
which is parallel in other respects to that of human societies.”192

In this sense (as in totemism too), there is no dichotomy between nature and human culture
such as in naturalism because animals have culture and humans are part of nature. 193 This
perception can also be observed in Amerindian Perspectivism, as argued by Viveiros de
Castro, which holds that all animals see themselves as having human culture and in turn

185
Descola 2009a, 32-33; Ingold 2011, 116-121.
186
Ingold 2011, 116-118.
187
Herva 2006a, 2006b.
188
Descola 2006, 140-141, 2013, 3-25, 129-138; Hurn 2012, 42-54, 70-78.
189
Tylor 1871.
190
Bird-David 1999, 67-70.
191
Hallowell 1960; Harvey 2005, 17-20; Ingold 2011, chapter 6, 90-92.
192
Hallowell 1926, 7.
193
Descola 2013, 3-25.
 42

consider humans as animals.194 It is only their different outer forms that separate them and
determine their varying life styles and perspectives.

Animist ontologies seem to be most prevalent in societies which can be described as hunter-
gatherers.195 But animist ontologies or parts thereof can also be found in other societies, e.g.
itinerant pastoralists (Saami of Lapland) or horticulturalists (Achuar of Amazonia).196 The
Japanese religion of Shinto which has many animist aspects is an important part of a
decidedly modern society.197 Shinto teaches that a life force (ki) affects and connects all
entities.198 The sacred (kami) is not limited to an absolute deity or deities beyond the world
(transcendent) but can be subjectively experienced within the world (immanent), in all sorts of
entities such as trees, stones, mountains, but also spirits, humans, ancestors or animals and
birds.199

Bird-David and Harvey have stressed that in animism, although the potential for personhood
may be shared by all entities, it is constituted in individuals primarily by mutual relations with
other individual persons.200 For example, the Ojibwa say that not all stones are alive but only
when they are speaking to humans.201 For them, it is usually a one-on-one encounter that
establishes these relationships.202 According to Harvey, birds in animist societies are not only
seen as important omens but “(…) the unusual physical proximity that sometimes occurs in
encounters between particular birds and particular humans can be considered to be deliberate
acts of communicative intimacy.”203 Similarly, Shinto adopts an action-centred relational
approach which is mediated by the senses (touching, seeing, listening, tasting and smelling)
and speaking.204

Seeing is especially important for establishing relations between non-humans and humans.
Berger observed how important the capability of animals to return the human gaze is to reveal

194
Viveiros de Castro 1998, 470. Descola (2013, 138-143) sees perspectivism as a subset of animism.
195
Bird-David 1999, 78; Hurn 2012, 42-44.
196
Hurn 2012, 51-54; Descola 2013, 37-44, 46-47.
197
Williams 2005, 7; Jensen - Blok 2013.
198
Williams 2005, 33-34.
199
Williams 2005, 9-11, 28-32, 131.
200
Bird-David 1999; Harvey 2005.
201
Hallowell 1960, 24; Harvey 2005, 106-107.
202
Descola 2013, 141.
203
Harvey 2005, 102-103.
204
Williams 2005, 56-59.
 43

how they are both like and unlike humans.205 For the Nayaka of South Asia, an individual
elephant which “looked straight into his eyes” was seen by the informant as a person. 206 The
effect of visual contact established between an individual human and animal which might help
us elucidate animist feelings is captured by Woolfson in her book about living with corvids.
She described an encounter between her and a magpie as follows: “He would hold my gaze,
look at me straight for a long time, and when he did I knew him in every respect my equal,
more than my equal: (…)”207 In addition to the visual sense, specific communicative abilities
of various animals as conveyed by their voice, song or body language can be perceived as
attempts to relate to people.208

Another way to establish relations with non-human entities is to shed one’s physicality and to
interact directly with the spirit world, a task which is usually undertaken by certain ritual
practitioners (shamans).209 As a consequence of such beliefs, animist societies usually have no
fixed pantheon of supernatural deities (such as in analogical societies) and the focus lies
rather on interaction with various spirit beings which pervade every aspect of life.210
Headdresses, costumes and masks (Figure 23) are often used to help transform the shaman so
that (s)he can adopt the abilities and perspectives of animals and spirits.211 As we have seen,
the senses are important in gaining knowledge about and relating to other persons. To gain
access and insight into the spirit world the senses of the shaman need to be extended and
amplified, something which can be reached by altered states of consciousness (ASCs).212
Trance can be achieved through using psychoactive substances and untertaking activities such
as fasting, meditation, or certain body postures and/or through rhythmic movements, sounds
and songs. During the first stages of trance people can have auditory and visual
hallucinations, e.g. they see certain abstract shapes called entoptic forms in neuropsychology

205
Berger 2009, 4.
206
Bird-David 1999, 75.
207
Woolfson 2008, 206.
208
Barber 1994, 34-35.
209
Eliade 1964; Vitebsky 1995, 10-21; Harvey 2005, 139-152; VanPool 2009; For Shinto see Williams 2005, 30,
115-117.
210
According to Harvey (2005, 135), spirits are “other-than-human persons who are either immaterial or whose
particular physicality or embodiment is temporary”.
211
Vitebsky 1995, 82-84.
212
Vitebsky 1995, 64-73; VanPool 2009, 180.
 44

(Figure 24).213 In the course of a trance experience, iconic visions are often interpreted as
encounters with spirit beings.214

Somatic sensations such as moving or shape-shifting can occur, which are thought by animists
to enable the shaman to adopt the abilities and perspective of a non-human person.215
Sensations of falling or flying are common experiences during trance.216 Lewis-Williams
suggested that such physical perceptions are the reason why shamanic societies often
conceptualize the world as having a tripartite structure with some spirits inhabiting the upper
world/sky, humans the middle one and other spirits inhabiting the underworld. 217 Special
liminal places such as mountains, caves or springs or a combination of them, i.e. caves on
mountains, are often thought to be the entrances and connectors to the upper or lower parts of
the world and are the foci of rituals.218 Special structures such as altars and shrines can also
“serve as entry points into the spirit world”.219

Journeys to the spirit world serve various purposes, for example to see things as they “really
are”, but also to seek help or knowledge for healing, manipulating weather, divination, or
ensuring fertility.220 Such shamanic journeys and transformations are usually considered
dangerous and require the help of tutelary entities.221 Significantly, tutelary animals are often
those which inhabit liminal zones, such as land–water, land–sky or underground–land, like
the shaman him/herself.222 Flight is often made possible with the help and guidance of birds
or by changing into a bird.223

The above mentioned characteristics of animist ontology can be variously reflected in

iconography. According to Bird-David, animist ontology “educates the attention, to perceive
and specify the environment”.224 Similarly, Shinto teaches that because kami can be
experienced everywhere and nature itself is seen as sacred, attentiveness to all things natural

213
Lewis-Williams – Dowson 1988; Lewis-Williams 2010, 142-146.
214
Lewis-Williams 2010, 146.
215
Lewis-Williams 2010, 147-149; Boric 2007, 92.
216
Lewis-Williams 2010, 168-170.
217
Lewis-Williams 2010, 162-164.
218
Lewis- Williams 2002, 165; Pearson 2002; VanPool 2009, 183.
219
VanPool 2009, 182.
220
Grim 1983; Myerhoff 1976; Vitebsky 1995, 96-119; Harvey 2005, 139-152; VanPool 2009, 180.
221
Vitebsky 1995, 66-69; VanPool 2009, 181-182; Ingold 2011, 114-115.
222
Whitley 1994, 25; Vitebsky 1995, 70, Pearson 2002, 69–70; VanPool 2009, 182.
223
Wilbert 1987; Vitebsky 1995, 68; VanPool 2009, 182.
224
Bird-David 1999, 77.
 45

is a condition of being in the world.225 In consequence, specific characteristics, poses, actions

and habitats of animals/plants are not only noticed but can also be truthfully depicted in
iconography, as a way of defining these persons and their perspective, thus resulting in rather
“naturalistic” images.226 An example can be seen in carvings of animals and birds made by
the Inuit of Canada and the Evenki of Siberia which are inspired by direct observation of
specific movements, e.g. an ice bear gliding through water or a swan flying with outstretched
neck (Figure 25).

Moreover, the shared interiority of non-human entities is often emphasised. As Ingold put it,
animist images serve to show the “powers of agency, intentionality, and sentience embodied
in a living, moving being.”227 In this sense, an animist depiction is understood to show the
true and real underlying nature of things.228 Many animist societies consider movement to be
a primary expression of animacy and Ingold has observed that depictions tend to concentrate
on the movements and actions of animals.229 For example, a seventeenth-century Japanese
screen depicting a lively flock of crows (Figure 26) was interpreted by Marzluff and Angell as
capturing the sentient essence of the birds, thereby reflecting animist traits in Shinto.230

In contrast to ‘naturalist’ art, where realism is the goal, animist art can also deviate from a
strictly mimetic intention to express shared interiority of non-human persons.231 It has been
observed that Japanese paintings of Mount Fuji show the mountain in an idealized fashion
which contrasts with the more realistic rendering of its surroundings (Figure 27).232 It has
been suggested that this idealization can also be observed in the rendering of other natural
phenomena and shows the essence of the sacred mountain-person because kami-ness is
experienced as awe-inspiring, beautiful or wonder-full. Thus, one could speak of this art style
as a kind of ‘idealized naturalism’.

Another way to illustrate the shared interiority of human and non-human entities is the
depiction of ambiguous images. For example, a Peruvian pot may be seen as a living or

225
Williams 2007, 71-72.
226
Ingold 2011, 122.
227
Ingold 2011, 121.
228
Boric 2007, 91-92; Ingold 2011, 130.
229
Ingold 2011, 115-121, 126-128.
230
See Marzluff – Angell 2005, 128-130.
231
Boric 2007, 91-93; Descola 2009a, 31.
232
Yoshihiko 2013.
 46

animated entity, a view which can be expressed by attaching features of humans to it.233
Depictions of hybrids, especially those showing the metamorphosis of an animal into a human
(or other entity), express similar notions.234 In Amerindian perspectivism, metamorphosis is
seen as a condition of all “human” life, in humans and other animals. 235 An interest in shape-
shifting and transformation between human and non-human can also be detected in Shinto,
which freely merges humans, animals, spirits and even machines/robots.236

The animist focus on establishing and maintaining mutual relationships between individual
persons is also reflected by material culture. Three-dimensional effigies of specific animals,
for example those made by Inuit people, may be carried close to the body to keep the
relationship with these persons alive. In two-dimensional media various different entities
(humans, animals, trees, stones) can be shown in the same scene, with a focus on their
relations. An example is a painting by a Greenlander which shows a hunter in a boat
encountering a gull-person who is teaching him how to calm the storm (Figure 28).237 The
relations between them are made clear in the picture by the visual contact and the fact that the
gull has turned its head back to look at the man. In such scenes the animals appear as
individual and equal participants – an aspect which contrasts with analogical iconography.238
Descola has observed that animist depictions do not privilege one “objective” viewpoint as
naturalist imagery does in landscape painting but try to adopt those of non-humans as well,
often resulting in nature scenes lacking perspective and a coherent sense of space.239

Shamanism may be expressed by images showing people on a magical journey, e.g. carried by
a special boat, as seen in images of Canadian shamans (Figure 29). Depictions may also be
directly inspired by trance experiences. They commonly contain entoptic imagery and spirit
animals – usually liminal creatures such as birds or non-naturalistic entities – which help
guide the shaman.240 People with features of an animal or bird can also be interpreted as
showing shamans transforming into a spiritual entity or merging with their tutelary animals,

233
Jensen - Blok 2013, 105; VanPool – Newsome 2012, 9-15.
234
Descola 2009a, 28; Kristoffersen 2010, 265; Simandiraki-Grimshaw 2010, 98; Lindstrøm 2012, 156-161;
Descola 2013, 135-138.
235
Boric 2007.
236
Jensen - Blok 2013, 98.
237
Vitebsky 1995, 7.
238
Ingold 2011, 121.
239
Descola 2009, 6-7.
240
Freidel et al. 1993; VanPool 2009, 182.
 47

thereby adopting a non-human perspective (Figure 30).241 Shamans are special people because
they have managed to control the transformation by mastering certain techniques and/or
having special relations with tutelary animals. Therefore, in contrast to metamorphosis from
animal to human which expresses the shared interiority, the change from human to animal is a
sign of the control over the transformation which is typical for shamans.242

To sum up, Descola’s structuralist scheme set out above has provided us with a useful
epistemological tool to recognise different ontologies and their reflections in iconography.
Also, it makes clear that the view commonly adopted by western scholars, naturalism, is only
one of many possibilities of human-nature relationships. Because of naturalism’s particular
historical trajectory it seems important to consider that prehistoric societies had a different
attitude towards animals. In the next section, we will examine how the assumption of different
worldviews has shaped interpretations of Aegean Bronze Age iconography.

3.3 Ontologies of the Aegean Bronze Age

In discussions of Aegean Bronze Age imagery scholars have tended to assume that the
societies in question either followed an analogical (such as the Egyptian or Classical Greek)
model or a naturalist perspective. This becomes especially relevant in the interpretation of
scenes where natural objects take centre stage. In this section, we will see how the
perspectives of past scholarship have influenced interpretations and how considering
alternative ontologies could help understand these scenes better.

As a good starting point, we will examine interpretations of the cult scenes on Minoan gold
rings (e.g. D11, D12, D86). These scenes usually show humans engaged in activities such as
shaking a tree or hugging a boulder.243 Shrines and pithoi may be depicted in the background.
Small floating objects also appear, such as spikes, eyes, wavy lines, rayed objects, double

241
Dobkin de Rios 1976, 61–62, 73; Schaafsma 1994; Vitebsky 1995, 66-69; Whitley 2000; VanPool 2009, 182;
Boric 2007, 90-93; Lahelma 2007; Descola 2009, 4.
242
Descola 2013, 136.
243
Niemeier 1989; Warren 1990; Thomas - Wedde 2001, 5.
 48

axes with tassels, blobs with dots and chrysalises.244 Often these scenes also involve the
appearance of tiny human figures – male and female – in the upper register.245

Interpretations of such cult scenes have usually focused on the small human figures, which
sometimes hold a staff and seem to float as suggested by the flying hair and feet which point
downwards.246 Since flying is considered a supernatural skill from the western viewpoint and
the people on the ground seem to express their excitement by different gestures such scenes
have usually been interpreted as showing the epiphany of a divinity, invoked by the ecstatic
activities of adorants.247 In some scenes a larger seated female figure is shown, which receives
objects by people or is accompanied by certain animals (monkey, griffin, lion, birds).
Comparing such scenes with polytheist/analogical models such as either the Egyptian or the
Classical Greek worldview, scholars have considered her to be a deity with her animal
companions who is attended to by her worshippers.248

However, there are some structural arguments against seeing these flying and seated figures
necessarily as divine:

• The “deities” are not substantially different from their “adorants” – they wear similar
clothes, make the same gestures and have no consistent attributes.249
• The attention of the “adorants” is not always focused on the floating figure, rather
they appear self-absorbed, and in some scenes the figure is absent.250
• The gestures are not only seen in the presence of a floating or seated figure.251

In traditional interpretations, the boulder-hugging and tree-shaking are seen as a means to an

end, namely to summon a supernatural entity. This follows from an understanding of religion
as a belief system connected with (anthropomorphic) deities and rituals as a way of
summoning and worshipping them.252 Such a definition may encompass analogical
monotheistic or polytheistic religions but it has no validity for example in the context of
Shinto, which does not know the concept of something “supernatural”. Thus, when taking into

244
Kyriakidis 2005a, 140-143.
245
Wedde 1992, 185; Thomas - Wedde 2001, 5-6.
246
Cain 2001, 34.
247
Matz 1958; Marinatos 1989, 136; 1993, 175–92; Niemeier 1990, 166-167; Warren 1990; Wedde 1992, 185-
186; Vasilicou 2000, 33, 38; Rehak – Younger 2008, 167.
248
E.g. Thomas - Wedde 2001, 6-9; Vasilicou 2000, 40-45.
249
Also noticed by Groenewegen-Frankfort 1951, 212-215; Dickinson 1994; Thomas - Wedde 2001; Cain 2001;
Peatfield 2001; Berg 2004; Blakolmer 2010; Day 2012, 14-15.
250
Groenewegen-Frankfort 1951, 199; Wedde 1992, 188.
251
Wedde 1999; Wedde 2001, 7; Morris 2001.
252
Warren 1988, 34-36; Dickinson 1994, 257- 260; cf. Peatfield 2001, 51-54.
 49

account other ontologies, there are some points which speak against considering the floating
and seated persons automatically as divine agents:

• Flying is not always the prerogative of a divinity, but altered states of consciousness
can also induce feelings of flying, thus shamans are able to fly in animist cultures.
• Sitting could be the prerogative of a powerful human, not just a deity, and the
association with powerful or liminal creatures such as griffins or birds could indicate
that these people are shamans.

Morris and Peatfield have argued for the depiction of shamanic practices on the Minoan gold
rings.253 They have found parallels in the gestures and movements of the people on the rings
to those shown by human figurines from peak sanctuaries (Figure 31). Rather than seeing
them as adoration gestures, ethnographic parallels suggest that they show various ‘trance-
inducing’ postures which influence heart rate and blood circulation; thus, they could be
reflections of altered states of consciousness.254 This may also explain the dream-like floating
objects, which could be entoptic phenomena.255 Enlarged photos of the snake, chrysalis, etc.,
show similarities to the wavy line, drop etc. often reported to be seen in trance (Figure 32).256

Activities such as boulder-hugging and tree-shaking could also be interpreted alternatively

when we consider different modes of human-nature-relationships. Berg, Herva, Day and
Crooks et al. all suggested that these actions show people communicating with sentient non-
human persons and are thus indicative of an animist framework.257 As we have seen, in
animist societies, some stones are said to be alive, and touching the stones can be a respectful
way to ask stone-persons to speak with humans.258 Similarly, trees can be non-human persons
and they can be communicated with by speaking and/or touching.259 Thus, taken together with
the previous observations of evidence for shamanism, the cult scenes appear consistent with
characteristics of animist imagery.

Interpretations of the so-called nature scenes in Minoan art which show animals, plants and
stones taking centre stage (e.g. E1, E14) have also been influenced by the the more familiar

253
Morris – Peatfield 2004.
254
Goodman 1986; Morris – Peatfield 2004. The validity of these claims were tested in experiments done by
McGowan (2006), which suggested that five Minoan gestures consistently resulted in various stages of ASC in
the participants.
255
Also suggested by Morris – Peatfield 2004, 44-45.
256
Kyriakidis 2005a shows detailed pictures of these objects which are are argued to be constellations.
257
Berg 2004; Herva 2006a, 592-595; Day 2012; Crooks et al. 2016.
258
Harvey 2005, 37.
259
Harvey 2005, 104-106.
 50

analogical or naturalist models. The frequency and importance of nature scenes in Minoan
(fresco) art have long intrigued scholars and whereas earlier views considered them as merely
secular decorations260, more recent interpretations have seen them as symbolically referencing
a divine agent, e.g. a nature goddess.261 This latter view, however, is influenced by
questionable readings of the cult scenes, as discussed above. Implicit in these interpretations
is the assumption that humans or divinities with their presumed unique interior potential
(agency, will and culture), and not doves, monkeys or plants, should be the protagonists of
large-scale wall paintings.262 Also, the western concept of a division of culture and nature
becomes apparent in labeling these images “nature scenes”, a classification which fails to take
into account the various combinations of “pure” nature scenes with those including
humans.263

Such theistic interpretations were critiziced by Herva who considered the prominent place of
natural phenomena and the emphasis on movement in Minoan art as evidence for animist
traits.264 The frequent and “naturalistic” images of animals and plants were seen by him as
active ‘agents’ in gaining environmental knowledge by drawing attention to the variety and
wealth of the non-human, but sentient, environment.265 He interpreted deviations from reality
as serving the purpose of revealing the true interior nature of things which is otherwise hidden
by outer appearances. For example, hybrid images of plants merging various species could
indicate both the “wonderfull-ness” of nature and the fluidity of categories because all species
share a common essence.266 As we have seen, fluid hybrids are indeed a central feature of
animist iconography and Herva’s interpretation thus seems to be consistent with what we
know of animist iconography. Such images could thus have been another way of engaging
with other-than-human persons rather than merely being symbolic referents of the power of
deities.267

Herva’s animist hypothesis was not accepted by Shapland. Although he noted that the
naturalism of many Minoan ‘inanimate’ objects served to “substitute” and make animals

260
Evans 1928b, 446.
261
Immerwahr 1989, 46; Marinatos 1993, 149-151; Chapin 2004, 54-59. For an overview see Herva 2006b, 225-
226.
262
Groenewegen-Frankfort 1951, 195-196; cf. Chapin 2004, 47.
263
Angelopoulou 2000.
264
For movement as hallmark of Minoan art, see Groenewegen-Frankfort 1951, 185-216; Herva 2006b, 224.
265
Herva 2006b, 233; Cf. also Gell 1998.
266
Herva 2006b, 234.
267
Herva 2006b, 234-235. Similarly, Goodison (2011, 187-192) remarked that the Cretan attitude towards
animals seems profoundly different from both our modern and the (analogical) Christian stance.
 51

present in certain contexts, he argued that the type of human-nature relationship prevalent in
the Aegean Bronze Age was Descola’s “analogism”.268 He observed that animist concepts are
more commonly found in small-scale communities, a characterization that does not apply to
Minoan Crete.269 Thus, he argued that analogism which is usually dominant in hierarchical
societies would be a more appropriate concept for both Minoan Crete and Mycenaean Greece.
He explained representations of Minoan cult scenes and Mycenaean hunting scenes within
analogical frameworks as having “emerged to associate an elite group with restricted practices
such as lion-hunting or rock-hugging.”270 In other words, they were developed to serve a
primarily legitimising purpose because they were associated with and possibly limited to
members of the elite.

There are several problems with this argument, especially regarding the Cretan evidence.
First, although they are usually more egalitarian, animist societies can be complex as well,
e.g. in Japan. Crooks et al. have also suggested that animist rituals such as boulder-hugging
could also have served legitimising purposes, especially in the Neopalatial period, because
baetyls were erected in the courtyards of palatial centres and images of rocks, mountains and
trees were consistently associated with elite contexts.271 The possible links of such imagery to
the elite need thus not preclude their interpretation as reflecting an animist worldview.
Second, Shapland did not take into account the profound differences between the Cretan and
Mainland cultures and their distinct iconographies relating to nature which makes it unlikely
that they had the same ontology.272 Also, the historical trajectories of power relations were
much more variable in these regions than Shapland’s hypothesis implies. For example, there
seems to have been a greater incipient emphasis on communal ethics and heterarchical notions
on Crete as opposed to a more hierarchical structure on the Greek Mainland. 273 Such a
hypothesis is based on an architectural emphasis on large central courts where many people
could gather in the Cretan palaces as opposed to the architectural features of the Mycenaean
palaces which deliberately restrict access to the central throne room. Third, he may be right in
arguing for the use of lion-hunting images in an analogical framework in the Early
Mycenaean period by establishing a metaphorical relationship between a powerful warrior
and a powerful lion because the link between lion-hunting and powerful persons is common

268
Shapland 2009, 267, 2013.
269
Shapland 2009, 31-32; Shapland 2013, 193-197.
270
Shapland 2013, 195-197.
271
Crooks et al. 2016.
272
Also emphasised by Groenewegen-Frankfort 1951, 188-190.
273
Schoep - Knappett 2004.
 52

in many societies. But, this explanation remains unsatisfactory for the Minoan cult scenes
because it does not clarify why special activities such as boulder-hugging and tree-shaking per
se had a legitimatory potential for the elite. A new analysis is thus in order considering both
different ontologies and regional variations in nature imagery.

3.4 Conclusion

To conclude, it is important to consider different ontologies in the interpretation of Bronze

Age images involving natural phenomena. Descola’s structuralist scheme of the four
ontologies and their reflections in art provides a valuable methodological basis for our study
of bird images. Each ontology exhibits different iconographical characteristics, especially
regarding the depiction of species-specific features, the importance of movement and agency,
the presence of symbolic/metaphorical links, the nature of relationships between animals and
other entities, and the character of hybrids. However, we need to bear in mind that some
artistic conventions, for example naturalism, can be employed in the iconography of disparate
ontologies. Therefore, both form and content of imagery need to be studied and only by
paying particular attention to the combined presence of such features, may it become possible
to identify what kinds of ontologies were prevalent in the societies of the Aegean Bronze Age.
By specifically concentrating on one group of animals, in our case birds, and their varying
depictions through time and across regions, previous studies of ontologies, which primarily
concentrated on animism or analogism, can be complemented and expanded.

In the following chapters we will study each group of bird depictions in turn. According to the
principles laid out in chapter 2, the bird images will first be identified as closely as possible.
After that, the functions of the respective images will be analysed by focusing on any
recurrent features and/or associations. Particular attention will then be paid to the question
what ontologies were prevalent in the respective time and/or region. Our study will proceed
more or less chronologically. Within chapters, a new section is started when we can see
changes or innovations in the meaning and function of bird images. We start with images of
columbids which seem to be the earliest birds represented in the Bronze Age.
 53

4. Columbids

4.1 Introduction

In this chapter, we will examine columbids (doves). Doves seem to have been the birds first
depicted regularly in Aegean Bronze Age art. Doves are characterised by a stout body shape,
a rounded breast, a relatively short neck and a rounded head with a short conical beak (Figure
33). Three dove species were present in the Aegean Bronze Age (Figure 34): the rock dove
(Columba livia), the wood pigeon (Columba palumbus) and the turtle dove (Streptopelia
turtur). Bones of all three species have been found in Minoan layers at Kommos.274

This chapter has four sections tracing the development of dove depictions from the beginning
of the Early Bronze Age until the final stages of the Late Bronze Age. We first discuss the
earliest depictions of doves in EB I – MB II, before we address images dating to MM II –
MM III in the second section. A discussion of dove depictions in MB III – LB II, when they
are most frequent, will follow in the third section. In the final section we look at dove images
dating to LB II – IIIC.

In each section, the relevant depictions are first introduced in a list according to object type.
After that, we identify the birds as closely as possible and evaluate the degree of artistic
naturalism. We then discuss the functions of the objects and consider the question of what
kind of ontology might be reflected by these images.

4.2 EB I – MB II

In EB I – MB I, most images of doves are three-dimensional, either vessels or figurines. The

vast majority come from Crete or the Cyclades, while only one image has been found on the
Greek Mainland. The following 66 objects will be discussed in this section:

• 26 vessels in the shape of doves (A1-A9, A11-A27) dating to EB I – MB II from

Lebena, Ayia Photia, Koumasa, Platanos, Pyrgos Myrtos, Knossos, Mallia and
Phaistos on Crete; and the Cycladic island of Ano Kouphonisi.
• 1 relief vessel (A10) dating to EC II from the Cycladic island of Amorgos.

274
According to Reese et al. (1995, 194-199), rock doves were the most common species (23 bones/14
individuals) at Kommos from MM II - LM IIIB. Wood pigeon bones were found in LM II-III contexts and a
turtle dove bone comes from a LM I context.
 54

• 6 figurines (B1-B6) dating to EC I – II from Akrotiraki on the Cycladic island of

Siphnos.
• 12 vessels with figurines of doves attached (B7-B18) dating to EB II – MB I/II from
the Cycladic islands of Naxos and Keros; and Phaistos, Palaikastro and Phourni on
Crete.
• 17 pieces of jewellery275 (C1-C17) dating to EB II – MB I from Chalandriani on the
Cycladic island of Syros, Pyrgos on the Cycladic islands of Paros, Zoumbaria on the
Cycladic island of Despotiko; Ayia Triada, Mochlos, Knossos, Phourni and Psychro
on Crete; and Lerna on the Greek Mainland.
• 4 seals in the shape of doves (D1-D4) dating to EM III – MM II from the Trapeza
Cave, Ayios Onouphrios, Koumasa and Mallia on Crete.

The identification as doves is primarily based on the shape of the birds’ heads which are
rounded with short conical beaks.276 Although the necks of the birds on the earliest vessels
(A1-A9) vary in length, the shape of the head remains the same (Figure 35). Thus, this
variation is more likely due to their function as handles or lugs rather than to the indication of
different species. One vessel from Platanos (A20) has wings decorated with impressed dots
which resemble the plumage patterns of turtle doves (Streptopelia turtur) (Figure 36). One
figurine from Palaikastro (B17) has red eyes which may indicate that it is a rock dove
(Columba livia). Three vessels (A15, A16, A22) seem to show chicks because the beaks are
relatively large in comparison to the small bodies (Figure 37).277

When we turn our attention to aspects of style, we can note that there is a tendency towards
more detailed depictions through time. The earliest vessels from Lebena dating to EM I (A1-
A7) show rather schematic dove heads. Similarly schematic appear some dove-shaped pins
(C4-C6) and figurines (e.g. B1, B5) dating to EC II. It needs to be noted, however, that these
images closely correspond to the natural proportions of doves despite their simplified
appearance. Other objects dating to EB II and especially those of EB III – MB I are more
detailed. The shape of the EB II – III vessels seems to emulate the body of a dove (Figure 38)
and in the EM III – MM II vessels, avian features are regularly emphasised by the addition of
modelled eyes, wings, tails and feet. Also, some pins and pendants (e.g. C1-C3, C7, C14)
indicate feathers and wings in relief.

275
For bird-shaped jewellery from Crete and the Cyclades in this time see Evans 1921, 102; Thimme 1977, 540.
276
Evans 1921, 102; Branigan 1970, 119; Marinatos – Hirmer 1973, cat.no. 9; Warren 1984, 56.
277
Evans 1921, 115.
 55

Similar variations in precision can be observed with regard to the poses and behaviour. Most
dove-vessels are not shown in a specific pose, whereas some pendants and figurines
masterfully capture the appearance of resting or standing doves (Figure 39). Dove figurines
attached to two MM I vessels (B15, B17) from Phaistos and Palaikastro appear quite lively
because they are shown with their wings displayed as if in flight. Two vessels in the shape of
young birds (A15, A16) are depicted with wide open beaks as if they are begging for food.278
Although these images are not detailed, they successfully convey the essence of demanding
young nestlings.279 A figural seal from Koumasa (D3) shows a large dove flanked by two
smaller ones. It seems to be an adult bird with chicks, maybe sitting in a nest. The adult dove
is turning its head towards one of the chicks as if about to feed it, a movement which lends a
decidedly narrative quality to this image.280

When we consider the function of these objects, it is striking that the earliest depictions of
doves are vessels. In addition, 39 objects, i.e. over half of the dove depictions from this
period, are either vessels or figurines attached to vessels (Table 3).

Table 3: Types of dove vessels and figurines attached to vessels dating to EB I – MB II from
Crete and the Cyclades.

Bird-shaped vessels Figurines attached to

vessels
Closed storing vessels 10 1
Closed pouring vessels 17 1
Open vessels 0 9
Unknown 0 1
Total 27 12

The frequent association with vessels may indicate that doves were thought to have a special
connection to liquids. The bird protomes of the earliest storage containers (A1-A10) seem to
be decorative embellishment of the lugs, but it is possible that they also had another function.
The orientation of the dove heads to the outside lends a certain protective attitude to them so
maybe they were thought to safeguard the contents in the belly of the vase. In the later

278
Evans 1921, 115.
279
Branigan 1988, 144.
280
Evans 1921, 117; Xanthoudides 1924, 30.
 56

pouring vessels, the connection between doves and liquids becomes more pronounced
because the whole body of the pouring vessel is turned into a dove. An opening in the back or
the flattened tail usually serves as a spout. Some vases (e.g. A17, A21) were transformed into
rhyta, i.e. the beak served as another spout in addition to the opening in the back. These
modifications significantly transformed the function of the bird features in relation to the
content. Rather than storing/protecting the contents held in the “belly” of the bird, the dove`s
tail or head/beak directly mediated the pouring and flow of the liquid. In two vessels from
Knossos and Mallia (A22, A23), the beak of the bird is positioned above the spout so that it
seems as if the dove is drinking from the liquid which is poured from its own body. In MM II,
the connection between doves and the pouring of liquid was further intensified, as shown by a
bird-shaped jug from Phaistos (A27) because the head is completely merged with the spout.

A close connection between doves and liquids becomes also apparent when we take a look at
the figurines attached to vessels. Several doves are attached to a jug from Phaistos (B15).
Some round marble trays from the Cyclades (B8-B14) have a row of sitting doves carved
across the middle. Getz-Preziosi suggested that the flat trays may have held grain and were
used to entice real doves.281 The vessels may indeed have had a connection to the
feeding/drinking of doves. Doumas noted that the shape of these vessels closely resembles
that of the contemporary so-called frying pans which – as some scholars have suggested –
may have held some kind of liquid, possibly water, since many bear images of spirals (waves)
and boats.282 If this hypothesis is correct and the dove trays were filled with water, the
figurines would have conveyed the impression that the doves are drinking and/or sitting in a
bird bath.283 A similar effect would have been created in the case of the dove figurine in the
Palaikastro bowl (B17) because the vessel would have been turned into a bird bath when
liquid was poured into it.

The intimate link between the birds and the flow of liquids observable in these objects begs
the question why doves of all birds would have been considered suitable in this context. A
special skill of the dove family might provide an explanation for this choice. Usually, birds
drink by regularly stopping and raising their heads to swallow, but doves are different in this
respect. Unlike all other birds, doves are able to take up water in a continuous motion.284 They

281
Getz-Preziosi 1996, 124-125.
282
Doumas 1968, 173; Goodison 2008, 423.
283
Goodison (2008, 423) remarked that in this case “the birds would seem to float.”
284
Svensson et al. 2009, 214.
 57

seem to ingest much more water when drinking than other birds and may thus have been
viewed as the birds which are most capable of both storing and distributing liquids, possibly
prompting these depictions.

The general importance of liquids and their manipulation in prepalatial Crete is also attested
by some other figural vessels.285 For example, vases can take the shape of women holding
jugs (cf. the Goddess of Myrtos).286 There are vessels from Mallia and Mochlos in the shape
of women whose breasts are pierced so that the liquid which was poured out appeared like
milk (Figure 40).287 It seems not too far-fetched to suggest that these vessels show a concern
with the nourishing aspects of both liquids and women. Thus, the dove-shaped vessels seem
to tie in with a general ideological complex encompassing the fertile flow of liquids (water
and milk). In this context, we may note another unique feature of doves in relation to liquids
which may have played a role in these images. Doves, unlike most other birds, produce a
semi-liquid secretion from their crop.288 During the first week, chicks are entirely fed with
this highly nutritious crop milk which is produced by both adults. The elaborate figural seal
from Koumasa (D3) which possibly shows chicks being fed by an adult may allude to this
ability. The two vessels in the shape of chicks (A15, A16) would even have conveyed the
impression of being fed when liquid was poured into their beaks.

We may ask if such vessels were used in rituals, maybe to ensure the continuing flow of
water/rain or milk. A double axe is painted onto the body of one of the vessels from Lebena
(A1), but we do not know if this symbol already had the cultic connections it had in later
periods. Branigan interpreted the figural pouring vessels from the Cretan tombs as libation
vessels whose form was dependent on the nature of the deity embodied by the birds.289 The
Cycladic dove trays were also thought to have a ritual function.290 Doumas observed that the
carved row of birds on the marble vessels made a practical use of these objects difficult.291
Getz-Preziosi considered it likely that the doves were depicted because they were sacred to
the Cycladic goddess.292 Although there is no evidence for such a hypothesis, given that the

285
Peatfield 1995, 223.
286
Warren 1972, 209-210.
287
Branigan 1988, 101-102.
288
Svensson et al. 2009, 214.
289
Branigan 1970, 118-120.
290
Doumas 1968, 174; Branigan 1988, 101-102; Renfrew et al. 2007a, 327.
291
Doumas 1968, 174.
292
Getz-Preziosi 1996, 125.
 58

doves are not directly associated with any female figure in this period, it is possible that the
dove vessels from Crete and the Cyclades had a ritual connotation.

It is notable that most of the EB I – MB I objects come from tombs, which may indicate a
funerary significance. However, excavated settlements from this period are scarce, making a
comparison of distribution patterns difficult. Also, some of the MM I – II vessels, which are
similar to the prepalatial ones from tombs, were found at the palaces of Phaistos, Mallia and
Knossos. Thus, they may have had a more general ritual significance. The Cycladic dove trays
all seem to come from the site of Dhaskaleio Kavos on Keros.293 This site has been found to
be unusual because of the exceptionally large number of specially shaped pottery, marble
vessels and figurines. Furthermore, the amount of deliberate breakage of artefacts brought to
the site is remarkable and may suggest that this place was used for special rituals. Renfrew
noted that the identification of the site as a sanctuary in the classical sense is not justified
since there are no unequivocal indications for veneration of a transcendent entity (e.g. a cult
statue). Rather, active performance (such as the breaking of special artefacts) and engagement
with the “spirit of the place” (Renfrew) may have played a more important role.294

The emphasis placed on performance at Dhaskaleio Kavos recalls characteristics of sites

which are ritual foci in animist societies. As we have seen (Section 3.2.4), animist rituals
centre on the establishing of relations between human and non-human elements, often by
engagement with a special natural locale. Animist notions may also have influenced some
special traits of the dove vessels and figurines. The merging of naturalistic avian features with
structural elements of the vessels creates ambiguous hybrid entities blurring the boundaries
between doves and vessels. As Koehl has noted, ambiguity and fluid transformations can also
be observed in other Cretan imagery of this period.295 Such compositions seem to animate
both the bird and the vessel.296 In the process of handling, this effect would have been
intensified because of the complex physical interplay between the the dove and the liquid.
Such an arrangement seems to reveal the bird’s active role as mediator of the flow of life-
sustaining water or milk. Both the creation of hybrid entities and the emphasis placed on
agency of non-human entities are consistent with animist imagery.

293
Renfrew et al. 2007a, 430-442.
294
Renfrew et al. 2007a, 431.
295
Koehl 2016.
296
This impression fits observations made by Shapland (2009, 230) about the way naturalism in Minoan art
often aims to make an animal directly present during ritual performance.
 59

In sum, depictions of columbids dating to EB I – MB II from Crete and the Cyclades show
both generic doves and possibly turtle or rock doves. Some images appear schematic,
although proportions are accurately rendered. Over time, we find increasingly detailed
depictions of avian features and species-specific behaviour. The frequency of vessels in the
shape of doves or dove figurines attached to vessels suggests a connection with the storing
and the flow of liquids. This could have been based on some special skills of doves such as
the ability to drink in a continuous motion and to produce crop milk for their young. The
deposition of such objects in tombs and at the special natural site of Dhaskalio Kavos
suggests a ritual significance. Significantly, we can observe an effort to physically merge the
vessels with features of the birds and to make the doves appear alive (drinking, bathing,
begging) during the process of handling. These arrangements may reflect animist notions
because they attribute agency to non-human entities such as doves, which were possibly
thought to ensure the continued flow of life-sustaining liquids.

4.3 MM II – MM III

In MM II – III, images of doves consist mainly of figurines. In contrast to the earlier objects,
they exclusively come from Crete and the island of Kythera. The following 36 objects will be
discussed:

• 1 relief vessel (A28) dating to MM II from Phaistos on Crete.

• 25 individual figurines (B19-B38) dating to MM I – III from the peak sanctuaries of
Petsophas, Iuktas, and Vrysinas on Crete and Ayios Georgios on Kythera.
• 4 models involving dove figurines (B39-B42) dating to MM II from the peak
sanctuary of Atsipadhes, and Knossos and possibly Ayia Triada on Crete.297
• 6 vessels with dove figurines attached (B43-B48) dating to MM II – III from Kamilari
and Mallia on Crete.

Most figurines can be identified as generic doves because of their elongated bodies, fan-
shaped tails, rounded heads and short beaks.298 At least some of them (B19-B21) might be
identified as rock doves (Columba livia) because they preserve traces of white and/or dark

297
The figurines from Ayia Triada (C8) were found in a LM III context, but their stylistic date could be much
earlier.
298
Bosanquet 1901-02, 294; Evans 1921, 151-153; Rutkowski 1991, 35; Gesell 2006, 315-316.
 60

paint on the bodies. The birds on a small relief vessel from Phaistos (A28) seem to be turtle
doves (Streptopelia turtur) which are characterized by dotted plumage and rings on the necks
(Figure 41).

The representation of both generic and particular dove species signals a fair degree of
variation in detail. Similar variations can be observed in the poses, because whereas most of
the more schematic birds are simply shown standing/sitting, others (e.g. B20, B21, B27) are
represented rising, landing or flying with their wings displayed (Figure 42). Bird figurines
found at peak sanctuaries often come in groups (e.g. at Iuktas, Petsophas or Ayios Georgios).
Thus, they might have originally appeared as a flock, which accurately reflects the social
habits of (rock) doves. The fact that figurines from the same sites can display different poses
also suggests an awareness of the individual actions of birds.299 Some of the dove images
from Iuktas (B27) show two birds placed upon each other.300 Possibly, they are mating.301 The
doves in models from Knossos and Ayia Triada (B41, B42) have their heads turned back as if
preening their plumage (Figure 43). We may thus note an increase in liveliness and variety of
poses as compared to the dove images of the preceding period. A model from Atsipadhes
(B39) depicts a bird perched on a boulder maybe giving an indication of their habitat.

As in the preceding period, some dove figurines were attached to vessels. While most MM II
figurines have been broken from their supports, hindering the identification of the vessel
types, one figurine is attached to a double vase from Kamilari (B43).302 Double vases consist
of two jugs which are connected by a hollow tube and a handle. One of the jugs has punctured
openings, possibly serving as a strainer, while the other jug is closed. Double jugs were first
deposited in EM – MM I tombs, e.g. at Koumasa and Archanes, but the vase from Kamilari is
the first one with a dove.303 The purpose of double jugs has been debated and while some
scholars considered a practical function (e.g. to strain oil, to keep the liquid hot or to prevent
flies from entering the vase)304, others have suggested a rather vague ritual function.305 The
peculiar design of double jugs, characterized by two vases connected only by a narrow tube
and the presence of multiple small openings, seems to complicate and lengthen the act of
handling, pouring and distributing the liquid. This may have been desirable in a ritual context

299
Gesell 2006, 315.
300
Karetsou 1976, 415. In the Heraklion Museum the figurines are displayed in this way.
301
Gesell 2006, 316.
302
Levi 1961-62, 37-38; Levi – Carinci 1988, 107.
303
Karayiannis 1984, 31; Levi – Carinci 1988, 107.
304
Bosanquet - Dawkins 1923, 40; Knappett – Cunningham 2012, 99.
305
Karayiannis 1984, 33; Andreadaki-Vlazaki et al. 2008, cat.no. 218.
 61

and the position of the dove next to the strainer section of the Kamilari double vase seems to
signal that doves remained associated with the flow of liquids.

The great majority of dove figurines, however, were not attached to vessels in this time.
Instead, they were deposited as individual figurines at peak sanctuaries.306 Various other
animal and human figurines have also been found at these sites, often put into crevices and
deposited at special rock formations.307 Due to the ‘worshipping’ gestures shown by the
human figurines, they have usually been interpreted as adorants of deities (Section 3.3). 308
Most numerous are figurines of animals such as bovines. They have been seen as votives
showing domestic animals whose fertility was prayed for by the visitors.309 The dove
figurines were also seen as representing domestic birds which were deposited to ensure their
flourishing.310 Some scholars even interpreted figurines representing wild animals as being
indirectly connected to domestic animals. Rutkowski, for example, identified beetle figurines
as scarab beetles, whose abundant presence signifies the well-being of livestock because they
lay their eggs in sheep dung.311 Figurines of weasels were interpreted as showing pests from
which protection was sought from the deities.312

However, the domestic or wild status of the animals represented often remains uncertain.
There is no positive evidence for the domestication of doves in the Aegean Bronze Age. As
Masseti rightly noted, the plumage of the rock doves which are the ancestors of today’s
domestic doves does not show any modification in the later frescoes.313 The interpretation of
weasels as pests is equally questionable because these animals present a danger mainly for
smaller livestock such as chickens or rabbits. As we will see below (Section 8.6), there is no
indication that chickens were kept on a large scale in the Aegean Bronze Age. Thus, figurines
of wild animals could have been deposited as well, which casts doubt on the hypothesis that
the well-being of livestock was the primary reason for rituals at peak sanctuaries.

Moreover, evidence for deities supposedly venerated at the peak sanctuaries is notably scarce.
Comparable to the site of Dhaskalio Kavos discussed in the previous section, large-scale cult

306
Peatfield 1990, 120; Jones 1999, 45-46, 77-83; Kyriakidis 2005b, 149. The exact number of dove figurines
from peak sanctuaries is unknown due to vague and/or unpublished reports.
307
Peatfield 1990; Peatfield 2001, 54.
308
Branigan 1988, 107; Peatfield 1990, 121; Peatfield 1992, 68, 76.
309
Rutkowski 1986, 85-87.
310
Rutkowski 1991, 35; Gesell (2006, 316) also argued that the mating behavior of the Iuktas figurines signified
fertility.
311
Rutkowski 1986, 89-91; Davaras 1988.
312
Rutkowski 1986, 89-91; Branigan 1988, 106.
313
Masseti 1997, 357.
 62

statues or any other unequivocally divine images are lacking. Moreover, the ‘worshipping’
gestures shown by the human figurines could also be trance-inducing poses (Section 3.3) and
may thus indicate the performance of shamanic practices at peak sanctuaries.314 The fact that
the figurines were deliberately put into crevices and special rock formations suggests that
these natural features themselves were the foci of rituals rather than a transcendent
anthropomorphic deity. They may have been seen as powerful entities with which it was
important to establish and maintain relations. The physical deposition of naturalistic human
and animal figurines may have been seen as a way to achieve this. In animist societies,
statuettes of animals are sometimes kept close to the body in an attempt to guarantee the
ongoing communication between people and animals (Section 3.2.4). We may thus argue that
the figurines were left at these sites to keep the relationship between human and non-human
entities alive also when people or animals were not physically present.

It is notable that the artistic focus did not limit itself to the depiction of relationships only
between humans and non-humans. Relations between two different non-human entities may
have been equally important. This is suggested by two models (B39, B40), which show doves
perched on boulders and baetyls.315 In this context, the location of these sites on mountains
seems to parallel the importance of liminal places in animist rituals which are thought to
connect the world of humans with the world of spirits. Furthermore, the position of the dove
figurine attached to the double jug (B43) next to the spout would have animated the dove
when water was poured out of the vessel. Such an active role of animals is another feature of
animism.

In sum, images of doves dating to MM II – III from Crete depict both generic doves and
turtle/rock doves. The indication of diverse behaviour (mating, preening) and the frequent
flying poses indicate an interest in liveliness and species-specific variety. As in the previous
period, some figurines were attached to vessels in a way that allows a physical engagement of
the bird features and the content, which may reflect the notion that doves were able to ensure
the flowing of liquids. More frequent are individual dove figurines which were deposited with
other human and animal figurines at peak sanctuaries. The close physical connection between
these figurines and local natural features suggest that they were supposed to form and
maintain relationships with other human or non-human spirits. Such practices are known from

314
Morris – Peatfield 2004.
315
For the Atsipadhes model see Peatfield 1992, 76 and Gesell 2006, 316.
 63

animist societies (Section 3.2.4). Other aspects of peak sanctuaries consistent with animist
notions are the possible presence of shamanic practices and the liminal location.

4.4 MB III – LB II

In the MB III – LB I period, images of doves appeared in a variety of media, ranging from
seals and figurines to ivory carving and frescoes. In contrast to the figurines discussed in the
previous section, which were limited to Crete and Kythera, some dove depictions are now
also found on the Cyclades and the Greek Mainland. We will be looking at the following 42
objects:

• 1 clay disc (I1) dating to MM III from Phaistos on Crete.

• 8 figurines (B49-B53) dating to MM III – LM I from from Poros, Ayia Triada and the
cave sanctuary of Patsos on Crete.
• 7 vessels with dove figurines attached (B54-B60) dating to MM III – LM I from
Psychro, Mallia, Poros, Palaikastro, Knossos and Zakros on Crete.
• 1 bronze plaque (I2) dating to MM III – LM I from the cave sanctuary at Psychro on
Crete.
• 3 inlays (I3-I5) dating to MM III – LM I from the peak sanctuary of Iuktas, and
Knossos on Crete.
• 3 gold jewellery pieces (C18-C20) dating to MB III – LB I from Mallia on Crete and
Mycenae on the Greek Mainland.
• 10 seals/sealings and rings (D5-D14) dating to MB III – LB II from Ayia Triada,
Chania, Tylissos, Knossos, Kalyvia and Sellopoulo on Crete, and Mycenae and
Dendra on the Greek Mainland.316
• 8 frescoes (E1-E8) dating to MB III – LB II from Knossos and Archanes on Crete,
and Akrotiri and Ayia Irini on the Cycladic islands of Thera and Kea.
• 1 dagger (F1) dating to LH II from Prosymna on the Greek Mainland.

Most of the figurines show generic doves, comparable to the ones discussed in the previous
section. Similar doves appear among the signs on the MM III Phaistos disc (I1). A wood
pigeon (Columba palumbus) seems to be depicted on a plaque (I2) as the rather plump shape

316
Ruuskanen 1992, 56 (type B2).
 64

in combination with a marking on the neck suggests (Figure 44).317 A wood pigeon or a turtle
dove (Streptopelia turtur) may be shown on a gold ring (D12) because of the relatively long
tail.318 In the frescoes (E1-E8), the birds can be identified as rock doves (Columba livia) due
to their blue bodies, white wing feathers and red eyes (Figure 45).319 The silhouette of the
flying doves on inlays (I3-I5) and seals (D5-D14) closely resembles that of flying rock doves
in frescoes, but since these images do not give coloured plumage patterns, we cannot be
certain that they are rock doves as well. In the frescoes from Knossos and Archanes (E1, E3),
the necks and breasts are adorned with collars consisting of reddish drops which indicate the
iridescent neck feathers of rock doves. On the Prosymna dagger (F1), this feature is shown by
a broad gold band around the neck of the rock doves.

Although many depictions exhibit rather naturalistic details of the plumage of rock doves, it
needs to be noted that their rendering is not realistic. For example, if we look at the rock
doves in the frescoes, the bodies are painted blue, not grey, and the ratio of white seems too
high compared to that of a real rock dove.320 In a way these modifications enhance and
simplify the appearance of the doves; they appear idealized.321 It seems that these deviations
from reality were tolerated because it was more important to capture the essence of the bird`s
character. As Mynott observed in his discussion of bird art, less accurate but lively depictions
of birds can often be more true to life than overly detailed images.322

A distinct emphasis on liveliness is also observable in the various poses assumed by the
doves.323 Although some doves are shown sitting, the majority are depicted in flight. Multiple
birds in the same scene usually assume varying poses, which creates a rather dynamic effect.
The reconstructed wall painting from the House of the Frescoes at Knossos (E1) shows such a
flock of rock doves whose nests are raided by monkeys.324 Two groups of birds are fleeing in
opposite directions, a pattern which seems to be based on direct observation of nature since
rock doves often rise simultaneously in groups when they are sensing danger. At least two
doves are sitting on rocks, seemingly unaffected by the events; yet, the bird shown in unusual
frontal view might be about to rise, having turned its head towards its fluttering neighbours.325

317
Evans 1921, 632; Reese 1995, 198-199.
318
For identification as dove see Ruuskanen 1992, 56 and Wachsmann 1998, 113.
319
Cameron 1968, 8; Masseti 1997, 356-357; Harte 2000, 689-690; Chapin 2008, 55-56.
320
Groenewegen-Frankfort 1951, 196; Harte 2000, 689.
321
Immerwahr 1989, 41.
322
Mynott 2009, 73-79.
323
Immerwahr 1989, 41.
324
Cameron 1968; Shaw - Chapin 2006, 66-67.
325
Krüger 1940, 31-32; Cameron 1968, 20.
 65

A similar flock of flying rock doves is shown in a fresco from Akrotiri (E5). Although they
are only preserved in fragments, we can say that the birds were also flying in opposite
directions.326 The Miniature Fresco from the same site (E7) shows a group of flying rock
doves, but here they are arranged in a frieze. This composition seems to be due to the fact that
they are painted on the hull of a ship. Despite the minute scale and the restricted space,
however, the birds are slightly individualized, for example the bird at the end is smaller and
seems to be rising, while the larger ones in the middle have their wings displayed as if
gliding. A fragmentary fresco from Ayia Irini on Kea (E8) shows several (over 22) rock
doves, which are all depicted in different poses, some on the ground and others rising/flying.
The overlapping composition of three birds in one of the fragments provides a realistic sense
of the density in the flock. The constant and varying movements of doves are well portrayed:
one bird is preening its plumage with the head turned back and another one is apparently
searching for food with its head lowered (Figure 46).327 Similarly varied poses are adopted by
the rock doves on a dagger from Prosymna (F1).328

In addition to the variety of specific poses and movements, there are further species-specific
details shown. In the Knossos fresco (E1), the doves and monkeys appear in front of red,
yellow and white areas, surrounded by a rocky terrain, including a stream with colourful
pebbles and various bushes and plants which – unlike in reality – flower simultaneously (e.g.
crocus, iris, mint, pomegranate and hybridized flowers).329 The nests are located on the lower
border of the painting, probably in rock niches. The small river which is bordered by sedges
and rocks could indicate the typical features of a gorge where wild rock doves roost and nest.
The presence of two eggs in the nests corresponds to the clutch size of rock doves.330
According to Masseti, nest-raiding is a typical foraging strategy of green monkeys
(Chlorocebus aethiops), thus the depiction of this behavior may have been inspired by direct
observation of these animals.331 The fragmentary fresco from Akrotiri (E5) might have shown
a similar gorge landscape with flowers, rocks and a stream.332 On two double jugs with doves,
plants and lilies are painted on the bellies of the vases.

326
Vlachopoulos 2007a, 133.
327
Coleman 1973, 288.
328
Blegen 1937, 332; Dickinson 1997, 45-47.
329
Immerwahr 1989, 42-46; Beckmann 2006.
330
Cameron 1968, 8.
331
Masseti 2000, 90.
332
Vlachopoulos 2007a, 133.
 66

The variations in poses and compositions as well as the cross-cutting of different media at
first glance seem to hinder attempts at identifying particular ideological roles of doves. In past
scholarship, they have been seen as symbolizing human actions, or abstract concepts such as
speed. Shapland suggested that the actions of the monkeys in the Knossos fresco (E1) allude
to human activities such as collecting eggs.333 The doves on the ship in the Akrotiri fresco
(E7) have been interpreted as symbols of speed.334 Rock doves are indeed fast and agile flyers
– they can even be used as racing pigeons - and may therefore have been considered suitable
motifs on the fast Minoan ships.335 However, the scarcity of the associations with monkeys or
ships in the iconographical record suggests that they do not constitute the most important
ideological aspects of doves.

We have some images consistently creating links between doves and certain elements. As in
the previous MM II period (Section 4.3), dove figurines are attached to some Cretan pouring
vessels, most notably double jugs (B57-B59). As we have seen, such vases were designed to
manipulate the flow of liquid in a special way. The same can be said for a LM I vessel from
Zakros (B60) which consists of several hollow rings through which the liquid had to pass. On
the double vases, the figurines are consistently attached to the section with the multiple
openings. Their beaks are positioned above them so that the liquid poured out of these vessels
would have wet them (Figure 47). As in the previous periods, this suggests that doves were
believed to have a special connection with liquids.

Other dove figurines (B51-B55) as well as a bronze sheet (I3) come from the peak sanctuary
at Iuktas and the cave sanctuaries of Patsos and Psychro. Although these types of sites
declined during the Neopalatial period, some remained in use and they exhibit similar features
as the peak sanctuaries of the MM II period (Section 4.3).336 As we have seen, dove figurines
were associated with other – also human – figurines at these sites, often placed close to
special natural features.337 In the Neopalatial period, images appear which show doves for the
first time directly associated with humans. The earliest scene is shown on a plaque from the
cave sanctuary of Psychro (I2). Here, a male figure is depicted standing next to a large pair of

333
Shapland 2009, 231. According to Reese (1995, 198) dove eggshell was found in a MM III context at
Kommos, so eggs might have been eaten.
334
Laffineur 1984, 135-136.
335
For racing pigeons see Cocker 2013, 239.
336
Peatfield 1990, 120.
337
Branigan (1988, 107-113) linked Neopalatial images (e.g. the “snake goddesses”) to the cult at the peak
sanctuaries.
 67

horns of consecration. He is turned towards a large dove which is perched on a branch

growing from another pair of horns of consecrations. An oval object is shown in front of its
beak. Two gold rings from Kalyvia and Sellopoulo (D11, D12) show individual male persons
leaning over a boulder while a dove is flying towards them. On the Kalyvia ring (D11), a
female figure is also depicted, clutching the trunk of a tree. On the Sellopoulo ring (D12) the
man has raised his arm and the dove seems to drop an oval object in front of him. The Dendra
ring (D13) shows two women going towards a shrine building with two flying doves inside.
Two ornaments from Mycenae (C19, C20) show women with a dove shown on/above their
heads. A seal from Knossos (D10) depicts a dove carried by a robed man. In addition to these
objects, there are two images where the relation between the dove and the people remains
unclear. The doves in the fragmentary fresco from Akrotiri (E5) are shown in the same scene
as a shrine building with monkeys and a seated female figure. A LM I terracotta dove (B50)
from Ayia Triada was found associated with six female and one male figurine with raised
arms, possibly belonging to them.338

The birds in such scenes were usually interpreted as divine messengers, attributes, or avian
epiphanies (temporary embodiments of otherwise anthropomorphic deities) (Sections 1.2.3
and 3.3).339 However, as was argued above, such theistic interpretations of cult scenes are far
from certain, largely because of the difficulty unequivocally to identify divinities. This is
reminiscent of the absence of clear images of deities at peak (and cave) sanctuaries.
Moreover, natural features such as boulders play an important role as foci of rituals both at the
open-air sanctuaries and in the cult scenes of MB III – LB I date. We may therefore suggest
that the rituals shown in the cult scenes had a similar purpose as those performed at the peak
sanctuaries, arguably to establish relations with non-human entities. As we have seen (Section
3.3), a similar interpretation of the cult scenes in relation to boulders and trees was first put
forward by Herva.340 When we return to the scenes with doves, we can note that doves and
people are usually turned towards each other. Moreover, the doves appear in close proximity
to the people, either near the heads (C19, C20) or held in the hands (D10) (Figure 48).
Significantly, the birds do not seem passive, but they fly actively towards the humans and

338
Halbherr 1903, 71-73.
339
Evans (1921, 635) interpreted the doves as “vehicles of divine possession” and his interpretation was
followed by Nilsson (1950, 81); Persson (1942, 133); Morgan (1978, 185-198) and Gesell (2006, 317). The
doves in the Mycenae ornaments (B6, B13) were thought to be attributes of (Near Eastern) deities by
Schliemann (1880, 209-210); Nilsson (1950, 287); Dietrich (1987, 175); Böhm (1990, 9-17) and Voutsaki (1997,
180 and 1999, 114).
340
Herva 2006a.
 68

appear to have come voluntarily (D11, D12). The dove on the Knossian seal (D10) was said
to be “perching freely” (Crowley) on the hand of the man. 341 Thus, voluntary proximity
between humans and doves is emphasized in these depictions.

Such features recall the emphasis placed on relational encounters between human and non-
human persons in animist art. As we have seen (Section 3.2.4) relations between different
entities can be formed either in ‘real’ life or when in trance. To encounter doves in a
comparably close physical way as shown in the depictions is indeed possible in reality
because doves are inherently synanthropic birds. This is illustrated by the spread of feral
pigeons in urban environments, but even wild doves forage near human habitation and they
can easily be enticed by food, a fact which probably helped in their domestication.342 Two
images (D5, E6) show doves caught alive in nets (Figure 49), suggesting that they were kept
as pets or for other (ritual?) purposes in LB I.343 Doves also have astonishing cognitive
capacities, especially in the areas of memory and learning abilities, which may have made
them appear as sentient persons. For instance, they can reach high levels of abstraction and
are able to distinguish the concept “human”, even if individuals of different sex/age are shown
to them.344

Another aspect shared by objects from the peak sanctuaries and the MM III – LM I cult
scenes are the gestures made by people. As we have seen (Section 3.3), these poses may be
interpreted as trance-inducing gestures.345 Moreover, floating objects on the gold rings could
be compared to entoptic phenomena as seen in trance. Thus, it is equally possible that such
images show doves encountered by people in trance. Altered states of consciousness not only
serve to reveal the personhood of animals, but often have a particular aim, such as healing or
ensuring fertility. If doves were thought to be especially capable of ensuring the flow of
water/rain/milk, it may have seemed desirable to communicate with these powerful entities

341
Crowley 2013, 146. The man was identified as a priest due to his garment by Evans (1928 b, 785) and
Marinatos (1993, 127-129).
342
According to Lunczer (2009, 87-88), the synanthropic characteristics of doves were also emphasised by
Aristotle.
343
Shapland (2009, 230, 2010, 117) and Papageorgiou (2014, 120-121) took these depictions as evidence that
doves were hunted for consumption. Dove bones found at Kommos were listed by Reese (1995, 194-199).
According to Trantalidou (2013, footnote 15) eleven bone fragments come from Ayios Georgios on Kythera.
Forstenpointner et al. (2010, 739-740) reported that six pigeon bones were found mixed with food refuse at MH
II Kolonna on Aegina. According to Gejwall (1969, 47-48) and Von den Driesch - Boessneck (1990, 115) only
one rock dove bone comes from Lerna and Tiryns respectively. It needs to be noted, though, that the birds in the
depictions are shown alive.
344
Barber 1994, 8-9; Cook 2001; Shimp et al. 2001.
345
Morris – Peatfield 2004.
 69

during trance.346 In this context, it can be considered whether the drop-shaped objects shown
next to the doves in two depictions (I2, D12) might be related to water.

The frequent naturalistic features of dove images of MB III – LB I date might be taken as
indication of a naturalist ontology. However, the dove depictions are not realistic – as we
would expect them to be in this case - because they subtly emphasise certain features while
ignoring others, in effect idealising the birds and underlining movement.347 Moreover, the
doves, monkeys, plants and rocks in the Knossos fresco (E1) are not set in a definite
perspective relationship to each other, as they would be in naturalist painting. Neither are they
differentiated by size or relative position, as we would expect them to be in analogical
imagery. Instead, all elements are set on the same flat plane, surrounded by and enveloping
each other.348 In the words of Groenewegen-Frankfort, they are “caught in a web of a living
world that has indefinite orientation and indefinite multiple relations”.349 Such an arrangement
suggests that the perspectives of the different entities are deemed to be of relatively equal
status, which is a feature of animist imagery.

In addition, the observation that the doves appear as persons with agency in the cult scenes is
typically found in animist art. A similar impression is created by the dove figurines which are
attached next to the spouts of double jugs. As we have argued before (Sections 4.2 and 4.3)
such attempts to make the doves interacting with the ritual use of the vase attribute agency to
the doves. Moreover, the doves in the Cretan and Cycladic frescoes appear highly
individualised by the variety of (species-specific) poses and movements.350

In sum, images of doves dating to MB III – LB I, most of which come from Crete and the
Cyclades, show generic doves, but also wood pigeons and rock or turtle doves. Many images
reach a new height in the naturalistic depiction of habits, poses and habitat. Liveliness and
movement are especially emphasised and the birds are deeply embedded in a world of
relations with other plants and animals. There are also indications that doves had specific
roles. Figurines positioned at the openings on double vases indicate that doves were thought
to ensure the flow of liquids. Scenes with humans and doves which emphasise physical
proximity and voluntary appearance indicate rituals focusing on the establishment of relations
346
For the importance of water-related fertility in premodern economies see Peatfield 1995, 227.
347
Also noted by Groenwegen-Frankfort 1951, 185-216.
348
Groenewegen-Frankfort 1951, 196.
349
Groenewegen-Frankfort 1951, 201.
350
As Masseti (2000, 89) noted, the Minoans could be described as one of the earliest ethologists.
 70

between human and doves, comparable to the activities observable at peak sanctuaries. Doves
are highly synanthropic birds, known for their learning and recognition abilities, attributes
which may have facilitated their being perceived as sentient persons with whom it seemed
possible and desirable to establish contact. Another reason for their importance in such
(trance) rituals might have been their traditional connection with life-sustaining liquids, which
goes back to EB times. Both relational encounters and trance rituals are typically found in
animist imagery, as are the emphasis placed on agency, movement and species-specific details
seen in images of doves. Moreover, the relatively equal size and the position of different
entities on the same plane in wall painting seem to indicate that no single animal or plant has
an a priori precedence over the others, which is another feature of animist thinking.

4.5 LB II – LB IIIC

In LB II – IIIC, dove images were shown on various types of objects, most commonly
terracotta figurines. As in the preceding periods, most depictions come from Crete, but a few
were also found on the Cyclades and the Greek Mainland. The following 40 objects will be
discussed:

• 1 painted offering table (I6) dating to LH II – IIIA from Tiryns on the Greek
Mainland.
• 1 palace-style jar (G1) dating to LM II from Knossos on Crete.
• 1 larnax (H1) dating to LM IIIA1 from Knossos on Crete.
• 5 ivory inlays (I7) dating to LH IIIB from Mycenae on the Greek Mainland.
• 1 fresco (E9) dating to LH IIIB from Pylos on the Greek Mainland.
• 10 vessels with dove figurines attached (B61-B70) dating to LM II – LM IIIC from
Katsamba, Isopata, Vathypetro, Myrsini, Isopata, Palaikastro, Chania (also waterbird)
and Kommos on Crete; Melos on Phylakopi; and Ialysos on Rhodes.
• 14 human figures with dove figurines attached: (B71-B84) dating to LM IIIA2 – LM
IIIC/Subminoan from Knossos, Gortys/Kannia, Gournia, Gazi, Kavousi Vronda and
Karphi on Crete.
• 7 individual figurines (B85-B91) dating to LB IIIB – IIIC from Ayia Triada on Crete;
and Tanagra on the Greek Mainland.

The birds on the offering table from Tiryns (I6) and the fresco from Pylos (E9) are rock doves
(Columba livia) because their colouring is comparable to those in the earlier Cretan and
 71

Theran frescoes. The inlays (I7) in the shape of doves have incised v-shaped marks on their
breasts, possibly indicating the iridescent neck feathers of rock doves. 351 The birds painted on
the jar and the larnax (G1, H1) show similar doves, but they do not give any species-specific
details so they may also be generic doves. The terracotta figurines with their rounded heads,
short beaks and fan-shaped tails also seem to be generic doves.352 The figurines attached to a
figure from Gazi (B79) appear to have more slender bodies and stronger beaks compared to
the birds on other figures. Therefore, Marinatos and Banti considered it possible that they are
corvids and we will discuss them again in the context of corvids (Section 5.4).353

Although the figurines of doves from this time are less detailed than in the Neopalatial period,
they maintain a relatively high degree of naturalism in their proportions. Also, they appear
rather lively because of the frequent flying poses. The bird figurine from Tanagra (B91) may
be a dove, but its wings are not curved as in the Cretan examples, but rounded in a rather
unnatural way. Other objects from the Greek Mainland exhibit a similar decrease in
naturalism. The birds on the offering table (I6), for example, can be identified as rock doves
but they are notably different to the earlier Cretan and Cycladic images because their plump
shape and parrot-like beaks have little to do with real members of this species (cf. Section
2.2.1). Moreover, the flying birds are not shown in a coordinated motion, but appear
randomly distributed across the surface and the effortlessness of their movements has gone.
Similarly plump doves come from Mycenae in the form of ivory inlays (I7). The fresco from
Pylos (E9) depicts two rock doves flying in a frieze. The birds appear rather rigid and they are
not individualised.354

Differences between regions can also be observed regarding the relationship between the
doves and their environment. On the Knossian jar (G1), the dove is shown among a dense
composition including elements such as lilies, fish and a large argonaut. Although these
associations cannot be readily explained by any natural links between these entities, their
depiction on the same spatial plane recalls characteristics observed in the earlier Knossos
fresco (E1). By contrast, the rocks shown on the Tiryns offering table (I6) and the Pylos
fresco (E9) appear simplified and the plants have been reduced to a few thin branches (Figure
50). Rather than being surrounded and embedded in each other as on the Cretan jar, the doves
351
Macroscopic examination of these pieces by the author has revealed such a pattern.
352
Dawkins – Currelly 1903-1904, 220; Levi 1961-62, 37; Alexiou 1967, 43; Marinatos – Hirmer 1973, cat.no.
210. Although Foster (1982, 93) listed every feature of the figurines that is indicative of doves, she maintained
that identification is not possible.
353
Marinatos 1937, 281; Banti 1941, 9.
354
Also noted by Immerwahr 1989, 79.
 72

and rocks/plants are clearly separated by the blank spaces left between them. In the Pylos
fresco (E9), the doves appear much larger than the rocks/plants, thereby creating a visible
hierarchy between these elements.

When we turn our attention to function, we can note that several terracotta doves were
attached to vessels in this time, most notably double (or triple) vases (B61-B66), which seems
to be a legacy from earlier periods (Sections 4.2-4.4). The position of the doves at the
openings of the double vases was maintained and suggests that doves were still viewed as
active mediators of the flow of liquid. A bronze image of a dove attached to a vessel rim was
found at Phylakopi on Melos (B68). From Rhodes come two other vessels (B69, B70), a ring-
shaped kernos and a basin, with doves attached to them. Some of these vases have further
animal images attached to or painted on them, which also emphasise a connection to (water-
related) fertility. A waterbird among lush vegetation is shown on the Chania double vase
(B64) and bulls’ heads are modelled in relief on the Myrsini jugs (B65). The ring-shaped
kernos (B69) has some miniature cups and a bull’s head attached to it. Cattle are known for
their preference of wetlands for pastures so this might be one of the reasons for their depiction
in these contexts. Furthermore, the head of a hare or rabbit is modelled in relief on the handle
of a double vase (B64). Since rabbits are notorious for their reproductive capacities this
element might also allude to fertility.

Most double vases were found in funerary contexts (e.g. Vathypetro, Kamilari, Myrsini).
Therefore, it has been suggested that their significance might have been linked to burial
rites.355 However, the frequent deposition in tombs ties in with a general renewal of the social
and ideological importance of the funerary sphere in LM II – III. Moreover, some vessels
with dove figurines attached (B66-B68) were found in sanctuaries (Palaikastro, Kommos and
Melos on Phylakopi), so they seem to have had a more general ritual significance.356

The remaining images of doves are usually shown together with humans, an association
which recalls the MB III – LB I cult scenes (Section 4.4). The earliest one is a larnax from
Knossos (H1) dating to LM IIIA1/2. It shows a tree and a hovering figure with a staff on the
short sides and two women in panels on the long side. The women have raised their arms and
hold a lily in one hand and possibly a vessel in the other. A dove is shown flying closely
above one of them, nearly touching her hair. The scene is directly comparable to those

355
Karayiannis 1984, 31-32.
356
Cf. the find context of several dove figurines from Ayia Triada: the open-air ritual site of the ‘Piazzale dei
Saccelli’.
 73

interpreted as relational encounters in the previous section.357 The woman and the dove are
turned towards each other and they even seem to look at one another, as is suggested by the
gaze of the woman (Figure 51). The close proximity between the woman and the dove is also
notable. Moreover, the vessel (a conical rhyton?) possibly held by the woman could be
another indication that it was the association of doves with liquids which led to their
important status in Cretan rituals. In LM IIIA2, dove figurines were directly attached to
human terracotta figures. The earliest figures (B71, B72) were found in the Shrine of the
Double Axes in the palace of Knossos. The female figure from this context (B72) was
accompanied by two similar, but slightly smaller, female figures. A dove is shown on her
head and she has raised her arms, while the others have put their hands to their breasts. Both
the gestures and the position of the dove on the head are comparable to those in the earlier
gold ornaments from LH I Mycenae (C19, C20) (Figure 52). The male figure from the same
context at Knossos (B71) is holding a dove in his hands. This image is related to that of a
robed man holding a dove on a LM I seal (D10) (Figure 53). As argued in Section 4.4, these
scenes could be interpreted as relational encounters.

The later LM IIIB – IIIC figures with doves on their heads (B73-B84) are exclusively female
and they have their arms raised and bent at a 90° angle with their palms facing the viewer.
This gesture is also comparable to some trance-inducing gestures shown by people in the
Neopalatial cult scenes. A few images also recall the voluntary aspect of encounters between
doves and people because the doves have their wings displayed, as if they had just landed or
are about to rise. On a figure from Kannia (B73), a dove has landed on the neck of the
woman. In addition to the doves, other elements can also be attached to the heads of the
female figures, for example palettes, disks, horns of consecration, poppy heads or snakes.358
Some of the figures from Kannia (e.g. B73) are handling snakes in a way that recalls the
images of the ‘Snake Goddesses’ from LM I Knossos.

These similarities were also noted in previous studies and they have prompted scholars such
as Nilsson and Levi, to interpret the female figures as cult images of deities and to call them
Goddesses with Upraised Arms.359 Consequently, the bird figurines were seen as avian

357
The similarity to Neopalatial art was also noted by Morgan (1987, 184, 192), although she did not directly
link the images on tha larnax to the LM I cult scenes.
358
Gesell 2010.
359
Similarities in gestures were noted in detail by Alexiou (1958, 231, 236-237). Nilsson (1950, 285) and Levi
(1959) mostly called the figures from Knossos and Kannia idols, whereas Gesell (2004, 143–144) consistently
called them Goddesses with Upraised Arms.
 74

epiphanies or divine attributes (Section 1.2.3).360 Different elements attached to multiple

figures from a single context were explained as indicating different deities or different aspects
of one goddess.361 Thus, the figures with snakes were seen as symbolising the chthonic
aspect, while the birds may have stood for the celestial side of the deity.362 However, some
figures have no attributes at all and the doves, snakes etc. can be rather randomly combined,
even on the same figure (e.g. B73), thus casting doubt on the identification as (separate)
deities. In the light of such observations, other scholars have interpreted the figures as
votaries, priestesses or votives.363

Given the emphasis placed on physical proximity and voluntary appearance in these images of
humans and doves, it seems feasible to suggest that animist relational encounters as identified
in images of MB III – LB I date survived into LM II – IIIC. The trance-inducing gestures
shown by the figures may indicate that they represent ritual practitioners (shamans), engaging
with non-human persons such as doves. The frequent presence of these birds signifies their
important status, which may be due to their special association with water and fertility. As we
have seen, dove figurines were still attached to vessels in this time, thereby confirming the
continuation of this traditional role.

In the light of these observations, we may argue that the dove images dating to LM II – IIIC
indicate a continuation of relational encounters and trance rituals on Crete. Further evidence
for a continued prevalence of animism is provided by the emphasis on lively poses and certain
features which make the birds appear as active agents in rituals (cf. the double vases). The
palace-style jar showing doves in close visual connection with other elements of roughly
equal size suggests that different entities possessed a relatively equal status. This aspect is
consistent with animist imagery which avoids giving precedence of a single perspective over
others. By contrast, the modifications taking place when images of doves were adopted in
Mainland iconography such as the decrease in liveliness suggest that animism was not the
prevalent ontology in this region. Rather, the visual separation of the birds from their
environment and the establishment of a hierarchy between doves and rocks/plants by differing
size are more consistent with analogical imagery.

360
Alexiou 1958, 252-263; Moss 2003, 90; Prent 2005, 181; Rethemiotakis 2001, 133; Gesell 2006, 319-321.
361
Evans 1901-1902, 83-84; Evans 1935, 140-149.
362
Gesell 2010, 80-81.
363
Renfrew 1985, 387; Prent 2005, 190–192; Gaignerot-Driessen 2014.
 75

In sum, dove images dating to LB II – IIIC from Crete and the Greek Mainland show both
generic doves and rock doves. Despite a reduction in species-specific detail, the Cretan
images with their frequent flying poses still imbue a sense of movement to the doves.
Moreover, the particular way in which a dove on a Cretan jar is shown embedded within the
environment seems to reveal the deep links existing between different entities. Double vases
and some other pouring vessels with dove figurines indicate that the association of animated
doves with the flow of liquid continued beyond the Neopalatial period. Moreover, scenes with
doves and humans focusing on physical proximity and voluntary appearance recall the
Neopalatial cult scenes probably showing relational encounters in an animist framework. The
few images from the Greek Mainland exhibit some important modifications, an observation
which suggests that animism was not the prevalent ontology here. Instead, the few doves
appear rather unnatural and less lively. Furthermore, other environmental elements such as
plants or rocks are relegated to background features, a composition which creates a
hierarchical relationship between the doves and other elements. Such an arrangement is more
consistent with analogical imagery.

4.6 Conclusion

Doves were depicted throughout the Aegean Bronze Age, from the EB I to the LB IIIC
periods. The earliest images dating to EB I – MB I appear in the form of vessels and figurines
from Crete and the Cyclades. Although these depictions are for the most part generic, some of
them attest to an incipient artistic naturalism regarding proportions, postures and behavior.
Their frequent depiction as askoi/rhyta or as figurines attached to vessels suggests a
connection with the storing and flow of liquids. Doves possess certain skills such as the
ability to drink in a continuous motion and the production of crop milk which might have
inspired such an association. Significantly, in some of the vessels the doves appear animated
during the process of handling. This might reflect a need to make the doves directly present
because they were thought to be responsible for the flow of life-sustaining liquid such as rain.
Such thinking is typically found in animist societies.

In MM II, dove-shaped vessels were largely abandoned and dove figurines made of terracotta
became more frequent on Crete. Some of these exhibit species-specific features and behaviour
such as mating or preening and there is a pronounced emphasis on individualised and lively
(flying) poses. Some terracotta figurines attached to vessels demonstrate the continuation of
the association of doves and liquids, albeit on a smaller scale. Individual figurines of doves –
 76

without any obvious connection to liquids – were more frequent. Deposited at peak
sanctuaries together with other animal and human figurines, they may have played a role in
animist (trance) rituals with the aim of establishing relations between human and non-human
entities.

In the Neopalatial period, dove depictions are elaborated on a grander scale than before and
they appear in frescoes, ivory carvings and gold rings. The cross-cutting of various
media/contexts suggests that the artistic naturalism of these images was often not directly
dependent on a certain function. Dove depictions of the Cretan style were adopted on the
Cyclades and to a lesser extent the Greek Mainland. The depictions from Crete and the
Cyclades betray a shared interest in the truthful representation of certain dove species, their
habits and lively poses. In these depictions, doves are shown embedded within a world of
relations with other plants and animals. Significantly, these images can not be described as
realistic because they are subtly idealized and emphasise movement.

A group of double vases and other pouring vessels attest to the continued importance of the
association between doves and liquids on Crete. The consistent position of the figurines at the
openings attests to the need to animate the dove figurines during handling. Moreover, scenes
involving both humans and doves can be interpreted as relational encounters. In a typically
animist fashion, these scenes emphasise physical proximity, voluntary appearance and
gestural or visual communication between a human and a non-human person. The traditional
connection of doves with the flow of life-sustaining liquids might have been one reason for
their important status in such rituals.

In LM II – IIIC dove images can be found on Crete and the Greek Mainland. On Crete, the
doves appear more generic than in the Neopalatial period, but they retain some naturalistic
features such as the emphasis on flying poses. Moreover, the environment continues to play
an important role. Double vases with dove figurines attached continued to be made, providing
evidence for the association of animated doves with the flow of liquid. An emphasis on
animist rituals centring on relational encounters between humans and doves can be observed
in some images during LM IIIA1 – Subminoan, most notably in the female figures with
doves. The few images of doves from the Greek Mainland exhibit distinct modifications
which suggest that animism was not the prevalent ontology in this region. The depictions do
not seem to be inspired by direct observation of nature and emanate a sense of rigidity. The
 77

birds and their environment are visually separated and a hierarchy is established between
them. Such traits are more consistent with analogism.
 78

5. Birds of prey and corvids

5.1 Introduction

In this chapter we discuss two groups of birds, raptors and corvids, and trace their varying
roles through time. Birds of prey include members of the family Falconidae (hawks and
falcons) and the family Accipitridae (eagles and vultures). Corvids (family Corvidae) include
ravens, crows and choughs. As we will see, some images of birds of prey seem to have been
developed from images of corvids, which is why we discuss them both in the same chapter.

Birds of prey are characterised by their hooked beaks and powerful claws (Figure 54). Falcons
have slender wings, which allow them to fly fast, while eagles and vultures have broad wings
which are more suitable for soaring. Corvids have slender bodies and heads with strong, but
not hooked, beaks and large feet (Figure 55). In contrast to doves, they have almost no
discernible neck and the breast is less rounded. Their wings are broad and elliptical.

We will trace the development of images of corvids and raptors in three sections. The earliest
depictions of birds of prey and corvids date to EB II – MB II. These will be discussed in the
first section. In the second section, we will look at the MB III – LB II period when images of
these birds became most frequent. In the final section, depictions of corvids and birds of prey
dating to the LB II – IIIC period will be discussed.

5.2 EB II – MB II

In EB II – MB II, birds of prey and corvids were depicted in various media, but mostly on
seals and vase-paintings. They come from Crete and the Cyclades, while only one image was
found on the island of Aegina. The following 41 objects will be discussed:

• 1 silver diadem (C21) dating to EC II from the Cycladic island of Syros.

• 2 seals in the shape of birds’ heads (D15, D16) dating to EM III – MM IA from Ayia
Triada and Gournia on Crete.
• 23 seals/sealings (D17-D39) dating to EM III – MM II from Palaikastro, Adromyloi,
Mallia, Olous Elunda, Neapolis, Mochlos, Moni Odiyitria, Phaistos and Knossos on
Crete.
 79

• 14 vase-paintings (G2-G15) dating to MB II from Phylakopi on the Cycladic island of

Melos; and Kolonna on Aegina.364
• 1 relief vessel (A29) dating to MM II from Mallia on Crete.

The bird on the EC II diadem (C21) seems to be a bird of prey because of its curved beak.365
Similar raptors appear on the Cycladic vase-paintings (G2-G14). Two figural seals from Crete
(D15, D16) show falcons’ heads (Figure 56). Related falcons are depicted in relief on a vessel
from Mallia (A29).366 On most of the Cretan seals discussed here, sailing ships are depicted
(D21-D39). Attached to their bows are bi-or trifurcated elements which resemble flying
birds.367 The same element can possibly be seen on a ship on a pithos from Kolonna (G15).368
As we will see in the subsequent section, these generic birds are turned into falcons in MB III
– LB I. Corvids are depicted on four Cretan seals dating to MM II (D17-D20). One of the
birds (D17) can be identified as a raven (Corvus corax) based on its large beak.369 A sealing
from Ayia Triada (D18) may show a baby crow because of the relatively long legs of the bird.

The Cycladic raptors (C23, G2-G14) appear relatively schematic and this applies even more
to the generic birds attached to ships on Cretan seals (D21-D39). By contrast, the figural seals
showing falcons (D15, D16) are remarkably accurate in their proportions, a feature which
recalls the contemporaneous seals in the shape of doves (Section 4.2). Various species-
specific poses are adopted by the corvids on Cretan seals dating to MM II. For example, the
raven (D17) is preening its plumage with its head turned back and one wing raised, which
accurately portrays the bird’s movements (Figure 57). The baby crow (D18) is shown next to
an oval object, possibly an egg. Another seal (D19) depicts a corvid next to a resting goat.
Corvids often forage near grazing animals because of the insects which are attracted by the
mammals.370 It has also been reported that ravens search through the feces of herd animals
which are left after resting.371 The fourth seal (D20) shows a corvid flying next to a plant. All
the images seem to have been inspired by direct observation of corvids.

364
Barber 1987, 146-148; Renfrew et al. 2007a, 195.
365
Goodison (2008, 425-427) considered the possibility that the birds on the diadem are people dressed as birds,
but there are no human feet visible.
366
Porter 2011, 41-42.
367
Basch (1987, 107, 116-130, cat.no. D1) considered the element to be a bird. Wedde (2000, 45-50, Platanos
Type) did not identify the element as a bird.
368
Wedde (2000, 41-45, 121, Kolonna Type) called this element an arrow or a bird (cat.nos. 512, 514).
369
Evans 1921, 274.
370
Marzluff – Angell 2005, 238-239.
371
Brehme et al. 2001, 19–32.
 80

The diadem from Syros (C21) shows a bird of prey next to sun symbols and dogs,
associations which cannot be readily explained by any natural relationships between these
entities. It may therefore be a conceptual association that inspired this image. The vase-
paintings from this period are too fragmentary to see if these associations were repeated in the
other early raptor images from the Cyclades. However, we will find that falcons and sun disks
are frequently combined in the vase-paintings from the MC III period. We will therefore
discuss the significance of this association in the subsequent section, but it is important to
keep in mind that the relationship between raptors and sun disks was already present in the
EC II period.

While the corvids on Cretan seals are shown in rather diverse poses, hindering attempts to
reconstruct a particular role of corvids in this period, the generic birds do appear in repetitive
compositions: they are always shown in flight and they are attached to sailing ships (D21-
D39, G15). Sailing ships with their typical crescent-shaped hull and additional oars were
invented by the Minoans by the EM III period.372 Before this time, the Cycladic longboat
seems to have been used, as EM boat models from Palaikastro attest.373 These longboats,
images of which appear on some frying pans from EC II Syros, were paddled, not sailed, and
had a fish emblem attached to their bow or stern (Figure 58).374 The simultaneous appearance
of the sailing ship and the bird as emblem indicates that the newly invented ship type inspired
the new motif. It seems likely that the new propulsion technique was directly linked to the
choice of a bird as opposed to the earlier fish. The fact that the birds are consistently shown in
flight suggests that sails were considered similar to bird´s wings, something which is also
known from Archaic times.375 The wings of a bird have a comparable role to the sails of a
ship and the wind helps both the bird and the ship to make progress and stay on course.

In the vast majority of cases, the birds seem to be shown at the bow of the ship; hence, the
directionality of the movement of the bird and that of the ship is the same.376 Usually, the
body of the birds appears to be identical or fused with the bowsprit.377 Thus, the bird’s wings

372
Basch 1987, 120-121; Marangou 1990, 260; Wachsmann 1998, 88-94; Wedde 1996, 128-130; Wedde 2000,
80.
373
Wedde 1996, 127-128; Wedde 2000, 50-52.
374
Basch 1987, 77-93. For the debate about the directionality and bow versus stern cf. Van Effenterre 1978 and
Wachsmann 2011.
375
Cf. Hesiod, Works 628.
376
A few ships on seals seem to have two bird symbols, one on the bow and one on the stern. Basch (1978, 107-
117) thought it possible that the bird element was either at the bow or the stern, whereas Wachsmann (1998, 103)
and Wedde (2000, 122, 189) agreed that it was always at the bow, at least from MM II onward.
377
Basch 1987, 107-108; Koutsouflakis 1999, 134, distinction between type I and II; Wedde 2000, 136-137.
 81

are a direct continuation of the bow and they seem to be an organic part of the ship’s structure
(Figure 59). Such a fusion of the features of birds and objects recalls the merging of doves
and vessels in the same period on Crete (Section 4.2). This observation could indicate that the
ship was seen as transforming into a bird when it was gliding over the waves. In turn, the
birds themselves may also have been animated when the the ship was moving. We could
argue that such an arrangement accords agency to non-human entities. Similar are the images
of corvids which show the birds with an emphasis on their varying species-specific
movements, thereby expressing both agency and individuality. We may therefore suggest that
these depictions are consistent with our argument for animism as the prevalent ontology on
Crete.

In sum, images dating to EB II – MB II from Crete and the Cyclades show both generic
raptors and corvids (ravens and crows). While most images appear schematic, others focus on
varying species-specific behaviour and associations. Whereas one Cycladic image associates a
raptor with sun symbols and dogs, the majority of Cretan images reveal a recurrent link
between flying birds and the newly invented sailing ships. This may have been inspired by the
similar role of birds’ wings and the ship’s sail. Significantly, the close physical connection
between the ship’s structure and the bird seems to animate both entities when the ship is
moving. Such an artistic focus on the agency of non-human entities seems consistent with
animist imagery.

5.3 MB III – LB II

In MB III – LB II, images of birds of prey and corvids became much more frequent and they
appeared in a great variety of media. In contrast to the images discussed in the previous
section, corvids and birds of prey were now also depicted on objects from the Greek
Mainland. The following 260 objects will be discussed:

• 1 clay disc (I1) dating to MM III from Phaistos on Crete.

• 84 vase-paintings (G16-G99) dating to MB III – LB I from Akrotiri on the Cycladic
island of Thera; Phylakopi on Melos; Ayia Irini on Kea; Agriokastro on Antiparos;
Mike Vigla on Naxos; Kolonna on Aegina; Pyrgos and Knossos on Crete; and
 82

Mycenae, Asine, Argos, the Samikos Mound, Eutresis, Korakou and Kirrha on the
Greek Mainland.378
• 154 seals/sealings/signet rigns (D40-D193) dating to MB III – LB II from Lyttos,
Mirabello, Lasithi, Knossos, Zakros, Phaistos, Palaikastro, Smari, Moni Odiyitria,
Phylaki, Eretria, Mallia, Ligolimni Mouchtaro, Chania, Kritsa, Poros, Ayia Pelagia,
Mochlos, Zakros, Krasi, Eileithyia, Kamilari, Ayia Triada, Heraklion, Liliano,
Anemospilia on Crete; the Cycladic islands of Naxos and Syros; and Brauron, Thebes,
Pylos, Athens, Mycenae, Aidonia, Phychtia and Tiryns on the Greek Mainland.379
• 14 jewellery pieces (C20, C22-C31) dating to MB III – LB II from Crete (unknown
provenance); Mycenae, Pylos and Peristeria on the Greek Mainland.
• 1 model involving a figurine (B92) dating to MM III – LM I from Ayia Triada on
Crete.
• 1 vessel with figurines attached (B93) dating to LH I from Mycenae.
• 1 relief vessel (A30) dating to LM I from Zakros on Crete.
• 1 ivory plaque (I8) dating to LM I from Zakros on Crete.
• 2 frescoes (E7, E10) dating to LC I from Melos on Phylakopi; and Akrotiri on Thera.
• 1 inlaid sword hilt (F2) dating to LH I from Mycenae.

These images show different kinds of raptors and corvids which we will discuss in turn. In
MM III – LM I, the shape of the generic bird element at the bow of ships on Cretan seals
(D40-D85) changes.380 In contrast to the earlier depictions, the wings of the birds now have a
sharp bent, comparable to those of falcons (Figure 60).381 The same can be seen on sign 86 of
the Linear A script and Linear B sign *86.382 A similar, but more detailed, bird can be found
attached to the bow of a ship in the Miniature fresco from Akrotiri (E7) (Figure 61). Here, the
bird with its slim bent wings, wedge-shaped tail and hooked beak clearly is a falcon. Harte
suggested that it represents the dark variety of Eleonora’s falcons (Falco eleonorae) because

378
Atkinson et al. 1904, 118-123; Mylonas 1969, 211; Andreou 1974; Davis 1976, 81-82; Crouwel 1989;
Papagiannopoulou 1990; Nikolakopoulou et al. 2008, esp. 317-318; Mathioudaki 2009; Nikolakopoulou 2010.
379
According to Shapland (2009, 135-136, 140), some of the seals dated to LM I – II by CMS more likely date
to MM III – LM I.
380
Cf. Wachsmann 1998, 118-119, Figure 6.62; Koutsouflakis 1999, 135-139; Wedde 2000, 122, 327, cat.no.
604, 665-670, 6010, 6011.
381
Van Effenterre (1978, 594) and Onassoglou (1985, 29, 33) did not recognise these elements as birds, but
called them “fleur-de-lys” or hooks. The reasons for this may lie in the ambiguous nature of many motifs on
talismanic seals; see for example Morgan 1989 and McGowan 2011. Basch (1987, 107) first called them birds
and the depiction of a head with a beak on one seal (D59) seems to confirm this. Wachsmann (1998) and Wedde
(1996 and 2000, 121-122, Akrotiri and Talismanic Type) followed this identification as birds.
382
Wedde 2000, 319. For Linear A see Godart – Olivier 1976-85.
 83

the body is painted a dark brown (Figure 62).383 Eleonora’s falcons, which are common on the
Cycladic islands, have two colour morphs, one light with a reddish belly and the other one
dark.384 Falcons may also be depicted in another fresco from Phylakopi on Melos (E10)
which preserves the narrow wings of two birds. The wings have rows of small triangles,
resembling the plumage patterns on falcons’ wings (Figure 63).385

The birds on most vase-paintings (G16-G72, G92) are similar to the raptors on Cycladic
vases discussed in the previous section.386 As was noticed by Porter, the necks and faces show
dark curved or straight lines, which resemble the “moustaches” and striped plumage patterns
of some falcon species, e.g. the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), the Eleonora’s falcon
(Falco eleonorae) or the common kestrel (Falco tinnunculus) (Figure 64).387 The wings are
pointed and consist of a slightly curved line with short feathers. On several vases, the birds
have round388 red or brown bellies, while the remaining body parts are painted black. 389 The
red colour might correspond to the plumage patterns of common kestrels (Falco tinnunculus)
or the light variety of Eleonora’s falcons (Figure 65). Cycladic-style falcons seem to have
influenced bird designs on vases from the Greek Mainland (G73-G90, G93-G99).390
Although there are similarities to the Cycladic models regarding colouring and composition,
the appearance of these birds is notably different. They have lost the features which had made
them identifiable as falcons (e.g. hooked beaks and talons) and were turned into rather
unnatural generic birds (Figure 66).391

As in MM II, we have some unequivocal depictions of corvids (A30, B29, C20 – the two
birds at the elbows, C24, D86-D89, I8). The most detailed images can be seen on the LM I

383
For identification as Eleonora’s falcons see Harte 2000, 688-689 and Porter 2011, 39. Morgan (1988, 66-67)
called the bird as a dove, whereas Wachsmann (1998, 111) identified it as a swallow, but the bird is notably
different from either bird species.
384
Svensson et al. 2009, 118.
385
Porter 2011, 40-41.
386
Atkinson et al. (1904, 120), Evans (1921, 558-560) and Oulié (1926, 56) also noticed similarities to the
foreparts of griffins - hybrids combining the forepart of a bird of prey and the body a lion - and raptors such as
hawks or falcons.
387
Porter 2011, 43.
388
The round shape of the bodies led Nikolakopoulou (2010, 214) to deny that the birds can be identified at all,
whereas MacGillivray (1983, 153), ignoring the predatory features, identified them as partridges.
389
The falcons on vases from Knossos and Pyrgos are very similar to the ones from Phylakopi, although the
colour of their bodies is more brown than red.
390
Buck 1964, 300; Andreou 1974; Davis 1976, 82; Dietz 1980, 84-85; Davis 1981; Crouwel 1989; Mathioudaki
2009.
391
Modifications were also noted by Dietz (1980, 84); Crouwel (1989, 160-161) and Mathioudaki (2009, 460).
 84

Zakros rhyton (A30).392 The birds have long tails, a slender build and rounded wing-tips
which resemble those of alpine or red-billed choughs (Pyrrhocorax graculus and Pyrrhocorax
pyrrhocorax). The relatively strong beaks, however, are more similar to those of hooded
crows (Corvus cornix) or ravens (Corvus corax) (Figure 67). Even though these images might
have been intended to show a certain scientific species, it remains impossible for us to
determine this species because we lack coloured images of this corvid type thus far.

In addition to these depictions, there are numerous images of birds on Cretan seals displaying
features of both corvids and birds of prey (D90-D192).393 Similar birds are depicted on a
diadem from Mycenae (C23) and a vase from Thera (G91). The birds have tube-shaped
bodies, rounded heads, broad wings394, elongated heads with strong beaks and fan-shaped or
more rarely forked395 tails. The slender shape of the bodies, the absence of necks, the strong
straight beaks, the elliptical shape of the wings and the ruffled fan-shaped tails are
characteristics of corvids (Figure 68). Furthermore, the beaks are straight and the feet do not
resemble the sharp talons of raptors (Figure 69). At the sime time, the long broad wings of the
birds on some seals (e.g. D117-D120) resemble more those of eagles or vultures in soaring
flight.396 The observation that these birds show mixed features may indicate that corvids and
some birds of prey were put in one category in Minoan folk taxonomy. Such a classification
would not be surprising since these bird groups have some characteristics in common. For
example, many corvid species eat carrion just like kites or vultures. Also, corvids can
frequently be observed mobbing birds of prey.

Some birds appear similar to the upper parts of griffins – creatures combining a raptor’s head
and wings with a lion’s body – on contemporary seals (Figure 70). A few birds (e.g. D95,
D96, D99, D100) exhibit features directly adopted from the anatomy of griffins, for example
spirals on their necks (Figure 71), or more rarely crests.397 This may suggest that

392
Masseti (1997, 358) noticed the similarities of the Zakros birds to corvids (magpie and red-billed chough),
but dismissed this identification because the depictions did not correspond exactly to either species and decided
to identify them as cuckoos instead.
393
Onassoglou 1985, 141-144; Ruuskanen 1992, 21, types 4b, 4c and 4d. Ruuskanen (1992, 56-58) noted the
mixing of features and identified several birds as passerines/crows or birds of prey. The birds are mostly on seals
of the talismanic or cut style (cf. Krzyszkowska 2005a, 133-137 and Boardman 1972, 45-48).
394
The birds have been grouped into three different types by Onassoglou (1985, 141-144) and Ruuskanen (1992,
21, types 4b, 4c and 4d) because of differently-shaped wings. However, these variations closely correspond to
the seal shape (longer wings on amygdaloids, shorter ones on lentoids), thus, they are probably not species-
specific attributes.
395
The occasional forked tails seem to be abbreviations of fan-shaped tails; thus, they do not necessarily mean
that the birds are swallows.
396
Evans 1930, 410-411.
397
Onassoglou 1985, 143.
 85

corvids/raptors partly adopted the ideological connotations of griffins and we will come back
to this point when we discuss the function of these birds.

The remaining birds can be unequivocally identified as birds of prey (B93, C25-C31, D193,
F2). As in the ambiguous Cretan images, some of the birds have spirals on their necks
resembling those of griffins, but the predatory features are much more emphasized. They have
stream-lined bodies, hooked beaks, staring eyes and sharp claws (Figure 72). This type of
fierce raptor can only be found on objects from the Greek Mainland. The jewellery pieces
from Mycenae (C25-C27) and the Tiryns ring (B193) could show falcons or small eagles.398
The wings of the birds on the so-called Cup of Nestor (B93) resemble those of an Egyptian-
style falcon from Crete (C22) (Figure 73). On the sword hilt from Mycenae (F2), the
elongated shape of the silhouetted heads and the large curved beaks are similar to those of
eagles (Figure 74).

The degree of artistic naturalism observable in these images fluctuates widely. While the
rather schematic falcons on Cretan seals (D40-D85) are only depicted in one recurrent
association with ships, the falcons in a fresco from Phylakopi (E10) are shown flying in a
more natural setting, surrounded by rocks which possibly allude to their habitat on (coastal)
cliffs.399 In the Cycladic vase-paintings of falcons (G16-G72, G92), the frequent appearance
of perfectly circular bellies seems to offset any naturalistic effects. However, this shape does
not appear in all the vase-paintings (e.g. G21, G22, G92) and some birds are associated with
vegetation such as branches or palm trees (G17, G18, G23, G25). On one vase (G21), a
falcon seems to be clutching an insect, possibly a locust.400 Both Eleonora’s falcons and
common kestrels frequently eat insects, thus this image is an accurate description of falcon
behaviour. Moreover, there is a fragment showing a falcon standing on a fish (G60) and
another one associates the falcon with a waterbird (G59). These associations might allude to
lakes or the sea, environments where falcons are frequently found in the Aegean. While the
Cycladic falcon images occasionally reveal direct observation of nature, the related birds on
vases from the Greek Mainland (G73-G90, G93-G99) appear unnatural because of additional
wings or abstract plumage patterns. Moreover, they lack any indication of specific actions or
habitat. Only one vase (G80) seems to show birds with their young. For the most part,
however, the birds are simply shown flying in a frieze.

398
For eagles see Karo 1930-33, 50, 52, no. 44, 60; for falcons see Lenz 1995, 135 and Porter 2011, 39-40.
399
For their habitat see Dimalexis et al. 2008.
400
Doumas (2005) and Papagiannopoulou (2008, 442-443) identified this animal as the chick of the bird, but
raptors would never hold their own chicks in this way because they would kill them with their sharp claws.
 86

In the Cretan images of corvids (A30, B29, C20, C24, D86-D89, I8), the birds are usually
depicted flying or landing/taking off. Two images (A30, I8) show them in rocky landscapes
with other animals (goats) or birds (swallows). Among the depictions of corvids/birds of prey
on seals (D90-D192), there are two images (D114, D160) possibly alluding to specific
behavioural patterns of these birds because they seem to be driven away by waterbirds.401
Both species are known for eating the eggs and chicks of (water)birds. 402 The adult birds
defend their offspring against these predators and such encounters may well be depicted here.
All the other images with corvids/birds of prey, however, focus on the depiction of a single
flying bird, sometimes surrounded by plants. When we turn to the fierce raptors on objects
from the Greek Mainland (B93, C25-C31, D193, F2), we can note that they may appear
naturalistic at first glance because of the accurate depiction of predatory features. However,
this impression is compromised by frequent antithetical compositions and identical rendering
of multiple birds.

This survey demonstrates that the Cycladic and Cretan images occasionally depict the birds in
natural poses, actions and environments, while the ones from the Greek Mainland usually lack
such depictions. In addition to these variations in the degree of naturalism, the birds of prey
and corvids are shown in different repetitive poses (e.g. flying), compositions (e.g.
antithetical) and/or associations (e.g. with ships). Such clusters suggest that diverse roles and
functions were attributed to the different kinds of birds in MB III – LB I and we will now
address them in turn.

As we have seen, generic flying birds were attached to the newly invented sailing ships in EM
III – MM II, a choice probably prompted by the analogous function of wings and sails. In
MM III – LM I, complete sailing ships on seals became rarer and were substituted by ships of
the CMS “Kajütenschiff” type, showing only the bow and a vertical structure which has been
identified as the captain`s cabin (D47-D85).403 As observed by Van Effenterre and
Onassoglou, they are abbreviated versions of the sleek ships shown in the Miniature fresco
(E7) which could be both rowed/paddled and sailed.404 The more specific choice of falcons

401
In addition, there are two other seals (D104, D233) which show a corvid/raptor on one and a waterbird on the
other seal face.
402
Marzluff – Angell 2005, 232-235; Cocker 2013, 393.
403
Marinatos 1974, 35, 54; Onassoglou 1985, 28-34; Wedde 2000, 52-54.
404
Van Effenterre 1978, 595; Onassoglou 1985, 29-30.
 87

may thus be due to the agility and speed unique to these birds (the Peregrine falcon can reach
up to 200 mph).405 This is also evident in the prominent depiction of the bent wings which
resemble those of a swooping falcon.406 The ship with the Eleonora’s falcon in the fresco (E7)
seems to be part of a local naval procession or festival.407 This species may have been chosen
because Eleonora’s falcons can be commonly observed over the sea when they are hunting
small migrating songbirds, thus establishing a firm link between this falcon species and the
Aegean Sea.408 As in the sailing ships of the EM III – MM II period, the falcons’ wings are
physically connected to the structure of the ship, which may have created the impression of
the ship transforming into a living falcon when moving.

When we turn to the Cycladic vase-paintings of falcons (G16-G72, G92), some of which
were also found at Pyrgos and Knossos on Crete, we can note that they emphasise certain
features by consistent repetition. For example, all falcons seem to be shown in flight, most
with their wings elevated, some with their wings displayed (Table 4).

Table 4: Identifiable poses of falcons on vase-paintings dating to MB III – LB I from the

Cyclades and Crete.

Pose Number of vases

Flying 35
Flying, wings elevated 20
Flying, wings displayed 3
Total 58

This suggests that the depiction of wings and the ability to fly were of special importance.
However, the shape of the wings of the depicted falcons does not imply fast flying since they
are not sharply bent as those of the swooping falcons on the Cretan ships. Rather, they are
spread wide, as if rising or flying high in the sky (Figure 75). A detail visible on three vases
(G21, G22, G92) may allow further specification of the flying style: the wings of these birds
have a protruding feather in the middle which can be seen on the wings of falcons when they
are hovering in the air while locating prey (Figure 76). Some falcon species (especially
common kestrels) have perfected this skill and they can stay for minutes in the same spot.
405
Porter 2011, 39; Cocker 2013, 164.
406
For the speed that could be reached by these ships, see Wedde 1996, 142.
407
Morgan 1978, 641; Morgan 1988, 144-145; Niemeier 1992, 99-100.
408
For the connection of this falcon species to the Aegean Sea see Ferguson-Lees – Christie 2001, 871.
 88

Another frequently recurring feature is the red circular shape of the bodies. Significantly,
similar red disks can appear above or next to the birds (Table 5).

Table 5: Identifiable body shape and association of falcons on vase-paintings dating to MB III
– LB I from the Cyclades and Crete.

Body shape/association Number of vases

Circular body 25
Association with disk 15
Total 40

Sometimes, the disks have a wavy outline, implying rays (G16, G21), which make them
resemble astral bodies, either the stars or the sun. Since falcons are diurnal birds, it is more
likely that they are sun disks – an identification also made by Papagiannopoulou and
Porter.409 Since some of the associated disks are shown in an arc over the birds (G63-G68),
Porter suggested that they represent the movement of the sun across the sky over the day.410
On one vase (G21), two disks with wavy outline are depicted under the spread wings of a
huge falcon. A similar arrangement could be observed on the EC II diadem (C21), where the
raptor was also shown next to sun symbols (Section 5.2).411 The frequent presence of sun
symbols in these scenes might corroborate the observation made above that the falcons are
shown flying high in the sky – next to the sun from a human`s perspective.

When we look at the types of vases the falcons are painted on, it is notable that these are
frequently round beaked jugs and jars. These traditional Cycladic pouring vessels date back to
the EC IIIB period.412 Significantly, they have a spout resembling a bird`s beak, a feature
which gives the vases a certain avian appearance. One bridge-spouted jar from Akrotiri (G16)
has eyes painted on either side of the spout, intensifying this effect. With their globular shape
and the raised spout, these vases closely resemble the round-bodied birds with raised heads
painted on them. Thus, the connection between birds/falcons and sun/disks is expressed both
on a two-dimensional and a three-dimensional level.

409
Papagiannopoulou 2008, 442; Porter 2011, 45. Cf. also (rayed) disks in Minoan iconography which appear
together with a crescent – most probably the sun and moon.
410
Porter 2011, 45.
411
The similarity was also noted by Papagiannopoulou 2008, 444.
412
Barber 1987, 143, 149.
 89

The close physical connection between the sun and the falcons emphasized by these vases
cannot be explained by any directly observable natural association. It may therefore indicate
an ideological connection between these two entities. An association of birds with heavenly
phenomena or astral bodies can be observed in many cultures. For example, in the North
American myth of the thunderbird(s) powerful birds (of prey) are thought to cause thunder,
wind, rain, and hail with their wings.413 In East Asia, certain corvids are believed to live in
multiple suns – represented by a crow in a sun disk.414 In the light of such myths, Goodison
suggested that the association of the raptor with sun disks on the diadem (C21) indicates that
the birds’ wings were thought to help the sun moving across the sky. 415 In fact, the peculiar
body shape of the falcons on several MC III – LC I vases does seem to visually transform the
wings of the falcons into the wings of the sun. If falcons were indeed thought to help the sun
moving, they were awarded an important active role in the cosmological order. Such a central
task may also have led to a cultic significance of these birds.416 A vase from Akrotiri (G21)
associates a large falcon next to sun symbols with two young men who are holding a jug and a
cup over a large branch growing from the earth. Thus, the falcons may have been occasionally
incorporated into an ideological complex centering on fertility.

Porter suggested that the association of the falcon with the sun on the Cycladic vases was
adopted from Egypt because the falcon as embodiment of the Egyptian sky god Horus was
often shown with a sun disk (Figure 77).417 Egyptian-style falcon images were known on
Crete, as is possibly attested by a relief lid showing falcons from MM II Mallia (A29) and a
gold and enamel Egyptian-style falcon from MM III Crete (C22).418 Despite the familiarity
with such images, however, there is no evidence that the Horus falcon was adopted on a large
scale in Cretan or Cycladic art. Also, the Cycladic falcons are notably different from the
Horus falcon because they appear livelier but less detailed, not to mention the frequent
circular shape of the bodies. Moreover, the diadem from Syros (C21) dating to EC II suggests
that the falcon-sun connection existed in the Cyclades before the first Egyptian-style images
appeared on Crete. As was mentioned above, it is not unusual for humans to see a link
between birds and heavenly phenomena, thus, it seems equally likely that the falcon image
and its connection with the sun could have developed independently on the Cyclades.
413
Harvey 2005, 38-40.
414
Ball 2004, 241.
415
Goodison 2008, 427.
416
The special shape of the beaked jugs led scholars, for example Nikolakopoulou (2010, 219-220) to suggest
that they were ritual vessels used for libations.
417
Porter 2011, 45-48. For the Horus falcon see Houlihan 1986, 45-48.
418
According to Aruz et al. (2008, 88-89), the relief vessel also has parallels with Anatolian iconography.
 90

Cycladic vases with falcons and sun disks were also found together with various ritual objects
in the Temple Repositories of the palace at Knossos (G63-G72).419 This context could
indicate that the cultic significance of the falcons was understood by the Cretans, although
they apparently did not adopt the falcon-sun association in their own iconographic repertoire.
Panagiotaki proposed that these vases were included because their decoration fitted the
general iconographic theme of the Temple Repositories.420 According to her, this theme
primarily centred on depicting human relationships with the natural world, as seen in the
snake handling of the so-called Snake Goddesses.421 Thus, the Cycladic vases with falcons
and sun disks may have been incorporated into Cretan ideology. By contrast, the related birds
in the Mainland vase-paintings (G73-G90, G93-G99) are associated with disks only once
(G93). Circular bodies are rare (they are more ovoid) and the birds no longer appear only on
globular beak-spouted jugs. Vases mostly come from funerary contexts, for example the shaft
graves at Mycenae and other tombs in the Argolid, Attica and Elis.422 All these differences
indicate that the Cycladic falcon-sun-connection remained alien to the people of the Greek
Mainland.

When we turn our attention to the depictions of corvids and corvids/birds of prey, most of
which come from Crete, we find that they also exhibit some recurrent traits and associations.
Similar to the falcons on seals and vases, they are mostly shown in flight. However, in
contrast to the falcons, several birds are represented in the moment of landing or taking off
(e.g. A30, C24, D88 – D95). This indicates that it was not only their ability to fly which was
of importance but also the moment of arrival or departure. Moreover, birds identifiable as
corvids usually appear in a special association with humans (Figure 78). On a gold ring from
Poros (D86) a sitting female figure is shown carried by two flying corvids. A ring from Pylos
(D89) shows a corvid having landed on the rail of a throne on which a large female figure is
sitting. On another ring from Pylos (D88), a woman with a staff is hovering between two
corvids having landed on rocks. On a sealing from Knossos (D87) two flying corvids are
shown below a female figure with a staff, apparently carrying her through the air. A cut-out
ornament from Mycenae (C20) shows a nude woman being carried by two flying corvids
which are attached to her elbows. Other images show single humans sitting in boats shaped
419
Jones 1978, 478; MacGillivray 1983, 154; Panagiotaki 1999, 133-139; Sherratt 2000, 362-363. MacGillivray
(1983, 153) mentioned four complete and two fragmentary vessels from the Temple Repositories, several more
sherds from the MM III cists and some sherds in the Stratigraphical Museum. Sotirakopoulou (2010, 835)
mentioned about 40 Cycladic vessels in total from the Temple Repositories.
420
Panagiotaki (1999, 136) suggested that the vases were used for liquid offerings.
421
Panagiotaki 1999, 148-151.
422
Mathioudaki 2009, 459-460. Some of them seem to have been exported to the Cyclades (e.g. G76, G78).
 91

like corvids/birds of prey (D189-D192, I1) (Figure 79).423 Although bird features predominate
in these boats, there are also parts of other – special – creatures (griffin, sea horse). This
hybridisation recalls the griffin features of some flying corvids/birds of prey on seals
mentioned above. Other images show corvids in association with shrines/horns of
consecration without a direct presence of humans (Figure 80). On the Zakros rhyton (A30), a
pair of corvids is sitting/landing on horns of consecration of a complex building, which was
identified as a tripartite shrine.424 A closely comparable composition with birds landing on
shrines is seen on the cut-out-ornaments (C24) from Mycenae. A figurine from Ayia Triada
(B92) shows a corvid sitting on horns of consecration.

The birds in these scenes have usually been interpreted as attributes of deities.425 However, as
we have seen (Section 3.3), deities cannot be unequivocally identified in Cretan iconography
and the events shown in these scenes may have more to do with animist and shamanic
practices.426 Moreover, the birds are not passive emblems; rather, they adopt a specific active
role – that of carrying and accompanying an individual person.427 Such a task recalls the
responsibilities of birds in animist societies which often include the carrying and
accompanying of shamans on their trance journeys (Section 3.2.4). As we have seen, special
boats can also be used by shamans for their journey to the spirit world. Often, the spirit
animals and the boats are merged, resulting in zoomorphic vessels, comparable to the bird-
shaped boats described above.428 As was demonstrated by Lahelma in his discussion of rock
art images from Finland, shamans can also merge with the vehicle and the tutelary animal
during trance, reflected by images combining a human, a boat and an elk.429 An observation
made by McGowan about a sealing from Ayia Triada (D191) may be significant in this
context. She noticed that the bird-shaped boat with the man inside is transforming into a bird
with its feet holding onto a branch, if the seal is turned 90 degrees (Figure 81).430 This

423
Levi 1925-26, 126-128; Marinatos 1933, 223-233; Koutsouflakis 1999, 144; Wedde 2000, 173-194.
424
Platon 1971, 167. For tripartite shrines see Shaw 1978, 432-440; Alusik 2003, 62-63.
425
The boats have been called fantastical creations by Sakellarakis (1971, 218) and Koutsouflakis (1999, 144).
For the boats as belonging to deities see Marinatos 1933, 223-227; Sakellarakis 1971, 219 and Boulotis 1989.
For the interpretation of the birds as attributes of deities in these scenes see Dimopoulou – Rethemiotakis 2000,
44-50 and Davis – Stocker 2016, 644-645.
426
Wedde (1996, 148-149, 2000, 175-194) was sceptical about the interpretation of the people in zoomorphic
boats as deities.
427
There are indications that the griffin had a similar role of carrying or accompanying a single person. For
example, a gold ring from Archanes shows a woman flying with the help of a griffin (Sakellarakis – Sapouna-
Sakellaraki 1997, 651-653).
428
Cf. Lahelma 2007, 118, Figure 4, for shamanic elk-shaped boats in Finnish rock paintings.
429
Lahelma 2007.
430
McGowan 2011, 56-67.
 92

ambiguous image might express the somatic transformation of a shaman into a bird as
undergone during trance.

We may ask why corvids of all flying birds were deemed suitable for carrying and
accompanying shamans. This may be due to the fact that corvids are characterized by a high
degree of liminality – as the shamans themselves. Unlike many other birds, they actively seek
human proximity and are able to communicate effectively with people. Corvids can be kept as
pets developing deep emotional bonds with particular humans.431 Considering the riskiness of
a trance journey when the shaman is most vulnerable and needs guidance, corvids have
further unique assets which can help in this regard. They are highly intelligent, can recognize
people, objects and situations, can be taught to speak, have theory of mind, are extremely
curious and can use tools.432 These exceptional characteristics have not only been observed by
the classical Greeks and Romans but all over the world which is why corvids are often
described as clever and cunning in stories and myths.433 For animists, e.g. in North America,
corvids often have a special status among other sentient beings due to the fact that they can
actively communicate with other entities by their expressive body language.434 Such traits
could also have been recognised by the Cretans and they may have led to the important role of
corvids in shamanic practices.

When we finally turn our attention to the birds of prey from the Greek Mainland (B93, C25-
C31, D193, F2), we may note that they are related in their morphology to the Cretan corvids,
for example by the shape of their wings. However, they are consistently modified towards a
more explicit predatory appareance, notably by hooked beaks and talons. Recurrent
antithetical compositions, for example in the falcons on the gold cup (B93) and the eagle
protomes on the sword hilt (F2), underline their aggressive stance. The birds on ornaments
from Mycenae (C25-C27) are depicted in a mirror reverse composition as if looking warily
around.435 Their curled raised claws may allude to the pose adopted shortly before catching
their prey (Figure 82).436 Since such fierce images of raptors have no direct parallels in Cretan

431
Barber 1994, 34-35; Woolfson 2008; Cocker 2013, 388.
432
Marzluff – Angell 2005; Schmidt et al. 2011.
433
Toynbee 1973, 273-276. Cf. also the extraordinary importance of the raven as a trickster in native North-
American mythology emphasised by Cocker (2013, 384-385, 392-395).
434
Harvey 2005, 100; Marzluff-Angell 2005, 30, 49-50; Cocker 2013, 395.
435
They are called “wappenartig” by Karo 1930-33, 302.
436
Porter 2011, 40.
 93

or Cycladic iconography it is likely that they were invented to suit local Mainland
preferences.437

In addition to the emphasis on aggression, we can observe that the raptors are consistently
depicted on certain high-status objects such as a gold vessel, gold jewellery and a richly
decorated elaborate weapon. The find contexts of these objects are richly furnished graves of
the Argolid and Messenia. The deposition of great riches and the sudden appearance of
figurative art in the shaft graves at Mycenae after a comparably poor and largely aniconic
Middle Helladic period has been explained by Voutsaki as an act of “conspicuous
consumption” as a strategy in local power struggles between different groups or factions.438
She considered the shaft grave phenomenon as indication that the social situation was
unstable and required the use of powerful and symbolically charged actions and images by
those who wanted to gain or maintain control.439 A similarly unstable situation may have
existed in Messenia because the use of comparably rich tombs is restricted to a short period in
LH II.440 Here, the people of Peristeria seem to have contended with those of neighbouring
Pylos for hegemony, a hypothesis formulated by Bennet and Davis based on the apparently
competitive elaboration of several tholoi at both sites which served as visible power
markers.441 Shortly afterwards the incipient tensions were apparently relieved in favour of
Pylos: the tholoi at Peristeria went out of use while the first palace was built at Pylos.

The proliferation of weapons and the frequency of battle/hunting scenes in Early Mycenaean
imagery suggest that legitimation in these power struggles could primarily be achieved by
adherence to a warrior ethos.442 Jewellery seems to have played an important part in this
context because it has been found that male burials associated with many weapons were also
rich in jewellery.443 The sword (F2) with eagles from shaft grave IV and the necklace from
shaft grave V (C25) at Mycenae were both associated with male burials and would have been
used and worn in life. Thus, a direct relationship between powerful birds of prey and people
who strove for power and claimed predatory qualities for themselves was created. In his

437
For modifications of Cretan iconography in Early Mycenaean objects see Vermeule 1975; Dickinson 1977,
52-57; Laffineur 1993.
438
Voutsaki 1997; Voutsaki 2010.
439
Voutsaki 1999, 112.
440
Voutsaki 1998, 51-55.
441
Bennet – Davis 1999, 105-106.
442
Deger-Jalkotzy 1999.
443
Kilian-Dirlmeier 1988; Dickinson 1997, 45-47.
 94

analysis of Mycenaean swords, Malafouris argued that objects such as swords and jewellery
are directly included in the cognitive body schema of people.444 He saw the sword and its
decoration “as a dynamic integral component of the emerging Mycenaean embodied cognitive
system.”445 Thus, the sword and the man together became a new hybridized entity. 446 Seen in
this light, the sword hilt decorated with eagle protomes (F2) adds a third dimension to this
close relationship between the warrior and his sword, namely the eagles and especially their
heads with the powerful beaks.

Whereas the necklace (C25) and the sword (F2) seem to have been used by male warriors, the
relatively flimsy cut-out-ornaments from the slightly later shaft grave III (C26, C27) were
probably made for funerary use and they could have been associated with the women and
children buried here.447 The inclusion of women and children in Grave Circle A and their rich
grave goods – as opposed to earlier Grave Circle B – has been interpreted as expression of an
increasing emphasis of hereditary status and the family.448 Thus, the birds of prey may also
have functioned as a kind of emblem of the people of Grave Circle A.449

The Tiryns ring (D193) seems to support the view that birds of prey had become symbols of
authority by LH II. A raptor of the shaft grave type is shown behind the throne of a seated
figure holding a chalice. The bird has the head turned back and thus exactly copies the pose of
the raptors in the earlier mirror-reverse compositions. Although the bird has its wings folded,
no perch is shown and it appears more like an emblem than a real bird. Several Minoan genii
are shown in a procession carrying jugs towards the sitting person, making it likely that he or
she is a person of authority. The bird seems to have become an emblem of authority by that
time or even a coat of arms. Such a function would be comparable to those of many other
birds of prey, e.g. the double-headed eagle on the imperial banner of the Holy Roman Empire.

After having discussed the various roles and functions adopted by corvids and birds of prey in
MB III – LB II, we may now reflect on what they can tell us about the prevalent kinds of

444
Malafouris 2008.
445
Malafouris 2008, 5.
446
Malafouris 2008, 8.
447
Dickinson 1977, 48; Laffineur 1993, 257; Voutsaki 1997, 172. For an overview of the chronology of the shaft
graves, see Graziadio 1991, table 4.
448
Graziadio 1991, 436-437.
449
Similar interpretations of the birds as power symbols were suggested by Schliemann (1880); Karo (1930-33,
302-303); Lenz (1995, 135) and Laffineur (1995).
 95

ontologies. The discrepancies observable between the Cyclades and Crete on the one hand
and the Greek Mainland on the other hand suggest that different ontologies were dominant in
these regions. Although most of the Cretan and Cycladic images of falcons and corvids/birds
of prey concentrate on certain aspects, they occasionally depict other species-specific poses
and behaviour as well. Moreover, the frequent flying poses create a pronounced sense of
movement. As we have seen (Section 3.2.4), liveliness is an important aspect of animist
imagery. Another feature consistent with animist depictions are hybridised objects such as the
Cycladic beaked jugs or the falcons physically merged with parts of the ships’ structure on
Cretan seals. Such ambiguous images reveal the transformational capacity of morphologically
different entities due to a shared interior essence. Moreover, they seem to ascribe agency to
non-human entities. Both the Cycladic falcons and the Cretan corvids adopt important active
roles in the respective ideologies, either moving the sun or carrying/accompanying shamans
on their trance journeys.

In comparison, bird images from the Greek Mainland consistently abandon features typical of
animism. Depictions tend to show rather unnatural birds, usually without any indication of
species-specific behaviour or habitat. Principally, the representation of single naturalistic
details such as predatory features is closely linked to a symbolic function. The depiction of
species-specific elements is not an end in itself. Any impression of liveliness and variety is
offset by artificial and identical poses or compositions. The birds do not appear as active
agents but they are passive symbols, either of physical strength or social power. Such a
function of animals as analogies or metaphors is typically found in analogical imagery
(Section 3.2.1).450

In sum, depictions of birds of prey and corvids dating to MB II – LB II come from the
Cyclades, Crete and the Greek Mainland. We can identify falcons, probably common kestrels
and Eleonora’s falcons, as well as eagles. A large group of bird images from Crete shows
mixed features of corvids and birds of prey, allowing the reconstruction of a folk taxonomical
category including members of both species. While some Cretan and Cycladic images show
varied species-specific poses and behaviour, the depictions from the Greek Mainland notably
lack such features. This suggests that the two regions differed profoundly in their perception
of nature.

450
Shapland (2013) interpreted the creation of analogies between lions and warriors in Early Mycenaean
iconography as indicative of analogism.
 96

Differences between regions were also made out with regard to roles and functions of bird
images. On Crete, falcons were associated with sleek ships, probably due to their fast flying
skills. Notable is the close physical connection between the bird and the ship’s structure
resulting in the impression that the bird became alive and/or the ship turned into a falcon
when moving. Corvids are shown accompanying and carrying individual people. Close
parallels to animist imagery suggest that they may have been spirit helpers accompanying
shamans on their trance journeys. The fact that corvids are highly synanthropic and intelligent
birds might have contributed to such specific ritual roles.

A similarly active role is adopted by the falcons on Cycladic vase-paintings because they
seem to be moving the sun across the sky with their wings. This interpretation is based on the
consistent flying or hovering poses and the close physical connection of the bird features with
sun disks. The merging of avian features with globular jars and the sun results in ambiguous
images, according agency to non-human entities in an animist fashion. When we examined
the appearance and contexts of falcon vases from Crete and the Greek Mainland, it was
observed that whereas the Cretans might have understood their (ritual) significance and
integrated them into other nature imagery at Knossos, the people of the Mainland seem to
have rejected the Cycladic notion of the falcon-sun connection altogether as evidenced by the
distinct transformation of Cycladic-inspired bird images.

On the Greek Mainland, images of fierce birds of prey seem to have been used as symbols of
male physical strength and social power. This reading is primarily based on the fact that they
appear on certain objects such as jewellery and weapons which are immediately linked to the
bodies of their male owners and the find contexts in tombs of the aspiring elite in the Argolid
and Messenia. Later on, the association of raptors with women or children and an enthroned
person of authority suggest that they had become symbols of the ruling family or class. The
creation of such analogies is typical for imagery of analogical societies.

5.4 LB II – LB IIIC

In LB II – IIIC, birds of prey and corvids were less frequently depicted than in MB III – LB
II. The images appear in different media both from Crete and the Greek Mainland. On the
Cyclades, images of raptors seem to have disappeared in this period. The following 24 objects
will be discussed:
 97

• 8 seals (D194-D201) dating to LB IIIA from Armenoi, Mallia and Knossos on Crete;
and the Greek Mainland (unknown site).
• 1 model (B94) dating to LM II from Ayia Triada
• 1 sarcophagus (H2) dating to LM IIIA2 from Ayia Triada on Crete.
• 1 mould for an ornament (C32) dating to LH IIIA – IIIB from Mycenae on the Greek
Mainland.
• 1 human figure with figurines attached (B79) dating to LM IIIB from Gazi on Crete.
• 1 fresco (E11) dating to LH IIIB from Pylos on the Greek Mainland.
• 11 vase-paintings (G100-G110) dating to LB IIIA2 – IIIC from Pachia Ammos,
Kamilari and Kalami on Crete; and Mycenae, Tiryns, Athens and Korakou on the
Greek Mainland.

In contrast to the preceding periods, no falcons can be identified in the images of LB II – IIIC.
Only images of corvids, corvids/birds of prey and raptors were continued. Corvids with their
slender bodies, large straight bills and fan-shaped tails are only shown on images from Crete
(B79, B94, D201, G100-G102, H2). A bird on the long side of the Ayia Triada sarcophagus
(H2) with a thick neck, large beak and black plumage seems to be a raven (Corvus corax)
(Figure 83).451 The number of ambiguous corvids/birds of prey on Cretan seals decreased
sharply and the few birds of this type appear even more generic than before (D194-D201).
Some birds dating to LB IIIA2 – IIIB, on a mould from Mycenae (C32), a fresco from Pylos
(E11) and the short side of the Ayia Triada sarcophagus (H2), seem to be raptors although
they appear less fierce than in the Early Mycenaean period (Figure 84). They only have a
curved beak, not a hooked one and the claws are no longer as prominent. Their appearance
changed once more in LH IIIB – IIIC, when some Mainland vase-paintings again show fierce
raptors with hooked beaks (G103-G110). Two birds on a jar from Mycenae (G110) seem to
be vultures because of their large bodies, kinked necks and relatively small heads with
prominent beaks (Figure 85).

The degree of artistic naturalism in these images presents a rather mixed picture. The raven on
the sarcophagus (H2) seems accurate not just in its appearance but also in its pose with
drooping wings which is seen when the bird is about to call. Such naturalism is reminiscent of
some Cretan corvids discussed in the previous section (Section 5.3), for example the birds on
the Zakros rhyton (A30). Ravens are also shown on the other side of the sarcophagus, but

451
Evans 1921, 440.
 98

their plumage shows a rather unnatural black and yellow colour. The rather generic corvid
images on seals and vase-paintings also indicate a decrease of precision in this period. On five
seals (D195-D199), corvids/raptors are shown above quadrupeds (goats or bulls) with their
young. Birds of prey and corvids are often found on pastures especially when there are
newborns. Thus, it might be an accurate observation of a natural association, but the fact that
it is the only one shown (e.g. waterbirds are no longer depicted with corvids) suggests that
there was less interest in showing the variety of bird life. The few raptors dating to LH IIIA2
– IIIB (C32, E11, H2) also appear less naturalistic than those of the Early Mycenaean period.
They are rather plump and the features alluding to griffins are intensified.452 A raptor from
Pylos (E11) shows a leaf-like crest on the head and a yellow spiral pattern on its neck.453 A
raptor on the short side of the Ayia Triada sarcophagus (H2) has a crested head and the
colouring of the white body and the blue and yellow wings is similar to the two griffins
directly below. The raptors of LH IIIB – IIIC date (G103-G110) appear less fantastic and
their behaviour seems more inspired by observation of nature. On one vase (G108), raptors
are shown hunting hares and another vase-painting (G110) depicts vultures next to a foal.
Maybe, they are looking for the placenta of the newborn or the foal is sick and will die.

The roles and functions assumed by corvids and raptors again display differences according to
the type of bird. There are indications that corvids continued to act as shamanic helpers in
Cretan rituals (Section 5.3). A LM II terracotta model from Ayia Triada (B94) seems to show
a woman on a swing, the strings of which were suspended from the bodies of two birds on
columns, creating the impression that they carry the woman.454 Two figurines of birds,
possibly corvids, are attached to a female figure from Gazi (B79), flanking horns of
consecration, and a similar female figure in a shrine flanked by corvids is shown on a seal
(D201). Such compositions resemble the LM I scenes of corvids flanking a woman (Figure
86). Another seal (D200) shows a corvid/bird of prey between two griffins, which recalls the
hybridization of corvid and griffin features in some earlier images. Moreover, two vase-
paintings from Pachia Ammos and Kamilari (G100, G101) show corvids sitting on horns of
consecration and next to incurved altars. On a pyxis from Kalami (G102), a flock of flying
corvids is surrounding a man who is holding a lyre in one hand and a branch in the other. One
of the corvids is pecking at the branch. This scene recalls Neopalatial images of humans and

452
McCallum 1987, 128-130.
453
Younger (1998, 69) even identified the bird as a griffin, but it seems to have a bird’s tail.
454
Rethemiotakis (2001, 119) interpreted the woman as a deity.The birds are not sufficiently preserved to
identify them unequivocally as corvids and they may also be doves.
 99

doves which we have interpreted as relational encounters (Section 4.4). Similarities include
the sudden and voluntary appearance of the birds, and the close proximity emphasised
between the birds and the male figure. The raven on the LM IIIA2 Ayia Triada sarcophagus
(H2) seems to be included in a similar scene. The limestone sarcophagus depicts people and
animals involved in rituals, sacrifices and offerings. The raven is perched on a double axe
standing between an altar and a structure topped by horns of consecrations and a tree. 455 Its
peculiar pose with the drooping wings could be compared to certain body postures of ravens
conveying feelings (anger, threat, recognition, greeting, courting) and/or when the bird is
about to call.456 The gaze of the woman in front of the altar is directed towards the bird
because the woman`s pupil is positioned on the top right of the eye, in contrast to other people
on the sarcophagus whose pupils are in the middle. Also, the artist emphasized the raven`s eye
with a white ring, possibly to underline the fact that the bird is returning the gaze. This
suggests that the woman is shown in an act of visual communication with a non-human
person, comparable to the scene on a contemporaneous larnax with a woman and a dove (H1)
(Figure 87).

Whereas such images may attest to a continuity of roles of corvids on Crete beyond LM IB,
there is one depiction which indicates change. In addition to the black raven on one side of the
Ayia Triada sarcophagus (H2), there are two more birds shown on the other side, perched on
double axes (Figure 88). Although they can also be identified as ravens due to their silhouette,
their plumage is black and yellow. They may be figurines made of bronze because their
colouring resembles that of the double axes. Moreover, they are markedly different than the
lively raven on the other side, because they look nearly identical, show a stiff posture and are
facing away from the approaching humans. Thus, their role seems to be reduced to that of the
double axes to which they are attached: to demarcate a sacred space in which ritual activities
happen.

This function of ravens as passive cult symbols is unparalleled in Cretan iconography and we
may attribute this shift to certain historical developments on the island. The destruction of
most palaces except Knossos at the end of LM IB was followed by increased influence from
the Greek Mainland in LM II and subsequent periods. A novel script, Linear B, written in

455
The bird was usually interpreted as avian epiphany, for example by Evans (1921, 440); Nilsson (1950, 285,
294); Long (1974, 36-39, 66, 73) and Vanschoonwinkel (1982, 31-38). Rethemiotakis (1979, 247) and Watrous
(1991, 293) compared the birds on the Ayia Triada sarcophagus to other birds on Minoan larnakes without
taking note of the different species (waterbirds vs. corvids).
456
Marzluff – Angell 2005, 166-168.
 100

Mycenaean Greek appeared at Knossos and Chania and new cemeteries were established,
often including distinct Mainland features (e.g. weapons).457 At Ayia Triada, architectural
changes are visible in LM IIIA such as the construction of a megaron of the Mainland type. 458
According to Burke, the iconography of the sarcophagus is a deliberate attempt of the local
leaders to merge traditionally Cretan customs (cf. the ancient Kamares jug) with new features
originating from the Mainland (e.g. the chariots on the short sides and the bull on the
sacrificial table).459 We may therefore suggest that the function of the ravens as symbols
reflects notions originating from the Greek Mainland.

When we turn to the few images of raptors dating to LB IIIA2 – IIIB from the Greek
Mainland and Crete we may argue that they continued to function as power symbols. This is
indicated by the find contexts. The mould (C32) for an ornament in the shape of a raptor
comes from the palace at Mycenae. At Pylos (E11), a raptor was painted on the northeast wall
of the throne room, the centre of royal power. Usually, this bird was interpreted in connection
with the phorminx player who is shown next to it.460 Philippides compared the man to later
epic singers and suggested that the bird was a visual illustration for the poetic expression
“winged words”.461 However, the bird is exceptionally large in relation to the musician and
this interpretation does not explain the rather specific choice of a raptor-like bird. Moreover,
the bird is orientated towards the throne, comparable to the large-scale griffin and lion on the
other side (Figure 89).462 This composition recalls the arrangement of the earlier LH II Tiryns
ring (D193) where the falcon was shown behind an enthroned person (Section 5.3).
Furthermore, in the Linear B Ta-series from Pylos, one of the chairs used on the occasion of
the appointment of a high-status official by the wanax has golden back pieces described as
‘with birds’ (o-ni-ti-a-pi).463 Possibly, we may imagine those to be similar birds of prey as the
one in the throne room. The morphological assimilation to the griffin may also indicate a
partial adoption of the function of this creature. In LB II – III, griffins seem to have had a
special association with royal power (cf. their prominent association with the thrones at
Knossos and Pylos). Another raptor is shown on the short side of the Ayia Triada sarcophagus
(H2). It is flying above a chariot with two women inside, drawn by griffins. Similar chariots

457
E.g. Popham 1970, 1974; Hood 1985, 171, 173-177; cf. Preston 2004a, 138-140 and Miller 2011 for changes
in the funerary record. See Haskill 1997, 191-192 for changes in architecture (megara) in LM IIIA.
458
McEnroe 2010, 128-131.
459
Burke 2005. Immerwahr (1989, 100-102) also noted the mixture of Cretan and Mainland features.
460
Cf. Lang 1969, cat.no. 43 H 6.
461
Philippides 1985; also Kohl 2009, 199.
462
McCallum1987, 124-130.
463
Bernabé – Lujàn 2008.
 101

are known from seal images, most of which appear on metal rings from elite burials on the
Greek Mainland and it has been suggested that they were insignia of local leaders.464 All these
aspects indicate that raptors continued to be power symbols of the Mainland elite.

Despite this continuity in function, we have noted that predatory features appear less
pronounced than in the Early Mycenaean period (Section 5.3). This may have to do with the
consolidation of power in LB IIIA – B on the Greek Mainland. In this period, social relations
seem to have been primarily negotiated by other mechanisms (most notably feasting) rather
than the display of physical violence and warrior ethics.465 There is an interesting parallel
between this development and a much later one: democratic Germany adopted the eagle as a
national symbol which had also been used by the Nazis but its features were modified and the
earlier lean and fierce raptor was transformed into a more complacent looking bird with an
emphasis on the body and wings (Figure 90).466

With the demise of palatial power at the end of LH IIIB2, images of stately birds of prey were
abandoned. Instead, aggressive types of raptors reappeared (G103-G110) and violence is
again emphasized by scenes of raptors hunting hares (G108) or vultures (G110) whose
presence next to a foal creates an ominous atmosphere. The renewed emphasis on predatory
features concurs with signs of an increasingly unstable situation in LH IIIB2 (cf. the
construction of defensive structures at the palaces). Again, images of aggressive birds of prey
may have been used to associate individual people or groups with these powerful animals to
underline their power.

After the fall of the palaces, a power vacuum seems to have developed in LH IIIC. A
recurrence of warrior ethos is indicated by the proliferation of (sea) battles and soldiers on LH
IIIC vases.467 Palatial structures at Mycenae were partly rebuilt and several megara were
constructed at Tiryns in an attempt to reinstate palatial rule.468 In this context, we may note
that the Tiryns ring (D193) with its symbol in the shape of a fierce falcon was included in a
hoard dating to LH IIIC and possibly connected to the newly built megaron W.469 This
treasure which also encompassed other precious items from several periods up to LH IIIC

464
Schon 2007. Cf. a chariot with griffins on CMS II, 8 193 or CMS VS1B 137, a chariot with agrimia on CMS
VI 285.
465
Cf. Deger – Jalkotzy 1999, 126-127.
466
Cocker 2013, 156.
467
Deger-Jalkotzy 1999, 129-130.
468
Maran 2000.
469
Maran 2006.
 102

seems to have been used in an attempt to claim leadership by a deliberate reference to the
past.470

When we consider the question of ontologies, we can say that the differences in form and
content of corvid and raptor images between those from Crete and those from the Greek
Mainland indicate that different ontologies were prevalent in those regions. Cretan images
seem to demonstrate that animist practices were continued beyond LM I. Scenes with corvids
and humans can be interpreted as shamanic rituals or relational encounters. Only one image of
corvids, that on the Ayia Triada sarcophagus, is more compatible with analogical notions
because it shows the birds as passive religious symbols (Section 3.2.1). Since this depiction is
seen on an object deliberately mixing traditionally Cretan and Mainland-style elements, this
function seems to be due to influence from the Mainland. Here, the birds’ appearance is
closely tied to their function as power symbols because the emphasis on predatory features of
raptors varies with the extent of social stability and differences in power mechanisms over
time. These images are fully consistent with analogical ontology.

In sum, images of corvids and raptors dating to LB II – IIIC come from Crete and the Greek
Mainland. Most depictions are rather generic and only one image clearly shows ravens. Some
Cretan corvids maintain the emphasis on liveliness and variety as known from earlier periods.
Moreover, there are indications that animist rituals involving corvids – either focusing on
relational encounters or shamanic trance practices – continued beyond LM IB. Increased
influence from the Greek Mainland may be responsible for images deviating from these
patterns. These depictions show the birds as religious or power symbols. On the Greek
Mainland, birds of prey continued to be symbols of power. In contrast to the raptors dating to
LH I – II, their appearance was modified towards a more peaceful look. This seems to concur
with a palatial ideology which was mainly concerned with the maintenance of the existing
social hierarchy through e.g. feasting rather than a particular emphasis on a warrior ethos. In
LH IIIB2 – IIIC, the unstable political situation seems to have called for a brief renaissance of
aggressive raptor images, which could serve to underlie the claims to power. Since the
consistent creation of analogical links seems to have been the main purpose of these
depictions they are fully consistent with analogical imagery.

5.5 Conclusion

470
Maran 2006, 142-143.
 103

Birds of prey and corvids were depicted from EB II to LB IIIC. We observed significant
developments through time and differences between regions. The earliest depictions of raptors
appear on the Cyclades in EB II. Still rather schematic, one of these images associates a raptor
with sun discs. This association is intensified in MC III – LC I when more specific falcons
were regularly depicted on vases. Though some of the falcon images betray an interest in
naturalistic details of their lives (diet, habitat), they mostly focus on certain features such as
their flying/hovering skills. The frequent circular red bodies which closely resemble the
associated sun disks might suggest that falcons were thought to move the sun with their
wings. Such an important active role of the birds seems to reflect animist notions as do the
beaked jugs which merge the features of birds with those of vases. The ritual significance of
the falcon-sun connection seems to have been partly understood by the Cretans given that
such jugs were found in a ritual deposit at Knossos. On the Greek Mainland, by contrast, the
Cycladic-style falcons were transformed into highly generic birds and both the sun disks and
the avian features of jugs disappeared, indicating that animist beliefs remained alien to the
people of the Mainland.

On Crete, the earliest images of corvids and falcons date to EM III – MM II. Most seem to
depict generic flying birds, but the few images of corvids are characterized by a comparably
naturalistic rendering, both in proportions and the varied depiction of their behavior
(preening, association with quadrupeds). While the corvids cannot yet be linked to a certain
function, the generic flying birds are consistently associated with newly invented sailing
ships. The functional analogy of bird`s wings and sails could have been the reason for this
choice. In MM III – LM I, the association with ships was maintained, but the generic birds
seem to have been turned into swooping falcons with bent wings. Probably, their special
flying abilities inspired this association with the sleek Cretan sailing ships. The close physical
connection of the bird features with the ship’s structure seems to have conveyed the
impression that the bird becomes alive, while the ship turns into a flying bird when it is
gliding over the waves. Both the observation of naturalistic details/variety in the images of
corvids or falcons and the attribution of agency to non-human entities again may reflect
animist notions.

In addition to falcons, corvids and corvids/birds of prey are depicted in Cretan iconography of
MM III – LM I. Some images focus on their natural behaviour (e.g. with waterbirds or goats),
 104

but most depictions emphasise flying/landing poses and a special role of carrying and
accompanying single people. Given the close parallels to shamanic imagery, these scenes
could be interpreted as depicting shamans with their spirit animals. Corvids may have been
deemed suitable for such an important task because of their synanthropic behavior and
exceptional mental capacities. These observations suggest that animism was the prevalent
ontology on Crete. Increasing influence from the Greek Mainland in LM II – IIIC may have
led to the unique, analogical, function of corvids as cult symbols, but the continuation of
shamanic rituals and relational encounters involving corvids indicate that animism remained
prevalent on Crete.

On the Greek Mainland, images of birds of prey appear for the first time in LH I – II.
Although typologically developed from the Cretan corvids/birds of prey, their appearance is
modified towards an emphasis on predatory features (curled claws, hooked beaks and staring
eyes). Depictions on jewellery and a weapon – objects which are directly incorporated into the
body schema – from rich tombs suggest that some male warriors directly associated
themselves with aggressive birds of prey. The depiction of a falcon behind an enthroned
person on a gold ring suggests that birds of prey had become a symbol of authority or even a
coat-of-arms of a leading family by LH II. The direct connection between power and birds of
prey was maintained in LH IIIA – IIIB, based on their contextual association with palatial
society, for example the representation of a raptor next to the royal throne at Pylos. While the
stance and appearance of the raptors in the palatial periods had become less aggressive –
something which might have to do with the consolidation of power – fierce images of birds of
prey reappeared in LH IIIB2 – IIIC. Since this phase seems to have been rather unstable with
different groups competing for leadership, aggressive raptor images were again needed to
underline their claim to power. The observation that depictions of raptors were consistently
used as emblems indicate that Mycenaean ontology can be categorized as analogism.

6. Waterbirds

6.1 Introduction

In this chapter we discuss depictions of waterbirds, i.e. members of the family Anatidae
including the generic species of ducks, geese and swans. Waterbirds have elongated bodies,
 105

long necks and long flat bills. Ducks, geese and swans can primarily be differentiated
according to body size and neck length (Figure 91). Plumage colour or patterns allow the
identification of single scientific species such as mallards, ferruginous ducks or Egyptian
geese.

Although waterbirds share the wetland habitat with wading birds such as herons and egrets
(discussed in Chapter 7), they are notably different not only in their appearance, but also
regarding diet and behaviour. Waterbirds have shorter legs and differently shaped bills, eat
aquatic plants and insects, and they can swim on water, whereas waders have long legs, eat
fish and usually walk through water or mud.

Waterbirds are the most numerous bird motifs in Aegean Bronze Age art. In contrast to both
doves and corvids/raptors, they are most frequent from LB II onwards. Their frequency allows
a detailed analysis of chronological developments which we will discuss in five sections. The
first section concentrates on waterbird images dating to EB I – MB II. The second section
discussed images dating to MB III – LB I. The third and fourth sections look at waterbirds in
imagery of the LB II – IIIA1 and LB IIIA2 – IIIB periods. In the final section, LB IIIB – IIIC
images of waterbirds will be discussed.

6.2 EB I – MB II

The earliest images of waterbirds date to EB I – MB II and they appear on jewellery, figurines
and seals from the Cyclades and Crete. The following 23 objects will be discussed:

• 2 pendants in the shape of waterbirds (C33, C34) dating to EC I – II from Akrotiri on

the Cycladic island of Naxos; and Zoumbaria on Despotiko.
• 1 vessel in the shape of a waterbird (A31) dating to EC II from Dhaskalio-Kavos on
Keros.
• 6 human figures with waterbird protomes attached (B95-B100) dating to EC II from
the Cycladic islands of Keros and Amorgos.
• 8 seals/sealings (D202, D209-D215) dating to EB II – MB II from Ayia Irini on Kea;
and Mallia, Palaikastro, Neapolis, Phaistos, Rotassi on Crete.
• 6 seals in the shape of waterbirds (D203-D208) dating to EM III – MM II from Kali
Limenes, Moni Odiyitria and Phourni on Crete.
 106

Although the monochrome nature of these images makes it impossible to differentiate

scientific species, it is usually feasible to differentiate the generic species of ducks, geese and
swans. The Cycladic pendants (C33, C34) may be identified as geese due to their elongated
ovoid bodies, long necks, elongated heads and long bills. The head of a bird-shaped vessel
from Keros (A31) has the curved bill of a waterbird and the short neck of a duck. On a seal
impressed on a hearth rim from Kea (D202), another duck is shown. Similarly curved bills
appear on the frames of harps held by Cycladic figurines of male musicians (B95-B100). The
length of the necks/frames may suggest that they were intended to represent swans. Harps
with bills of waterbirds are also shown on two Cretan seals (D19, D209). The other seals from
Crete (D203-D215) show ducks, geese and swans.

The fact that we can differentiate various generic species suggests that these early images are
rather naturalistic in their proportions. Naturalism can also be observed in some species-
specific poses and associations. For example, an EC II pendant from Despotiko (C34) shows
a long-necked waterbird preening its feathers with the head turned back. This motif
anticipates a depiction dating to LB I (E16) (Section 6.3). The EM III – MM I seals in the
shape of ducks and geese (D203-D208) show them with their heads reverted and resting on
their backs. This pose is the typical sleeping position of these birds (Figure 92). The birds on
the remaining seals from Crete (D209-D215) adopt a variety of poses such as swimming,
walking or sitting, also with the head turned back (D214). On one sealing (D210), a duck is
associated with a fish which probably alludes to the shared aquatic habitat.

The variety of poses shown by ducks, geese and swans on the faces of Cretan seals hinders
any attempts to define certain ideological roles of these birds. The recurrent resting pose of
some bird-shaped seals (D203-D208) may have a special significance. However, it is equally
possible that this pose was favoured for figural seals because it reduced the risk of breaking
the seal at the neck when the seal was impressed into clay. Another repeated feature is the
association of some waterbirds with vessels. A duck-shaped sauceboat comes from Keros
(A31) and a sealing from Kea (D202) associates a duck with a sauceboat. On a seal from
Palaikastro (D210) a duck is shown next to a jug. This recurrent link with drinking/pouring
vessels may indicate that ducks were connected with the flow of liquids. Such a role seems
plausible given that these birds have a close affiliation with water due to their aquatic habitat.
The duck-shaped sauceboat (A31) comes from the special place at Dhaskalio Kavos, the same
site where the dove trays were found (Section 4.2). Possibly, both doves and ducks were
thought to mediate the ritual flow of liquids in EB II – MB I.
 107

Other images of waterbirds dating to EC II and MM II (B95-B100, D19, D209) connect

waterbirds/swans with musical instruments, more specifically harps (Figure 93).471 This
association could have been inspired by the long elegant necks of swans which may have
suggested themselves as decoration for the slender arms of a harp. Moreover, it has been
argued that the call of the whooper swan (Cygnus cygnus) motivated the association of swans
with music, which we can also find in Classical Greece.472 However, the call of the whooper
swan, a species which is only rarely seen in the Aegean, resembles more the sound made by a
trumpet rather than that made by a stringed instrument.473 Mute swans (Cygnus olor) which
are native to the Aegean do not have a special song (hence the name), so it is unlikely that
their vocalizations inspired these designs. However, the powerful wings of mute swans make
a high-pitched rhythmic sound in flight, which is indeed similar to the sound of a stringed
instrument. We may therefore suggest that this was the characteristic which inspired this
association.

When we turn to the question of ontologies, we may note that the varied species-specific
poses give the birds a sense of individuality and agency. Moreover, the life-like rendering of
waterbird heads attached to vessels or harps and the smooth transition between object and bird
features creates ambiguous entities oscillating between inanimate and animated beings. Both
aspects are characteristics of animist imagery because they suggest the personhood of animals
and the inherent capability of entities for transformation (Section 3.2.4).

In sum, images of waterbirds such as ducks, geese and swans dating to EB I – MB II come
from the Cyclades and Crete. Some are remarkably naturalistic and show the birds in different
species-specific poses. We could identify two roles adopted by waterbirds in this early period.
The recurrent association with pouring vessels could indicate that ducks were connected with
the flow of liquids. The swan-shaped harps may owe their appearance to the sound made by
the large wings of swans which resembles the sound made by a stringed instrument. Both the
emphasis on the variety of species-specific poses and the merging of naturalistic bird features
with those of other entities such as vessels or harps are characteristics of animist imagery.

6.3 MB III – LB II

471
Dragona-Latsoudi 1977; Getz-Preziosi 1987, 261-262 (duck or swan); McCallum 1987, 126, footnote 70;
Lenz 1995, 96-103; Younger 1998, 18-27.
472
Getz-Preziosi 1987, 261. Cf. also Lunczer 2009, 41.
473
In Egypt, the whooper swans might have been depicted according to Houlihan 1986, 53.
 108

In MB III – LB II, images of waterbirds became much more frequent and they appeared on
vase-paintings, jewellery, frescoes, vessels and weaponry. Most depictions come from the
Cyclades and Crete, but a few objects were also found the Greek Mainland. We will discuss
the following 143 objects:

• 9 vase-paintings (G111-G118) dating to MC III from Phylakopi on Melos; and

Akrotiri on Thera.
• 2 figurines (B101, B102) dating to MM III – LM I from Psychro and of unknown
provenance on Crete.
• 11 jewellery pieces (C35-C41) dating to MB III – LB I from the island of Aegina;
Knossos and Poros on Crete; and Mycenae and Kirrha on the Greek Mainland.
• 110 seals/sealings (D114, D160, D217-D324) dating to MM III – LM II from
Knossos, Ayia Triada, Zakros, Moni Odiyitria, Chania, Mochos, Kavousi, Praisos,
Poros, Vathypetro, Kalo Chorio, Partira, Sklavi, Phylaki, Mirabello, Archanes,
Episkopi Pediados, Angelliana and Apesokari on Crete; Akrotiri on Thera; and
Anthia, Vaphio, Routsi, Mycenae, Kazarma, Prosymna, Mitopolis, Nichoria, Pylos,
Asine and Chora on the Greek Mainland.474
• 1 seal in the shape of a waterbird (D216) dating to LM I from Palaikastro on Crete.
• 4 vessels in the shape of waterbirds (A32-A35) dating to LB I from Akrotiri on Thera;
and Mycenae on the Greek Mainland.
• 5 frescoes (E12-E16) dating to LC I from Akrotiri on Thera.
• 1 inlaid dagger (F3) dating to LH I from Mycenae on the Greek Mainland.

Compared to the relatively homogeneous images of the preceding period, depictions dating to
MB III – LB II vary widely in their naturalism. The vase-paintings from the Cyclades (G111-
G118) seem to show ducks or geese. Two fragments (G117, G118) may depict certain species
of geese (Egyptian geese?) because they differentiate plumage patterns by red and black
paint.475 Two bird-shaped seals/pendants from Crete (C39, D216) show dead plucked and
trussed geese. They find close parallels in Egyptian iconography, so Phillips suggested that
they were imported.476 In the figurines, the jewellery pieces, seals and vessels we can
differentiate ducks, geese and swans. In a few cases, plumage details permit the identification
of particular scientific species. For example, birds with single raised feathers on the base of

474
Ruuskanen 1992, type E, 31-37, 59-62.
475
Morgan 1988, 65.
476
Phillips 2008, cat.no. 436 and 437.
 109

the tail or rings around the necks (C38, D219, D224, D238, D256) may show male mallards
(Anas platyrhynchos) or Egyptian geese (Alopochen aegyptiacus).

The waterbirds in the Theran frescoes (E12-E16) are carefully differentiated by plumage
patterns and colour contrasts, which also allows the determination of sex and age. 477 A
mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) with a dark neck with a white ring and curled feathers at the tail
in the Reed Fresco (E14) is obviously a drake (Figure 94). Other birds in the same fresco have
brown and white plumage and they are identifiable as female mallards (Figure 95). The
juvenile mallards in the same painting are not only characterized by their smaller size, but
also by various shades of brown and red in their plumage. Another duck species is shown in
the East Frieze (E16) where a bird with dark and bluish plumage and white wing underparts is
shown flying. It can be identified as a ferruginous duck (Aythya nyroca) and the white eye is
typical for an adult male (Figure 96).478 Another fragment (E12) shows a third duck species,
possibly a male pochard (Aythya ferina) or a shelduck (Tadorna tadorna). The large bird in
the East Frieze (E16) has been identified as various species of geese.479 The colourful
plumage with yellow and blue parts, red legs, the brown eye and the red collar at the base of
the neck could suggest an Egyptian goose (Alopochen aegyptiacus) (Figure 97). The same
species could also be depicted in another fresco (E15). With their colouring, the birds
resemble the adult Egyptian goose in the East Frieze (E16), but they have larger monochrome
parts and lack the brown eye patch, a typical feature of juveniles (Figure 98).480 Although the
ducks on a dagger from Mycenae (F3) seem to be inspired by frescoes, the lack of internal
patterns hinders a closer identification. A tendency towards more generic images of
waterbirds can also be observed in a bird-shaped vessel (A35), some ornaments (C40) and a
pin (C41) from Mycenae and Kirrha.

Although the Theran frescoes usually permit the identification of certain scientific species, the
rendering of the plumage cannot be described as fully realistic. For example, Vlachopoulos
has noted that the mallard’s plumage (E14) fails to exactly reproduce the colour patterns of
the real bird.481 Similarly, contrast seems to have been more important than detail in the
rendering of the Egyptian geese (E16).482 The main aim seems to have been to convey the

477
Harte 2000, 683-688.
478
Harte 2000, 685.
479
Harte (2000, 686-687) identified it as a greylag goose, but this species has no collar and is less colourful.
Morgan (1988, 63-64) interpreted it as a hybrid of greylag and Egyptian goose.
480
Svensson et al. 2009, 22.
481
Vlachopoulos 2000, 641.
482
Morgan 1988, 63-64.
 110

essence of the birds. Despite the absence of fully accurate images, efforts are usually made in
Cycladic and Cretan depictions to give naturalistic details of avian morphology. For example,
duck-shaped rhyta from Akrotiri (A32, A33) have feathers painted on their bodies. A swan-
shaped rock crystal bowl from Mycenae (A34), which seems to be a Cretan work, has nostrils
indicated on its beak.483

Specific details are also emphasized in the depiction of poses and behaviour.484 A great
variety of poses is adopted by ducks, geese and swans on Cretan seals (D114, D160, D217-
D324). Standing, sitting, swimming, walking, rising or flying waterbirds are shown alone, in
pairs or in larger groups. Usually, they are arranged next to each other, sometimes
overlapping in a rather naturalistic way. Flying waterbirds can also be shown in lively
compositions with several individuals overlapping, thus creating the impression of a quickly
rising flock, perhaps startled by a predator (Figure 99). Significantly, if more than one bird is
shown on the seal face, the individual birds display slightly different poses, for example one
bird has its wings folded, whereas the second bird has raised its wings (e.g. D223, D236,
D278). A numerical analysis of the poses on seals in this period reveals a remarkable species-
specific accuracy (Table 6).

Table 6: Identifiable poses of different types of waterbirds on Cretan seals dating to MB III –
LB II.

Standing Sitting Swimming Walking Flying

Ducks 3 1 3 2 6
Geese 10 10 3 11 2
Swans 5 1 17 2 8
Total 18 12 23 15 16

For example, geese are often walking (e.g. D231, D251), whereas swans are most frequently
swimming (e.g. D260, D278). In fact, this closely reflects their behavior as geese walk a great
deal in search for their food which consists of plant matter from river banks or meadows,
while swans mostly remain on the water.

483
For identification as a swan see Phillips 2008, 185-186.
484
Kenna (1968, 26, 31-34, 38) also emphasised the naturalism in LM I depictions of waterbirds on seals.
 111

A similar variety of flying, walking or swimming poses can also be observed in the Theran
frescoes and other objects from Crete, not just the seals. More specific actions can also be
identified. A figurine (B102) depicts a swan with the head and the long neck resting on the
back as if sleeping. Ducks and geese on cut-out ornaments (C38) and in a fresco (E16) are
preening their plumage with the heads turned back (Figure 100). Mating behavior of geese or
swans might be represented on two seals (D238, D274) because one seems to be biting the
other bird`s neck (Figure 101).

The variety and liveliness characteristic of the poses adopted by waterbirds in the Cretan and
Cycladic images is notably lacking on some depictions from the Greek Mainland. For
example, the four cut-out ornaments from the shaft graves at Mycenae (C40) show identical
waterbirds in artificial antithetical compositions (Figure 102). A pin from Kirrha (C41)
depicts the heads of waterbirds in a symmetrical mirror reverse composition, similar to the
contemporary birds of prey from Mycenae (Section 5.3).

Discrepancies between the regions also extend to the rendering of the habitat of the
waterbirds. The cut-out ornaments from Poros on Crete (C38) show mallards surrounded by
densely growing lilies. About half of the waterbirds on the Cretan seals are shown surrounded
by wetland vegetation, mostly reeds (e.g. D228, D234, D236) (Table 7).

Table 7: Types of habitat of waterbirds on Cretan seals dating to MB III – LB II.

Habitat Number of seals

Reeds 26
Plants 13
Water 6
Papyrus/sea daffodils 4
Total 49

Various kinds of wetlands are shown in detail by the Theran frescoes. Large reeds and
dragonflies form the environment of the mallards (E14), while the Egyptian geese are shown
on palm trees (E15). The latter association indicates direct observation of these birds because
they can often be seen on trees, where they also nest, unlike the waterbirds which are native to
the Aegean.485 The most varied surroundings are shown in the East Frieze (E16). In this

485
Alderton 2011, 65.
 112

fresco, a wavy blue band forms a river and sedges, papyrus/sea daffodils and date palms grow
on its banks. A similar riverine landscape with papyrus/sea daffodils is shown on the
Mycenae dagger (F3). However, the plants appear smaller in relation to the birds when we
compare this image to the East Frieze (E16). The waterbirds on ornaments from Mycenae
(C40) and a pin from Kirrha (C41) are not associated with any vegetation.

The majority of waterbirds are combined with their own kind, but some images show other
birds or animals. On two seals (D114, D160), waterbirds are associated with corvids/birds of
prey, possibly in an attempt to defend their offspring (Section 5.3). Several scenes show
felines attacking waterbirds (Figure 103). This motif appears on a jewellery piece from the
Aegina Treasure (C36), seven Cretan seals (D293-D299),486 the East Frieze from Thera (E16)
and the Mycenae dagger (F3).487 There is a great variety of compositions and some birds are
just stalked or chased (C36, D293, D295-D297, E16), whereas others are being pounced at
and bitten (D294, D298, D299, F3). Not all the Cretan scenes show the birds as clearly
inferior because they can appear relatively large in comparison to the feline and struggle
vigorously (e.g. D294, D298, D299). At least two geese are about to be attacked by a feline in
the East Frieze from Akrotiri (E16). Only one bird is completely preserved and its head is
turned back towards the running cat, but busily preening its plumage it seems oblivious to the
danger. The wing of a second bird which is preserved suggests that this bird has sensed the
danger and is now trying to escape. The result of the imminent attack is left to the viewer`s
imagination. This is notably different from the scene on the Mycenae dagger (F3) (Figure
104).488 Here, two felines are attacking four ducks, either flying or rising, as they are trying to
escape. Two birds have already been caught – one of the felines is even stepping on the
duck`s head – and blood is trickling down their breasts. Such an emphasis on physical
violence recalls other Early Mycenaean bird imagery, for example the depictions of birds of
prey from the same context (Section 5.3). In the ornament from Aegina (C36), several small
ducks are flying away from a large feline head which is in the centre. The rather conspicuous
difference in size between the different animals is another feature which does not appear in
the Cretan and Theran images.

The variety of poses and compositions and the cross-cutting of various media of most
waterbird images in MB III – LB I seem to hinder the identification of certain roles or

486
Ruuskanen 1992, type E.7.
487
Phillips 2008, 202.
488
This difference was also noticed by Vermeule (1975, 25); Xenaki-Sakellariou (1985b, 298) and
Vanschoonwinkel (1990, 338).
 113

functions. However, some waterbirds are shown with recurrent associations. The frequent
appearance of wetland vegetation and/or felines described above has often been compared to
Egyptian wall paintings, e.g. in the 12th dynasty tomb of Khnumhotep at Beni Hasan or that of
Nebamun at Luxor (late 18th dynasty) (Figure 105).489 These paintings depict various birds in
a papyrus thicket in fowling scenes involving people and sometimes cats. Shapland therefore
suggested that the Aegean scenes with felines might also be hunting scenes with trained
cats.490 However, no hunters are present in the Aegean scenes491 and there are further
differences from Egyptian depictions of waterbirds. For example, the species of waterfowl
shown in Egypt differ from those shown in Aegean art. Mallards or ferruginous ducks were
not depicted in Egypt, while the most common species in Egyptian paintings, the pintail, was
apparently not represented in the Aegean.492 In general, the plumage details are depicted in
greater detail in the Egyptian waterbirds. By contrast, the Cretan and Theran birds appear
much livelier.493 Some Aegean scenes of MB III – LB I date show Egyptian species (papyrus,
Egyptian geese), but these are depicted in a specifically Aegean way, thus casting doubt on
the assumption that they were directly adopted from Egyptian iconography.

Another – though less frequent – association is that of waterbirds with vessels. Two open
bird-shaped vessels were found at Mycenae (A34, A35) and two duck-shaped pouring vessels
come from Akrotiri (A32, A33). The latter ones are rhyta with the beaks functioning as
spouts, thus the connection between waterbirds and the flow of liquids seems more direct
(Figure 106). As we have seen (Section 6.2), the aquatic habitat of waterbirds may have
inspired this association with the flow of liquids. The lack of comparable duck-shaped vessels
from Crete indicates that the role of ensuring the flow of liquids was here only assumed by
doves, not waterbirds.

On Crete, the waterbirds seem to have been assigned a different task. In addition to the
association with felines, there are some Cretan seals showing waterbirds with other animals.
On four seals (D300-D303) waterbirds are combined with large fish/dolphins and other seals
(D302, D304-D306) depict them next to corals and argonauts. The association with marine
flora and fauna seems unusual because waterbirds are more commonly seen in a freshwater

489
Evans 1921, 330; Vermeule 1975, 21-22; Immerwahr 1989, 71; Laffineur 1998, 65-66; Hiller 1996, 88.
490
Shapland 2009, 243.
491
Also noted by Groenewegen-Frankfort (1951, 207) and Laffineur (1993, footnote 111, 1998, 65).
492
Houlihan 1986, 50-73, for the pintail see 71-72.
493
Also noted by Kenna (1968, 31-34).
 114

environment. The frequent appearance of reeds and papyrus plants on seals suggests that this
was also recognised by the Cretans. An even more curious association is depicted on another
seal (D306) where a waterbird and an argonaut are shown next to a large butterfly or moth.
Moreover, four seals associate waterbirds with griffins (D307-D310) and seven seals show
them together with lions (D311-D317).494 In contrast to the scenes with cats, the waterbirds
are not reacting to the other animals but are simply juxtaposed. Such a composition may
indicate that these associations are conceptual rather than alluding to relationships directly
observable in nature.

We may find what connects all these animals, when we turn our attention to a few scenes
involving waterbirds and humans. A fresco from Xeste 3 at Akrotiri (E13) shows waterbirds
forming a necklace around the neck of a large woman.495 The woman is sitting on a platform
and a monkey is offering her crocus stigmas (saffron) which were gathered by young women
shown in an adjacent painting.496 Significantly, the waterbirds on her neck are complemented
by a second necklace consisting of hovering dragonflies. A large griffin whose leash is
tethered to the window is also accompanying the woman. Thus, we may note that the animals
associated with the woman are similar to some of those combined on the seals. Usually, the
animals have been interpreted as symbols of the different spheres controlled by a nature
goddess.497 However, the way the ducks and dragonflies move around the woman suggests
that they are not symbols, but living (though diminutive) animals.498 In the words of
Simandiraki-Grimshaw, the ducks look as if they are “diving from the necklace”.499 Although
there is a certain amount of control exercised by the woman over the animals – alluded to by
the leash of the griffin – there is also a sense that the animals have come voluntarily (the
griffin could easily tear the thin leash with its powerful beak if it wanted to).500 A similar
scene is shown on a Cretan seal (D318), where a waterbird is perching freely on the arm of a
woman.

The special characteristics of the relationship between humans and animals emphasized in
these images recall the kind of relationship existing between shamans and their spirit animals
(Section 3.2.4). Although shamans need to exercise some control over the animals, they are
494
A griffin is also shown in the East Frieze from Akrotiri.
495
Harte (2000, 687-688) identified the ducks as cormorants/shags, but their backs would be flatter in this case.
496
Marinatos 1987a, 73-81; Chapin 1997-2000; Vlachopoulos 2008.
497
Vlachopoulos 2000, 642.
498
Vlachopoulos – Georma 2012, 39
499
Simandiraki-Grimshaw – Stevens 2012, 603.
500
Zeimbeki 2005, 245.
 115

also dependent on their abilities and knowledge, making it necessary to treat the animals with
respect. The importance of saffron in the image from Xeste 3 (E13) may provide further
evidence for the identification of the woman as a shamaness. Vlachopoulos has drawn
attention to the fact that crocus/saffron can have psychotropic effects, if taken in a high
dose.501 Seen in this light, the offering of saffron by the monkey to the woman might enable
her to embark on a trance journey. Indications for altered states of consciousness may also be
provided by a few seals, two of which (D319, D320) show women holding onto the large
wings of flying swans as if being carried by them (Figure 107).502 Two other seals (D321,
D322) depict pairs of waterbirds either flanking a hybrid woman with the head of a quadruped
or flanking a tree next to a woman-bird hybrid (Figure 108). As we have seen, shamans are
able to intentionally turn into other entities during trance and they often use birds to help them
fly (Sections 3.2.4 and 5.3).

A further aspect typically found in depictions of shamans is the consistent association with
liminal animals or creatures. In this context, we may note that the animals accompanying the
woman in the fresco (E13) are all characterized by a high degree of liminality. The monkey,
for example, may be seen as the perfect embodiment of a liminal creature standing between
humans and animals. Although not native to the Aegean, the Cretans and Therans seem to
have fascinated by this animal as is suggested by the relatively frequent – and often unusual –
depictions.503 The griffin is another liminal creature because it combines a raptor with a lion
in its morphology. Zeimbeki has drawn attention to the liminal aspects of both ducks and
dragonflies due to their habitat on the surface of the water.504 Argonauts – as seen on the seals
– often swim on the surface of the sea, so they may also fit into this category. Zeimbeki and
Morgan have drawn attention to the transformative capabilities of dragonflies during their
maturation (from egg to nymph and adult), and the same can be said for butterflies.505 In some
cases, shamans may choose especially strong and powerful animals which are supposed to
protect them during the dangerous trance journey. Griffins and especially lions may have
assumed these roles on Crete.506

501
Vlachopoulos 2016, 382.
502
Chrestou 1968, 75-77.
503
Marinatos 1987b.
504
Zeimbeki 2005, 244-245.
505
Zeimbeki 2005, 245; Morgan 2016, 195.
506
Compare scenes of lions/griffins flanking people with snake frames or staffs.
 116

While these observations suggest that waterbirds adopted an active role as spirit animals of
shamans on Crete and Thera, there are a few depictions of waterbirds and humans which are
notably different. These are shown on the Aegina pendant (C35) and two seals (D323, D324),
one of which comes from Vaphio on the Greek Mainland (Figure 109). On the Aegina
pendant (C35), a man is shown holding geese by their necks. Similar waterbirds held by their
necks – albeit by women – are depicted on seals (D323, D324).507 The birds have their wings
folded and seem almost paralyzed, which notably contrasts with the lively appearance of the
waterbirds in the Cretan and Theran depictions.508

The motif of a person forcefully subduing waterbirds can be compared to the Master/Mistress
of Animals as known from Near Eastern iconography. It is usually interpreted as a symbol of
human or divine power over wild animals.509 The Aegean master/mistress of waterbirds has
sometimes been seen as expressing the power of deities, either over the water or the sky. 510
However, it needs to be emphasized that this motif was not only used for deities in the Near
East, but also for heroes, priests and/or kings – in fact, all persons who wanted to be
associated with symbols of super-human power.511 The iconography of the Aegina Pendant
(C35) combines elements from different artistic traditions, mixing Cretan (e.g. kilt), Egyptian
(boat with lotus flowers) and Anatolian (face in frontal view) features.512 Its find context –
allegedly a rich tomb – and the associated objects which have parallels in the shaft grave
objects from Mycenae suggest that it was made as a prestige item for a Mainland leader.513
Both the pronounced emphasis on physical strength and the context recall the scene of felines
and ducks on the Mycenae dagger (F3). Moreover, similar features could be observed in the
contemporary fierce birds of prey from the Greek Mainland (Section 5.3). We may therefore
argue that they had a similar function, namely to serve as analogies to warriors and metaphors
of social power.514

When we turn to the question of ontologies, we may note that the Cretan and Cycladic images
share many features regarding both form and content. The focus on species-specific

507
Spartz 1962; Chrestou 1968; Crowley 2010; Ruuskanen 1992, type E.6.
508
This change was also observed by Barclay (2001, footnote 38) and Zeimbeki (2005, 248).
509
Spartz 1962, 12-17; Crowley 1989, 28-35; Barclay 2001, 374-377, 379; Costello 2010.
510
Chrestou 1968, 69, 188; Crowley 1989, 36; Crowley 2010, 87-89.
511
Cf. Costello 2010, 26-27 for shamans and priest-kings depicted in this way in Mesopotamia in the 5th and 4th
millennium.
512
Gates 1989; Aruz et al. 2008, 102-105; See Gauss 2006 for relations between Crete and Aegina in MM III.
513
Gates 1989, 215-217.
514
Dickinson 1997, 45-47.
 117

morphology, behaviour, habitat and associations suggests a profound interest in the lives of
non-human animals. A revelation of the essence of different waterbirds seems to have been
more important than to give a fully realistic account of plumage patterns. This kind of
idealized naturalism is sometimes found in animist imagery (Section 3.2.4). Moreover, the
depictions express a concern to animate the birds by lively poses and to individualise them by
varied movements, which may indicate that they were seen as sentient beings with agency.
Such an impression is also created by the naturalistic waterbirds in the shape of rhyta which
would have seemed to come alive when the vessel was handled. A similarly active role is
adopted by waterbirds as companions of shamans. Animist notions also seem to stand behind
the images of waterbirds with plants and felines because care is taken to assimilate all these
entities in size and to avoid giving a priori precedence of one perspective over the others.

The few waterbird images from the Greek Mainland usually appear more generic, rather rigid
and they are shown in more artificial compositions, which suggest that agency was not
attributed to birds. Rather, images of waterbirds seem to function as symbols of social power
because a recurrent emphasis on violence is closely linked to some high-status find contexts.
The creation of symbolic associations between animals and abstract concepts is a typical
feature of analogical thinking (Section 3.2.1). Moreover, differences in size and a clear power
bias in images of waterbirds with plants, felines and humans create hierarchical differences
between these entities.515 The categorization of entities along the lines of hierarchical
structures is another characteristic of analogism as ontology.

In sum, images of waterbirds dating to MB III – LB I come from Crete, the Cyclades and the
Greek Mainland. Characteristic of the Cretan and Cycladic depictions are the representation
of certain scientific species such as mallards or Egyptian geese, although their rendering is not
fully accurate in the plumage details. Images often focus on specific behavioural patterns
(mating, flying in flocks) and environments (different types of wetlands). Significantly, the
birds in these scenes are individualized by varied lively actions and movements. Relations
with other animals, most notably felines, are depicted in diverse scenes and the eventual
outcomes of such encounters often remain open. Waterbirds seem to have adopted two
different roles in Cycladic and Cretan imagery. Duck-shaped rhyta from Thera indicate that
some waterbirds were thought to ensure the flow of water, a legacy from earlier periods

515
The decreased importance of the surrounding vegetation in Mainland images was also noted by
Groenewegen-Frankfort (1951, 202).
 118

(Section 6.2). Another specific role of waterbirds consists of accompanying or carrying a

single woman. Circumstantial evidence such as the emphasis on liminal aspects and voluntary
appearance of waterbirds, the importance of possible psychotropic drugs (saffron) and the
association with human-animal hybrids suggest that waterbirds can be interpreted as shamanic
helpers. The active role adopted by the birds, the emphasis on liveliness and variety, the equal
status of different animals as well as the presence of shamanic imagery all indicate that an
animist ontology was dominant on Crete and the Cyclades.

Waterbirds on some objects from the Greek Mainland exhibit significant modifications such
as a tendency towards more generic and stylized appearance, poses and compositions, features
which suggest that animism was not the prevalent ontology in this region. Some objects
indicate that waterbirds were thought to have a symbolic connection to water. Scenes of
waterbirds with felines and humans exhibit a pronounced emphasis on violence and a clear
power bias. The find contexts of such objects in rich tombs suggest that these images
functioned as metaphors for prevailing or desired social relations. Both the function as
symbols and the establishment of a hierarchy between different entities are consistent with
analogism.

6.4 LB II – LB IIIA1

In LB II – IIIA1, images of waterbirds became less frequent. With the decline of seal
engraving and wall paintings on Crete, most waterbirds were depicted on vases and as vessels.
No depictions of waterbirds dating to this period have been found on the Cyclades; they all
seem to come from Crete or the Greek Mainland. The following 67 objects will be discussed:

• 2 relief vessels (A36, A37) dating to LB IB/II – IIIA1 from Katsamba on Crete; and
Dendra on the Greek Mainland.
• 1 comb (I9) dating to LH II – IIIA1 from Routsi on the Greek Mainland.
• 3 sealings (D325-D327) dating to LB II – IIIA from Knossos on Crete; Mycenae and
Thebes on the Greek Mainland.
• 32 vase-paintings (G119-G150) dating to LM II – IIIA1 from Knossos, Chamalevri,
Palaikastro, Pachia Ammos, Ayia Triada, Kommos, Chania, Kastelli Pediada on
 119

Crete; Kolonna on Aegina; Argos, Asine, Mycenae, Tiryns and Kirrha on the Greek
Mainland.516
• 8 pendants (C42-C44) dating to LB II – IIIA1 from Aidonia and Dendra on the Greek
Mainland; and Nea Halikarnassos on Crete.
• 10 vessels in the shape of waterbirds (A38-A47) dating to LB II – IIIA1 from
Knossos, Sellopoulo, Zapher Papoura and Archanes on Crete; Ialysos on Rhodes; and
Nafplion, Mycenae and Asine on the Greek Mainland.
• 11 figurines (B103-B113) dating to LH IIIA1 from Mycenae, Krisa, Ayios Stephanos
and Tiryns on the Greek Mainland.

In comparison to the preceding period, images of waterbirds seem to return to a rather generic
appearance. The birds on the relief vessels (A36, A37) and the comb (I9) can be identified as
ducks and geese. The sealings (D325-D327) seem to show ducks, but this is not always
certain due to the poor state of preservation. The waterbirds on vase-paintings (G119-G150)
can either be identified as ducks (Figure 110) or geese based on neck length and body size
(Figure 111). Ducks and geese are also shown on jewellery pieces (C42-C44). Most bird-
shaped vessels (A38-A44) seem to be swans (Figure 112) because the best preserved vessel
from Ialysos (A39) has a lid to which chicks would have been attached and swans are the only
waterbirds which carry their offspring on their backs.517 A hydria from Sellopoulo on Crete
(A45) and two bowls from the Greek Mainland (A46, A47) show generic waterbirds (Figure
113), as do the figurines (B103-B113), although these are too fragmentary to be certain.

The impossibility of identifying scientific species in these images contrasts with the more
precise depictions characteristic of the preceding period.518 This impression is corroborated by
the plumage patterns of the waterbirds on Cretan vases (G119-G150) which consist of
stipples, wavy lines or cross-hatched areas that do not correspond to any features of real birds.
Moreover, some of the ducks on vases share morphological features (fan-shaped tails,
rounded breasts) with birds identifiable as partridges (Section 8.4). The waterbird parts on
vessels from Sellopoulo and Nafplion (A45-A47) appear stylized and they do not show any
internal features (not even eyes). The pendants (C42-C44) and swan-shaped vessels (A38-

516
Some of the Cretan vase-paintings were rather vaguely dated LM II – IIIA2, but their style suggests that they
date to LM II - IIIA1.
517
Phillips, 185-186 contra Adler (1996, 64-69) who argued against swans. For carved vessels with chicks on the
back see Adler 1996, 40-46, for type PIA; Phillips 2008, 198-192.The only exception is A38 which was probably
a ladle, not a pyxis.
518
Vollgraff 1904, 379-380; Evans 1921, 334-336; Mackeprang 1938, 547-548.
 120

A44) appear relatively naturalistic in comparison because they give rather accurate details
such as nostrils or incised feathers. This disparity seems to be due to the fact that these objects
were imported from Egypt or the Levant.519 Thus, they cannot be directly used to reconstruct
Aegean perceptions of birds and do not contradict the trend towards more inaccurate
depictions in LB II – IIIA1.

Despite the decrease in morphological accuracy in LM II – IIIA1 images of waterbirds, we

should emphasise that most Cretan depictions retain the liveliness observable in LB I scenes
(Figure 114).520 In the words of Betancourt, the “Minoan romance with nature is still very
much alive.”521 A goose on a relief pyxis (A36) is shown flying with the wings raised,
comparable to some waterbirds in the earlier frescoes. In the Cretan vase-paintings (G119-
G150), waterbirds can be depicted standing, walking, rising or flying.522 The geese on a
palace-style jar (G124) are shown in rather naturalistic overlapping compositions.523 In
addition to the emphasis on liveliness, the waterbirds appear individualized by differences in
movements. For example, some birds have their heads turned back as if looking around
watching for predators, whereas others are pecking at flowers or foliage (e.g. G121, G124,
G125). Some have their wings folded, while others are flapping their wings. This variety
creates a vivid picture of a flock of waterbirds. Almost all the waterbirds on vases are shown
surrounded by dense vegetation consisting of large papyrus flowers/sea daffodils or other
flowers/plants. The flying goose on the Katsamba pyxis (A36) is embedded within a rocky
landscape with trees. A bull is hunted below, which could be an indirect hint towards a
wetland area, which is usually preferred by cattle.

While most Cretan images again focus on liveliness and variety of poses and the natural
habitat of waterbirds, this is different in some other images, most of which come from the
Greek Mainland. The ducks on seals from Knossos, Mycenae and Thebes (D325-D327) are
rendered in identical fashion, symmetrically flanking a protome or a column. The flying geese
on a silver bowl from Dendra (A37) do not exhibit any individual variations in their
movements. Moreover, the vegetation on the bowl appears abstract and each goose is
separated from the others by a stylized pattern consisting of trefoil plants integrated in

519
Sakellarakis 1971 (erroneously interpreted the vessels as showing barques); Adler 1996; Phillips 2008, 190-
191.
520
Crouwel-Morris 1995, 176; Laffineur 1998, 64-67.
521
Betancourt 1985, 164.
522
Mackeprang 1938, 547; Betancourt 1985, 163-164.
523
Vollgraff 1904, 380; Oulié 1926, 70; Niemeier 1985, 126; Crouwel – Morris 1995, 53-54. Crouwel – Morris
(1995, 173) emphasise the connections of the Argos vase to LM II Cretan vase-paintings.
 121

quadrangular panels. Persson aptly described this pattern as a “rigorous conventionalization

and geometrizing of the pictorial field round the bodies of the birds”.524 The Routsi comb (I9)
shows a scene with felines attacking ducks, similar to those popular in MB III – LB I. In
contrast to the Cretan scenes, however, the animals are set into a rather nondescript
environment consisting of multiple wavy lines.525 The generic waterbirds on vessels from
Sellopoulo and Nafplion (A45-A47) are shown in similar poses looking straight ahead.526 In
contrast to the Egyptian/Levantine swan-shaped vessels (A38-A44) they are not depicted with
the head reverted, which would have given them a more natural attitude.

Considering the function of these images, we find that there are some repeated associations.
The frequent combination of waterbirds with papyrus on the vases (G119-G150) again finds
parallels in contemporary Egyptian paintings (e.g. of the palaces at Malkata and Amarna).527
Moreover, the vase-paintings of waterbirds usually appear on high-quality cups and pyxides
(used for storing jewellery and other precious items), which suggest a close connection to elite
practices.528 Hiller therefore argued that the Knossian elite adopted such nature scenes from
Egypt in an attempt to associate themselves with images symbolizing the reviving and
creational powers of the pharaoh.529 However, we have seen that the close relationship
established between waterbirds and wetland plants is simply a continuation of local Cretan
traditions. Moreover, the distinct focus on movements in the Cretan scenes again sets them
apart from any superficially similar Egyptian paintings.530 Thus, an adoption of Egyptian
iconography and functions appears rather unlikely.

More relevant seems the association of waterbirds with some open vessels (A45-A47) from
Sellopoulo and two sites on the Greek Mainland. As we have seen, a connection of waterbirds
with liquids was already present in previous periods both in the Cyclades and the Greek
Mainland (Sections 6.2 and 6.3). The findspot of one vessel – a bronze hydria – (A45), the
Sellopoulo tomb, belongs to a group of several tombs from the Knossos area characterized by
architectural features and offerings (usually weapons or bronze vessels) with close parallels

524
Persson 1942, 139.
525
Also observed by Xenaki-Sakellariou (1985b, 295-300).
526
Popham - Catling 1974, 250; Matthäus 1979, 172.
527
Evans 1921, 330-338; Åkerström 1987, 73-74, 76, 97; Hiller 2001, 2006a and 2006b; Kemp – Weatherhead
2000, 498-508.
528
Bosanquet - Dawkins 1923, 94; Kanta 1980, 281-283; Hiller 2006b, 150-151; Shaw 2011, 249.
529
Hiller 2006b, 154-155. Crouwel – Morris (1995, 171, 172) considered birds the most common pictorial motif
in LM II-IIIA2 vase-painting at Knossos.
530
Crouwel – Morris 1995, 174-176. Phillips 2008, 205; Vlachopoulos – Zorzos 2014, 183-185.
 122

on the Greek Mainland.531 We may therefore suggest that the association of the waterbird with
the bronze hydria reflects Mainland notions.

The Egyptian/Levantine pendants (C42-C44) and swan-shaped vessels (A38-A44), which

probably contained cosmetics, seem to have been prestige items which circulated among the
elite in the eastern Mediterranean.532 This is corroborated by the materials used, namely ivory
or precious stones such as alabaster, agate or carnelian. On the Greek Mainland, the find spots
of these objects are wealthy burials or palatial contexts, such as Mycenae or Asine.533 The
Cretan ones were found in the necropoleis at Nea Halicarnassos, Phourni and Zapher Papoura,
which – as the Sellopoulo tombs – are characterized by pronounced Mainland features.534 We
may therefore suggest that these objects symbolized the participation of the Mainland-style
elite of LB II – IIIA1 in wider privileged networks of the eastern Mediterranean.535

The recurrent association of ducks with bulls, lions and columns on three seals (D325-D327)
may also have a special significance. In contrast to the goose on the Katsamba pyxis (A36),
the ducks are not flying above the animals as one could observe in nature. Rather they are
shown in unnatural symmetrical position on the backs of the mammals. Their identical and
passive appearance creates the impression that they are symbols rather than living birds. The
column and the rampant lions recall the composition of the later Lion Gate at the palace of
Mycenae; thus, the waterbirds may also be part of a coat of arms. The image of cats and ducks
on the comb from the Routsi tholos (I9) may be interpreted along similar lines. In this image,
two cats are attacking two smaller birds. Although the birds have their wings displayed and
seem to be fluttering in an attempt to escape, this appears rather futile. Unlike in the earlier
Mycenae dagger (F3), no birds manage to escape the strong grip of the paws of the felines
(Figure 115) and there is no doubt that the felines are shown as superior animals. We may
suggest that the felines stand for the elite owners of the tomb, whose authority seems to have
been less contested in this time than in LH I, reflected by the clearer power bias in favour of
the felines.

Turning to ontologies, most of the Cretan images of waterbirds maintain the emphasis on
lively and varied poses from LM I, despite a distinct decrease of accuracy in their

531
Preston 2004a; Miller 2011, esp. 26. Weapons were also found in this grave.
532
Adler 1996; Aruz et al. 2008, 330-334.
533
Sakellarakis 1971.
534
See Miller 2011, 23-33 for newly-built tombs at Zapher Papoura and Nea Halikarnassos; see Sakellarakis –
Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 171 for evidence of Mycenaean-style sacrifices at tholos B at Phourni.
535
Philips 2008, 190-191; Nightingale 2008, 74.
 123

morphology, suggesting the attribution of agency to the birds in an animist fashion. Moreover,
the peculiar embeddedness of the birds within the surrounding vegetation may indicate that
birds and plants were thought to possess a fairly equal ontological status. By contrast, images
on objects from the Greek Mainland or Cretan contexts exhibiting a particular influence from
the Greek Mainland often show rather lifeless waterbirds which appear very similar to each
other. In contrast to the naturalistic duck-shaped rhyta from LC I Akrotiri (A32, A33),
waterbirds on vessels from the Mainland are too schematic to create the impression that the
birds become alive when the vessels are handled. Plants are consigned to background features
of secondary importance, establishing a hierarchical relation between waterbirds and
vegetation, which is a typical feature of analogical imagery (Section 3.2.1). Again, depictions
of waterbirds seem to function as symbols in an analogical way – either of water-related
fertility or social power – rather than aiming at making the birds present so that they can adopt
an active role in the order of things.

In sum, images of waterbirds dating to LB II – IIIA1 come from Crete and the Greek
Mainland. Although there is some overlap in the trends observable in depictions from both
regions due to an increased influence from the Greek Mainland on Crete, we may still
differentiate trajectories more characteristic of either Crete or the Greek Mainland. Notable in
the Cretan depictions is a significant decrease of specificity because the birds can only be
differentiated as ducks, geese or swans. Despite this reduction of accuracy, both liveliness and
variety is maintained as well as the importance of plants which usually surround the birds.
These traits suggest that animism continued to be prevalent on Crete. Features of images more
characteristic of the Greek Mainland include a greater tendency towards stylization and
unnatural compositions. Waterbirds often appear identical and a hierarchical ranking is
established between plants, birds and felines. Some images of waterbirds suggest that they
had certain functions. Waterbird features attached to bowls seem to indicate a link to liquids,
whereas waterbirds associated with columns and bulls or lions may be power symbols.
Similarly, Egyptian-style pyxides or pendants may have stood for the participation of the elite
in an international iconography of wealth. The passive function of animals as emblems and
the rigidity and symmetrical compositions suggest that analogism was the dominant ontology
on the Greek Mainland.

6.5 LB IIIA2 – LB IIIB

 124

In LB IIIA2 – IIIB, images of waterbirds again became much more frequent. Although there
are some frescoes, jewellery pieces, and ivory carvings, the vast majority appears on vase-
paintings, larnakes and as terracotta vessels. As in the preceding period, waterbirds only
appear on objects from the Greek Mainland and Crete. The following 229 objects will be
discussed:

• 1 model (B66) dating to LM IIIA2 from Palaikastro on Crete.

• 3 figurines (B114-B116) dating to LH IIIA – IIIB from Asine and Korakou on the
Greek Mainland; and Aphaia on Aegina.
• 3 frescoes (E11, E17, E18) dating to LB IIIA2 – IIIB from Ayia Triada on Crete; and
Pylos on the Greek Mainland.
• 18 jewellery pieces (C45-C49) dating to LB IIIA2 – IIIB from Lazarides on Aegina;
and Mycenae and Thebes on the Greek Mainland.
• 30 larnakes (H2-H29) dating to LM IIIA2 – IIIB/C from Ayia Triada, Palaikastro,
Knossos, Vasilika Anogia, Armenoi, Dramia Apokoronou, Rethymnon, Kyparissi,
Archanes, Metochi Kalou, Prevelianon, Kavrochori, Episkopi, Kastelli Pediada,
Milatos, Giofyrakia, Mallia, Kalochoraphitis, Klima, Pankalochori and Tourloti on
Crete; and Tanagra on the Greek Mainland.536
• 152 vase-paintings (B64, G151-G301) dating to LM IIIA2 – IIIB from Chania, Ayia
Triada, Sitia, Phamakokephalo, Karphi, Palaikastro, Zakros, Kalyvia, Pigi, Knossos,
Phaistos, Heraklion on Crete; Ialysos, Trianda, Vatoi, Kalavarda on Rhodes;
Karpathos; Kolonna on Aegina; Melos on Phylakopi; and Mycenae, Tiryns, Brauron,
Eleusis, Brauron, Athens, Pylos, Delphi, Thebes, Dendra, Nafplion, Argos, Spata,
Midea, Aigion, Sparta, Ayios Stephanos and Asine on the Greek Mainland.537
• 20 vessels in the shape of waterbirds (A48-A67) dating to LH IIIA – IIIB from
Nafplion, Prosymna, Tiryns, Mycenae, Attica (unknown findspot), Vourvatsi,
Kallithea, Eleusis, Asine, Ayios Vasilios and Kokla on the Greek Mainland.538
• 1 mirror handle (I10) dating to LH IIIB from Mycenae on the Greek Mainland.
• 1 ivory inlay (I11) dating to LH IIIB2 from Tiryns on the Greek Mainland.

536
For larnakes see Rutkowski 1966, 135; Preston 2004 b, 182-183, 186-192.
537
Bosanquet – Dawkins 1923, 92-94; Furumark 1941, 250-251, FM 7.1b, c, e, f, g; FM 7.2-14, FM 7.22-27, 30;
Åkerström 1987, 68-73; Crouwel – Morris 1995, 174; Paschalidis 2001, 102. Some vases with birds were
apparently exported to Cyprus and the Near East. Their origin on the Greek Mainland (Berbati) was proved by
analyses undertaken by Mommsen and Maran (2000-2001, 102).
538
Blegen 1937, 454; Papadopoulos 1979-1980, 101-103; Matthäus 1979, 172-173; Matthäus 1980, 253; Koehl
2006, cat.no. 62 – 70.
 125

Some waterbird images dating to LB IIIA2 – IIIB represent particular generic species. A
figurine (B66), two frescoes (E11, E17) and the Ayia Triada sarcophagus (H2) show the
serpentine necks and elongated heads of swans on the frames of lyres/phorminxes (Figure
117). The jewellery pieces (C45-C48) depict ducks and geese, similar to the ones discussed in
the preceding section. Ducks or geese may also be shown on a mirror handle from Mycenae
(I10). A fresco fragment from Pylos (E18) depicts part of the head of a duck or goose with
white plumage. This colour, which is not seen in any wild duck or goose species, may suggest
that it is a domesticated bird (Figure 116). Some vases from Mycenae and Thebes (G297-
G301) could show ducks based on their very short necks. Similar are the short-necked bird-
shaped vessels (A48-A67), which might be ducks or geese.

All the remaining images can only be identified as generic waterbirds because they mix
features of ducks, geese and swans. The shape of their bodies varies widely. The birds on
some Cretan vases (G153-G162) and most larnakes (H5-H28) have ovoid bodies (Figure
118). Other vases from Crete (G163-G171, G234) and all the vases from the Greek Mainland
and the Dodecanese (G172-G233, G235, G236, G272-G296) show waterbirds with large
rounded bodies (Figure 119).539 Some beads from Mycenae (C49) and an inlay from Tiryns
(I11) depict similar large-bodied waterbirds. A few other vases from the Mainland and the
Dodecanese (G237-G271) show waterbirds with elongated bodies (Figure 120).540 At first
glance this could be taken as indication that they are different species. However, both the
ovoid type and the elongated type seem to evolve from the large-bodied type, thus they all
seem to be waterbirds.541

The large number of images only roughly identifiable as ‘waterbirds’ indicates a further
decrease of morphological accuracy. Some rather naturalistic images identifiable as ducks,
geese or swans seem to defy this trend at first glance. However, the swan-shaped lyres (B66,
E11, E17, H2) and many of the jewellery pieces (C45-C48) directly imitate Egyptian models,
comparable to the swan-shaped pyxides and pendants of the preceding period.542 Other
images seem to copy Cretan waterbird depictions of LM I date. For example, a gold cut-out
ornament from LH IIIB Thebes (C47) is directly comparable to an ornament from LM I

539
Furumark 1941, FM 7.1b, c, e, f, g; FM 7.2-14. Furumark (1941, 250-251) implied that the Cretan large-
bodied waterbirds were developed from the geese on the Argos vase.
540
Furumark 1941, FM 7.22-27, 30.
541
Large-bodied waterbirds primarily appear on kraters while the elongated ones are mostly shown on kylikes,
thus it seems likely that the vase shape and the available space influenced the shape of their bodies.
542
Dragona-Latsoudi 1977; McCallum 1987, 126, footnote 70; Lenz 1995, 96-103; Younger 1998, 18-27;
Phillips 2008, 187.
 126

Knossos (C37). These images seem to be sporadic remnants of foreign or much earlier
traditions and they do not contradict the general development towards more generic
depictions in this period.

The generic waterbirds from Crete (G153-G171, G234, H5-H28) appear relatively schematic
compared to those from the preceding period.543 Many birds have thin or strangely shaped
wings which seem uncapable of carrying a bird. Others are shown in the air, but no wings are
visible. An even greater tendency towards stylization and morphological features deviating
from nature can be observed in the images from the Greek Mainland. On the vases (G172-
G233, G235-G296), their bodies are variously filled with parallel striped bands, circles, u-
patterns, stipples, arcs, chevrons or cross-hatched areas. Bird-shaped vessels from the Greek
Mainland (A48-A67) are decorated with parallel stripes and there are no indications of
naturalistic avian features such as wings.544 The breasts of the waterbirds can be extremely
bulging and some birds have become grotesquely545 rounded with the feet barely touching the
ground (e.g. G283).546 Necks of waterbirds on vases often appear to be contorted in a rather
unnatural way (e.g. G272, G273) and some birds (e.g. G274) have bills with vertical stripes,
possibly indicating teeth.547 A few waterbirds have the legs bent the wrong way (e.g. G272),
i.e. they are flexed like human legs and not like those of birds. Other birds with elongated
bodies (e.g. G250, G259, G260) often have curious additional elements between the elevated
wing and the tail and/or between the wing and the neck. These elements consist of a stem-like
line, topped by an ornament (e.g. lozenge) or a stylized flower or palm tree.548

Despite their rather schematic appearance, many waterbirds on Cretan vases and larnakes are
shown in rather lively poses.549 Most birds are depicted in flight or standing with their wings
elevated. The development of the ovoid body shape may even have been due to the preference
of flying poses. This could be indicated by the LM IIIA2 Vasilika Anogia larnax (H5) which
shows waterbirds of the large-bodied type sitting on the lid, while only waterbirds with ovoid
bodies are depicted flying. Moreover, several birds are pecking at plants (e.g. G155, G160,
H5, H9, H12), comparable to scenes dating to LM II – IIIA1. On a cup from Palaikastro

543
Betancourt 1985, 164-166.
544
Blegen 1937, 454.
545
The extreme shape of their bodies led Marinatos (1964) to consider a mythological role of these “monsters”.
546
Åkerström 1987, 121-122.
547
Although waterbirds have small spikes lining the inside of the bill and their tongue which resemble tiny teeth,
the `teeth` of the birds on the vases look more like real teeth.
548
Furumark 1941, 252.
549
Betancourt 1985, 162-163, 171-177; Merousis 2013, 137.
 127

(G159) and a larnax from Kalochoraphitis (H24), the birds seem to be feeding with their
heads lowered as if dabbling. A similar cup from Rhodes (G168) shows two waterbirds with
their heads tucked under their back feathers as if sleeping. Furthermore, we can note that the
birds are usually differentiated by varying actions or movements. Even in the cases where two
waterbirds are flanking a plant, the painters sought to avoid an impression of perfect
symmetry. The habitat – albeit it appears much more schematic – consists of aquatic plants
such as papyrus/sea daffodil, palm trees and other flowers or fish. As in the preceding periods,
the waterbirds are surrounded by these elements and they appear no less important than the
waterbirds themselves (e.g. B64, G160, G161, G234).

Most of the generic waterbirds on images from the Greek Mainland are simply shown in
rather calm standing or sitting poses.550 Flapping of wings or flying poses are rare and more
specific actions are only occasionally encountered. A few birds (G297-G299) are depicted
with their heads reverted in a curious pose which does not occur in nature: the base of the bill
is pointing up as if the bird had turned the head straight back. Possibly, the painter attempted
to show a sleeping duck, but did not observe the behavior of a real duck which would lay the
bill on the back feathers or tuck the bill under them. Some other waterbirds (e.g. G262, G271)
may be holding food in their beaks, indicated by wavy lines resembling algae. In contrast to
the majority of Cretan depictions, there is a distinct effort to depict multiple birds which
closely resemble each other both in appearance and poses, and some of the waterbirds appear
almost identical.551 Such indistinguishable waterbirds are then arranged in friezes or more
rarely in antithetical and symmetrical compositions, which creates a rather formal impression
of peaceful regularity. Floral and plant elements such as triangles, rosettes, stylized (papyrus)
flowers or palm trees can appear, but they are simplified and appear relatively small (e.g.
G173, G174, G176).552 In most cases are they pushed aside by the large waterbirds, which
notably contrasts with the importance of vegetation in contemporary Cretan depictions
(Figure 121).

Waterbirds dating to LB IIIA2 – IIIB seem to have had several different functions, which we
will address in turn. As was mentioned above, the swan-shaped lyres (B66, E11, E17, H2)
were apparently adopted from Egypt, but we know swan-shaped harps from earlier Aegean
depictions (Section 6.2). Like harps, lyres are stringed instruments and we may therefore

550
Akerström 1987, 121-122.
551
Vermeule - Karageorghis 1982, 82; Paschalidis 2001, 102.
552
Paschalidis 2001, 100.
 128

propose that the similarity between the sound made by the wings of flying swans and a lyre
may again have inspired this association. The contexts of images of swan-shaped lyres – the
Ayia Triada sarcophagus, and frescoes in a monumental building at Ayia Triada and the
throne room at Pylos – provide evidence that these special instruments were primarily used at
ceremonial, probably high-status, occasions. A similarly close association with the elite can
be observed in the jewellery pieces in the shape of waterbirds (C45-C48). Again, many seem
to have been imported from Egypt and they are found in rich tombs and palaces at Mycenae
and Thebes. As the Egyptian-style pyxides in the shape of swans (Section 6.4), these objects
seem to have been used by the elite to associate themselves with an international iconography
of wealth.

As was mentioned above, the Cretan images usually depict waterbirds in flight. Moreover,
they are often associated with cult symbols such as horns of consecration and double axes
(e.g. G156, G157, G167-G170) (Figure 122). Waterbirds also appear on ritual vases such as
conical rhyta from Knossos (G171), Palaikastro (G157) and Karphi (G156)553 or on funerary
containers (larnakes). In addition to cult symbols (e.g. H17, H21, H22), waterbirds on
larnakes can also be associated with marine animals such as octopi, sea urchins and argonauts
(e.g. H13, H16, H24).554 On one larnax (H26), this connection between waterbirds and
marine fauna is even taken further by an ambiguous depiction because the waterbirds might
also be seen as argonauts. On another larnax, a waterbird is shown next to a griffin (H3). A
conical rhyton from Kalavarda on Rhodes (G222) shows waterbirds associated with lions, a
mirror and a kylix.555 On five larnakes (H6, H18, H19, H23, H24) other motifs such as dogs,
bulls and goats in hunting scenes or humans in chariots are also depicted, but the waterbirds
themselves are not hunted and they are often visually separated from such elements and most
closely associated with aquatic or marine flora and fauna.556

This recurrent associative cluster seems to have had a special significance.557 Grumach
interpreted the scenes with waterbirds and marine creatures as alluding to the land of the

553
Seiradaki 1960, 28; see Briault 2007, 255, for cult symbols on pottery in LM III.
554
For discussions of Cretan larnakes in general see Rutkowski 1966; Mavriyannaki 1972; Watrous 1991;
Marinatos 1997; Preston 2004b, 186-187.
555
Lenz 1995, 90; Karantzali (1998, 96) identified the lions as hybrids due to their pose, but there are no other
human features.
556
Briault 2007, 255-256; Karetsou – Girella 2014, 75.
557
Rethemiotakis 1979, 258; 1997a, 420, 2013, 14; Kanta 1980, 306-307; Betancourt 1985, 162; Vlachopoulos
2003, 228; Karetsou – Girella 2014, 83-94.
 129

blessed which lay beyond water/the sea, comparable to Egyptian beliefs. 558 Watrous likewise
read the ‘Nilotic scenes’ with birds, papyrus and marine creatures as scenes from the world of
the dead.559 However, as was argued before, the links of Cretan waterbird images to Egyptian
iconography seem tenuous; hence, an adoption of Egyptian mortuary notions are equally
doubtful. Instead, the rather unusual association of waterbirds with marine animals recalls
their association on LM I seals (Section 6.3).560 The same can be said for the combination
with griffins or lions. As we have seen, waterbirds are characterized by a high degree of
liminality. Papyrus and palm trees can also be seen as alluding to the border zone between
land and water, which is the habitat of waterbirds. Argonauts or nautili live in the sea, but
they often swim close to the surface of the water. In antiquity, it may have been believed that
they use their tentacles as sails because argonaut actually means “sailor”. Octopi swim in the
sea but they are also able to crawl on land and search for food in the shallow pools formed on
coastal rocks.561 Sea urchins can often be found on rocks just under or slightly above the
waterline. As was said before, griffins are liminal creatures due to their hybrid nature.

As we have seen in Section 6.3, the liminal characteristics of these elements may have
inspired their role as spirit animals accompanying shamans on their trance journeys. In
contrast to earlier images, humans are not directly shown in association with waterbirds in
LM IIIA – IIIB. However, the larnakes would have received the dead bodies of people and the
flying waterbirds would thus have given the impression of surrounding the deceased.562 Given
the small percentage of decorated larnakes, it could be suggested that these were used by
shamans. It is more likely, however, that in LM IIIA2 the role of waterbirds and some other
liminal animals changed and they were thought to accompany dead people.563 Death is often
thought to take place in a liminal zone, so such an ideological shift seems feasible.564

558
Grumach 1968, 24. Evans (1921, 337-338) also identified Egyptian influence.
559
Watrous 1991, 296-298.
560
Other scholars, for example Karetsou – Girella (2014, 79) considered the motifs on the larnakes to have a
more general religious significance since they were adopted from Neopalatial cult imagery (birds, bull leaping,
bucrania, double axes etc.).
561
Belcari et al. 2002.
562
Marinatos (1997, 282-283, 288) thought that the seascapes which surround the body are a symbolic reference
to sea burials which may have taken place in the Neopalatial period.
563
Joly (1928, 156-157), Morgan (1987, 184) and Karetsou – Girella (2014, 100) saw the birds on larnakes as
mediators between life and death or soul birds. The regenerative power of octopi has also been emphasised in
this context by Alberti (2013, 76).
564
For death as a liminal state see Van Gennep 2000 and for the role of birds as companions of the dead see
Cocker 2013, 80-81 and Serjeantson 2009, 338-339 (see p. 345, for archaeological examples where wings of
birds were placed in graves).
 130

In contrast to the Cretan images, the majority of depictions from the Greek Mainland shows
the birds neither in flight nor associated with marine animals. Instead, the waterbirds on
mixing and drinking vessels are simply depicted in friezes or in symmetrical compositions
(e.g. G174, G203, G205, G221, G227). On some vases, the waterbirds are densely packed in
larger groups (G221, G225, G233) and occasionally offspring such as eggs or chicks are
depicted (G200, G221, G260, G283).565 Striking is their size and the large bulging breasts,
which are also observable in some beads (C49) and an inlay (I11). These traits may indicate
an interest in their use as food source because of the high fat content which is concentrated in
the rounded breasts.566 According to archaeozoological reports, waterbirds were eaten in
Laconia, the Argolid and Aegina during the MB – LB periods.567 The fresco fragment from
Pylos (E18) may also indicate that ducks and geese were domesticated on the Greek
Mainland.568 Yet, the waterbirds are never shown in trapping scenes or as dead birds, hence
neither the act of hunting nor their consumption seems to have motivated these depictions.569
Rather, the preference of rounded birds mirrors the preference of rather plump types of raptors
observable in the same period (Section 5.4). We may therefore suggest that the images of
large birds in calm poses and orderly compositions reflect the same ideological shift. As we
have seen, the consolidation of palatial power in this period seems to have required other –
more harmonious – mechanisms such as feasting to maintain the status quo. With their visual
focus on abundance and stability, images of waterbirds may thus have symbolised the solidity
and economic prosperity as guaranteed by the Mycenaean palaces. A representation on a LH
IIIB mirror handle from Mycenae (I10) may be interpreted along similar lines. It shows two
women holding waterbirds, probably geese, over their shoulders. Although the birds try to fly
away, the women who are turned towards each other in a casual way seem oblivious to their
action. In contrast to the earlier LB I Mistress of animal images (Section 6.3), there seems to

565
Marinatos 1964, 7; Crouwel – Morris 1996, 213. Vermeule – Karageorghis (1982, 82-83) interpreted the
depiction of eggs as showing the reproductive potential of geese or hens.
566
Serjeantson 2009, 231-235, tables 10.1 and 10.2; Cocker 2013, 80-86.
567
According to Gejwall (1969, 47-48) and Reese (2008) all strata from Lerna I (EH ) to Lerna V (MH) yielded
remains of various duck species as well as the occasional goose or swan bone. According to Duhig et al. (2008,
513) bones of various duck species have been found in layers dating to MH II - LH at Ayios Stephanos. At
Tiryns, the mallard was the most frequently encountered bird species during all periods, and greylag geese were
added in LH IIIB1. According to Forstenpointner et al. (2010, 739) bones of greylag geese were found in a MH
II context at Kolonna/Aegina, but aquatic species were overall less frequent than in the Argolid. Cf. also
Trantalidou 2000, table on p. 715 for an overview of the presence of mallards and greylag geese at Neolithic and
BA sites.
568
The possibility of domestication of waterbirds in Greece was discussed by Vickery (1936, 66-67);
Trantalidou (1990, 402), Fischer (2007, 129) and Serjeantson (2009, 293). According to Becker (1986, 204), at
LH IIIC Kastanas in Macedonia, a goose carpometacarpus was found which was unusually large, possibly
indicating a domestic animal.
569
Vickery 1936, 80, 84.
 131

be absolutely no doubt as to who is in charge – also based on the clearly smaller size of the
waterbirds (Figure 123). Thus, this image may also symbolically reflect the solidification of
the social hierarchy.

The existence of a complementary – more specific – function of waterbirds is indicated by

some bird-shaped vessels from the Greek Mainland. Open vessels similar to those discussed
in the preceding section come from Kokla and Tiryns (A66, A67) (Figure 124).570 Moreover,
there are some vessels in the shape of waterbirds (A48-A65) (Figure 125).571 They are
actually hollow figurines, but their shape and the fact that they have a handle on their backs
clearly assimilate them to contemporary flat-based askoi. The connection between waterbirds
and liquids is also attested by two conical rhyta (G233, G236) which show several waterbirds
(Figure 126). Significantly, waterbirds are the only type of figurative motif depicted on this
vessel shape on the Greek Mainland.572 Pairs of waterbirds are also shown on some other
pouring vessels such as jugs and stirrup jars (G244, G259, G260, G293).573 On these vases,
the visual connection between the flow of liquid and the waterbirds is intensified because they
are painted directly below the spout and opposite the handle so that water poured out of the
vessel would have flown above and between them (Figure 127). Importantly, a plant is
growing between the birds as if it was sprouting because of the water poured out of the
vessel.574 This suggests that water-related fertility was the concern of these vases. On a few
other stirrup jars (G297-G300), the plants are substituted by sphinxes which are flanked by
waterbirds. On some vases we can observe a close physical or visual convergence between
waterbirds and plants. For example, the bodies of the birds can be filled with branches and
floral elements (e.g. G283) or floral stems are directly attached to the bodies of waterbird (e.g.
G250, G259, G260). On a stirrup jar from Midea (G260), the birds are shown next to a plant
whose leaves mirror the body and wing of the birds.575

The contexts of some vases with waterbirds seem to indicate a ritual function. The stirrup jar
from Midea (G260), for example, was found together with part of a large female terracotta
figure and a bovine figure, possibly remains of a shrine, on the Lower Terraces of the

570
Popham – Catling 1974, 250; Matthäus 1980, 252-254, 1981.
571
Desborough (1972), Misch (1992) and Guggisberg (1996) all included them in their discussion of bird-shaped
vessels. Desborough (1972, 274-275) thought that the waterbird shape of the vessels merely served a decorative
purpose.
572
Paschalidis 2001, 96-98, 100-101.
573
McMullen Fisher – Giering 1994, 10-13.
574
On G260, two smaller birds (chicks?) are also flanking the plant.
575
McMullen Fisher – Giering 1994, 12.
 132

palace.576 The stirrup jars with ducks and sphinxes from Mycenae (G297-G300) may also
come from a shrine.577 The majority of the bird-shaped vessels (A48-A67) come from tombs,
sometimes associated with female figurines and/or miniature vessels. They may have had a
funerary significance, possibly connected to notions of regeneration.578 However, Desborough
has drawn attention to the fact that not all such vessels come from morturary contexts.579
Some were found in settlements (Tiryns) or sanctuaries (Ayios Vasilios). Thus, the
connection of waterbirds and liquids may have had a more general ritual significance.580

Further evidence for the significance of waterbirds in (palatial) rituals could be provided by
Linear B tablets from Thebes.581 In these tablets, various animals such as dogs, mules, pigs,
snakes, but also birds (o-ni-si on Fq 123, Fq 169, Fq 342), cranes (ke-re-na-i, Greek γέρανος,
on Fq 126, Fq 169, Gp 176,) and geese (ka-si, ka-no, Greek χήν, on Ft 141, Ft 217, Ft 220, Ft
234, Ft 246, Ft 268 and possibly Fq 205, Ft 143, Ft 151, Ft 219) are mentioned.582 All these
animals are – together with other individuals and groups of persons – recipients of foodstuff
(olives, wheat, wine, flour, barley and cyperus). Killen has demonstrated that the small
quantities and the kinds of food are indicative of a religious context.583 He compared the
overall structure of the Thebes tablets to that of the Pylos Fn series and the Thebes Av records
which record provisions for ritual banquets.584 The presence of the animals seems puzzling
because they receive food which is usually not eaten by them.585 Thus, it has been suggested
that they were either theriomorphic deities or sacred animals which received offerings.586
However, other individuals mentioned as recipients are probably not divine.587 A possible
solution to this problem was offered by Weilhartner who suggested that the animal names
denominate groups of persons who played certain roles in the rituals and/or during the

576
Walberg 1994.
577
Sakellarakis 1992, 110-111.
578
Lemos (1994, 233-234) noted that some of the vessels have been found with children burials, maybe they
were also used as toys.
579
Desborough 1972, 274.
580
Cocker 2013, 81. See Peatfield 1995, 227 for water-related fertility.
581
Aravantinos et al. 2001.
582
The forms are dative plural. Aravantinos et al. 2001, 319-321.
583
Killen 1999; Killen 2006, 83-89.
584
Killen 2006, 90-100.
585
Weilhartner 2007, 343.
586
Rousioti (2001, 308-311) argued for sacred animals.
587
Palaima (2003, 115) thought that the animals are normal animals. Killen (2006, 82) was sceptical about the
interpretation of ma-ka as Demeter as suggested by Aravantinos et al. 2001, 188-190.
 133

banquet.588 In any case, the mention of ‘geese’ in these tablets seems to confirm the ritual
significance of waterbirds in palatial society.

When we turn to the ontologies reflected by images of waterbirds we can again note that there
are profound differences between depictions from Crete and those from the Greek Mainland.
The Cretan images appear rather generic, but the depiction of unnatural features seems limited
and lively and varied poses prevail. As they reveal the sentient status of non-human entities,
these features are consistent with animist imagery (Section 3.2.4). As in earlier periods,
waterbirds are shown surrounded by plants which are of equal or larger size. As companions
of shamans and/or the deceased, waterbirds continued to adopt active ideological roles..

In contrast, the images of waterbirds from the Greek Mainland are characterized by extensive
stylization and the conspicuous depiction of unnatural features. Vegetation is of a much
smaller size than the waterbirds, thereby emphasizing its inferior position. A hierarchical
relation is also created between humans and waterbirds.. The stylization and rigid
compositions seem to a priori preclude any impression that the birds may come alive or
actively intervene in the order of things. Instead, the waterbirds seem to have functioned as
symbols, either of the consolidated palatial order or water-related fertility. All these traits
suggest that analogism was the prevalent ontology on the Greek Mainland.

In sum, depictions of waterbirds dating to LB IIIA2 – IIIB come from Crete and the Greek
Mainland. Although some can be identified as ducks, geese or swans, the overall tendency
towards more generic depictions is continued in both regions. Nevertheless, there are
differences. The Cretan depictions continue to emphasise liveliness, varied poses/movements
and the embededdness in the vegetative environment. The association with aquatic and marine
elements seems to indicate a renewed interest in their liminal status. The frequent depiction on
funerary containers may suggest that this ability became important not only in shamanic
rituals but also in a mortuary context. The active role adopted by the birds (and other animals)
points towards a continuation of animist notions on Crete. Images of waterbirds from the
Greek Mainland are often characterized by more stylized appearances. Objects such as
Egyptian-style beads or lyres seem to have been used to signal participation of the elite in an
international imagery of wealth and luxury. The calm poses and uniform appearance of well-
nourished waterbirds on vases suggest that they stood for abundance and fertility as
guaranteed by the palatial society. Other objects such as bird-shaped askoi, rhyta, jugs and

588
Weilhartner 2007, 343-346.
 134

jars seem to intensify the connection between waterbirds and the (ritual) manipulation of
liquids. Since the waterbirds do not appear as active mediators but function as symbols, these
images seem to be indicative of analogism.

6.6 LB IIIB – LB IIIC

In LB IIIB – IIIC, waterbirds continued to be very frequent motifs in Aegean art. The vast
majority is depicted on vase-paintings and as vessels. They come from Crete, the Greek
Mainland, but also from the Cyclades and the Dodecanese. The following 341 objects will be
discussed:

• 1 larnax (H30) dating to LM IIIB from Gazi on Crete.

• 12 figurines (B117-B128) dating to LH IIIB – IIIC from Tanagra, Tiryns, Kynos,
Mycenae, Perati on the Greek Mainland; and Ayia Triada on Crete.
• 1 gold diadem (C50) dating to LH IIIB – IIIC from Pylos on the Greek Mainland.
• 1 relief vessel (A68) dating to LH IIIB – IIIC from Pylos on the Greek Mainland.
• 286 vase-paintings (G302-G587) dating to LB IIIB – IIIC Episkopi, Chania, Karphi,
Kastelli Pediada, Phaistos, Knossos, Chamalevri, Kato Syme, Kastri/Palaikastro,
Katsamba on Crete; Ialysos and Zukalades on Rhodes; Vathy and Pothia on
Kalymnos; Langadha and Seraglio on Kos; Kamini, Aplomata and Grotta on Naxos;
Monolithos on Thera; Phylakopi on Melos; Perati, Mycenae, Tiryns, Pylos, Midea,
Eutresis, Korakou, Asine, Thebes, Patras-Lopesi, Elateia, Athens, Trypes, Sparta,
Palaiokastro, Kynos and Kladeos on the Greek Mainland; Skyros (findspot unknown);
Kolonna on Aegina; and Lefkandi on Euboea.589
• 39 vessels in the shape of waterbirds (A69-A107) dating to LB IIIC –
Submycenaean/Subminoan from Kamini on Naxos; Ialysos on Rhodes; Klauss,
Kanghadi, Kallithea, Tanagra, Athens and Tiryns on the Greek Mainland; Lefkandi on
Euboea; Knossos, Kavousi Vronda, Vrokastro, Chamaizi, Axios, Adele, Adromyloi
and Karphi on Crete.
• 1 knife in the shape of a waterbird (F4) dating to LH IIIC from Perati on the Greek
Mainland.

589
Cf. Furumark 1941, Late Mainland Type FM 7.47-52 and Late Eastern Type, FM 7.40-46.
 135

The vast majority of vase-paintings from Crete, the Dodecanese, the Cyclades and Attica
(G302-G420, G422, G423, G585-G587) show generic waterbirds with ovoid bodies (Figure
128).590 The figurines which are well enough preserved to be studied (B124-B126, B128)
have similar drop-shaped bodies. The bird-shaped vessels from the Cyclades and the Greek
Mainland (A69-A91) can be identified as ducks or geese due to their relatively short necks.
The rather similar vessels from Crete (A92-A107) cannot be identified with certainty because
the heads are usually substituted by spouts. In theory, it may thus be possible that they are
doves and not waterbirds (Section 4.5). A large group of birds on vases (G421, G424-G545),
especially from the Argolid, seem to be swans because they have large bodies, long curved
necks, large triangular wings and long straight bills.591 Their silhouettes closely resemble
mute swans (Cygnus olor) which have a higher back than whooper swans (Cygnus cygnus)
and are more common in the Aegean (Figure 129). Other images on vases (G546-G584),
terracotta models (B117-B119), a larnax (H30), a diadem (C50), a bronze vessel (A68) and a
knife (F4) show bird protomes.592 They consist of a neck with an elongated head and an
upward curved beak (Figure 130). They are similar to the necks and heads of generic
waterbirds. Some waterbird protomes are attached to the bows of ships and they have
occasionally been identified as hybrids and/or sea dragons due to the appearance of spikes
(e.g. G581) and a vertical projection resembling a horn or ear (G580).593 However, they
closely resemble the other waterbird protomes.

When we analyse the images with regard to the degree of naturalism, we find rather disparate
trends. The ovoid-bodied generic waterbirds are stylized in their appearance. As the Cretan
waterbirds of the preceding period, their thin wings appear much too weak for carrying a bird.
In the words of Betancourt “most have completely lost sight of their origins in the natural
world.”594 However, the Cretan bird-shaped vessels sometimes have wings indicated in relief
or in paint (e.g. A92, A101), thus we may note that there is an effort to represent natural avian
features. Also, most waterbirds on vases appear again in rather lively flying poses or they are

590
Evans (1921, 338) thought that the LB IIIC bird type developed from larnakes. Alexiou (1954, 407) and
Kanta (1980, 258-260 and 272-275) similarly noted the connection to waterbirds in earlier depictions.
591
For identification as swans see Wace 1921-1923, 45-46 and Lenz 1995, 7-8. According to Furumark (1941,
FM 7.31), Güntner (2000, 56-57), Crouwel (2007, 74) and French (2007, 177) there are two variants of the
swans. The most frequent variant can be seen on vases of the so-called Close Style (e.g. G432): the birds have
striped or solid necks and stacked semi-circles painted on the bodies. The other variant (e.g. G435) shows solidly
painted and more compact bodies, striped necks and wings which are solidly painted or rendered in outline.
592
Blegen – Rawson 1973, 231; Furumark 1941, 254; Matthäus 1980, 192-195. Koutsouflakis (1999, 140-144)
mentioned a bird-headed ship on an unpublished Tanagra larnax.
593
Petrakis 2004, 2-4; Petrakis 2011, 211-213; Yasur-Landau 2010.
594
Betancourt 1985, 179.
 136

flapping their wings, as if about to rise. One stirrup jar from Perati (G405) even shows a
waterbird flying with its wings displayed, a very rare pose in this period. Vases from Crete
and Perati (G302, G409) depict family scenes with young birds. Moreover, the waterbirds are
often adopting diverse movements or positions of body parts, which results in a rather
individualized picture of moving birds. On the Cretan vases, the birds are usually surrounded
by stylized plants such as flowers, rosettes, branches and (palm) trees (e.g. G305, G320,
G322).595

In the LH IIIC images from the Greek Mainland (except Perati), the appearance of the
waterbirds is not only generic but can also be rather unnatural. For example, the wings of two
bird-shaped vessels (A71, A79) are decorated with fish or quadrupeds. Although the birds on
vase-paintings can usually be identified as swans, their bodies are sometimes artificially
elongated (G428-G431), which makes them appear more like decorative shapes rather than
living birds.596 The protomes (G546-G584) – which are never found in Cretan images –
reveal a further development towards stylization. The heads develop from a variety of abstract
ornaments such as lozenges, triglyphs and bands or spirals. The artificial quality of the
protomes is also emphasized by their arrangements, either as a continuous frieze of multiple
identical heads or as pairs in mirror reverse compositions.597 In some cases, the waterbird
protomes were used for more playful decorations. For example, a fragment (G549) depicts
protomes arranged as to resemble a chariot and another sherd (G578) shows antithetically
placed protomes with stacks of semi-circles on their backs, thus resembling a ship. According
to Furumark, they can be described as pictorialized forms because they demonstrate “the
process by which an abstract design is made pictorial, i.e. through some similarity it is
associated in the artist’s mind with the idea of some physical object and is accordingly
completed”.598 In other words, pictorialized images do not stem from observation of nature,
but abstract forms are visually modified to resemble a natural element. In turn, this could also
indicate that waterbirds were perceived as being built from abstract shapes such as lines,
circles and curves. This perception becomes especially evident when we look at a four-
handled jar (G547) which shows a frieze of complete birds whose bodies are shaped like
semi-circles.

595
Seiradaki 1960, 32-37; Betancourt 1985, 178-182. On Cretan domestic pottery, the birds are depicted in the
so-called Fringed Close Style
596
Lenz 1995, 9.
597
Lenz 1995, 9; Crouwel 2009a, 43-44.
598
Furumark 1941, 133.
 137

The majority of swans on vases from the Greek Mainland (G421, G424-G545) are shown in
relatively calm poses, either sitting or swimming in friezes. Sometimes (G464-G474), they
are flanking a large rosette, occasionally pecking at it. Yet, a depiction of the natural habitat
of swans was apparently not intended because the rosettes – which are unnaturally large – are
part of the overall miniaturist decoration of the vase into which the birds are closely integrated
by scaled triangles or concentric semicircles of the so-called Close Style. The action of the
birds seems to be another strategy to enliven the decoration by merging figural and abstract
motifs. From Lefkandi come two family scenes of swans (G462, G463) (Figure 132).599 One
fragment (G462) shows a large bird running towards a smaller one which is shown struggling
to climb a panel.600 Another fragment (G463) probably depicts swans feeding their nestlings.
In other images, especially from the Argolid, the swans are shown on the ground with their
wings elevated. This pose is typical of swans which often flap their wings, but it is also used
as a threat display. The more aggressive aspect of this behavior is sometimes underlined by
antithetical compositions (e.g. G435, G451-G461) (Figure 131).601 Swans belong to the most
aggressive kind of waterfowl, especially during the breeding season. They were notorious for
this in antiquity and the Romans even believed that swans kill and eat each other.602

When we try to interpret the functions of waterbirds in LB IIIB – IIIC we find diverse
associative clusters. The rather lively ovoid-bodied waterbirds from Crete, for example, are
often shown with cult symbols such as horns of consecration or double axes (G325-G333).603
Moreover, they usually retained the connection to aquatic plants and occasionally fish or an
octopus (G320-G324, G339) from the preceding period (Figure 133). Some appear on
Mainland-style serving and drinking vessels such as kraters and deep bowls. Larnakes became
less frequent, but the characteristic association of lively waterbirds with marine animals such
as octopi or fish was continued on numerous stirrup jars from regions which had close
maritime trade links with Crete in LB IIIC604 such as the Dodecanese (G340-G365, G378,
G379), Naxos (G380-G393) and Perati in Attica (G402-G406) (Figure 134).605

599
Crouwel 2006, 242-243; Rutter 2014, 200-201.
600
Rutter 2014, 201.
601
Rutter (1992, 65) also noted the popularity of antithetically placed birds in LH IIIC.
602
Toynbee 1973, 259-261.
603
Borgna 1997, 275-294; Warren 2005.
604
Bennet 1987, 87; Vlachopoulos 1999, 82-83
605
For Octopus Stirrup Jars see Desborough 1972, 6-16; Kardara 1977; Kanta 1980, 251-257; Mee 1982, 32-34;
Crouwel 1984; Benzi 1992, 83-84; Benzi 1993, 286; Mountjoy 1997-1998, 154; Iakovidis 2003; Crouwel 2006,
18; Crouwel 2009b; Vlachopoulos 2003, 228 and Vlachopoulos 2006.
 138

The Cretan vases were sometimes found in settlement and/or ritual contexts.606 The material
from Phaistos comes from a feasting context consisting of fine table ware, pyxides, alabastra
and juglets.607 The same context also yielded a Psi figurine.608 At Chamalevri, sherds with
birds were found among other pictorial pottery in special pits together with bones and ash.
The pits have been interpreted as dumps for the remains of a ritual event.609 According to
Seiradaki, the pyxides from Karphi, some of which show waterbirds, have a similar
distribution as kalathoi, possibly suggesting that they held offerings.610 Moreover, a rhyton
showing a waterbird and horns of consecration dating to LM IIIA from Karphi (G156) was
found in a LM IIIC context (Section 6.5).611 As the earlier Cretan larnakes, the Octopus
Stirrup Jars usually come from funerary contexts and may have contained precious perfumed
oils used to embalm the dead body.612 These disparate find contexts may suggest that
waterbirds retained a more general ritual significance on Crete, whereas the waterbirds on
octopus stirrup jars from elsewhere were mainly companions of the dead.

Other waterbird images are again associated with the flow of liquids. Several bird-shaped
vessels from the Greek Mainland (A69-A91) have cylindrical beaks which serve as spouts
(Figure 135).613 They have sometimes been seen as inspired by Cypriot vessels which are
similar.614 Yet, they can be connected to local shapes, for example the askos-like vessels from
the preceding period (Section 6.5).615 The contemporary Cretan vessels (A92-A107)
completely merge the bird features with the function of pouring by substituting the head with
a round spout (Figure 136).616 This characteristic goes back to much earlier Cretan practices
in MM II when the head of a dove vessel was also substituted by a spout (Section 4.2). Three
bull rhyta (G338, G567, G568) from Katsamba on Crete and Amyklai in Laconia are
decorated with waterbirds or waterbird protomes (Figure 137). The contexts of these objects

606
Seiradaki 1960, 22-23; Rethemiotakis 1997b, 318-320; D`Agata 2001; Borgna 2003; Vlachopoulos 2006,
198-200; Andreadaki-Vlazaki – Papadopoulou 2007, 30.
607
Borgna 2003, 414-425.
608
Borgna 2003, 418-425.
609
Andreadaki-Vlazaki – Papadopoulou 2005; Andreadaki-Vlazaki – Papadopoulou 2007, 28-30.
610
Seiradaki 1960, 40.
611
Seiradaki 1960, 25.
612
Betancourt 1985, 182-184; Vlachopoulos 2003, 221-223; Kanta 2005, 229-232; Crouwel 2009b, 199; Alberti
2013, 72-76.
613
Desborough 1972, 246.
614
Desborough 1972, 266-273; Bouzek 1985; Papadopoulou 1979-80, 103.
615
Papadopoulos 1979-80, 103; Papadopoulos 1980, 170; Guggisberg 1996, 248, 251, 263. Lemos (1994, 229-
230) drew attention to some LH IIIC terracotta (water)bird figurines from Greek sites which indicate the local
significance of waterbirds.
616
Seiradaki 1960, 27; Desborough 1972, 252; Lemos 1994, 232.
 139

suggest a ritual function because they have been found both in tombs and at sanctuaries
(Amyklai, Spring Chamber at Knossos).

The swans (G421, G424-G545) appear on vases from Mycenae, Tiryns, Korakou and
Lefkandi. The majority are depicted on fine table ware (deep bowls, stirrup jars and kalathoi)
of the high-quality Close Style.617 They attest to the short period of relative stability during
LH IIIC middle when some groups deliberately used elements of the palatial past to underline
their claim to power (cf. Section 5.4). The peaceful impression conveyed by friezes of large-
bodied swans recalls images of large-bodied generic waterbirds of LH IIIA2 – IIIB1 date
(Section 6.5). We may suggest that such depictions of swans hark back to similar ideological
notions: to conjure up an image of abundance and stability. The two images of family scenes
of swans from Lefkandi (G462, G463) seem to corroborate this. At this site, they also find
parallels in other animal depictions, for example griffins tending their young in nests or goats
mating and suckling their kids.618 This observation led Rutter to suggest that the leaders of
Lefkandi employed power strategies in which they consciously emphasized the family,
fertility and parenthood.619 While this ideological focus might have been especially
emphasised at Lefkandi, the friezes of calm swans from the Argolid seem to reveal a related
concern.

In addition to a distinct emphasis on peaceful scenes, however, there are also some
confrontational compositions (G435, G451-G461). An unambiguous depiction of aggressive
swans is shown on the Warrior Krater from Mycenae (G452). Here, two pairs of birds are
shown under the handles with their feet raised towards the other birds as if attacking.620 The
appearance of fighting birds on this krater seems to suggest that they functioned as analogies
to the warriors which are shown marching and fully armed on the front sides. As we have
seen in Section 5.4, the reappearance of aggressive birds of prey on vases of the postpalatial
elite could be interpreted as being due to a renewed interest in the warrior ethos and the
occasional images of aggressive swans seem to tie into this ideology.

Some LH IIIB/C depictions show waterbird protomes attached to the bows of ships (B117-
B119, C50, G579-G584, H30) (Figure 138).621 The function of the figure-headed bows has

617
Crouwel 2006, 16; Crouwel 2007, 73-75; French 2007.
618
Evely 2006, 242-243; Crouwel 2007, 80-81; Rutter 2014, 189-199, 202.
619
Rutter 2014.
620
Vermeule - Karageorghis 1982, 132; Crouwel 2007, 80.
621
Dakoronia 1990, 120; Wachsmann 1996; Wachsmann 1998, 130-197; Wedde 2000, 123-125; Wedde 2002.
Dakoronia 2006, 24-28.
 140

been explained by Wachsmann and others as warding off evil. 622 Although such an apotropaic
purpose may have been relevant since many figural elements on bows have such a purpose,
this rather vague explanation does not account for the specific choice of a waterbird. Other
scholars have identified the heads as those of migratory ducks, which were deemed vitality
and fertility symbols, possibly connected to a sea goddess (comparable to Aphrodite?).623
However, this specific identification does not seem warranted by the rather generic
appearance of the waterbird heads. Also, the connection of waterbirds and fertility only makes
sense in their connection with fresh water, but not with salty sea water.624

The ships can be identified as oared galleys, a newly invented type which seems to have
replaced the Cretan sailing ship with a falcon at the bow (Section 5.3) by LH IIIA – B.625 The
galley could be sailed, but was mostly moved by rowing and it has been estimated that the
ships could hold up to 25 rowers on each side.626 Apparently, good maneuverability
regardless of wind conditions was deemed more important than quick travel over long
distances.627 Given that the change of preferred propulsion method – from sails to oars –
seems to have necessitated a new emblem, we may suggest that the analogy of paddling feet
of waterbirds to the oars may have inspired this association.628 On the kraters from Kynos
(G581, G582), the incorporation of a deck as fighting platforms for warriors attest to the
military functions of these ships.629 It cannot be excluded that the aggressive connotations of
waterbirds described above may also have played a role in this choice.630

Turning to ontologies, we note that images from Crete and some other sites in the Aegean
which seem to have received an influx of Cretan ideas show rather lively and occasionally
individualised waterbirds. They seem to have retained the traditional associations with
(animist?) rituals and may also have adopted an active role as companions of the dead. Bird-
shaped vessels occasionally exhibit avian features which resemble the traits of earlier
ambiguous dove-shaped vessels. Animist notions may thus have still been present on Crete,

622
Wachsmann 1998, 194; Yasur-Landau 2010, 402.
623
Wachsmann 1998, 195-197; Yon 1992, 400.
624
Cocker 2013, 81-82.
625
Wedde 1996, 131, Type V of the Skyros cluster and Type VI of the Tragana Cluster. Wachsmann 1998, 130,
155-157.
626
Wachsmann 1998, 155-157.
627
Wedde 1996, 142-144, 150.
628
Wachsmann 1998, 195.
629
Wachsmann 1998, 155; Dakoronia 1990, 1996, 1999; Lenz 1995, 147; Wedde 1996, 155-156; Mountjoy
2005; Papadopoulos 2009, 75-76. See Petrakis 2011, 205-209, for military matters connected to seafaring in the
Linear B tablets.
630
A knife from Perati (F4) has a handle in the shape of a waterbird’s head, possibly corroborating the
association of waterbirds with aggression.
 141

but the relative rarity of waterbird images from the island in this time makes it difficult to be
more certain. The rather abstract waterbird protomes which were popular on the Greek
Mainland suggest that natural entities were perceived as beings composed of certain parts that
can be variously assembled and disassembled, a notion commonly found in analogism
(Section 3.2.1). The frequently observable connection of waterbirds to liquids can be
characterized as symbolic because the bird-shaped vessels appear too stiff and exhibit too
many unnatural features to convey the impression that they become alive when the vessels are
handled. The appearance of swans on vases is closely linked to their function as allegories of
the desired social order and the concurrently employed power strategies (harmony vs.
confrontation). Both aspects suggest that analogism was prevalent on the Greek Mainland.

In sum, images of waterbirds dating to LB IIIB – IIIC come from Crete, the Cyclades, the
Dodecanese and the Greek Mainland. Most images can only be roughly identified as
waterbirds, but there are also some ducks/geese and swans. Depictions from Crete and some
sites on the Cyclades, Dodecanese and the Greek Mainland which had close links to Crete
show rather lively waterbirds with an emphasis on variety. On Crete, they are usually
accompanied by plants and cult symbols. The association with marine animals on the Octopus
Stirrup Jars seems to be taken over from the Cretan larnakes discussed in the preceding
section (Section 6.5). Their consistent funerary contexts indicate that the birds were believed
to be companions of the dead. We may suggest that this continuity in the emphasis on
liveliness and an active role of birds signifies a continuation of animist ontology.

Images from the Greek Mainland (except Perati) depict rather unnatural waterbirds, for
example in the form of protomes which are closely integrated in the abstract decoration
scheme on vases. Bird-shaped rhyta indicate that the traditional link existing between
waterbirds and the flow of liquids continued beyond the collapse of the palaces. The function
of waterbirds as metaphors for social relations known from the palatial periods also seems to
have persisted and may have reemerged in LH IIIC middle. Swans are either shown with an
emphasis on regularity and peace or focusing on aggressive and confrontational behavior. The
depiction of swans on the warrior vase suggests that they served to underline the warrior ethos
of the postpalatial elite in the Argolid, while family scenes from Lefkandi seem to put a
stronger emphasis on cooperative relations. The connection of waterbirds with (war) ships
may have been inspired both by the analogy of paddling feet with oars of the Mycenaean
galley and their occasional aggressive connotations. The consistent use of waterbird images as
 142

symbols/metaphors/analogies seems to indicate that analogism was the dominant ontology on

the Greek Mainland.

6.7 Conclusion

Waterbirds were depicted throughout the Aegean Bronze Age from EB I to LB IIIC. Although
there is some overlap in style and motifs employed across different regions, we could make
out trends that seem more characteristic of the one or the other area. The earliest images come
from the Cyclades dating to EC I – II. Although schematic, the birds are shown in different
species-specific poses (swimming, preening). Ducks are linked to the flow of liquid as the
connection with pouring vessels suggests. Such an association is probably due to the aquatic
habitat of waterbirds. Swans are shown on harps, possibly inspired by the similarity of the
sound made by their large wings to the sound made by a stringed instrument. Significantly,
the close physical connection created between the naturalistic bird features and the vessels or
harps results in ambiguous hybrid images as they are typically found in animist imagery. In
MC III, waterbirds are shown on vase-paintings and as vessels with an emphasis on lively
poses and attention paid to avian details (feathers). Two duck-shaped rhyta suggest that
waterbirds are again linked to liquids. The naturalism apparent in these vessels creates the
impression that the birds become alive in order to actively mediate the flow of water. The
adoption of such an active role by animals suggests that animist notions were prevalent on the
Cyclades in this time.

On Crete, the earliest images of waterbirds date to EM III – MM II. They appear naturalistic
because of the accurate rendering of sleeping, walking or swimming ducks, geese and swans.
Harps with swans also appear on Cretan seals, comparable to the earlier depictions from the
Cyclades. However, there is only one image associating waterbird with liquids so that we may
say that doves were more commonly associated with the flow of liquids on Crete. In LB I,
images of waterbirds from Crete and the Cyclades – most notably Akrotiri on Thera – are
virtually indistinguishable. The depictions are remarkably naturalistic with a distinct focus on
species-specific appearances (mallards, ferruginous ducks), behavioural patterns (e.g. chick-
rearing, walking, swimming, mating) and environments (riverine, reedbed, palm trees).
Importantly, the birds in these scenes are individualized by different lively actions and
movements, which seem to reveal their status as beings with agency. Relations with other
animals such as corvids/raptors or felines are also depicted. Often, the eventual outcome of
such encounters remains unclear, thereby avoiding the creation of an absolute hierarchy
 143

between different animals. Scenes with waterbirds and humans emphasise the importance of
psychotropic drugs (saffron), the association with human-animal hybrids, the liminal aspects
of waterbirds, their voluntary appearance and their role of carrying a single person. Such
scenes suggest that waterbirds were thought to be spirit animals of shamans and they thus
indicate that an animist ontology was prevalent on Crete and the Cyclades.

After LM II, images of waterbirds disappeared on the Cyclades. On Crete, influence from the
Greek Mainland increased, as is evident in the tendency towards more generic depictions
observable in LM II and continuing into LM IIIC. Nevertheless, the Cretan depictions of
waterbirds continue to emphasise liveliness, varied poses/movements and the embededdness
in the vegetative environment. In LM IIIA2 – IIIB, waterbirds are not only associated with
cult symbols but also with aquatic and marine elements which seem to indicate a renewed
interest in their liminal status, comparable to scenes of the Neopalatial period. The depiction
of these associations on funerary containers may suggest that the role of waterbirds as
companions was no longer limited to shamans but may have been extended to the dead in
general. In LB IIIB – IIIC, similar waterbirds and animals (octopi) are depicted on numerous
stirrup jars from tombs, especially at some sites on the Cyclades, the Dodecanese and the
Greek Mainland with close links to Crete. The consistent funerary contexts seem to indicate
that the birds now have an exclusively mortuary role, possibly as companions of the dead.
These observations point towards a continuation of animist notions beyond LM IB.

On the Greek Mainland, waterbirds appear for the first time in imagery of LH I and they
become very frequent motifs in LH III. In comparison to Cretan and Cycladic images, they
display profound modifications such as a tendency towards much more generic and stylized
appearances, identical poses and unnatural compositions – features which significantly
increase over time. Several objects from the Greek Mainland consistently create a link
between waterbirds and liquids. This connection starts in LH I when waterbird features are
attached to open vessels but becomes much more pronounced in LH II and LH IIIA – IIIC
when askoi and rhyta are shaped like waterbirds or waterbirds are painted onto pouring
vessels such as jugs, jars, and conical rhyta. Find contexts suggest that these objects could be
used in a ritual setting. In contrast to the Cycladic bird-shaped rhyta, the waterbirds appear too
stylized to create the impression that they become alive when handled. Thus, they seem to be
symbols rather than sentient persons which actively intervene in the order of things.
 144

Another function attributed to waterbird images from the Greek Mainland is that of
symbols/metaphors of social order. Comparable to depictions of birds of prey, form and
content of the waterbird images seem to fluctuate with the concurrently employed power
mechanisms. In LH I, scenes of waterbirds being attacked by felines or held by people exhibit
an emphasis on violence or physical force. This seems to reflect the warrior ethos of this time
when social power was primarily attained by real or implied physical strength. In LH II –
IIIA, images of waterbirds in the form of Egyptian-style pyxides or pendants from rich tombs
signify the consolidation of power by the participation in an established international elite
iconography. Moreover, waterbirds and other animals are shown flanking a column –
signifying palatial power – in a subservient manner. In LH IIIA2 – IIIB, power was further
consolidated and required the employment of an ideological focus centering on stability and
abundance as guaranteed by the palaces, for example by state-sponsored feasting. Images of
multiple well-nourished waterbirds shown in an almost identical manner seem to have been
suitable visual expressions of such notions. After the collapse of the palaces, a short period of
relative prosperity existed in LH IIIC middle. In a deliberate attempt to conjure up images of
past stability, swans are shown in similar compositions as the earlier waterbirds and peaceful
relations are particularly emphasized by some family scenes from Lefkandi. At the sime time,
the reemergence of warrior ethos seems reflected by some images focusing on the aggressive
behaviour of swans. The consistent use of waterbird images as analogies/allegories/metaphors
again suggest that Mainland ontology can be categorized as analogism.

7. Wading birds

7.1 Introduction
 145

Wading birds include large waders such as herons and egrets (family Ardeidae), flamingoes,
pelicans, cranes and great bustards (family Gruidae), and small waders such as stilts, rails or
crakes (family Rallidae). Although the birds in these two groups differ in size, they share
many behavioural features, especially the habit of wading, i.e. slowly walking through mud or
water searching for fish or other animal prey. Their habitat usually consists of marshy or lake
environments or wetland pastures, depending on the species. This also connects them to
waterbirds such as ducks, geese and swans (Chapter 6), although they have longer legs and
are not able to swim.

Wading birds are identifiable based on elongated bodies, long necks, long legs and long bills
(Figure 139). Most of them have large feet with which they can hold on to slippery and
muddy surfaces. Variations in size and silhouette, especially regarding beak shapes, can help
identify the family or generic species. Single scientific species can be determined if colour or
plumage patterns are indicated.

Wading birds are less frequently depicted than waterbirds, although they are also popular in
LB III. The first images date to EB III – MB II and they will be discussed in the first section.
Depictions dating to MB III – LB IIIA1 are analysed in the second section. In the final section
we examine the more numerous images of waders dating to LB IIIA2 – IIIC.

7.2 EB III – MB II

In EB III – MB II, images of large waders appeared on vases and seals from the Cyclades and
Crete. No depictions have been found on the Greek Mainland. The following 138 objects will
be analysed:

• 20 vase-paintings (G588-G607) dating to EB III – MB II from Phylakopi on Melos

and Gournia and Zakros on Crete.
• 118 seals (D34, D328-D444) dating to EB III – MM II from Lasithi, Mallia, Phaistos,
Milatos, Avdou, Ayios Charalambos, Artsa, Petras, Moni Odiyitria, Neapolis,
Palaikastro, Knossos, Anavlochos, Mochlos, Messara (exact findspot unknown),
 146

Gouves and Lastros on Crete; Phylakopi on Melos; and Exarchos and Epidauros on
the Greek Mainland.631

The birds can be identified as large waders based on their long necks and bills and their very
long legs. The birds on most vases (G588-G606) have leaf-shaped bodies resembling those of
herons or egrets. Two birds (G591, G606) have long feathers growing from their heads. These
feathers are similar to the neck plumes of some species of herons or egrets (grey heron, purple
heron, little egret). The fact that the remaining birds display a similar shape but have no such
feathers might indicate that the birds are little egrets (Egretta garzetta) because this species
only grows head feathers in summer (Figure 140).632 Most waders on seals (D328-D444) and
the bird on a Cretan vase (G607) have hump-shaped bodies, large two-toed or three-toed feet
and downward hanging bushy tails which resemble those of common cranes (Grus grus)
(Figure 141).633 Eight seals (D331, D334, D336, D347, D393, D394, D431, D443) might
show pelicans or ibises because the birds have especially large or curved bills (Figure 142).634

Comparable to other Cretan and Cycladic bird images from this period, the early depictions of
large waders are characterized by a rather accurate rendering of proportions. When we look at
their poses, we find that the waders on Cycladic vases are simply shown standing on two legs,
probably in friezes. At first glance, the waders on seals appear relatively stiff and similar to
each other.635 On three seals (D369, D417, D418) two headless birds are fused together at
their necks, which seems rather unnatural. However, on the majority of seals the waders adopt
several different naturalistic poses such as standing, walking, sitting and flying.636 A sense of
movement is also created by variations in the poses of the heads. While several waders are
shown with their heads reverted as if looking vigilantly around (e.g. D389-D394), others are
looking up or down (e.g. D368, D386). Cranes on seals are often standing on one leg (D328-
D382), which is a characteristic relaxed posture of large waders (Figure 143). Other cranes
are depicted walking on two legs (D383-D402) (Figure 144). Sitting cranes are shown with
their legs bent under them (D403-D410). This posture is called ‘hock-sitting’ and it is a
typical posture of juvenile cranes (Figure 145). At least eight seals show cranes flying with

631
Ruuskanen 1992, 15-20, type A “Wading birds”.
632
Svensson et al. 2009, 82.
633
Levi (1957-58, 109) noted the link between the bird on the Gournia jug and a a crane on a seal from Phaistos.
For identification as cranes see Kenna 1960, e.g. cat.no. 7 (D381) and Ruuskanen 1992, 15-20, 53-55. Shapland
(2009, 133) and Anastasiadou (2011, 183-185, 197-200) just called them “waterbirds” or “waterfowl”.
634
Ruuskanen 1992, 54-55.
635
Anastasiadou 2011, 297-299.
636
Naturalism on these seals was noted by Kenna 1960, cat.no. 7 (D381).
 147

their wings displayed (D419-D429) (Figure 146). When multiple birds are shown, there can
be variations in the poses adopted by individual birds. The frequent rotational compositions
also add a certain sense of movement to these images.637

As far as we can tell, no vegetative setting is indicated on the Cycladic vases with egrets and
stars are shown only once (G588). The Cretan wading birds are either shown alone or
together with their own kind, but on some seal faces they are combined with other elements
commonly found on MM II seals (Table 8).638 Anastasiadou has argued that these elements
are not necessarily landscape features because they are often shown upside down in relation to
the bird.639 However, a strict dichotomy of top and bottom may not have been perceived as
such by the Cretans because the seals were probably turned around when handled.640 Thus,
these elements might be landscape features after all.

Table 8: Associations of wading birds on Cretan seals dating to EM III – MM II.

Associated element Number of seals

Branch 13
Quadruped 6
Vessels 5
Spiders/scorpions 4
Fish/dolphin 2
Man 1
Total 31

Most frequently, the waders are combined with branches (e.g. D387, D407) which may
signify vegetation. Other frequently associated elements are quadrupeds such as goats or
bovines (e.g. D385, D365). On the vase from Gournia (G607), a wader is shown next to a
goat. According to Shapland, the most common motifs on the other seal faces of multi-sided
seals with waders are men and quadrupeds.641 The persistent association with quadrupeds

637
Cf. Groenewegen-Frankfort 1951, 198-200.
638
Anastasiadou 2011, 332-334.
639
Anastasiadou 2011, 352.
640
Morgan 1989, 156-158; McGowan 2006.
641
Shapland 2009, 133.
 148

seems inspired by direct observation of nature, since wetland pastures with herd animals are
favourite feeding grounds of large waders. The fish/dolphins shown on two seals (D362,
D411) seem to allude to the wetland habitat of waders. Possibly, the occasional association
with vessels (e.g. D361) is another indication for this link to water.

The remaining associatiated elements – spiders and scorpions (e.g. D395, D396) – cannot be
readily explained by any environmental or behavioural links.642 Other ‘unnatural’ elements,
namely signs of the Cretan Hieroglyphic script, appear next to waders on two hard-stone seals
(D34, D366). This association has led Jasink to argue that the birds on seals may have
occasionally functioned as script signs, although they do not appear in clay documents written
in Cretan Hieroglyphic.643 Anastasiadou has drawn attention to the visual resemblance of
several motifs on MM II soft-stone seals to the signs of Cretan Hieroglyphic which were
usually shown on hard-stone seals.644 She argued that the rather unnatural combinations of
elements on the steatite prisms – such as that of birds and spiders/scorpions – suggest that
they were meant to imitate Cretan Hieroglyphic.645 The possible function of wader images as
pseudo-script signs may explain the more unusual combinations, but the fact remains that the
majority of birds are shown in poses and associations directly observable in nature.

When we try to characterize the images with regard to ontologies, we can note that they reveal
an interest in the behavioural specifics and various poses adopted by waders. Also, both the
accurate proportions and the sense of movement observable in some depictions seem to be
traits of animist imagery. At the same time, the presence of almost identical poses and some
unnatural associations may suggest that images of waders were used as pseudo-script signs, a
symbolic function actually more compatible with analogism.

In sum, images of waders dating to EB III – MB II from the Cyclades and Crete show egrets,
cranes and possibly pelicans and ibises. Most of them are depicted in a variety of species-
specific poses and associations, but occasionally the sense of movement and naturalism is
offset by identical appearance or unnatural associations. While the former characteristics

642
Anastasiadou 2011, 341-358.
643
Jasink 2009, 140-141. This is the reason why they are not included in CHIC.
644
Anastasiadou 2011, 356.
645
Anastasiadou 2011, 353-358. In her view, the soft-stone seals could have belonged to people of lower social
status. Cf. also Poursat 2000, 189-190.
 149

seem to be consistent with animism as ontology, the latter traits could be explained by the
sporadic – analogical – function of wader images as pseudo-script signs.

7.3 MB III – LB IIIA1

In MB III – LB IIIA1, wading birds were depicted in more diverse media. In addition to seals
and vase-paintings, we also find images in frescoes and ivory carving. Depictions mostly
come from Crete and the Greek Mainland, less often from the Cyclades. The following 40
objects will be discussed:

• 2 frescoes (E19, E20) dating to MM III – LM I from Knossos and Archanes on Crete.
• 2 ivory plaques (I8, I12) dating to LM I from Palaikastro and Zakros on Crete.
• 1 faience figurine (B129) dating to LM I – IIIA from Knossos on Crete.
• 26 seals/sealings (D445-D470) dating to LB I – IIIA from Tylissos, Sykia, Sitia,
Avgos, Knossos and Mallia on Crete; and Eleusis on the Greek Mainland.
• 9 vase-paintings (G608-G616) dating to LB I – IIIA1 from Akrotiri on Thera;
Mycenae, Nafplion, Asine, Thebes, Argos and Berbati on the Greek Mainland; and
Isopata on Crete. 646

After MM II, cranes were no longer depicted on Cretan seals. Instead, most seals (D445-
D462) seem to show herons or egrets due to their more elongated bodies. 647 The birds on one
seal (D456) have neck feathers; possibly they are grey herons (Ardea cinerea) or little egrets
(Egretta garzetta). Another seal (D455) depicts a heron-like bird with a very short neck, thus
it could either be one of the larger herons with a contracted neck or a short-necked night heron
(Nycticorax nycticorax) or squacco heron (Ardeola ralloides) (Figure 147). A small wader,
probably a member of the Rallidae family, is shown on another seal (D463) (Figure 148).
Small waders, possibly black-winged stilts (Himantopus himantopus), are also depicted in a
fresco fragment from Archanes (E19) and a sherd from Akrotiri (G608) (Figure 149). A
fragmentary figurine from Knossos (B129) shows a bird’s head with a long, sturdy neck and a
relatively short bill. It could be a great bustard (Otis tarda) (Figure 150).

646
Furumark 1941, FM 7.n and 33.
647
Ruuskanen 1992, 55.
 150

Another type of wader is shown on a fresco (E20), two plaques (I8, I12) and some seals
(D464-D470). The most detailed image of this type is preserved on a plaque from Palaikastro
(I12). It shows a large bird with broad wings, a long neck, a long sturdy neck, an elongated
head and a long bill. These features suggest that it is a common crane (Grus grus).648
However, the bird also has a very long tail and a raised fan-shaped crest composed of three
tapering feathers. These elements make the bird resemble a male Indian peafowl (Pavo
cristatus) (Figure 151).649 The fresco fragment from Knossos (E20) may corroborate this
identification. It shows the large wings of a bird and the base of a broad tail. Brownish yellow
feathers form the tail, while the wings have rounded blue feathers, some of which have black
eyes in their centre. Such eyes are typical of the plumage pattern of a peacock.650

The presence of peacocks in LM I iconography would be surprising, however, because these

birds whose origins lie in India are not native to the Aegean. The exact date of their
introduction to Greece is uncertain. Peafowl were known in Athens by the 5th century BC and
there are indications that a peacock appeared even earlier on Samos.651 In Mesopotamia, these
birds were known by the 3rd millennium BC because a literary document clearly mentions
them.652 Peafowl can be kept easily in captivity and some birds may have reached the island
of Crete already in the Neopalatial period, possibly via the Levant. Peacocks with their
exuberant plumage must have been a fascinating sight for the Cretans. Their exotic origin may
explain the particularities of the depictions which mix the most characteristic features of
peafowl (long tail, crest) with those of a crane.653 Apparently, the Cretans considered the
crane to be most similar to the peacock, probably because they share some morphological and
behavioural features. Both species are large birds with big feet and conspicuous tails.
Moreover, they walk a lot and mostly forage in open areas, eating seeds, but also insects and
small animals. In this case, Cretan folk taxonomy seems to have deviated from scientific
taxonomy, which classifies peafowl as belonging to the order galliformes (like chickens or
partridges).

648
Warren (1995) identified this type of bird on D464 as a crowned crane (Balearica pavonina), which lives in
Africa south of the Sahara. However, there is no evidence that the crowned crane was known beyond its native
range (e.g. the Egyptians did not depict it).
649
Dawkins et al. 1904, 284; Vickery 1936, 84; Nilsson 1950, 289.
650
Evans (1921, 540-541) called the bird a pheasant, although he had identified peacock plumes in the Priest
King Fresco.
651
Nair 1974, 93.
652
Veldhuis 2004.
653
Some scholars, for example Marinatos – Hirmer (1973, cat.no. 113); Warren (1995, 979); Vanschoonwinkel
(1996, 367) considered the possibility that it a fantastical bird due to the mixed features.
 151

While the Cretan and Cycladic images seek to differentiate wading birds according to species,
this is notably different in the case of some Mainland vase-paintings (G609-G616) the earliest
of which comes from LH I Mycenae.654 The birds with their elongated bodies, long straight
necks and long bills seem to be large waders but they cannot be identified more closely
(Figure 152).

When we turn to the degree of naturalism we can find further differences. In the Cretan and
Cycladic images, most waders are shown in rather naturalistic ways. For example, one heron
(D455) is depicted hiding in the reed, probably waiting for prey. Another seal (D457) depicts
the raised head of a heron (or pelican?) with a fish caught in its bill.655 It is a masterfully
executed image of the moment before the fish is turned around in the bill to be swallowed
head first (Figure 153). Three seals (D450-D452) show herons in a seemingly unnatural
position with their bodies on their backs and the feet in the air. It is possible that they show
bathing herons, which can seem rather helpless when they are partly submerged and treading
the water with their feet (Figure 154). The peafowl/crane is also shown in varied poses, either
flying (E20, I8, I12, D466-D470) or walking (D464, D465).

While the above images focus on the liveliness and variety of behaviour, wading birds on the
Mainland vase-paintings (G609-G616) are always shown in the same pose with displayed
wings and no attention is paid to other more species-specific actions. Simply shown in a
frieze, the birds appear very similar to each other. In contrast to the Cretan images which
show varied types of waders, the birds on the Mainland vases appear almost copied, although
they come from different sites (Mycenae, Asine, Prosymna, Berbati, Nafplion, Thebes,
Isopata).656 Moreover, their appearance is not only generic, but also rather unnatural because
they have wavy legs and the thin band-like wings are shown above and below the birds in a
rather twisted position. In some cases (e.g. G614, G615) the wings which are attached near
the head appear like neck feathers.

In the Cretan images, the environment of the waders is often alluded to by branches and the
herons can be surrounded by wetland plants such as papyrus or reeds (e.g. D455, D457). On
the Archanes fresco (E19), the small wader appears in front of dark and light brown areas,

654
Åkerström (1987, 65) and Crouwel – Morris (1996, 212-213) also compared the bird on the Berbati fragment
to similar birds on vases from Asine and Thebes.
655
For a remarkably similar depiction in Egpytian iconography see Houlihan 1986, 15.
656
Åkerström 1987, 115; Mountjoy 1993, 127; Crouwel – Morris 1996, 213.
 152

possibly signifying mud banks.657 The peafowl/crane is surrounded by rocks on the plaques
(I8, I12). The herons can be combined with fish (D463) or quadrupeds, e.g. bulls (D460,
D461). As was said above (Section 7.2), large waders are often seen together with cattle on
wetland pastures. Some species of waders such as cattle egrets have specialized in this habitat
and primarily feed on the insects stirred up or attracted by herd animals. On the Zakros plaque
(I8) the peafowl/crane may have been associated with other flying birds (corvids and
swallows). The fresco fragment from Knossos (E20) showing a rising peacock might belong
to the same scene as a nearby found head of a cat.658 Possibly, the bird is fleeing an imminent
attack, comparable to the waterbirds chased by felines in scenes discussed in the previous
chapter (Section 6.3).

While the Cretan depictions place particular emphasis on showing the wading birds embedded
in their natural environment, the same cannot be said for the vase-paintings from the Greek
Mainland (G609-G616). Vegetation or other elements are rarely shown on the vases; one
associates the wader with a single lily (G614) and another one shows an argonaut next to the
bird (G611). The only exception to this is an alabastron from Isopata on Crete (G613) which
depicts a generic wader of the Mainland style surrounded by dense vegetation and
ornaments.659 Given its findspot it seems likely that this image was influenced by local Cretan
traditions.

As to the functions of the wading birds, we can note that two Cretan seals show large waders
in association with women. On a LM I seal (D458) a wading bird is depicted next to a female
figure with a staff whose head is turned towards the bird. Another seal (D459) dating to LM
IIIA might show a similar composition although the seal is quite worn. The woman with the
staff recalls the hovering figures in Cretan cult scenes (Sections 4.4 and 5.3). As we have
seen, such figures were often carried and accompanied by corvids, an arrangement which
finds parallels in shamanist imagery. Waterbirds seem to have had a similar role as shamanic
helpers, possibly due to their liminal status (Section 6.3). Since wading birds share the liminal
habitat with waterbirds they may have occasionally adopted a comparable role in shamanic
practices. The waders on the Mainland vases (G609-G616) are never associated directly with
humans. Since they all come from tombs, they may have had a funerary significance, but the

657
Sakellarakis – Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 499.
658
Evans 1921, 540.
659
Cf. Preston 2004a.
 153

lack of more specific poses or recurrent associations makes it impossible to reconstruct their
exact function.

When we turn to ontologies, there are again distinct regional differences. The Cretan and
Cycladic images of waders depict the birds in various lively species-specific poses and
actions. Moreover, the scenes with waders in shamanic rituals appear to emphasise the
relations to humans (by the turning of the head) in a typically animist fashion. Plants are
frequently shown surrounding the waders in a dense composition, as if emphasising their
shared ontological status. In comparison, the waders from the Greek Mainland appear stylized
and often identical to each other without the indication of vegetation. They may have had an
analogical function of unknown sort.

In sum, the images of waders dating to MB III – LB IIIA1 come from Crete, the Cyclades and
the Greek Mainland. Depictions from Crete and the Cyclades show specific species, while
those from the Greek Mainland only depict generic waders. The exotic peafowl seems to have
been classified as belonging to large waders, not galliformes as in modern taxonomy. The
Cretan and Cycladic images reveal a profound interest in the elaboration of different poses,
behavior and habitat of waders. Possibly, these birds were thought to act as shamanic helpers
due to their liminal habitat, reflecting animist notions. By contrast, the Mainland vases do not
show such associations and depict the waders in a repetitive and rather rigid fashion,features
more typically found in analogical imagery.

7.4 LB IIIA2 – LB IIIC

In LB IIIA2 – IIIC, images of wading birds became more frequent again, especially in vase-
paintings.660 Most depictions come from the Greek Mainland, fewer from Crete. The Cyclades
have not yielded any images of waders from this period. The following 240 objects will be
discussed:

• 3 seals (D471-D473) dating to LH IIIA – IIIB from Knossos on Crete; and Midea on
the Greek Mainland.
• 1 lapislazuli inlay (I13) dating to LH IIIB1 from Thebes on the Greek Mainland.
• 3 frescoes (E21-E23) dating to LH IIIB2 from Tiryns on the Greek Mainland.

660
Güntner (2010, 14-15) estimates that they comprise over 50% of all bird depictions in LH IIIB2. According to
the numbers compiled in this thesis, this figure may even be higher.
 154

• 233 vase-paintings (G110, G227, G260, G617-G846) dating to LB IIIB1 – IIIC from
Knossos, Chania, Armenoi, Kalami on Crete; Tiryns, Berbati, Mycenae, Midea,
Teichos Dymaion, Argos, Thebes, Athens and Kokla on the Greek Mainland; and
Kolonna on Aegina.661

A fresco fragment (E23) from Tiryns shows a bird similar to the herons on Cretan seals
discussed in the preceding section. Its orange head with a long red bill may indicate that it is
a purple heron (Ardea purpurea) (Figure 155). Peafowl/cranes seem to be represented on two
seals (D471, D472) due to their long tails. A peacock with a fan-shaped crest is also shown in
a fresco (E22) from Tiryns. Similar crested heads are shown in another fresco from Tiryns
(E21) and a lapis lazuli inlay (I13) from Thebes. In LH IIIB1, generic waders of the type
discussed in the preceding section were no longer depicted on vases. Instead, several vases
(G110, G260, G619-G682) show birds with elongated bodies, relatively short necks, large
two-toed feet, short tails and long and triangular bills.662 They seem to be some kind of small
heron or egret (Figure 156). Since birds of this type are shown pecking at the necks of bulls
they may be identified as cattle egrets (Bubulcus ibis) (Figure 157).663 Numerous vases
(G227, G617, G727-G838), mostly dating to LH IIIB2, show waders with large bodies,
bulging breasts and broad tapering tails hanging down. The tails resemble the long drooping
tails of common or demoiselle cranes (Grus grus or Grus virgo) (Figure 158).664 Some other
vases (G695-G717) depict waders with serpentine necks and strongly curved bills which
resemble flamingoes (Phoenicopterus roseus) (Figure 159).665

In addition to these rather specific depictions, there are several images of more generic large
waders on the vases. To these belong some depictions on Cretan vases (G687-G694) which
show the protomes of generic waders (Figure 160). Such vases were only found in the region
around Chania and at Armenoi in West Crete which seems to have received a particularly
strong influence from the Greek Mainland in LM IIIB.666

661
Furumark 1941, FM 7.36, 37, 39 and FM 7.17 and 16, 29.
662
The same type of bird is shown on well preserved vases from tombs on Cyprus. Their Mainland origin is
attested by scientific (Mommsen – Maran 2000-2001, 98-99, table 1, 102-103) and stylistic analysis (Güntner
2006).
663
Benton 1961, 44.
664
Vermeule – Karageorghis (1982, cat.no. IX.109) used the term “marsh birds” for the birds on G769 as did
Mcmullen Fisher (1998, 109) for the birds on G764.
665
Vermeule – Karageorghis (1982, cat.no. IX. 110 - 112) called the birds on G695, G698 and G700
“flamingos”.
666
Betancourt 1985, 171-177; Bennet 1985, 1987, 82-83.
 155

The degree of naturalism in these images varies widely. The heron in the Tiryns fresco (E23)
as well as a crane on a vase from Knossos (G617) and some of the cattle egrets (e.g. G619)
and flamingoes (e.g. G695, G700) on vases from the Greek Mainland appear relatively
naturalistic. However, more numerous are images of waders whose morphology displays
unnatural features. For example, the two peacock/cranes in frescoes from Tiryns (E21, E22)
are painted yellow, not blue or green as we would expect. Moreover, their crests in one of the
frescoes (E21) and an inlay from Thebes (I13) resemble those of griffins rather than those of
peacocks, due to the small black spirals at the base (Figure 161).667 The bodies of large
waders on vases can be decorated with circles, wavy lines or rows of dots running alongside
the inner silhouette and the middle axis of the body. None of these patterns corresponds to
any natural plumage patterns of waders. The wader protomes on Cretan vases (G687-G694)
can be seen as confirming this tendency towards deviation from nature because they are not
complete birds. However, it needs to be said that they appear less abstract than the waterbird
protomes discussed in the previous chapter because they do not develop from abstract forms
such as triangles. More unnatural features are found in the cranes on the Mainland vases
dating to LH IIIB2 (G727-G838). Their bodies are not developed in an organic manner, but
appear as if assembled from separate body parts. Often, the necks are attached opposite the
legs and the bulging breasts appear especially exaggerated. The tails can be unusually long,
sometimes even overlapping the ground line.

When we analyse the poses and compositions of the waders, we find similar trends. The
images of peafowl/cranes (E21, E22, I13) are for the most part too fragmentary to identify
their poses or actions. However, the heron in the Tiryns fresco (E23) is shown in a rather
natural scene because it seems to be poking with its bill in the mud next to the base of a
(papyrus?) plant. Some of the wader protomes on Cretan vases (e.g. E691) have their beaks
opened as if calling, which gives them a rather lively attitude. The (cattle) egrets from the
Greek Mainland are often depicted with their heads lowered and turned back as if scanning
the ground for food (e.g. G619-G621). A few waders have turned their heads back (e.g.
G639, G640, G757-G760). However, the poses of the birds appear standardized and usually
there is no sense of individual movements. These aspects are much intensified in depictions of
cranes and flamingoes in LH IIIB2 vases.668 Only a single flamingo is shown standing on one
leg (G716), although this is a typical pose of these birds. Mostly they are simply shown

667
Rodenwaldt 1912, 139.
668
Vermeule and Karageorghis (1982, 102-103) similarly observed standardisation of compositions and types.
 156

standing in friezes of multiple birds, with only two birds possibly arranged in antithetical
composition (G734). They do not differ from each other, neither in their poses nor actions.
Apparently, it was not the intention of Mycenaean vase-painters to show the great variety of
poses observable in a lively flock of cranes or flamingoes.

The heron in the Tiryns fresco (E23) is the only wading bird from this time shown in a natural
environment, alluded to by the plant next to the beak. The waterbird protomes (G687-G694)
are sometimes integrated into abstract decorative schemes which do not include plants. On the
vase-paintings of large waders from the Greek Mainland, no vegetation is shown at all and the
birds are set in blank spaces. As was mentioned above, some waders are associated with cattle
(Figure 162).669 The cattle egrets are shown pecking at the animals (G625-G627) or standing
between or under them (G626, G628). Cattle egrets eat insects which are disturbed by the
movements of the animals, but they can also stand on the mammals picking ticks or fleas
from their fur.670 This close relationship benefits both animals, providing food for the egret
and preventing parasites and diseases from spreading in the cattle herd. Thus, the association
of waders with cattle is not entirely due to fancy, as was implied by Åkerström when he said
that the bulls are “left with a bird or fish to play with”,671 but accurately reflects the symbiotic
relationship between these species. Cranes and flamingoes are also directly associated with
cattle on five vases (G716, G725, G761-G763). One crane (G763) even seems to be standing
on a bull. Although these wader species prefer similar wetland habitats as cattle, they are
never seen in such a close proximity to the mammals.672 The observation that there is some
overlap in the associations of several species of large waders (egrets, cranes, flamingoes)
might indicate that they were combined in a folk taxonomical category, maybe as “cattle
birds”.673

As regards the functions of wading birds in this period, we can note that the similarities of the
peafowl/crane to the griffin (E21, I13) may indicate that the bird became an imaginary or
mythological creature. On a sealing from Knossos (D472), peafowl/cranes are also shown
above a scene with griffins. The peacock in the Tiryns fresco (E22) seems to be carried in a
procession.674 In this scene, several elaborately dressed women are shown under parasols,
some of which are carrying smaller female figures (either cult images or young girls) which

669
Åkerström (1987, 64) highlighted the frequent associations of birds with bulls.
670
Cocker 2013, 133.
671
Åkerström 1987, 71.
672
Svensson et al. 2010, 82; McInerney 2010, 6-7.
673
The cattle egret is also known as cow crane.
674
Papadimitriou et al. 2015.
 157

are holding pomegranate branches. Papadimitriou et al. interpreted the scene as alluding to
initiation rites of young girls under the protection of the goddess Hera (hence the
pomegranates as fertility symbols).675 Although the exact significance of this scene remains
unknown, the incorporation of an image of the bird in a ceremonial procession suggests that it
had a religious meaning. Moreover, the possible association with a festival related to Hera
could indicate that the peacock was an attribute of this goddess already in Mycenaean times.

On the Mycenaean vases, mostly kraters and deep bowls, we can note that the plump shape
and the conspicuously rounded breasts of the cranes (G723-G838) are emphasised, especially
in LH IIIB2. This might allude to their palatability. Cranes have been seen as important
sources of protein and they were sought-after game birds in the ancient Mediterranean and in
the Middle Ages.676 In Egypt, they were even force-fed with grain to fatten them and to make
their meat more palatable.677 Evidence from bone finds on the Greek Mainland suggests that
cranes were eaten in Macedonia and Thessaly678, Laconia679 and the Argolid680. The emphasis
on size and fatty body parts are reminiscent of the features highlighted in waterbirds on
roughly contemporary vases (Section 6.5). The similarity extends to the compositions
consisting of uniform friezes of identical birds. We may argue that such images of waders
convey a similar impression of affluent and peaceful regularity. An intensifying of the
emphasis on uniformity is observable in LH IIIB2 because the single birds do not show
individual decorative fillings anymore and all show the same rows of dots. This increased
interest in ‘orderly’ depictions may mirror the solidification of palatial society in this period.
In contrast to LH IIIA2 – IIIB1 vase-paintings of waterbirds, LH IIIB vases showing waders
exclusively come from palaces, especially in the Argolid, which also suggests that their
significance was more closely tied to palatial ideology. The limited repertoire of motifs on
vases which in this time consists of bulls, chariots with horses, fish, boxers, helmeted
warriors, stags, goats, hunting scenes and large waders is another indication that elite ideology
played a role in the selection of themes.681

675
Papadimitriou et al. 2015, 197-206. Hera is also attested in Linear B, e.g. on PY Tn 316.
676
Toynbee 1973, 243-244; Cocker 2013, 185-187.
677
Houlihan 1986, 83-86.
678
According to Becker (1986, 212-216), several crane bones have been found at Kastanas and Pefkakia
Magoula.
679
According to Duhig et al. (2008, 513), a crane bone dating to LH IIA was found burnt at Ayios Stephanos.
680
According to Gejwall (1969, 47) cranes were eaten at Lerna I and the excavations at Tiryns have yielded
crane bones in LH IIIB2 layers.
681
Steel 1999, 806; Stockhammer 2009, 164-165.
 158

Other elements associated with waders also seem to corroborate their close connection to
palatial society. For example, waders are shown next to chariots on three vases (G629, G630,
G694). The frequent association with cattle can also be seen in this light (Figure 162).
According to Linear B sources, cattle were valuable animals for the palace economy. At least
some cattle herds were probably under the control of the palaces because several cowherds
are mentioned in the documents and individual animals were apparently dispersed from these
herds to be used as traction animals.682 The fact that these ploughing oxen were given names
and described in the documents also suggests that the palace controlled these animals.683
Cows and bulls were sacrificed and consumed, probably on high-status occasions. This is
evident from the lists of animals for banquets from Pylos, where one bull is destined to be
sacrificed on the occasion of the initiation of the king (Un 2), while Un 718 and Un 853 list
cattle for feasts in honour of Poseidon.684 Further evidence for the important role of cattle in
palatial society comes from the archive room 7 in the palace at Pylos which contained several
deposits with burnt cattle bones, apparently feasting refuse. 685 Furthermore, a large bull is
depicted in a procession on the wall of the vestibule of the megaron at Pylos which
corroborates the close connection of this animal with the highest ranks of the palatial
hierarchy. The social and ideological importance of the cattle herds for the palace might have
been extended to the large waders because their positive effects on the herds were noticed and
their presence may even have been encouraged by the cowherds.686

There are a few indications that large waders had a ritual significance in LH IIIB (Figure
163). A pyxis from the Cult Centre at Mycenae (G758) shows a crane standing below a
sphinx.687 On the Midea Stirrup Jar (G260), cattle egrets are sitting on double axes attached to
horns of consecration (Section 6.5). According to Briault, there are indications that when the
double axe was transferred to pottery in LH II its cult symbolism was understood, marking
ritual pottery, but its function was more directly linked to power.688 A few waders are shown
on pouring vessels such as jugs or jars. A double jug with a hare modelled in relief on the
handle comes from Chania (G693). As we have seen (Section 4.5) these vessels were
probably used in rituals centering on water-related fertility. It needs to be noted, though, that

682
Halstead 1998-1999, 169; McInerney 2010, 63-65.
683
Killen 1993; Halstead 1998-1999, 161, 168; McInerney 2010, 50-51.
684
Halstead 1998-1999, 167; McInerney 2010, 53, 65-66.
685
Isaakidou et al. 2002; Stocker – Davis 2004; McInerney 2010, 60-62.
686
According to Cocker (2013, 133-134) in Egypt and other Arabic-speaking countries the cattle egret is called
“friend of the farmer”.
687
Rutter 2014, 203.
688
Briault 2007, 256-258; Briault 2008, 252-253.
 159

the waders are painted on the body and not near the openings, a position which on Crete
seems to have been reserved for dove figurines. On the Midea Stirrup Jar (G260), waterbirds
– not waders – are directly associated with the flow of liquid (Section 6.5). Thus, it seems
more likely that the waders’ symbolic links to palatial society inspired their occasional
association with ritual pottery.

Another attestation of the connection with palatial religion might be found in some Linear B
tablets from Thebes which were already mentioned in connection with waterbirds. In addition
to mules, snakes, dogs, birds and geese, the word ke-re-na, which has been translated as
cranes (γέρανος, probably mentioned on Fq 126, Fq 169 and Gp 176), appears listed as the
recipients of various foodstuffs on the occasion of a ritual banquet.689 The same word also
appears on a tablet from Knossos (KN M 719) in connection with a theonym mentioned as the
recipient of certain commodity (*146). Del Freo has drawn attention to the later status of
cranes as the sacred birds of Demeter because they often eat grain and their migration cycle
correlates with the agricultural year.690 Following Aravantinos et al., he suggested that the
word ma-ka which also appears in the Thebes tablets can be identified with Demeter and thus
cranes were possibly sacred to this divinity already in Mycenaean times.691 However, the
identification of ma-ka as Demeter has not been universally accepted.692 Moreover, the
association with palatial cattle herding seem to have been more pertinent than that with
agriculture. Another indirect indication of the close connection between the waders and
palatial society is the fact that after the collapse of the palaces at the end of LH IIIB2, images
of waders – with and without cattle – disappeared almost completely. Only one vase from
Mycenae (G110) showing waders on horses seems to be a faint echo of the recurrent
associations of cattle egrets with large mammals on earlier vases. This rarity of waders
notably contrasts with the contemporary popularity of waterbirds in LH IIIC (Section 6.6).

As to ontologies, we need to point out first that there are not enough wader images from Crete
to allow a reconstruction of the prevalent mode of human-animal relationship. Nevertheless,
we can note that the wader protomes on Cretan vases seem rather lively, a feature
characteristic of animist imagery. The wading birds in images from the Greek Mainland often
appear as if assembled from several irreducible parts (tail, body, legs, neck) rather than being
developed in an organic fashion. Such modular thinking seems to be typical of analogism

689
Aravantinos et al. 2001; Del Freo 1999, 301; Neumann 2006, 128.
690
Del Freo 1999, 301-304.
691
Aravantinos et al. 2001, 188-190.
692
Killen 2006, 82; Duhoux 2006.
 160

(Section 3.2.1). Moreover, the extent of species-specific features or associations given seems
to be heavily dependent on the symbolic function of the birds (mythical attribute of a deity or
symbols of palatial society).

In sum, some images of waders dating to LB IIIA2 – IIIC come from Crete but most from the
Greek Mainland. Although they are often identifiable as a certain species (cranes, cattle
egrets, flamingoes), most of the birds appear stylized or they display unnatural features. The
peacock/crane seems to have been assimilated to the mythical griffin and the bird may already
have functioned as an attribute of the goddess Hera. While some wader protomes from Crete
appear rather lively due to their open beaks, the great majority of wader images from the
Greek Mainland focus on the depiction of identical birds shown in regular friezes. The only
relations of waders emphasized are those with cattle or chariots and both elements are
intricately linked to palatial economy and/or society. Therefore it was argued that the
uniformly arranged birds reflect the solidification of palatial society occurring during LH
IIIB. The constant use of bird images as allegories or metaphors is consistent with analogical
imagery.

7.5 Conclusion

Wading birds appear in iconography of the EB III – LB IIIC periods. The earliest images
dating to EB III – MB II come from the Cyclades and Crete. Various generic species such as
egrets, cranes, pelicans or ibises seem to have been distinguished, especially on Crete. Despite
a certain sense of rigidity and some unnatural associations, features which are probably
attributable to the function of some images as (pseudo)script signs, most waders are shown in
varied species-specific poses and associations. This becomes even more pronounced in MB
III – LB IIIA, when various waders are shown in Cretan and Cycladic imagery with an
emphasis on the variety of poses, behaviour and relations with other animals. A special bird
mixing the features of a peacock and a crane was interpreted as revealing a Cretan folk
taxonomical grouping which included the exotic peafowl in the same category as cranes due
to morphological and behavioural similarities. Two images seem to associate waders with
women in scenes comparable to shamanic imagery as can be found in the art of animist
societies.

The first depictions of wading birds from the Greek Mainland appear in LH I – IIIA. In
contrast to the contemporary Cretan and Cycladic images, they show identical generic waders
 161

with a pronounced disregard of behavioural and environmental diversity. In LH IIIB – IIIC,

we can identify different species but stylization and unnatural features prevail. Rather than
showing variety of poses and behaviour, these images focus on peaceful images of identical
large-bodied birds. Their frequent associations with cattle or chariots link the waders to other
symbols of palatial economy and society. We can therefore argue that the scenes of uniformly
arranged multiple waders reflect a firmly established palatial order and associated notions of
stability and abundance. In addition, the peafowl/crane seems to have become a mythical bird,
possibly functioning as an attribute of the goddess Hera. Both the function of bird images as
metaphors for the social order and as divine attributes is consistent with analogical imagery.
 162

8. Miscellaneous
8.1 Introduction

In this chapter, we look at depictions of various birds which are overall less frequent and more
scattered – both in space and time – than those discussed in the previous chapters. These are
owls, hoopoes, galliformes (chickens and partridges), human-bird hybrids and combinations,
swallows, and seabirds (gulls and cormorants).

We will analyse the miscellaneous images of birds in a rough chronological order, beginning
with owls, the earliest image of which appears in EM III – MM I. In the second section, we
look at depictions of hoopoes which appear in EB III – LB II. The third section discusses
images of galliformes, which date to EB III – LB IIIC. In the fourth section, we look at
images of human-bird hybrids and combinations dating to MM II – LM I. Swallows are the
focus of the fifth section because images of these birds date to MB III – LB I. The final
section is dedicated to seabirds which appear in MB III – LB II/IIIA1.

8.2 Owls (EB III – LB II)

Owls (birds of the order Strigiformes) are among the most easily identifiable birds due to their
elongated bodies, round faces and large staring eyes (Figure 164). Originally motifs on Cretan
seals, owls were subsequently depicted on jewellery found on the island of Aegina and the
Greek Mainland. We will discuss the following 21 objects:

• 1 seal in the shape of an owl (D474) dating to EM III – MM IA from Crete.

• 7 seals and sealings showing owls (D475-D481) dating to MM II and LM I from
Knossos, Phaistos and Ayia Triada on Crete.
• 12 jewellery pieces (C51-C56) dating to MB III – LB II from the island of Aegina and
Pylos, Peristeria and Kakovatos on the Greek Mainland.
• 1 gold sheet showing an owl (I14) dating to LH I – IIA from Pylos.

While the earliest depiction of an owl in the shape of a figural seal (D474) does not yet show
species-specific attributes, the later birds can be further differentiated. One MM II seal (D478)
shows an owl with small ear tufts, possibly a scops owl (Otus scops). The remaining three
MM II seal images (D475-D477) depict owls with long appendages growing from their head,
sometimes turned into spirally structures resembling horns. They are identifiable as “horned
 163

owls” of the family Strigidae which have characteristically large ear tufts. 693 More
specifically, long-eared owls (Asio otus) may be meant (Figure 165).694 In MM III, images of
birds with ear tufts disappeared and the owls are smaller and more elegant. The birds on a
sealing from Knossos (D481) may be barn owls (Tyto alba) based on their heart-shaped faces.
The birds on the remaining Cretan seals (D479, D480)695 and gold ornaments from Aegina
and the Greek Mainland (C51-C56) can be identified as little owls (Athene noctua) (Figure
166).696

The change in species from long-eared owls in MM II to little owls in MM III/LM I might be
due to behavioural differences between these species. Whereas the former species is a forest
dweller which only hunts at night and seldom comes near human settlements, little owls often
perch and/or breed in a landscape created by humans (e.g. pastures, fences, ruins) and even in
houses/barns (Figure 167).697 In contrast to other owl species which are nocturnal and shy,
little owls are often seen during the day and can also become accustomed to humans. We will
return below to the question of why such attributes might have been of interest.

When we turn to the degree of artistic naturalism, we can state that – apart from the
exaggerated ear tufts on some MM II depictions – all the owls are depicted in naturalistic
ways. Mostly, they are shown standing or sitting with their legs flexed (C54-C56, D474-
D479, D481). This reflects the common poses assumed by owls, which are usually seen in a
calm posture in a tree, either resting or waiting for prey. Some owls (e.g. D478, D479) are
shown in a hunched posture, i.e. a pose they adopt when perching or when discovered by a
human. Thus, it seems that some depictions of owls were inspired by direct observations of
these birds. Flying poses are adopted by the birds on a Cretan seal (D480) and the owls in the
ornaments from the Aegina Treasure (C51-C53). Owls on Cretan seals can be associated with
a branch (D475), oval objects, possibly eggs (D477), and a rosette or rocks (D481).

The variety of species, poses and associations of owls on Cretan seals makes it difficult to
identify any meaningful patterns. As with other bird images from EM – LM I Crete, the
primary aim of owl depictions may have been to show the diversity of bird life rather than
highlighting any primary function of the birds. With the adoption of owl images on Aegina
(C51-C53) and the Greek Mainland (C54-C56), however, this seems to change. The owls are

693
Ruuskanen 1992, 58, type C.
694
The eagle owl, which is the other owl with such ear tufts, is not native to Crete.
695
Ruuskanen (1992, 58) identified some birds on seals as little owls.
696
Masseti (1997, 358) identified the owls on objects from the Aegina Treasure as little owls.
697
Svensson et al 2009, 232.
 164

now consistenly depicted on gold jewellery from rich funerary contexts.698 This is reminiscent
of the media and contexts of contemporary images of raptors from the Greek Mainland
(Section 5.3). Similarities also extend to the multiple depictions of identical birds – the cut-
out ornaments in the shape of owls from different tombs in Messenia were even made from
the same mould.699 In contrast to images of raptors, however, predatory features are not
emphasized at all in owl depictions. They appear more defensive because the hunched posture
of the owls in cut-out ornaments (C54-C56) is typical of the “bobbing” behavior of little
owls.700 Such alternate stretching and hunching is usually displayed if the owl is alerted by
something: a strange noise, a shadow or a potential predator. Since the cut-out ornaments
were probably stitched onto the clothes or the shroud of the deceased, the owls would thus
have conveyed the impression that they are protecting the body. The radial composition of the
owls on the earrings of the Aegina Treasure (C51) and their pose with outstretched wings are
also suggestive of a protective attitude. Therefore, we may agree with Laffineur who
interpreted the owl images as apotropaic symbols due to the deposition in tombs and the
association of owls with the night.701

As regards ontologies, we can note that the preference of synanthropic and sociable bird
species such as little owls seems typical of Neopalatial bird art (cf. rock doves, corvids or
swallows). Animist notions can result in the preferential depiction of synanthropic bird
species because they might be seen as non-human persons seeking contact with humans
(Section 3.2.4). Whereas the owls on Cretan images are shown in varied poses, the depictions
from the Aegina and the Greek Mainland emphasise certain postures. The identical rendering
of defensive owl images from funerary contexts suggests that they were used as protective
symbols in an analogical way.

In sum, images of owls come from Crete and the Greek Mainland. The Cretan depictions
show different species in varied naturalistic poses which prevent the identification of any
particular function. However, the preference of synanthropic birds (little owls) in the
Neopalatial period may concur with an intensification of animist rituals such as relational

698
Marinatos (1965, 118) and Pantelidou (1970, 134) considered the relative frequency of the owl motif in
Messenia (Peristeria, Pylos, Kakovatos) as evidence that this bird may have been an emblem of the rulers of
Pylos. However, Peristeria and Pylos seem to have been rivals at that time and owl images are also found on
objects from the Aegina Treasure. For relations between Pylos and Peristeria see Bennet – Davis 1999.
699
Christine de Vree, personal communication.
700
Svensson et al. 2009, 232.
701
Laffineur 1981, 1985, 251-252; Gates 1989, 124. According to Cocker (2013, 271-281) owls have frequently
been associated with wisdom and secret knowledge.
 165

encounters. The owl images from Aegina and the Greek Mainland focus on specific protective
poses adopted by identical birds. Since they come from funerary contexts such owl images
may have had an apotropaic function, something which is consistent with analogical imagery.

8.3 Hoopoes (EB III – LB II)

One of the most characteristic and conspicuous Greek birds is the hoopoe (Upupa epops),
which has an elongated body, a long curved bill and a crest (Figure 168). The bird was only
rarely, however, depicted in images from Crete and one image from the Greek Mainland.
Hoopoes are shown on the following 6 objects:

• 1 ivory plaque (I15) dating to EM III – MM I from Phourni on Crete.

• 1 figurine (B130), dating to MM III from Mallia on Crete.
• 3 frescoes (E24-E26) dating to MM III – LM I from Katsamba and Knossos on Crete.
• 1 dagger (F5) dating to LH II allegedly from Pylos on the Greek Mainland.

The birds can be identified as hoopoes due to their slender bodies, short feet, small heads with
long bills and crests.702 In the frescoes (E24-E26), the birds have yellow bodies with black (or
blue) and white wings, which corresponds to the plumage patterns of hoopoes (Figure 169).

The earliest image of a hoopoe is possibly shown on a fragmentary ivory plaque dating to EM
III – MM I (I15). Here, the bird is simply shown standing between rosettes with its crest
folded. A MM III figurine of a sitting hoopoe (B130) was probably attached to a vessel. As
with other bird images, liveliness and variety peaks in the Neopalatial period. In a LM IA
fresco fragment from Katsamba (E24), two hoopoes are shown flying with outspread
wings.703 The depiction of two birds could suggest that they are a breeding pair because
hoopoes usually forage alone outside the breeding season.704 The birds are flying behind each
other; maybe the male is chasing the female which is a common behavior during the mating
season. Shaw remarked that the birds appear slightly too large in relation to the plants
below.705 It must be said, however, that hoopoes appear much larger in flight than on the
ground because they have surprisingly broad wings.

702
The figurine was identified as hoopoe by Pelon (1970, 447, cat.no. 86).
703
Shaw 1978; Immerwahr 1989, 67.
704
Also suggested by Shaw 2005, 102.
705
Shaw 1978, 29-30.
 166

The most elaborate depiction of hoopoes is shown in the Partridge and Hoopoe Fresco from
Knossos (E26). The frieze depicts two hoopoes and a flock of partridges (Section 8.4).706 One
hoopoe is sitting in a low bush with small round leaves (an acacia?) and the other one may be
standing on a rock. Several flying hoopoes are shown on the blade of a Mycenaean dagger
(F5) which may come from a tomb near Pylos and dates to LH II. In contrast to the
naturalistic depiction of a flying pair as shown in the Katsamba fresco, the birds appear here
in an unusually large group and they are shown in a repetitive fashion. This unnatural
arrangement seems partly to be due to the elongated form of the blade.

In the Cretan frescoes (E24-E26), the hoopoes are closely associated with plants. In the
wallpainting from Katsamba (E24), the pair is flying between reed-like vegetation. In the
Knossos fresco (E26), the birds are surrounded by undulating rocks, grassy undergrowth and
possibly a stream with colourful ovoid pebbles. The rocks, grass and the low shrubs
accurately reflect the dry open country which is the habitat of both hoopoes and partridges.

In the one image from the Mainland (F5), the background of the hoopoes appears greatly
simplified since it only consists of stylized wavy lines (Figure 170). This contrasts sharply
with the depictions from Crete with their much more elaborate settings.

The painting from Knossos (E26) which ran along the upper wall of a stepped pavilion in the
so-called Caraveranserai707 was interpreted by Evans as decoration of a dining hall for
travellers because of the partridges which are considered palatable birds in many cultures.708
Although partridges may have been eaten in the Neopalatial period709, hoopoes are usually not
considered game birds because they are relatively small and bony.710 Moreover, the birds in
the fresco are neither hunted nor dead.711 Similar to other wall paintings of birds in elaborate
landscapes, the Knossos fresco (E26) has been interpreted as showing the exuberance of
nature.712 Shaw suggested that the hoopoes symbolise spring because they are migratory
birds. While this may be true, such a reading does not account for the presence of the
partridges which are resident birds. The hoopoe in the Knossos fresco has often been

706
Shaw 2005, 102-103.
707
Immerwahr 1989, 78-79; Shaw 2005. The building possessed multiple water installations and bathing
facilities which led Evans (1928a, 103-140, for fresco see 109-116) to interpret it as a caravanserai for travellers,
while Schofield (1996) considered it a spa/therapeutic institution.
708
Evans 1928, 114-116; also Shapland 2009, 206.
709
Some bones have been found at Kommos (Reese 1995, 195), Mochlos (Soles et al. 2003, 18), Ayios Georgios
on Kythera (Trantalidou 2013, 64) and Kolonna on Aegina (Forstenpointner et al. 2010, 739).
710
Shapland 2009, 206.
711
Vickery (1936, 83) similarly noted that the birds are shown neither hunted nor dead.
712
Shaw 2005, 103, 111.
 167

compared to a painting from Beni Hassan in Egypt (Figure 171) which similarly shows a
hoopoe perching in a low acacia bush.713 While the motif itself is indeed comparable, there
are some important differences. For example, the plumage of the Egyptian hoopoe is shown in
more detail, but the bird appears markedly stiffer than the Cretan example. Moreover, the
combination of the hoopoe with various other songbird species perched in the same acacia
tree in the Beni Hassan painting is decidedly less naturalistic than the association with
partridges in the Cretan fresco. Such differences suggest that an adoption of the symbolism of
hoopoes directly from Egyptian iconography is unlikely.

Difficulties in identifying a particular function of Cretan bird depictions have been

encountered before and we may argue that such images which simply focus on the variety and
species-specific liveliness of birds were designed to reveal the sentience and agency of non-
human entities.714 The Knossos fresco (E26) displays some peculiarities which seem
consistent with animist notions. Light and dark blue areas as well as colourful rocks seem to
surround and envelop the birds and the plants rather than forming definite background
features. Similar to the Knossos fresco with rock doves (E1), such a composition gives the
impression that various natural entities are closely inter-related, as if in a web, recalling
animist ideas of a shared essence of all things natural (Section 4.4). According to Summers,
the Knossos fresco (E26) has the “birds stand among swelling, particularized contours, the
undulations of which seem to be cut off by the upper and lower edges of the frieze” 715 This
has the effect that the viewer for a moment focuses on the lives of certain elements of nature,
in this case partridges and hoopoes, which however form only part of ‘the bigger picture’.
This zoom-in effect helps the viewer temporarily to adopt the perspective of the birds. As we
have seen, this is one of the main concerns of animist rituals – to adopt the perspectives of
other-than-human persons. By contrast, the hoopoes on the Mycenaean dagger (F5) have lost
the sense of agency and other natural elements are relegated to simplified background
features. Both the passivity of animals and the creation of a hierarchy between different
natural elements are again typical aspects of analogical imagery.

In sum, images of hoopoes come from Crete and the Greek Mainland. The Neopalatial
frescoes show these birds with a particular focus on liveliness, variety and species-specific
actions (e.g. chasing in breeding pairs) and habitat (low bushes). Artistic techniques applied in

713
Evans 1928a, 110-111; Immerwahr 1989, 79. For the Egyptian fresco see Houlihan 1986, 118-120.
714
Cf. Herva 2006b.
715
Summers 2003, 440, cited in Shapland 2009, 211.
 168

the Knossos fresco create the effect that the viewer may temporarily adopt the perspective of
the birds, a feature which is consistent with animist concerns. An image of hoopoes from the
Greek Mainland displays notable differences: the birds appear in a rigid and identical manner,
and the environment is of secondary importance. These changes are consistent with our
argument that not animism but analogism was the prevalent ontology on the Greek Mainland.

8.4 Galliformes (EB III – LB IIIC)

Galliformes are characterised by round bodies, short legs and short beaks (Figure 172).
Further details, such as the length of tail feathers, the presence of combs or plumage patterns
can allow the identification of certain (generic) species such as chickens, partridges or
francolins. Galliformes appear in various different media from Crete and the Greek Mainland.
The following 76 objects will be discussed:

• 2 vessels (A108, A110) dating to EM III – MM I and LM IIIA1 from Ayia Triada and
Nirou Khani on Crete.
• 1 relief vessel (A109) dating to MM II from Phaistos on Crete.
• 1 seal (D482) dating to LM I from Ayia Triada on Crete.716
• 2 frescoes (E26, E27) dating to MM III – LM I and LH IIIB from Knossos on Crete;
and Tiryns on the Greek Mainland.
• 69 vase-paintings (G100, G101, G847-G913) dating to LB II – IIIA2 and LB IIIB –
IIIC from Katsamba, Knossos, Kamilari, Kalyvia, Mochlos, Pachia Ammos, Mallia,
Ayia Triada on Crete; Ialysos on Rhodes; Karpathos (exact findspot unknown); and
Berbati, Tiryns, Mycenae, Thebes and Thorikos on the Greek Mainland.
• 1 figurine (B131) dating to LH IIIC from Amyklai on the Greek Mainland.

The birds in these images can be identified as galliformes due to their round bodies and small
heads with short beaks. A bird-shaped vessel from EM III Ayia Triada (A108) and a MM II
relief vessel (A109) show birds with high curved tail feathers which resemble those of male
chickens (Gallus gallus) (Figure 173).717 The birds on several LH IIIB – IIIC vase-paintings
from the Greek Mainland (G873-G913) might also be male chickens because some fragments
show long and curved tail feathers (Figure 174). Combs seem to be depicted on two fragments

716
Evans (1895, 73) identified a chicken on a MM II seal (D342), but the image seems to fit into the typology of
large waders.
717
Branigan 1970, 81. The lack of the combs may also mean that they are castrated males (capons).
 169

(G880, G881).718 A figurine from Amyklai (B131) has a comb painted on its head. The
partridges in the LM I fresco from Knossos (E26) discussed in the previous section in the
context of hoopoes (Section 8.3) are probably chukar partridges (Alectoris Chukar) since their
bodies are brown with a black and white striped area on their lower sides and the necks and
faces are white with a black contour line (Figure 175).719 In LM II – IIIA, birds on Cretan
vase-paintings (G100, G101, G847-G872) and a bird-shaped vessel from Nirou Khani
(A110) can only be identified as generic partridges because their spotted or banded interior
fillings do not correspond to any real plumage patterns.720 A stout bird with dark plumage is
shown on a fragmentary fresco from LH IIIB Tiryns (E27). It might be a black francolin
(Francolinus francolinus) (Figure 176).721

The identification of chickens in Aegean Bronze Age iconography is surprising because they
are not native to Greece, unlike partridges. The geographical origin of the wild ancestor of
chickens, the red junglefowl, lies in Southeast Asia.722 Until recently, the date of the
introduction of chickens to the Aegean was unclear.723 While we have literary and pictorial
evidence for the presence of chickens in Egypt probably by the Middle Kingdom and at least
by the New Kingdom, chickens could previously not be unequivocally identified on Greek
vases before the 8th and 7th centuries BC.724 Hood suggested that chickens became extinct in
the Aegean after the collapse of the palaces and were reintroduced later, a theory which would
also explain the absence of chickens in the Homeric poems.725 Chicken bones have been
found in excavations of Bronze Age sites in the Aegean (e.g. Lerna,726 Kommos,727

718
Vermeule – Karageorghis (1982, cat.no. X.62) called the birds on G873 “quails”.
719
Evans 1921, 110, footnote 3; Pollard 1977, 149; Lunczer 2009, 30. Oulié (1926, 67-70) even identified males
and noted the exact characterisation of individual birds. Masseti (1997, 357-358) identified them as rock
partridges because of the absence of dots which can be seen on the necks of Chukar partridges. However, these
species look very similar (“sibling species”) and can only be distinguished by minute plumage details, which
means that they were probably not seen as different in the past.
720
Furumark 1941, FM 7.i and j; Hood – De Jong 1952, 108; Alexiou 1967, 68; Popham 1970, 24; Marinatos –
Hirmer 1973, cat.no. 128; Vermeule - Karageorghis 1982, cat.no. VIII.20; Åkerström 1987, 74; Gesell 2006,
319.
721
The distribution of black francolins is nowadays limited to the eastern Mediterranean (Turkey, Cyprus).
722
Serjeantson 2009, 268-269.
723
Vickery 1936, 68; see Reese 1995, 201-202, for a good overview; Serjeantson 2009, 270.
724
Chickens are probably meant in a text, which according to Houlihan (1986, 80) and Serjeantson (2009, 269)
states that Thutmosis III (1479-1425 BC) “received from Syria four birds which lay every day”. According to
Houlihan (1986, 79, 80) the image of a rooster is shown on an ostrakon from the Valley of the Kings, probably
dating to the 19th dynasty. Other pictorial evidence may date even earlier, possibly to 1840 BC.
725
Hood 1971, 91.
726
According to Gejwall (1969, 47-49) and Reese (1995, 202) one of the earliest chicken bones comes from
Lerna, from levels dating to EH III – MH.
727
According to Reese (1995, tables 5.9 and 5.10) two chicken bones have been found at Kommos, one of them
in a context dating to MM III.
 170

Chalkis,728 Ayios Stephanos,729 Mycenae,730 and Tiryns731), but they were usually explained
as later intrusions. However, recent excavations at the peak sanctuary of Ayios Georgios on
Kythera yielded several chicken bones in undisturbed MM strata.732 Thus, there is now
sufficient osteological evidence for the presence of chickens in the Aegean Bronze Age.

The early depictions from Crete simply show the chickens standing on their short feet. The
pellet eyes of a bird-shaped vessel (A108) give it a rather lively appearance, which recalls the
appearance of some prepalatial dove vessels (Section 4.2). In the Knossos fresco (E26)
(Section 8.3), the partridges are depicted in a flock of ten birds, which accurately reflects their
sociable habits. The variety of poses is striking: some are standing with their wings folded,
while others are flapping their wings. Some birds are overlapping and others are looking in
opposite directions. As we have seen, the rocky terrain with a small stream and maquis
vegetation alludes to their habitat in rocky grasslands (Figure 177).733 Some scholars, for
example Evans or Shaw, have remarked upon the relatively stiff appearance of the birds. 734
However, this impression may be due to the character of the birds depicted. Partridges are
stout birds which either walk in a stately fashion or stand still on the lookout for predators.
Thus, the artist captured the essence of the partridges as well as the painter of the Spring
Fresco (E29) captured the spirit of swift barn swallows (Section 8.6).

After LM IB, partridges were depicted on vases and possibly as a vessel.735 Overall, there is a
decrease in accuracy – reflected by the difficulty to identify scientific species.736 Some birds
have beaks that resemble more those of parrots than those of partridges (e.g. G101).737
However, natural avian features such as feathers are still indicated on a bird-shaped vessel
(A110). In the vase-paintings (G100, G101, G847-G872), liveliness and variety of poses are
largely retained from the Neopalatial period (Figure 178). Movement seems highlighted,
especially when we consider the fact that the frequent flying poses do not correspond to the

728
According to Dietz – Moschos (2006, 183) the Bronze Age layers at Chalkis have yielded eight chicken
bones, although the excavators emphasised that they could also be later intrusions.
729
According to Duhig et al. (2008, 513) a chicken femur with deep cut marks was found in a deposit at Ayios
Stephanos, containing MH I, LH IIIA and possibly Medieval sherds.
730
According to Wace (1949, 106) one chicken bone was discovered at Mycenae.
731
According to Driesch – Van Boessneck (1990, 114-116) chicken bones occur in nearly every layer from MH
II to LH IIIC late. Interestingly, most (9 bones) date to LH IIIB2, which is also the date of the vase-paintings.
732
Trantalidou 2013, 63-65.
733
Shaw 2005, 104.
734
Shaw 2005, 103. Evans (1928a, 114) called the fresco “conventionalized”.
735
Popham 1970, 24-26, 378-379, 1984, 1994, 90; Kanta 1980, 276-278; Hiller 2006b, 151.
736
Hood – De Jong (1952, 109-110), Levi (1961-62, 34-36) and Alexiou (1967, 68) also noted similarities and
differences in accuracy.
737
Levi 1961-62, 37.
 171

behaviour of real partridges because they usually prefer walking or running, even when they
are in danger. Many partridges are pecking at flowers (e.g. G850-G852), a behaviour also
observable in the contemporary vase-paintings of waterbirds (Section 6.4). Rather than giving
a detailed account of their behaviour, these actions are another way to emphasise motion. The
partridges are surrounded by a varied vegetation of low flowering plants (iris, crocuses,
poppy, and lilies). When we compare the kinds of plants to those on the contemporary vase-
paintings of waterbirds (Section 6.4), it is notable that papyrus is less often depicted. Thus,
this diversity accurately reflects species-specific differences in habitat. On one vase (G853),
the partridges are shown together with baskets and shelves from which flowers grow. The
close association of partridges with fish on two vases (G847, G854) seems puzzling since
they are not able to swim and do not eat fish.738 Possibly, they were kept in gardens.739

In LM IIIA2, cult symbols are sometimes shown on the same vases as partridges. On a pyxis
(G100), a frieze of partridges pecking at poppies is depicted next to a panel with corvids
sitting on horns of consecration (Section 5.4). A stemmed jar (G101) shows flying partridges
between a panel depicting incurved altars and corvids. On a pyxis from Mochlos (G856), a
griffin and a lion are depicted in addition to a pair of partridges. On another pyxis from the
same site (G872), a partridge pecking at a plant is set next to a scene involving plants, a
mirror, horns of consecration and three human figures. 740 Despite the presence of such cultic
elements on the same vases, the partridges are not directly associated with them. Unlike
corvids or waterbirds (Sections 5.4 and 6.4), they are not sitting on cult symbols such as horns
of consecration or double axes. Moreover, unlike waterbirds (Section 6.5) partridges were
never depicted on larnakes. It is therefore unlikely that they had a specific ritual or funerary
function.

After LM IIIA2, partridges largely disappeared from Aegean Bronze Age imagery. Instead,
francolins or chickens were depicted in a fresco (E27), on some vases (G873-G913) and a
figurine (B131) from the Greek Mainland. The galliform bird in the fresco from Tiryns (E27)
is standing on a date palm tree. The beak is open as if calling. This behaviour is common
during the breeding period when the male is drawing attention to itself with its loud call. On
the vases (e.g. G873), chickens are shown in small flocks in a frieze, with their wings folded
or slightly elevated. They seem to be standing or walking and some have one foot raised off

738
Furumark 1941, 197, contra Åkerström (1987, 74-75) who thought that the bird is catching the fish.
739
Levi 1961-62, 34, 37; Crowley – Morris 1995, 177.
740
Banou 2005, 161-162, 163-164. Because these pyxides were found in tombs, they have been interpreted as
showing funerary scenes. However, similar partridges occur on vases from domestic contexts.
 172

the ground as if leaping. Individual birds are depicted in differing positions and many have
open beaks as if calling. This may allude to the loud crowing calls of roosters which serve as
territorial displays. Roosters are known for their fierce disposition and the leaping and
crowing behaviour of the birds on the vases could allude to such aggressive displays. 741 The
Classical Greeks and Romans used galliformes as fighting birds.742 Due to their inherent
aggressiveness, male galliformes are often seen as symbols for the ideal of combative
masculinity.743 As we have seen (Sections 5.4 and 6.6), depictions of fierce raptors and
aggressive swans also appeared on other Mainland vases at the end of LH IIIB and in LH
IIIC. They seem to reflect a reemergence of the warrior ethos as a way to claim power,
alongside other strategies. We may thus argue that the depictions of chickens in combative
and vigorous poses seem to tie into this ideology which again emphasized male physical
strength.

As regards ontologies, we can note that the Cretan fresco of partridges dating to LM I with its
emphasis on liveliness, variety and close relationship with the environment seems to be fully
consistent with animist imagery. Despite a decrease of accuracy in LM II and IIIA, dynamic
and varied poses are retained which indicates that agency was still attributed to non-human
entities. The LH IIIB – IIIC images of galliformes from the Greek Mainland seem to focus
only on certain aspects (territorial displays and aggressive behavior), indicating that the birds
functioned as symbols or allegories of male physical power, thereby reflecting analogical
thinking.

In sum, images of galliformes such as chickens, partridges or francolins come from Crete and
the Greek Mainland. The identification of chickens complements the archaeozoological data
and provides further evidence for the existence of this exotic bird in the Bronze Age Aegean.
The Cretan depictions of galliformes are usually naturalistic, although we can note a decrease
of accuracy on LM II – IIIA vases. Significantly, liveliness and variety are maintained, which
suggest that animist notions continued to be prevalent on Crete beyond LM IB. Images of
galliformes from the Greek Mainland appear in LH IIIB – IIIC. Since the birds are often
shown with an emphasis on territorial or aggressive displays they may be seen as metaphors
for male aggression, an observation which concurs with the renewed interest in a warrior

741
Serjeantson 2009, 325-326.
742
Toynbee 1973, 255-257.
743
Serjeantson 2009, 330-331.
 173

ethos in this time. Such a function of bird images as analogies or metaphors is typically found
in analogical imagery.

8.5 Human-bird hybrids and combinations (MM II – LM I)

Several depictions show birds or birds’ parts physically combined with humans, animals,
plants and objects.744 Such images appear primarily on seals and they come almost
exclusively from Crete. Only one such depiction was found on the Greek Mainland. The
following 104 objects will be discussed:

• 102 seals/sealings/rings (D321, D483-D515, D517-D584) dating to MM II – LM I

from Mallia, Phaistos, Zakros, Knossos, Palaikastro, Tylissos, Ayia Triada, Kommos,
Axos and Embaros on Crete; possibly 1 ring dating to LH II-IIIA1 from Aidonia on
the Greek Mainland.
• 1 shell plaque (I16) dating to LM I from Phaistos on Crete.

The depictions can be grouped into two categories.745 First, there are hybrids whose body plan
follows the anatomical structure of a human, with some body parts substituted by the
equivalent parts of birds or other animals (D321, D483-D550, I16). For example, arms
become wings or the human head is substituted by a bird’s head (Figure 179). The other
category, called combinations, freely merge parts of humans, birds, animals or inorganic
objects with each other in a way that does not follow a consistent anatomical order (D551-
D584) (Figure 180).746 For example, fantails can appear above a head or a human head
without a neck is set onto bird’s wings with the legs of a quadruped directly attached to the
span of the wings.747 There is no natural transition point anymore (such as the waist in
hybrids), but the elements merge indiscriminately into each other.748

Human-bird hybrids first appeared on some MM II seals from Phaistos, Mallia and Zakros
(D483-D486).749 The hybrids have birds’ heads and/or wings and male or female bodies. The
popularity of human-bird hybrids increased significantly in the LM I period when they were

744
A discussion of the Aegean griffin (a lion-bird hybrid) and the much rarer sphinx is beyond the scope of this
study. Unlike the hybrids/combinations discussed in this section, these creatures were adopted from Syrian
and Egyptian iconography and are therefore less suitable to identify the specifically Cretan perception of birds.
745
The categorisation is adopted from Anastasiadou 2016, 80-81 (here called organic vs. non-organic).
746
Weingarten (1983) called the latter ones “monsters”. The CMS calls them “phantastische Kombinationen”.
747
Weingarten 1983, 65-77; Cf. Crowley 2013, T12.
748
Simandiraki-Grimshaw 2010, 98.
749
Weingarten 1983, 91-95; Simandiraki-Grimshaw 2010, 95.
 174

depicted on several seals from Knossos, Ayia Triada, Mallia and Zakros. The majority of LM
I hybrids are female – these are the so-called bird-ladies (D321, D487-D515).750 They are by
far the most frequent type of human-animal hybrids in Neopalatial iconography (Figure 181).
Several bird-ladies are among the designs on the sealings from the LM IB Archive Complex
at House A, room VII, at Zakros (D523-D540, D542-D550).751 In general, they seem more
variable in their appearance than the bird-ladies from elsewhere (Figure 182). For example,
human arms or bird claws can appear instead of or in addition to wings. The bird`s heads are
often substituted by the heads of other animals, e.g. a bull, goat or ram, or a helmet.752 Also, a
female upper body with a beaked head can have a feathered tail instead of a skirt. Female
characteristics such as breasts and thighs are especially emphasized and some hybrids wear
jewellery.753 There are also a few male hybrids with wings (D519-D522). Although such
variations appear especially intensified on the Zakros sealings, some seals from other sites
exhibit similar fluctuations. For example, three seals (D502, D514, D515) show bird-ladies
with the head of other animals (Figure 183) and a hybrid similar to those on the Zakros
sealings is shown on a seal from Knossos (D541) (Figure 184). After LM IB, images of
human-bird hybrids disappeared, with the sole exception of a gold ring from Aidonia (D516)
which depicts three women with bird’s or animals’ heads. In LB II – IIIA, novel hybrids
appeared which merge the frontal parts of goats, stags or bulls with male bodies (the so-called
minotaurs).754

Combinations are almost exclusively found on sealings from the LM IB archive at Zakros
(D551-D582).755 In contrast to the hybrids, not only the heads and wings of birds appear in
these combinations but also fan-shaped tails, protomes, bodies and even complete birds. Bird
parts are the most frequent element in these creations, although there are a few combinations
which do not contain any bird parts. The birds’ wings and tails which usually appear in the
combinations resemble those of corvids/birds of prey, while the heads, protomes and
complete birds are either birds of prey/griffins (D568, D569) or waterbirds/large waders
(D570-D577). A few seals (D579-D581) show plant tendrils arranged as to resemble the faces
of owls. Two combinations (D583, D584) may possibly come from elsewhere on Crete, so the

750
Simandiraki-Grimshaw 2010, 95. Only one goat-man is shown on a LM I seal (CMS II,3 331).
751
Hogarth 1902; Levi 1929; Weingarten 1983.
752
Weingarten 1983, 63-64.
753
Weingarten 1983, 60-62; 2007, 140; Simandiraki-Grimshaw 2010, 95-96.
754
Simandiraki-Grimshaw 2010, 98.
755
Weingarten 1983, 1985.
 175

rather conspicuous distribution pattern with Zakros as primary site for such images may be
due to preservation bias.

Turning to the function of human-bird hybrids and combinations, they have sometimes been
interpreted as legendary/mythical creatures comparable to the griffin or the sphinx.756 As we
have seen (Section 3.2.1), such monsters are typically depicted in the iconography of
analogical societies, often involved in narrative situations. However, neither the human-bird
hybrids nor the combinations are shown in narrative scenes.757 In almost all cases, they are
shown alone on the seal face. Exceptions to this pattern are the shell plaque from Phaistos
(I16) and the Aidonia ring (D516) where three hybrids are shown together. Another
characteristic of analogical monsters is the stability and consistency of their appearance –
thus, the griffin is always composed of the frontal part of a raptor and the rear part of a lion.
The frequent variations in the morphology of hybrids and combinations described above
clearly contradict this principle and thus cast doubt on their identification as analogical
monsters.

Instead, both the hybrids and especially the combinations seem to avoid the impression of
permanence and regularity at all costs. The seemingly arbitrary merging of birds, humans,
animals and things in the combinations have even led some scholars to argue that they must
be the creations of a madman, a schizophrenic mind.758 In fact, the multiplicity of different
entities creates the effect of an unlimited combinatory experience. Several Zakros sealings
seen together create the impression of a moving being in the process of transforming from a
human to a bird to a human-bird hybrid, then transforming into a quadruped and finally
dissolving into a waterbird-plant-human-combination. The effect was aptly described as
“kaleidoscopic” by Shapland.759 The effortless merging of humans, animals, birds, plants and
objects suggests that these entities were thought to share a similar interiority, a notion which
considers transformation and metamorphosis as an essential capability of all entities.760 Such
notions form the basic premise of animist ontology which holds that all beings share the same

756
Cf. Hogarth 1902, 92 and Levi 1925-26, 192-201 for extensive comparisons of human-animal hybrids with
Egyptian, Near Eastern and later Greek monsters. Evans (1921, 701-707) considered the bird lady to be a figure
of “folk-lore”. Weingarten (2009, 145) interpreted them as demonic creatures of the underworld.
757
Aruz et al. 2008, 173-174.
758
Gill 1969, 91, 1981, 85-86; Weingarten 1985, 167. Nilsson (1950, 370) called them the “product of an over-
heated fever-stricken imagination”. Hogarth (1902, 91) thought they were “pure fancy” without any religious
meaning.
759
Hogarth 1902, 91; Shapland 2009, 236.
760
Similarly, Evans (1921, 702-703) and Simandiraki-Grimshaw (2010, 98) emphasised the importance of
metamorphosis in the Zakros series.
 176

interiority despite their vastly different outer forms (Section 3.2.4).761 In animist societies,
trance experiences may make it possible to directly see such metamorphoses taking place,
which might explain their “dream-like” quality.762

While the varied hybrids and especially the combinations seem to advocate a general
metamorphic potential shared by different entities, we may ask how the more stable aspects of
some of the bird-ladies may fit into this. Although they are not as consistent in their
appearance as we would expect them to be if they were analogical monsters, they nevertheless
concentrate on a more specific transformation – that of a human into a bird. The importance
of bird features is further corroborated by the poses (Table 9).

Table 9: Poses of human-bird hybrids dating to MM II – LM I.

Pose Number of hybrids

Flying 21
Squatting/leaping 18
Standing/walking/running 17
Unidentifiable 13
Total 69

Mostly, the hybrids are flying with the wings displayed and the heads raised (e.g. D495,
D496). In other depictions, which are primarily found in the Zakros sealings, the hybrids are
shown with their wings displayed and their legs flexed as if squatting (e.g. D499, D524-
D527). It seems possible that this was meant to resemble the leaping pose of a bird. The
importance of wings is underlined by the fact that they are also displayed when the hybrid is
standing or walking on the ground as is suggested by the feet which are held horizontally (e.g.
D484, D487-D489).

This preponderance of birds and the importance of wings recall traits of shamanic trance
journeys. As we have seen (Section 3.2.4), shamans often need the help of birds to be able to
fly during trance. We have argued that different species of birds could act as shamanic helpers
in Cretan iconography (Sections 5.3, 6.3 and 7.3). Most important seem to have been corvids
(sometimes merged with griffins), followed by waterbirds and occasionally large waders.
761
Boric 2007, 85-86; Kristoffersen 2010, 265.
762
Evans 1921, 702. Goodison (2011, 185-187) also interpreted the hybrids and combinations as being inspired
by trance experiences.
 177

Strikingly, a similar ranking can be observed when we take a look at the types of birds
incorporated in human-bird hybrids (Table 10).

Table 10: Types of birds in human-bird hybrids dating to MM II – LM I.

Type of bird Number of hybrids

Corvid/griffin 51
Waterbird 8
Wader 5
Dove 1
Owl 1
Unidentifiable 5
Total 71

Most frequent are parts of corvids/birds of prey (e.g. D501, D505, D520) similar to complete
corvids/birds of prey on seals (Figure 185). Some hybrids, especially from the Zakros
sealings, have curved beaks or wings with spirals on the span (e.g. D537) resembling those of
corvids/griffins (Figure 186).763 Another type of hybrid has large wings which seem to hang
down a little as if they were heavy (e.g. D486, D487). They seem to be those of waterbirds
and large waders (Figure 187). Another seal (D517) shows two creatures with linear feathers,
large frontal eyes and flexed legs. They resemble owls, but their beaks are turned and the legs
are bent the way human legs would be, which might suggest that they are owl-human hybrids
(Figure 188).

These similarities suggest that the human-bird hybrids may represent shamans merging with
their spirit helpers so that they can adopt their flying abilities. This interpretation is
corroborated by the contextual associations of a few hybrids. On the shell plaque (I16),
hybrids are shown carrying staffs similar to those which are often held by flying people in cult
scenes.764 On the gold ring from Aidonia (D516) a bird-headed hybrid is possibly shown in a
procession with other hybrids with animal heads between two shrine buildings with horns of

763
As was already noted by Hogarth (1902, 92) and Evans (1930, 411, footnote 1), who interpreted the wings on
the Zakros sealings as those of birds of prey, and Weingarten (1983, 50-51, 58), who compared them to those of
eagles/hawks.
764
Pernier (1902, 130-132) thought that they are women and noted the connection to ritual ceremonies. Hogarth
(1902, 91) denied any relationship of the Zakros monsters to votaries or priests. According to him (1902, 92) the
shell plaque is Egyptian.
 178

consecration.765 The hybrids in these images are thus incorporated into the wider Cretan ritual
iconography. It may be that the relative stability observable in the hybrids was due to the
control that the shamans performed over the transformation rather than their identity as
analogical monsters.766 Thus, both the combinations and the human-bird hybrids are
consistent with the argument that an animist framework was dominant on Crete.

In sum, human-bird hybrids and combinations appear almost exclusively in images from
Crete. In contrast to analogical chimaeras and mythological creatures, hybrids and
combinations exhibit significant variations in their appearance. Moreover, they do not appear
in recurrent narrative contexts. The combinations draw on a multiplicity of both organic and
inorganic forms, thereby indicating that boundaries between entities were not considered
insurmountable. Such a metamorphic potential inherent to various entities despite their
different outer forms suggests that these creations are inspired by animist notions. The
hybrids, most of which are composed of female and bird parts, emphasise a more specific
transformation namely that of a woman turning into a bird. The importance of flying and the
prevalence of certain types of birds such as corvids/griffins, waterbirds and large waders
suggest that the hybrids represent shamans embarking on a trance journey with the help of
spirit animals.

8.6 Swallows (MB III – LB I)

Swallows are identifiable by their silhouettes showing slender bodies, narrow curved wings,
small feet and forked tails (Figure 189). Plumage details can allow the identification of certain
species. Despite the scholarly attention swallow images have received in the past, they are
much less numerous than those of other bird species. Swallows are mainly depicted on vases
and in frescoes from the Cyclades and Crete. Only two images have been found on the Greek
Mainland. We will discuss the following 31 objects:

• 18 vase-paintings (G914-G931) dating to MC III – LC I from Akrotiri on Thera;

Phylakopi on Melos; and Mycenae on the Greek Mainland.
• 6 frescoes (E6, E28-E32) dating to MB III – LB I from Knossos on Crete; Akrotiri on
Thera; and Phylakopi on Melos.

765
Krzyszkowska (2005a, 152) and Foster (2016) considered it possible that the hybrids are people with
costumes and masks.
766
LindstrØm 2012, 156-158; VanPool 2009, 182, 184-187.
 179

• 2 seals (D585, D586) dating to LM I – II from Moni Odiyitria and of unknown

provenance on Crete.767
• 2 plaques (I8, I17) dating to LM I from Zakros on Crete; and Mycenae on the Greek
Mainland.

All the birds on these images can unequivocally be identified as swallows.768 Where the
medium allows the use of colour, the swallows are either painted completely black or black
with white underparts. Most swallows on the frescoes and vases are barn swallows (Hirundo
rustica) because they have red heads and necks (Figure 190).769 On a seal (D586), this
plumage pattern may also be indicated by a dot on the neck/breast. Despite the fact that these
plumage patterns correspond to those of real barn swallows, some depictions exhibit subtle
deviations from the natural morphology because the tail streamers terminate in small loops
(e.g. D585, I8, E29). Harte suggested that this feature was invented by the artist to make the
birds appear more elegant.770 Thus, it seems to be another instance of idealized naturalism.

All the swallows are highly naturalistic in the depiction of poses and behaviour and it seems
to have been vital to convey a realistic sense of their movements.771 Thus, the majority of
swallows are shown in full flight, either with their wings displayed or raised. Their flying
style, which is characterized by quick flinching and darting movements, is truthfully
expressed by composite views of the swallows’ bodies (e.g. E29, G914).772 This fast way of
flying is perfectly adapted to their diet which mostly consists of swift insects. Fittingly, one
fresco (E30) shows them hunting dragonflies which are also known for their fast
movements.773 In the frescoes, the birds are highly individualized by the great variety of
poses.

The social habits of swallows are accurately and elaborately portrayed. For example, barn
swallows are highly gregarious birds, often appearing in flocks, a behaviour which is reflected
by the depiction of large groups of birds (if the space allows this). In a few cases (E29, E30,

767
Ruuskanen (1992, 21, 56) and Marthari (2009) identified more swallows on seals, but most of these birds fit
neatly into our typology of corvids/birds of prey.
768
Onassoglou 1985, 141; Platon 1987; Ruuskanen 1992, 21, 56, type B; Foster 1995; Marthari 2009.
769
Svensson et al. 2009, 260-261. Marthari 1993, 250-252; Foster 1995, 412-413; Harte 2000, 690-695; Marthari
2009, 426.
770
Harte 2000, 693.
771
Immerwahr 1989, 41.
772
For their flying style see Cocker 2013, 416.
773
For their diet see Turner 2010, 57-60.
 180

G918), pairs of swallows can appear in antithetical composition, a pose which has been the
subject of previous scholarly debate (Figure 191). Two pairs of swallows, one in the so-called
Spring Fresco (E29) and another one on a vase (G918), are arranged in a semi-circle with the
lower bird showing its belly while the upper bird is swooping down towards it. Marinatos
interpreted these pairs as showing courting behavior, but courting of barn swallows does not
entail such acrobatic aerial displays.774 Therefore, Hollinshead suggested that the pair in the
Spring Fresco (E29) represents a parent feeding a fledgling on the wing, but Harte rightly
pointed out that there is no food in the beaks.775 Foster then noted similarities of the actions
shown (clenched feet, tumbling flight, striking with the bills) to aggressive behaviour of barn
swallows.776 Such fights are either related to defending the territory or to competition over
females.777 The latter reason may be dominant in the Spring Fresco (E29) since Harte
identified all but one swallow as adult males because of their streamers which are longer in
males than in females or juveniles.778

It is notable that the aggressive display on the Theran frescoes and vases does not entail open
violence (no blood is drawn, bills do not touch), but is rather acrobatic and appears highly
ritualized. This reminds one of the scenes with male antelopes from complex Beta at Akrotiri,
where aggression is primarily expressed by subtle cues and visual threat displays rather than
brutal force.779

On the other hand, a physical assault may be depicted on the gold plaque from Mycenae (I17)
which shows two swallows flying closely behind each other with the second bird possibly
biting the other`s tail (Figure 192).780 This difference might again reflect Mainland
preferences, but because this is shown only on a single piece this interpretation has to remain
tentative.

774
Marinatos 1971, 50- 52; for a similar interpretation see Immerwahr 1989, 46-47. See Turner 2010, 78-80, for
courting in barn swallows.
775
Hollinshead 1989, 342-343; Harte 2000, 693.
776
Foster 1995, 413-414.
777
Turner 2010, 60-61.
778
However, Harte (2000, 690-691) does not give measurements of the streamers of the depicted swallows.
According to Turner (2010, 25-27), the differences in length between sexes seem to be more pronounced in
northern birds than southern ones.
779
Masseti 2000, 91-95.
780
Foster 1995, 415-416. Marinatos (1969, 68) thought the plaque was locally made after Theran models,
whereas Televantou (1994, 305-308) considered it a Theran import.
 181

Breeding and chick-rearing are further subjects of Cretan and Cycladic depictions of barn
swallows.781 On one seal (D585), a swallow seems to be carrying a circle composed of small
dots in its beak.782 We may suggest that this represents mud pellets which are the main
building material of barn swallows’ nests (Figure 193).783 On one of the Theran frescoes
(E30), barn swallows are shown flying towards some cup-shaped nests with yellow chicks
inside. The open beaks and the erect posture of the hungry nestlings are empathetically
portrayed, comparable to the much earlier Cretan vessels in the shape of dove chicks (Section
4.2). Some adult swallows bring red dragonflies for the chicks, while others feed them,
stopping at the nest with fluttering wing beats (Figure 194).784 This is an accurate rendering of
feeding habits since large prey such as damselflies or butterflies are often brought to chicks,
while smaller insects are immediately eaten.785 A swallow fledgling may be depicted in a
recently discovered fresco from Knossos (E28) because the bird seems to have much shorter
streamers in comparison to the two other flying swallows (Figure 195). The juvenile may be
waiting to be fed by its parents.786

Another typical behaviour of barn swallows, namely migration, might be shown in another
fresco from Akrotiri (E31). Three swallows are depicted flying above a rocky landscape with
crocus and some young quadrupeds. While the swallows in other wall-paintings are shown
darting in different directions as if hunting for insects (e.g. E6), the birds in this fresco are all
flying in the same direction.787 Since barn swallows migrate in loose groups low over the
ground, these birds may be depicted during migration.788 The association with young animals,
probably calves, could indicate that it is the time of spring migration when barn swallows
return from their wintering grounds in Africa.789

Most scenes with swallows show them associated with colourful rocks often covered by
flowering plants such as lilies or crocus (e.g. E6, E29, G919, G922) (Figure 196).790 They
indicate low vegetation reflecting the open landscapes which barn swallows prefer for hunting

781
For breeding in barn swallows see Turner 2010, 61-62; Alderton 2011, 245.
782
Foster (1995, 418-419) suggested that the dots indicate the song of the bird.
783
Turner 2010, 117-119.
784
Cf. Turner 2010, chapter 2, for the diet of barn swallows.
785
Turner 2010, 40-41.
786
Turner 2010, 26-28.
787
Hollinshead (1989, 345-346) thought they were painted by a different artist.
788
See Turner 2010, 195-196 for swallow migration.
789
Turner 2010, 186-187.
790
Sinuous bands on some vase-paintings may also indicate rocks.
 182

insects.791 The association with dragonflies in one fresco (E30) signifies the nearby presence
of wetlands, which provide mud for nest-building and nutritious insects as food for chicks.792
The nests shown in this fresco are located on rocky outcrops. This observation is significant
because it may indicate that barn swallows did not yet use man-made structures (such as
barns) for breeding. It has been noted that the fact that most swallow images come from
Akrotiri contrasts with the relative rarity of barn swallows on Thera nowadays.793 However,
this species could have been more frequent in prehistoric times when the climate was
apparently wetter, ensuring that there was enough mud for nest building.794

The frequency of swallows in Theran iconography and the fact that they often appear on
traditional Theran vase shapes has been seen by some scholars, e.g. Immerwahr, as indicating
a local origin of the swallow motif.795 However, the recently discovered fresco of swallows
from Knossos (E28) may date as early as MM III, i.e. contemporary with the first Theran
images.796 That swallows were painted on Theran vases, but not on Cretan pottery at this time,
is probably due to the fact that the Cyclades already had a tradition of bird depictions on
pottery, while Crete, where abstract and floral patterns prevailed on vases, had not. Moreover,
it is notable that the compositions of the swallow vases with their free-flowing horizontal
unified arrangement have a lot in common with Cretan wall paintings. 797 Thus, the swallow
may have been one of the new motifs adopted from Cretan imagery, comparable to the rock
dove, the dolphin, barley or pulses.798

As to the functions of these images, swallow depictions have primarily been seen as symbolic
expressions of spring, the seasons or fertility in previous scholarship.799 Although it is correct
that migrating swallows signal spring in many cultures,800 such sweeping interpretations do
not do justice to the varied and elaborate depictions. We may again propose that the images,
which place a particular emphasis on movements, reveal the agency and equal status of non-

791
Papatsaroucha 2014, 207.
792
Marthari 2009, 420-423.
793
Harte 2000, 691-692.
794
Papatsaroucha 2014, 200.
795
Immerwahr 1990, 241; Marthari 1984, 131. Further special local shapes are a strainer (G922), a kymbe
(G923), and a bath tub (G919). For strainers and kymbai see Kriga 2014.
796
Roussaki 2014.
797
Marthari 1984, 131; Papagiannopoulou 1990, 64.
798
Georma et al. 2014, 176-177.
799
Marinatos 1971, 50- 52; for a similar interpretation see Immerwahr 1989, 46-47; Lovelace (2015) interpreted
the fresco as showing different life stages of swallows and lilies.
800
Lieckfeld – Straaß 2002, 164-165. According to Cocker (2013, 414-417, 420-421), swallows and martins are
almost universally seen as harbingers of spring.
 183

human entities in an animist framework.801 Such an interpretation may find further support
when we look at the types of media. In addition to frescoes, swallows were frequently painted
on a special kind of vessel on Thera (Figure 197). These are small round beaked jugs which
often have eyes added in relief.802 As we have seen (Section 5.2), such jugs are traditional
Cycladic vessels and during MC II – III large beaked jugs were decorated with images of
falcons. In LC I, the falcons largely disappeared from Cycladic iconography and swallows
became more frequent on vases. Moreover, the beaked jugs with their avian features were
modified by the addition of female traits such as nipples and jewellery in relief and paint.803
The white slip, which is especially frequent on Theran ceramics 804, also resembles the white
skin of women in wall paintings and serves as backdrop for the flying swallows.805 These
objects thus hybridise the features of pots, women and birds/swallows in a way which might
again indicate that the boundaries between species were not considered insurmountable.806

Indirect links between people and swallows are also established by the spatial associations of
frescoes. The fresco with swallow chicks (E30) was found in Xeste 3 at Akrotiri on Thera. As
we have seen (Section 6.3), the same building also included frescoes showing mallards with
their young (E14) and juvenile Egyptian geese (E15). Such a consistent emphasis placed on
the juvenile state and adult care for their young in scenes of three different bird species is
mirrored by the frequent images of young humans in the same building.807 Both male and
female persons are depicted in various stages of age, carefully differentiated by hair styles
and/or breast development.808 In a way, the human offspring is enveloped by frescoes
showing various animals, a spatial relationship reflecting the idea that humans are embedded
into a world of relations with other-than-human persons. Moreover, the close thematic
similarity – childhood and adolescence – of the Xeste 3 images combined with the
pronounced diversity of outer forms (e.g. humans vs. ducks, rocky crocus landscape vs.
reedbed) seems to convey the underlying idea that humans and animals share an essential
inner similarity despite their vastly different outer appearances (Figure 198).

801
Herva 2006b.
802
Papagiannopoulou 1990, 62-63; Marinatos 1990, 371-372; Russell 2006, 147-148; Marthari 2009, 427.
803
Marinatos 1990, 371-372; Goodison 2008, 421-423.
804
Marthari 1990, 453-454.
805
Russell 2006, 148.
806
Crowley (2013, 364) interpreted the bird in Aegean iconography as the domain of female power.
807
Also noted by Morgan (2016). For parallels between humans and animals in Aegean iconography, see
Morgan 1995. For general parallels between humans and birds see Barber 1994, 17-21, 54-56.
808
Marinatos 1987a; Chapin 1997-2000; Vlachopoulos 2008.
 184

Another fresco from Xeste 3 may help corroborate the hypothesis that animist thinking stood
behind these images. In room 2 on the first floor, a wall painting shows several
anthropomorphised monkeys engaged in quintessentially human activities such as brandishing
a sword or playing a lyre (Figure 199).Animist imagery can depict animals with attributes of
humans to express the essential similarities between human and non-human persons (Section
3.2.4). Another fresco from the corridor of the upper floor of Xeste 3 (E6) shows a procession
of adult women (Section 4.4), one of whom wears a skirt with several lively barn swallows on
it, framed by rocks.809 The position of the animated swallows on the skirt transforms the
woman´s body into a moving environment of the flying birds, establishing an ontological link
between these two entities.810

In sum, images of (barn) swallows mostly come from Crete and the Cyclades, less often from
the Greek Mainland. The former images betray an acute awareness of characteristic details of
swallow life stages, behaviour (ranging from male territorial aggression to chick rearing and
possibly migration) and their relations with other natural entities (e.g. dragonflies). There is a
distinct emphasis placed on lively individualised movements and some vases merge the
features of females, swallows and vessels in a way as to create the impression of ambiguous
hybrid entities, as they are known from animist imagery. Moreover, several frescoes in the
Xeste 3 building juxtapose images of young birds (swallows, ducks, geese) and young
humans (boys, girls) in a way as to reveal their shared ontological status despite their vastly
different outward appearances and life styles. This notion is again consistent with the
argument that animism was the prevalent ontology on Crete and the Cyclades.

8.7 Seabirds (MB III – LB II/IIIA1)

Seabirds such as gulls or cormorants/shags were only rarely depicted. This rarity may seem
surprising because they must have been familiar birds for the seafaring Aegean people. This
rather inexplicable imbalance, however, is also seen later in Classical Greece. 811 Gulls are
characterized by long slender wings and strong beaks (Figure 200). Cormorants have
elongated bodies with broad tails, long kinked necks and long straight bills (Figure 201).
Images of seabirds come from the Cyclades and Crete. The following 5 objects will be
discussed:

809
Marinatos 1987a, 62-64; Chapin 2000; Vlachopoulos 2008, 454.
810
Chapin 2008; Simandiraki-Grimshaw – Stevens 2012.
811
Lunczer 2009, 127-129.
 185

• 3 vases (G932-G934) dating to MC III – LC I from Akrotiri on Thera.

• 1 fresco (E33) dating to LM I from Ayia Triada on Crete.
• 1 seal (D587) dating to LM II – IIIA1 from Crete (exact provenance
unknown).

The birds on the vases (G932-G934) have elongated ovoid bodies, short legs, very long saber-
like wings and long bills whose tips curve downwards. These features suggest that they
belong to the family of slender-billed gulls (Laridae) (Figure 202). The bird on the seal
(D587) can also be identified as a gull due to its long straight wing, short legs and long bill.
The bird in the Ayia Triada fresco (E33) has an elongated body with a long broad tail. Its
identification has posed some problems because the head is partly lost. Evans and others
identified the bird as a common pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) due to its long tail.812
However, this species was not introduced to Greece before the 5th century BC and it has never
been present on Crete.813 Masseti drew attention to the kinked neck which can be noticed at
the edge of the fragment and thus identified it as a member of the cormorant/shag family
(Phalacrocoracidae).814 The colour of the dark body and long dark brown tail feathers seems
to corroborate this identification. The lighter area on the wing could possibly indicate that it is
a juvenile shag (Phalacrocorax aristotelis), whose plumage is more mottled than that of
adults (Figure 203).

The identification of gulls and a cormorant/shag adds two more bird species to the repertoire
of Cretan and Cycladic iconography of MB III – LB I date. Although the gulls on the vases
(G932-G934) appear stylized, a sense of movement is noticeable because they are all shown
flying. Wavy lines visible beneath may indicate the waves of the sea. The most elaborate
depiction of gulls is shown on a pithos jar (G934). On this vessel, three gulls are flying
among a group of dolphins which artfully evokes their marine habitat. The birds are
individualized by their position and the shape of their bodies. On the other side of the vessel,
a bull and goats are shown amid plants. This contrasting arrangement could be taken to reflect
a (folk-taxonomical) distinction between sea-animals and land-based animals.815

812
Halbherr 1903, 57; Evans 1921, 539; Oulié 1926, 63.
813
Masseti 1997, 360; Arnott 2007, 186.
814
Masseti 1997, 360.
815
Marthari 2000, 873-880; Papagiannopoulou 2008, 444.
 186

The cormorant/shag is shown in a fragmentary fresco from room 14 of the villa at Ayia Triada
on Crete (E33).816 On the south wall, (three) birds and cats are shown, possibly originally in a
repetitive fashion, amid quadrupeds (agrimia?). The bird, which is preserved only once, is
perched on a rock, surrounded by ivy, and approached by the cat. The erect posture of the bird
is typical of cormorants/shags which usually sit on rocks near the shore or a lake. This
riverine/lakeside/maritime habitat might also be indicated in the fresco by the depiction of
ivy, a plant which needs a lot of water, and the feline which was identified as a swamp cat
(Felis chaus) by Phillips.817 The cat is depicted quietly stalking the bird which seems
oblivious to this danger. The artist skilfully managed to capture the tense moment before the
quietness is disturbed by the pouncing of the cat onto the bird which will try to fly away with
flapping wingbeats or struggle vehemently if caught. If the identification as a young bird is
correct, it would add another naturalistic detail to the fresco since inexperienced youngsters
are easy targets for predators.

Comparable to some LM I scenes of waterbirds with felines (Section 6.3), the eventual
outcome of the encounter between cat and juvenile shag remains uncertain. As was said
before, such compositions avoid the typically analogical categorization of animals into
inherently superior versus inferior entities. Moreover, special emphasis is placed on the
rendering of the habitat. Similar to other Neopalatial frescoes showing birds, the birds and
cats are surrounded by rocks, plants and other animals. All elements are shown on the same
spatial plane as if the artist wanted to avoid giving precedence of one viewpoint over the
others, suggesting that their perspectives deserve equal respect. Regrettably, the fragmentary
state of preservation hinders the exact reconstruction of the relationship of the cat and bird
fresco to the scenes on the adjoining two walls. 818 On the north wall a kneeling woman in
front of a boulder and possibly a second (standing?) woman are shown amid flowers, while on
the east wall another woman is slightly crouching as if dancing in front of a stepped structure,
turned towards the south wall.819 The spatial juxtaposition of the cat and bird fresco with
possible ritual scenes seems to integrate the encounter of two different animals into the larger
animist framework revolving around the relations established between human and non-human
entities (woman and boulder).

816
Militello 1998; Jones 2007, 2014.
817
Phillips 2006, 204-205.
818
Jones 2014, 495.
819
Militello – La Rosa 2000, 993; Jones 2007; See Jones 2014 for a recent reconstruction.
 187

The latest image of a seabird is seen on a seal (D587) dating to LM II – IIIA. It shows a
sailing ship with a large man in the centre and the helmsman in the background. The large
man has raised his hand and a flying bird is shown under his arm, looking back towards him.
Boulotis and Lenz interpreted the man as a god because of his large size, but he could also be
the captain of the ship.820 Morgan identified the bird as a dove and saw it as a navigation
aid.821 While the bird is more likely a gull (it does not have the curved wing of doves), its use
as aid in seafaring seems plausible. As noted by Morton for Classical Greece, gulls and other
seabirds were especially important for sailors because they were present all year round in
contrast to migrating birds such as swallows.822 Observation of their behavior allowed short-
time weather forecasting. For example, flocks of gulls flying from the sea to the land could
mean that a storm was coming, inducing the ship to seek a safe harbour as soon as possible.
Such a situation may be illustrated on the seal, given the visual communication between the
man and the bird and the gesture of the man pointing towards a certain destination (on
land?).823 This image may suggest that gulls had a specific role by LM IIIA1.

In sum, images of seabirds (gulls and cormorants) come from the Cyclades and Crete. Gulls
may have been classified as seabirds given their association with dolphins on a vase from
Thera. A Cretan seal might allude to their role in maritime weather-forecasting. Some
depictions of seabirds emphasise species-specific poses and associations. The Cretan fresco
with the cormorant stalked by a cat leaves the outcome of this encounter unclear, thereby
avoiding the creation of an ontological hierarchy between the different animals. Such an
emphasis on the equality of interiorities of different entities is consistent with animist
imagery.

8.8 Conclusion

Images of miscellaneous birds date to EB III – LB IIIC. As in previous chapters, we could

observe profound differences between bird images from Crete and the Cyclades on the one
hand and those from the Greek Mainland on the other hand. The Cretan and Cycladic
depictions of such birds date to EB III – LB IIIA. Images of owls, hoopoes, galliformes,
swallows and gulls usually show rather specific species (little owl, chukar partridge, barn
swallow). Characteristic are a sense of liveliness and individualized movements achieved by

820
Lenz 1995, 143-145.
821
Morgan 1988, 67.
822
Morton 2001, 293.
823
Koutsouflakis 1999, 146.
 188

the depiction of varied and dynamic poses, and the focus on various species-specific actions
(e.g. breeding, fighting, chasing, chick-rearing, migrating) and habitats (dry grassland vs. low
vegetation vs. waves). In LM II – IIIA, liveliness and variety are maintained in images of
partridges, although we can note a decrease of accuracy in the depictions. Possibly, this
change is due to influence from the Greek Mainland.

The lack of recurrent and/or unnatural associations usually prevents the identification of any
particular function of the Cretan and Cycladic bird images. There is only one image of a gull,
which might allude to a specific role in maritime weather-forecasting. The remaining images
can be more generally interpreted as reflecting an animist framework. Indirect evidence is
provided by a Cretan fresco with a cormorant stalked by a cat which leaves the outcome of
this encounter unclear, thereby avoiding the creation of an ontological hierarchy between the
different animals. Furthermore, the preference of synanthropic birds (little owls, barn
swallows) in the Neopalatial period seems to concur with an increased significance of animist
rituals where voluntary proximity to humans became important (relational encounters or
shamanic practices). Moreover, particular traits of a Cretan fresco showing hoopoes and
partridges create the impression that the viewer is led to temporarily adopt the perspective of
the birds. Some Theran frescoes juxtapose images of juvenile birds and young humans in a
way as to indirectly suggest their shared ontological status. Further persuasive evidence for
animism as the prevalent ontology on Crete and the Cyclades is provided by images merging
birds, humans and other entities. Cycladic vases fuse the features of females, swallows and
vessels in a way as to create the impression of ambiguous hybrid entities. The metamorphic
potential expressed by these vases is extended to various other organic and inorganic forms in
the Cretan combinations. In addition, human-bird hybrids emphasise a more specific
transformational capacity that may have been the domain of shamans. All these images
indicate that animism was the prevalent ontology on Crete and the Cyclades.

Images of miscellaneous birds from the Greek Mainland which date to LH I – IIIC lack the
liveliness and diversity characteristic of depictions from other regions. Images of owls,
hoopoes and swallows show the birds in identical fashion without an indication of their
species-specific habitat. Recurrent emphasis on certain poses, behaviour and contexts allows
the identification of certain functions of these bird images. Owls may have had an apotropaic
role since they adopt a protective attitude in funerary contexts of LH I – II. The depiction of
hoopoes on a dagger and swallows in a scene of physical assault may recall the ideological
emphasis placed on a warrior ethos in this period. Images of galliformes focusing on
 189

territorial or aggressive displays likewise reflect the renewed interest in the depiction of male
physical strength in LH IIIB – IIIC. The consistent use of bird images as
symbols/allegories/metaphors for people or abstract concepts strongly suggests that analogism
was the prevalent ontology on the Greek Mainland.
 190

9. A bird`s eye view – human-bird-relationships in the

Aegean Bronze Age
Having analysed various depictions of birds we will now summarise the overall results of our
discussion. Since we have identified notable differences between regions regarding the
prevalent kind of ontologies, the summary now follows a geographical order. We first focus
on the Cretan depictions and then consider the Cycladic ones in the second section. The final
section examines bird images from the Greek Mainland.

9.1 Crete

Cretan images of birds display traits consistent with the art of animist societies, as discussed
in Section 3.2.4. The following characteristics have been identified:

Species and morphology:

• A large variety of bird species is depicted (rock and turtle doves, wood pigeons,
falcons, corvids, ducks/geese/swans, herons, cranes, peafowl/crane, small waders,
horned and little owls, hoopoes, chukar partridges, swallows, a gull and a cormorant).
• The birds’ morphology is in keeping with the natural proportions.
• Species-specific details such as plumage patterns are frequently shown.
• The accuracy of plumage details can be compromised to achieve an idealising effect.
• Unnatural physical features (e.g. additional wings) are absent, except in hybrids and
combinations.

Behaviour and habitat:

• Diverse species-specific behavioural patterns are depicted, e.g. dove chicks begging
for food in EM I – MM II, hock-sitting cranes in MM II, mating waterbirds in MM III
– LM I and feeding partridges in LM IIIA.
• A large variety of poses conveys a sense of movement and liveliness.
• Diverse poses and movements adopted by different birds in the same scene convey the
impression of individuality.
• There is frequent depiction and elaboration of species-specific habitats, e.g. rocks and
rock doves in MM II or reed/papyrus and waterbirds in MM III – LM IIIB.
 191

Roles and relations:

• Birds have active (ideological) roles, e.g. doves were connected with ensuring the flow
of liquid in EM I – LM IIIB and falcons may have been thought to enable the fast
travel of ships in MM II – LM I.
• Bird figurines were ritually deposited at special natural sites, e.g. peak sanctuaries,
possibly to ensure the ongoing communication with human and non-human entities.
• In the depictions, rocks, plants, and other animals are of a similar size and they are
shown on the same spatial plane as the birds, emphasising the equal status of diverse
perspectives.
• Depictions of encounters with predators (felines, raptors/corvids) are characterised by
an uncertain outcome, conveying a sense of instability.
• Depictions of encounters with humans emphasise close visual and physical contact
with an emphasis on the voluntary appearance of synanthropic birds, e.g. doves in
MM III – LM IIIC or corvids in LM IIIA.
• Depictions of human-bird hybrids and combinations convey the shared interiority of
entities with vastly different outer appearances.
• Images involving birds frequently display shamanic imagery such as entoptic
phenomena, trance postures, special boats or human-bird hybrids.

The combined presence of these aspects makes it likely that Cretan worldview was
significantly influenced by animist notions; however, we need to stress that the Cretans were
also familiar with some inherently analogical elements, for example script. Although the
above listed animist elements can be observed throughout the Bronze Age on Crete, there are
some variations between periods. Compared with the EM I – MM II period, we observe an
intensification and extension of some aspects in the Neopalatial period (MM III – LM IB). An
expansion of media coincides with an increase of the variety and accuracy in the depiction of
species-specific features, possibly reflecting a refinement and expansion of the folk
taxonomy, e.g. the inclusion of the exotic peacock. We can also note a marked increase of
flying poses, resulting in a more pronounced emphasis on movement, and a significant
increase in scenes directly showing birds together with humans in relational encounters and/or
shamanic imagery. Although some differences between the Pre- and Protopalatial on the one
hand and the Neopalatial period on the other exist, they seem to reveal an intensification of
animist practices rather than the introduction of profoundly new ways of thinking. We may
 192

speculate that this was connected with social developments during the Neopalatial period such
as a tightening of social control, but more specific research is needed to elaborate on this
hypothesis.

After the destruction of all palaces except Knossos at the end of LM IB, we see profound
changes in bird imagery compared to earlier periods, which may be due to the advent of
another – analogical – ontology on the island (Section 3.2.1). The following changes can be
observed:

• A marked decrease in the variety of bird species; only doves, partridges and especially
waterbirds are depicted regularly.
• An increase of stylized images and artificial compositions, e.g. symmetrically flanking
a plant.
• A decline of observational accuracy and variety of species-specific habitat and
behaviour.
• An increase of specific passive functions of birds, e.g. the figurines of ravens on the
LM IIIA2 Ayia Triada sarcophagus used to denominate a sacred space; or swan-
shaped Egyptian-style objects dating to LM II – IIIA symbolise the participation of the
Cretan nobility in international elite networks.
• A decrease of shamanic imagery and the appearance of a new set of scenes showing
birds as subservient to humans (Mistress of Animals), conveying a sense of hierarchy.

Notwithstanding the appearance of such analogical traits in the post-LM IB bird imagery from
Crete, which may have to do with an increasing influence from the Greek Mainland (cf.
Section 9.3), the changes seen are gradual and are especially pronounced in LM IIIB – LM
IIIC. Moreover, traits of animist art such as the emphasis on liveliness, agency and relational
encounters continued well into LM III. In this period we can thus observe a complex interplay
between traditional and novel ideas. A good example of such ‘hybrid’ depictions are images
of waterbirds which continue to associate these birds with other liminal creatures, possibly
echoing their earlier role as shamanic helpers, but which are now limited to the mortuary
sphere. Waterbirds may thus have adopted a new significance as attendants of the deceased
through the borderland between life and death.

These observations could prompt the question why animist notions were able to persist for
such a long time on Crete, despite contacts with the neighbouring predominantly analogical
 193

cultures of Egypt and the Near East. We may speculate that the specific island location played
a role in forging a particularly Cretan identity, which in turn may have perpetuated the
deliberate decision to ‘do things differently’. In this context, we can take note of other
specifically Cretan traits such as communal burial rites, heterarchical elements in social
organisation, the absence of ruler iconography and a decentralised administration, which do
not find direct parallels in these neighbouring cultures.

9.2 Cyclades

Bird depictions from the Cyclades also exhibit traits suggestive of an animist ontology. The
following characteristics were identified:

Species and morphology:

• A variety of bird species is depicted (rock doves, falcons, mallards, Egyptian geese,
herons/egrets, small waders, barn swallows and gulls).
• Bodily proportions and plumage details are rendered in an accurate manner.
• The accuracy of appearance is sometimes compromised to achieve a livelier or
idealizing effect, e.g. the addition of rounded tail streamers and the modification of
plumage patterns in barn swallows.

Behaviour and habitat:

• Images are frequently characterised by a focus on species-specific poses and

behaviour, e.g. swallows shown in territorial fighting/chick-rearing or waterbirds
fleeing from felines in LC I.
• A large variety of poses conveys a sense of movement and liveliness.
• Diverse poses and movements adopted by different birds in the same scene convey the
impression of individuality.
• Frequent depiction and elaboration of species-specific habitats is seen, e.g. rocks/lilies
and swallows, or reed and mallards in LC I.

Roles and relations:

• Birds have active (ideological) roles, e.g. doves were connected to the flow of liquid in
EC II, while falcons may have been thought to keep the sun moving with their wings
in MC III or ensuring the fast travel of a ship in LC I.
 194

• In the depictions, rocks, plants and other animals are of a similar size and they are
shown on the same spatial plane as the birds, emphasising the equal status of diverse
perspectives.
• Depictions of encounters with predators (felines) are characterised by an uncertain
outcome, conveying a sense of instability.
• Ambiguous images combining features of different entities convey a shared interiority
of entities with vastly different outer appearances, e.g. the MC beak-spouted jugs
merging avian and vessel features, or the swallow vases of LC I date merging avian
and female features.
• The juxtaposition of elaborate narratives involving both human and animal offspring
in the LC I Xeste 3 at Akrotiri conveys the notion of shared personhood.
• Shamanic imagery may be identified in Xeste 3 where an enthroned woman is
depicted in association with liminal creatures (waterbirds, dragonflies, griffin and
monkey) and trance-inducing saffron.

We may note a considerable overlap with animist traits identified in the Cretan repertoire of
birds (Section 9.1). Therefore, it seems likely that the two regions shared a similar form of
animism. However, there are variations and – although the general ideas may have been
similar – they were expressed in different ways. For example, the round marble trays with
doves dating to EC II are limited to the Cyclades, possibly expressing a specific idea linked to
doves and the flow of liquids. Also, the falcons depicted on vases in EC II – MC III are a
local invention. They were not adopted into the Cretan repertoire, although the general idea
may have resonated with the Cretans as suggested by the deposition of such vases at Knossos.

In MC III and LC I/II, connections between the two regions intensified and Cycladic bird
images from this time are especially similar to contemporary Cretan ones. Nevertheless, there
are local particularities from this period, such as the swallow vases with female features.
Moreover, relational encounters or hybrids and combinations as seen on the Cretan seals are
notably lacking in Cycladic imagery. After LC II, bird images became rare in the Cyclades
and the only notable depictions date to LH IIIC. The Naxian stirrup jars depicting waterbirds
in connection with octopi seem to follow a Cretan and wider Aegean trend. Their mortuary
contexts suggest that they had a similar role as the images on LM III Cretan larnakes,
accompanying the dead as liminal creatures.
 195

9.3 Greek Mainland

Bird images from the Greek Mainland are mostly limited to MH III – LH IIIC. They display
characteristics suggestive of an analogical ontology, as presented in Section 3.2.1. The
following traits have been identified:

Species and morphology:

• A variety of bird species (rock doves, raptors, generic waterbirds, swans, cattle egrets,
cranes, owls, hoopoes, galliformes, chickens and swallows) is depicted, but there is a
considerable numerical bias in favour of waterbirds and wading birds.
• The rendering of the birds’ morphology frequently does not follow an organic
understanding of anatomy, but conveys the impression of having been assembled from
separate irreducible elements (legs, head and neck, body, tail), e.g. the appearance of
waterbirds and waders of LH IIIA – IIIB, or waterbird protomes in LH IIIC.
• Generic depictions are often preferred to species-specific images, e.g. the generic birds
developed from Cycladic falcons in MH III – LH I.
• The depiction of species-specific features is dependent on a directly discernible
function, e.g. the depiction of predatory features of raptors from MH III – LH I elite
tombs.
• Unnatural features frequently occur in morphology, e.g. additional wings/tails or legs
bent the wrong way.

Behaviour and habitat:

• Species-specific behaviour can be depicted, but diversity is not the aim, e.g. cattle
egrets are shown on cattle in LH IIIA – IIIB, but other habits of this species are not
shown.
• Monotonous calm poses, the absence of flying poses, and symmetrical or rapport
compositions convey a sense of rigidity and stiffness.
• Repetitive poses and often identical appearance of birds hinder the impression of
individuality.
• The habitat is rendered in a non-specific and/or insignificant manner.
 196

Roles and relations:

• Birds have passive (ideological) functions, e.g. depictions of raptors served as

analogies of warriors in MH III – LH I, images of waterbirds were symbols of water-
related fertility in LH IIIA – IIIC, and depictions of roosters may have served as
metaphors of virility in LH IIIC.
• If depicted, rocks and plants are simplified and of smaller size than the birds, creating
a hierarchical relationship between these entities.
• Depictions of encounters with predators (felines) are characterised by an outcome in
favour of the predators, establishing a hierarchical relationship between waterbirds and
felines.
• Depictions of encounters with humans are rare; the few scenes (Master/Mistress of
Animals) establish a dominant attitude towards the birds.
• Depictions of ambiguous entities, human-bird hybrids or relational encounters are
largely absent, suggesting the existence of clear ontological boundaries between
entities.
• Shamanic imagery involving entoptic phenomena, trance postures, special boats or
human-bird hybrids is absent.

As in the other regions, there are variations over time. The earliest bird depictions, dating to
MH III – LH II have been found in tombs in the Argolid, Messenia and on Aegina. They are
characterised by a relatively close adherence to Cretan or Cycladic models, both in the kinds
of birds and their appearance. However, they already exhibit modifications which are
consistent with analogical traits, such as a tendency towards stylised features, repetitive poses
and unnatural compositions. In LH IIIA – IIIB, such tendencies intensified and continuously
characterised the iconography of the Greek Mainland until the end of the Bronze Age.

Significant variations between periods concern the kind of analogies created between specific
bird images and the current social order. The bird depictions of the MH III – LH I/II period
display a conspicuous emphasis on predatory features and/or aggressive compositions,
probably linked to a society characterised by a warrior ethos. In LH IIIA – IIIB, aggressive
aspects became less important and the bird depictions exhibit an emphasis on calm and formal
poses, complemented by peaceful scenes with cattle. Such images may be due to an
ideological emphasis on social stability and affluence, following the establishment of palatial
hierarchies with the wanax at the top. When the palaces collapsed around the end of LH
 197

IIIB2, symbolic links to the former palatial social order needed to be modified. The
appearance, poses and associations of birds show a renewed interest in aggressiveness and
their use as analogies to warriors, linked to renewed interest in a warrior ethos during the
unstable times after the collapse.

9.4 Conclusion

To conclude, the study of bird depictions from the Aegean Bronze Age has yielded several
significant results for all our research aims. The exhaustive catalogue proved an invaluable
basis for this work. First, we developed a systematic identification method which aims to find
a middle ground between overambitious attempts of species identification and the presumed
impossibility of identification. Our methodology was based not only on iconographical and
ornithological techniques but also on the principles of folk taxonomies, which allowed us to
move beyond this false dichotomy. Second, we interpreted the functions and meanings of bird
imagery in different regions and periods by taking into account both the biological
characteristics of the depicted species and contextual information. Such an approach furthered
a narrative underlining the – often extensive – biological knowledge of past people and
offered a deeper understanding of the significance of avian variety in iconography. Third, we
studied the bird images with regard to ontologies, following Descola’s fourpartite ontological
scheme consisting of naturalism, analogism, totemism and animism. This work partly
complemented past research, but several further criteria for the identification of the prevalent
ontology by way of iconographical analysis were examined. Moreover, we explicitly
addressed regional similarities and differences in the perception of nature, providing a better
understanding of cultural diversity and interactions in the Aegean Bronze Age.

These findings have opened new avenues for future research. For example, the identification
methodology developed for this thesis can be applied to depictions of other animals as well.
Refining species identification can not only advance our awareness of the conceptualisation of
the non-human world by past people, but may also allow an important reassessment of
ideological roles and functions of other animals in iconography. Furthermore, ontologies
permeate ways of thinking in many diverse areas, such as burial rites, gender relations and
social organisation, and their study will shed new light on the heterogeneity of world views in
the Aegean Bronze Age.
 198

List of tables

Table 1: Distribution of bird types in Aegean Bronze Age iconography.

Table 2: The four modes of human-animal relationships after Descola 2013, fig.1.

Table 3: Types of dove vessels and figurines attached to vessels dating to EB I - MB II from
Crete and the Cyclades.

Table 4: Identifiable poses of falcons on vase-paintings dating to MB III – LB I from the

Cyclades and Crete.

Table 5: Identifiable body shape and association of falcons on vase-paintings dating to MB III
– LB I from the Cyclades and Crete.

Table 6: Identifiable poses of different types of waterbirds on Cretan seals dating to MB III –
LB II.

Table 7: Types of habitat of waterbirds on Cretan seals dating to MB III – LB II.

Table 8: Associations of wading birds on Cretan seals dating to EM III – MM II.

Table 9: Poses of human-bird hybrids dating to MM II – LM I.

Table 10: Types of birds in human-bird hybrids dating to MM II – LM I.

 199

Bibliography
Short titles and series

AA SUPPL. 2010. Jahresbericht 2009 des DAI – Abteilung Athen: Tiryns. AA Supplement
2010, 115-116.

AA SUPPL. 2011. Jahresbericht 2010 des DAI – Abteilung Athen: Tiryns. AA Supplement
2011, 102-108.

ARS ANTIQUA 1966. Sale catalogue, June, Luzerne.

ASHMOLEAN MUSEUM. 1967. Select exhibition of Sir John and Lady Beazley's gifts to the
Ashmolean Museum, 1912-1966. London.

CMS I - Sakellariou, A. 1964. Die minoischen und mykenischen Siegel des Nationalmuseums
in Athen. Berlin.

CMS IS - Sakellarakis, J. A., 1982. Athen, Nationalmuseum. Berlin.

CMS II,1 - Platon, N. 1969. Iraklion, Archäologisches Museum. Teil 1. Die Siegel der
Vorpalastzeit. Berlin.

CMS II,2 - Platon, N., Pini, I., and Salies, G. 1977. Iraklion, Archäologisches Museum. Teil 2.
Die Siegel der Altpalastzeit. Berlin.

CMS II,3 - Platon, N., and Pini, I. 1984. Iraklion, Archäologisches Museum. Teil 3. Die Siegel
der Neupalastzeit. Berlin.

CMS II,4 - Platon, N., and Pini, I. 1985. Iraklion, Archäologisches Museum. Teil 4. A. Die
Siegel der Nachpalastzeit, B. Undatierbare spätminoische Siegel. Berlin.

CMS II,5 - Pini, I. 1970. Iraklion, Archäologisches Museum. Teil 5. Die Siegelabdrücke von
Phästos. Berlin.

CMS II,6 - Müller, W., Pini, I., Platon, N., et al. 1999. Iraklion, Archäologisches Museum.
Teil 6. Die Siegelabdrücke von Aj. Triada und anderen zentral- und ostkretischen Fundorten,
unter Einbeziehung von Funden aus anderen Museen. Berlin.

CMS II,7 - Müller, W., Pini, I. and Platon, N. 1998. Iraklion, Archäologisches Museum. Teil
7. Die Siegelabdrücke von Kato Zakros, unter Einbeziehung von Funden aus anderen
Museen. Berlin.

CMS II,8 - Gill, M. A. V., Müller, W., Pini, I., and Platon, N. 2002. Iraklion, Archäologisches
Museum. Teil 8. Die Siegelabdrücke von Knossos, unter Einbeziehung von Funden aus
anderen Museen. Mainz.

CMS III - Müller, W., Pini, I., and Sakellariou, A. 2007. Iraklion, Archäologisches Museum.
Sammlung Giamalakis. Mainz.
 200

CMS IV - Sakellarakis, J., A., and Kenna, V., E., G. 1969. Iraklion. Sammlung Metaxas.
Berlin.

CMS V - Pini, I. et al., 1975. Kleinere griechische Sammlungen. Berlin.

CMS VS1A - Pini, I. et al. 1992. Kleinere griechische Sammlungen. Ägina – Korinth. Berlin.

CMS VS1B - Pini, I. et al. 1993. Kleinere griechische Sammlungen. Lamia – Zakynthos und
weitere Länder des Ostmittelmeerraums. Berlin.

CMS VS3 - Pini, I. et al. 2004. Kleinere griechische Sammlungen. Neufunde aus
Griechenland und der westlichen Türkei. Mainz.

CMS VI - Hughes-Brock, H. and Boardman, J. 2009. Oxford. The Ashmolean Museum.

Mainz.

CMS VII - Kenna, V. E. G. 1967. Die englischen Museen II. London, British Museum;
Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum; Manchester, University Museum; Liverpool, City Museum;
Birmingham, City Museum. Berlin.

CMS VIII - Kenna, V. E. G. 1966. Die englischen Privatsammlungen. Berlin.

CMS IX - Van Effenterre, H. and van Effenterre, M. 1972. Cabinet des Médailles de la
Bibliothèque Nationale Paris. Berlin.

CMS X - Betts, J. H. 1980. Die Schweizer Sammlungen. Berlin.

CMS XI - Pini, I. et al. 1988. Kleinere europäische Sammlungen. Berlin.

CMS XII - Kenna, V. E. G. 1972. Nordamerika I. New York, The Metropolitan Museum of
Art. Berlin.

CMS XIII - Kenna, V. E. G. and Thomas, E. 1974. Nordamerika II. Kleinere Sammlungen.
Berlin.

CVA Copenhagen – Blinkenberg, C. and Johansen, K.F. 1929. Corpus vasorum antiquorum –
Danemark 2: Musée National. Paris.

CVA Heidelberg – Canciani, F. 1966. Corpus vasorum antiquorum – Deutschland 27:

Heidelberg, Universität 3. Munich.

CVA Mainz – Büsing-Kolbe, A. 1977. Corpus vasorum antiquorum – Deutschland 42 :

Mainz, Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum 1. Munich.

ERGON 1973. To Ergon tes archaiologikes hetaires kata to 1973. Athens (1974).

ERGON 1980. To Ergon tes archaiologikes hetaires kata to 1980. Athens (1981).

ERGON 1984. To Ergon tes archaiologikes hetaires kata to 1984. Athens (1985).
 201

MÜNZEN UND MEDAILLEN AG 1975. Kunstwerke der Antike: Werke der frühen
Kulturen in Griechenland, griechische Vasen, griechische Terrakotten, griechische,
etruskische und römische Bronzen, griechische und römische Bildwerke in Stein
Sammlungen F. P. (3. Teil), Basel.

Bibliography

ABRAMOVITZ, K. 1980. Frescoes from Ayia Irini, Keos, Parts II-IV. Hesperia 49, pp. 57-
85.

ADANSON, M. 1763. Familles des plantes, 2 vols. Vincent.

ADLER, W. 1996. Die spätbronzezeitlichen Pyxiden in Gestalt von Wasservögeln. R.

Hachmann (ed.), Kamid el-Loz 16. ‘Schatzhaus’ - Studien, Bonn, pp. 27-117.

ÅKERSTRÖM, Å. 1987. The Pictorial Pottery, Berbati 2. Stockholm.

ALBERTI, L. 2013. The Funerary Meaning of the Octopus in LM IIIC Crete. G. Graziadio,
R, Guglielmino, V. Lenuzza, and S. Vitale (eds.), Φιλική Συναυλία: Studies in Mediterranean
Archaeology for Mario Benzi, Oxford, pp. 69-77.
ALDERTON, D. 2011. Encyclopedia of Birds. Bath.
ALEXIOU, S. 1954. Hysterominōikos taphos Pachyammou, CretChron 8, pp. 399-412.
ALEXIOU, S. 1958. I minoïki thea meth'ipsomenon hiron, CretChron 12, pp. 179-299.

ALEXIOU, S. 1967. Hysterominōikoi taphoi limenos Knōsou (Katsampa). Athens.

ALEXIOU, S. 1968. Spileodis tafi Poru Irakliu (Tombes à Poros). AAA 1:3, pp. 250-255.

ALEXIOU, S. 1972a. Mikre anaskafe ke perisillogi arheon is Kritin (Minor Excavations and
Collections of Antiquities in Crete). Praktika 1970, pp. 252-255.

ALEXIOU, S. 1972b. Larnakes kai angeia ek taphou para to Gazi Herakleiou. ArchEph, pp.
86-98.

ALEXIOU, S. 1974. Chronika. E archeotites Irakliu kata to 1972. E archeotites Irakliu kata to
1973 (Antiquities in Iraklion (Nome) in 1972-1973). CretChron 25, pp. 457-478.

ALEXIOU, S – WARREN, P. 2004. The Early Minoan Tombs of Lebena, Southern Crete.
Sävedalen.

ÅLIN, P. 1968. Unpublished Mycenaean Sherds from Asine. OpAth 8, pp. 87-105.
ALLISON, A. 2006. Millennial Monsters: Japanese Toys and the Global Imagination.
Berkeley.

ALUSIK, T. 2003. Tripartite Shrine in the Minoan architecture and Iconography. Eirene 39,
pp. 56-118.
 202

ANASTASIADOU, M. 2011. The Middle Minoan Three-Sided Soft Stone Prism: A Study of
Style and Iconography. Mainz.
ANASTASIADOU, M. 2016. Small Puzzles in LM I Zakros. E. Alram-Stern, F. Blakolmer,
S. Deger-Jalkotzy, R. Laffineur and J. Weilhartner (eds.), Aegaeum 36. Metaphysis, Ritual,
Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age, Proceedings of the 15th International
Aegean Conference at the Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Department
Aegean and Anatolia, Austrian Academy of Sciences and at the Institute of Classical
Archaeology, University of Vienna on 22-25 April 2014. Leuven-Liege, pp. 77-85.
ANDERSON, E.N. 1985. Comment of Brown, C. H. 1985. Mode of Subsistence and Folk
Biological Taxonomy. Current Anthropology 26(1), pp. 43-64.

ANDERSSON, L. 1990. The Driving Force: Species Concepts and Ecology. Taxon 39(3), pp.
375-382.

ANDREADAKI-VLAZAKI, M. 1997. La nécropole du Minoen Récent III de la ville de La

Canée. J. Driessen and A. Farnoux (eds.), La Crète mycénienne: Actes de la Table Ronde
Internationale organisée par l'École française d'Athènes (26-28 Mars 1991). BCH
Supplément 30, Athens, pp. 487-509.
ANDREADAKI-VLAZAKI, M. – PAPADOPOULOU, E. 2005. The Habitation at
Khamalevri, Rethymnon, during the 12th Centrury BC. A. L. D’Agata and J. Moody (eds.),
Ariadne’s Threads: Connections between Crete and the Greek Mainland in Late Minoan III
(LM IIIA2 to LM IIIC). Proceedings of the International Workshop held at Athens, Scuola
Archeologica Italiana, 5-6 April 2003, Athens, pp. 353-414.
ANDREADAKI-VLAZAKI, M. – PAPADOPOULOU, E. 2007. Recent Evidence for the
Destruction of the LM III C Habitation at Khamalevri, Rethymnon. S. Deger-Jalkotzy and M.
Zavadil (eds.), LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms II: LH III C Middle. Proceedings of
the International Workshop Held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences at Vienna, October
29th and 30th, 2004, Vienna, pp. 27-53.
ANDREADAKI-VLAZAKI, M. – RETHEMIOTAKIS, G. – DIMOPOULOU-
RETHEMIOTAKI, N. (eds.) 2008. From the Land of the Labyrinth: Minoan Crete, 3000-
1100 B.C. New York.
ANDREOU, E. 1974. M.E. prochus ek Thiras (M.H. Ewer from Thera). AAA 7, pp. 416-422.
ANDRIKOU, E. – ARAVANTINOS, V.L. – GODART, L. – SACCONI, A. – VROOM, J.
2006. Thèbes. Fouilles de la Cadmée II.2. Les tablettes en linéaire B de la Odos Pelopidou:
Le contexte archéologique. La céramique de la Odos Pelopidou et la chronologie du linéaire
B. Pisa and Rome.
ANGELOPOULOU, N. 2000. Nature Scenes: An Approach to a Symbolic Art. S. Sherratt
(ed.), The Wall Paintings of Thera. Proceedings of the First International Symposium, Petros
M. Nomikos Conference Centre, Thera, Hellas, 30 August - 4 September 1997, Vol. II.
Athens, pp. 545-554.
ARAVANTINOS, V. 1990. The Mycenaean Inscribed Sealings from Thebes: Problems of
Content and Function. T. Palaima (ed.), Aegaeum 5. Aegean Seals, Sealings and
Administration. Proceedings of the NEH-Dickson Conference of the Program in Aegean
 203

Scripts and Prehistory of the Department of Classics University of Texas at Austin, January
11-13, 1989, Liège, pp. 149-174.
ARAVANTINOS, V. – GODART, L. – SACCONI, A. 2001. Thèbes: Fouilles de la Cadmée
I. Les tablettes en linéaire B de la Odos Pelopidou. Édition et commentaire. Pisa and Rome.
ARAVANTINOS, V. 2003. Les nécropoles mycéniennes de Tanagra. V. Jeammet and J. M.
Fossey (eds.), Tanagra: Mythe et archéologie, Paris, pp. 68-80.

ARAVANTINOS, V. 2010. Τhe Archaeological Museum of Thebes. Athens.

ARNOTT, W.G. 2007. Birds in the Ancient World from A-Z. London.

ARUZ, J. 2008. Marks of Distinction: Seals and Cultural Exchange between the Aegean and
the Orient (ca. 2600-1360 B.C.). Mainz.
ARUZ, J. - BENZEL, K. – EVANS, J.M. (eds.) 2008. Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and
Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C. New York and New Haven.
ÅSTRÖM, P. – DEMAKOPOULOU, K. 1986. New Excavations in the Citadel of Midea,
1983-1984, OpAth 16, pp. 19-25.
ATKINSON, T.D. 1904. Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos conducted by the British School
at Athens. London.
ATRAN, S. 1985. Pretheoretical aspects of Aristotelian Definition and Classification of
Animals. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 16, pp. 113–63.

ATRAN, S. 1987. Origins of the Species and Genus Concept. Journal of the History of
Biology 20, pp. 195-279.

ATRAN, S. 1998. Folk Biology and the Anthropology of Science: Cognitive Universals and
Cultural Particulars. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21, pp. 547–609.

ATRAN, S. 1999a. Itzaj Maya Folkbiological Taxonomy: Cognitive Universals and Cultural
Particulars. D. Medin and S. Atran (eds.), Folkbiology, London, pp. 119-204.

ATRAN, S. 1999b. The Universal Primacy of Generic Species in Folkbiological Taxonomy:

Implications for Human Biological, Cultural, and Scientific Evolution, R. A. Wilson (ed.),
Species, pp. 231-261.

ATRAN, S. 2001. Folkbiology. R. A. Wilson and F.C. Keil (eds.), The MIT Encyclopedia of
the Cognitive Sciences, pp. 316-318.

BAILENSON, J.N. – SHUMB, M.S. – ATRAN, S. – MEDINB, D.L. – COLEYE, J.D. 2002.
A Bird’s Eye View: Biological Categorization and Reasoning within and across Cultures.
Cognition 84, pp. 1–53.

BAILLEUL LE SUER, R. 2012. Introduction. R. Bailleul Le Suer (ed.), Between Heaven and
Earth: Birds in Ancient Egypt, Chicago.
 204

BALL, K. M. 2004. Animal Motifs in Asian Art: an Illustrated Guide to their Meanings and
Aesthetics.

BANTI, L. 1942. Divinità femminili a Creta nel Tardo Minoico III. Studi e Materiali di Storia
delle Religioni, anno XVII, voi. XVII, fase. 1-4, 1941, pp. 17-36.

BANTI, L. 1949. Review of Charles Picard’s Les Religions préhelléniques (Crète et

Mycènes). Athenaeum 27, pp. 317-320.

BANOU, E. 2005. Late Minoan III Mokhlos (East Crete) versus Late Minoan III Viannos
(Central Eastern Crete): Differences and Similarities. A. L. D’Agata and J. Moody (eds.),
Ariadne’s Threads: Connections between Crete and the Greek Mainland in Late Minoan III
(LM IIIA2 to LM IIIC). Proceedings of the International Workshop held at Athens, Scuola
Archeologica Italiana, 5-6 April 2003, Athens, pp. 145-184.

BARBER, R.L.N. 1974. Phylakopi 1911 and the History of the Later Cycladic Bronze
Age. BSA 69, pp. 1-53.

BARBER, R.L.N. 1987. The Cyclades in the Bronze Age. Iowa City.

BARBER, R.L.N. – HADJIANASTASIOU, O. 1989. Mikre Vigla: A Bronze Age Settlement

on Naxos. BSA 84, pp. 63-162.

BARBER, R. L. N. 2008. Unpublished Pottery from Phylakopi. BSA 103, pp. 43-222.

BARBER, T.X. 1994. The Human Nature of Birds. London.

BARCLAY, A. E. 2001. The Potnia Theron: Adaptation of a Near Eastern Image. R.
Laffineur and R. Hägg (eds.), Aegaeum 22, Potnia: Deities and Religion in the Aegean
Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference / 8e Rencontre égéenne
internationale. Göteborg University, 12-15 April 2000. Liège, pp. 373-386.

BASCH, L. 1987. Le musée imaginaire de la marine antique. Athens.

BAXEVANI-KOUZIONI, K. – MARKOULAKI, S. 1996. Une tombe à chambre MR III à
Pankalochori (nome de Réthymnon). BCH 120, pp. 641-703.

BECKER, C. 1986. Kastanas. Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshügel der Bronze- und

Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975-1979: Die Tierknochenfunde. Berlin.
BECKMANN, S. 2006. Conscious of Time. Minoan 'Calendar'-Symbolism in the 'Blue Bird
Fresco'. E. Tampakaki and A. Kaloutsakis (eds.), Pepragmena Th' Diethnous Kritologikou
Synedriou, Elounta, 1-6 Oktovriou 2001. A3: Proïstoriki Periodos, Techni kai Latreia,
Heraklion, pp. 65-82.
BELCARI, P. – CUCCU, D. – GONZÁLEZ, M. – SRAIRI, A. – VIDORIS, P. 2002.
Distribution and Abundance of Octopus Vulgaris Cuvier 1797, (Cephalopoda: Octopoda) in
the Mediterranean Sea. Scientia Marina 66, pp. 157-166.
BENNET, J. 1985. The Structure of the Linear B Administration at Knossos. AJA 89(2), pp.
231-249.
 205

BENNET, J. 1987. The Wild Country East of Dikte: The Problem of East Crete in the LMIII
Period. J.T. Killen, J. L. Melena and J-P. Olivier (eds.), Studies in Mycenaean and Classical
Greek Presented to John Chadwick. Minos 20-22, Salamanca, pp. 77-88.
BENNET, J. – DAVIS, J.L. 1999. Making Mycenaeans: Warfare, Territorial Expansion, and
Representations of the other in the Pylian Kingdom. R. Laffineur (ed.), POLEMOS: Le
contexte guerrier en Égée á l'âge du Bronze. Actes de la 7e Rencontre égéenne internationale
Université de Liège, 14-17 avril 1998. Aegaeum: Annales d'archéologie égéenne de
l'Université de Liège et UT-PASP 19, Liège, pp. 105-120.

BENSON, J.L. 1970. Horse, Bird and Man. The Origins of Greek Painting. Amherst.

BENTON, S. 1961. Cattle Egrets and Bustards in Greek Art. The Journal of Hellenic Studies
81, pp. 44-55.

BENTON, S. 1972. A Note on Sea-Birds. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 92, pp. 172-173.

BENZI, M. 1975. Ceramica micenea in Attica. Milan.

BENZI, M. 1988. Mycenaean Pottery Later than LH IIIA1 from the Italian Excavations at
Trianda on Rhodes. S. Dietz and I. Papachristodoulou (eds.), Archaeology in the Dodecanese.
The National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen, pp. 39-55.

BENZI, M. 1992. Rodi e la civiltà micenea. Rome.

BENZI, M. 1993. The Late Bronze Age Pottery from Vathy Cave, Kalymnos. C. Zerner, P.
Zerner and J. Winder (eds.), Wace and Blegen: Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean
Bronze Age 1939-1989. Proceedings of the International Conference held at the American
School of Classical Studies, Athens, Dec. 2-3, 1989, Amsterdam, pp. 275-288.

BERG, I. 2004. Performing Religion: Practitioners and Cult Places in Minoan Crete. T. Insoll
(ed.), Belief in the Past: The Proceedings of the 2002 Manchester Conference on Archaeology
and Religion, Oxford, pp. 27-36.
BERG, I. 2011. Towards a Conceptualisation of the Sea: Artefacts, Iconography and
Meaning. G. Vavouranakis (ed.), The Seascape in Aegean Prehistory, Athens, pp. 119-137.
BERGER, J. 2009. Why look at Animals? London.
BERLIN, B. 1972. Speculations on the Growth of Ethnobotanical Nomenclature. Language in
Society 1, pp. 51–86.

BERLIN, B. – BREEDLOVE, D. – RAVEN, P. 1973. General Principles of Classification

and Nomenclature in Folk Biology. American Anthropologist 74, pp. 214-242.

BERLIN, B. 1992. Ethnobiological Classification: Principles of Categorization of Plants and

Animals in Traditional Societies. Princeton.

BERNABÈ, A. – LUJÀN, E. R. 2008. Mycenaean technology. Y. Duhoux and A. Morpurgo

Davies (eds.), A Companion to Linear B: Mycenaean Greek Texts and their World, Volume 1,
Leuven, pp. 201-233.
 206

BETANCOURT, P.P. 1985. The History of Minoan Pottery. Princeton.

BETTS, J.H. 1967. Some Unpublished Knossos Sealings and Sealstones. BSA 62, pp. 27-45.

BETTS, J.H. 1968. Trees in the Wind on Cretan Sealings. AJA 72(2), pp. 149-150.

BIRD-DAVID, N. 1999. “Animism” revisited. Personhood, Environment and Relational

Epistemology. Current Anthropology 40(S1), pp. 67-91.
BLAKOLMER, F. 2010. A Pantheon without Attributes? Goddesses and Gods in Minoan and
Mycenean Iconography. J. Mylonopoulos (ed.), Divine Images and Human Imaginations in
Ancient Greece and Rome, Leiden and Boston, pp. 21–61 and 389–397.
BLEGEN, C.W. 1921. Korakou; a Prehistoric Settlement near Corinth. Boston.
BLEGEN, C.W. 1928. Zygouries; a Prehistoric Settlement in the Valley of Cleonae.
Cambridge.
BLEGEN, C.W. 1937. Prosymna: the Helladic settlement preceding the Argive Heraeum.
Cambridge.
BLEGEN, C.W. – RAWSON, M. 1966. The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia.
Vol. 1. The Buildings and their Contents.
BLEGEN, C.W. – RAWSON, M. 1973. The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia. -
Vol. 3. Acropolis and Lower Town: Tholoi, Grave Circle, and Chamber Tombs; Discoveries
Outside the Citadel.

BOARDMAN, J. 1961. The Cretan Collection in Oxford: the Dictaean Cave and Iron Age
Crete. Oxford.

BOARDMAN, J. 1970. Greek Gems and Finger Rings. Early Bronze Age to Late Classical.
New York.
BÖHM, S. 1990. Die 'nackte Göttin': zur Ikonographie and Deutung unbekleideter weiblicher
Figuren in der frühgriechischen Kunst. Mainz.
BONECHI, M. 2000. Noms d’oiseaux à Ébla: les rapaces, D. Parayre (ed.), Les animaux et
les hommes dans le monde syro-mésopotamien aux époques historiques, Lyon, 2000, pp. 251-
281.

BONNER, C. 1954. A Miscellany of Engraved Stones. Athens.

BORDA, M. 1946. Arte cretese-micenea nel Museo Pigorini di Roma. Rome.

BORGNA, E. 1997. Some Observations on Deep Bowls and Kraters from the 'Acropoli
mediana' at Phaistos. E. Hallager and B. P. Hallager (eds.), Late Minoan III Pottery
Chronology and Terminology: Acts of a Meeting Held at the Danish Institute at Athens,
August 12-14, 1994, Athens, pp. 273-298.
BORGNA, E. 2003. Il Complesso di Ceramica Tardominoico III dell'Acropoli Mediana di
Festòs. Padova.
 207

BORGNA, E. 2007. LM III C Pottery at Phaistos: An Attempt to Integrate Typological

Analysis with Stratigraphic Investigation. S. Deger-Jalkotzy and M. Zavadil (eds.), LH III C
Chronology and Synchronisms II: LH III C Middle. Proceedings of the International
Workshop Held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences at Vienna, October 29th and 30th, 2004,
Wien, pp. 55-72.
BORIC, D. 2007. Images of Animality: Hybrid Bodies and Mimesis in Early Prehistoric Art.
C. Renfrew and I. Morley (eds.), Image and Imagination: A Global Prehistory of Figurative
Representation, pp. 89-105.

BOSANQUET, R.C. 1901-1902. Excavations at Palaikastro I. The Painted Larnax, and Some
Other Larnax Burials. BSA 8, pp. 297-300.

BOSANQUET, R.C. – DAWKINS, R.M. 1923. The Unpublished Objects from the
Palaikastro Excavations, 1902-1906. London.

BOSTER, J. 1987. Agreement between Biological Classification Systems is not Dependent on

Cultural Transmission. American Anthropologist 89, pp. 914–920.

BOUCHER, A. 2014. La Grèce des origines: entre rêve et archéologie: Musée d'archéologie
nationale, domaine national de Saint-Germain-en-Laye 5 octobre 2014 - 19 janvier 2015.
Paris.

BOULOTIS, C. 1989. La déesse minoenne au rame-gouvernail: contribution a l’iconographie

maritime égéene. H. E. Tzalas (ed.), 1st International Symposium on Ship Construction in
Antiquity, Piraeus, 30 August - 1 September 1985, Proceedings, Athens, pp. 55-73.
BOUZEK, J. 1985. The Aegean, Anatolia and Europe: Cultural Interrelations in the Second
Millennium B.C. Göteborg.
BOYD HAWES, H. 1901. Excavations at Kavousi, Crete, in 1900. AJA 5(2), pp. 125-157.
BOYD HAWES, H. 1904-1905. Gournia: Report of the American Exploration Society's
Excavations at Gournia, Crete. Pottery of the Prehistoric Settlement at Gournià and its
Neighbourhood in Crete. Pennsylvania.
BOYD HAWES, H. 1908. Gournia, Vasiliki and other Prehistoric Sites on the Isthmus of
Hierapetra, Crete, Excavations of the Wells-Houston-Cramp Expeditions 1901, 1903, 1904.
Philadelphia.
BRANIGAN, K. 1970. The Tombs of Mesara. A Study of Funerary Architecture and Ritual in
Southern Crete, 2800-1700 B.C. London.
BRANIGAN, K. 1988. Pre-Palatial. The Foundations of Palatial Crete. A Survey of Crete in
the Early Bronze Age (2nd updated Edition). London.
BREHME, A. – WALLSCHLÄGER, D. – LANGGEMACH, T. 2001. Kolkraben und die
Freilandhaltung von Weidetieren – Untersuchungen aus dem Land Brandenburg. Die
Rabenvögel im Visier. Veröffentlichung des Ökologischen Jagdvereins ÖJV, Rothenburg o.d.
Tauber.
 208

BRIAULT, C. 2007. High Fidelity or Chinese Whispers? Cult Symbols and Ritual
Transmission in the Bronze Age Aegean. JMA 20(2), pp. 239-265.
BRIAULT, C. 2008. Symbols and Spaces: Exploring Ritual Transmission in the Bronze Age
Aegean. BICS 51, pp. 183-184.

BRONEER, O. 1939. A Mycenaean Fountain on the Athenian Acropolis. Hesperia 8(4), pp.
317-433.
BROWN, C. H. 1985. Mode of Subsistence and Folk Biological Taxonomy, Current
Anthropology 26(1), pp. 43-64.

BUCHHOLZ, H.G. – KARAGEORGHIS, V. 1973. Prehistoric Greece and Cyprus: an

Archaeological Handbook. London.

BUCHHOLZ, H.G. 1984-1985. Ägäische Kämme. Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica,

16/17, pp. 91-142.

BUCK, R. J. 1964. Middle Helladic Mattpainted Pottery. Hesperia 33, pp. 231-313.

BULMER, R. 1967. Why is the Cassowary not a Bird? A Problem of Zoological Taxonomy
among the Kalam of the New Guinea Highlands. Man 2, pp. 5–25.

BURKE, B. 2005. Materialization of Mycenaean Ideology and the Ayia Triada Sarcophagus.
AJA 109.3, pp. 403-422.
CADOGAN, G. 1984. Cycladic Jugs at Pyrgos. J.A. MacGillivray and R.L.N. Barber (eds.),
The Prehistoric Cyclades: Contributions to a Workshop on Cycladic Chronology (in
Memoriam: John Langdon Caskey, 1908-1981), Edinburgh, pp. 162-164.
CADOGAN, G. 1977-1978. Pyrgos, Crete, 1970-77. Archaeological Reports 24, pp. 70-84.
CAIN, C.D. 2001. Dancing in the Dark: Deconstructing a Narrative of Epiphany on the
Isopata Ring. AJA 105(1), pp. 27-49.

CAMERON, M.A.S. 1968. Unpublished Paintings from the 'House of the Frescoes' at
Knossos. BSA 63, pp. 1-31.

CAMERON, M.A.S. 1974. A General Study of Minoan Frescoes with Particular Reference to
Unpublished Wall Paintings from Knossos (Ph.D. dissertation). University of Newcastle upon
Tyne.

CASAGRANDE D. 2004. Ethnobiology Lives! Theory, Collaboration, and Possibilities for

the Study of Folk Biologies, Reviews in Anthropology 33(4), pp. 351-370.

CATLING, E.A. – CATLING, H.W. – SMYTH, D. 1979. Knossos 1975: Middle Minoan III
and Late Minoan I Houses by the Acropolis. BSA 74. p. 1-80.

CATLING, R.W.V. – LEMOS, I.S. 1990. Lefkandi II. The Protogeometric Building at
Toumba. Part 1: The Pottery. London.
 209

CATLING, H. W. 2009. Sparta: Menelaion I. The Bronze Age. London.

CHAPIN, A. P. 1997-2000. Maidenhood and Marriage: The Reproductive Lives of the Girls
and Women from Xeste 3, Thera. Aegean Archaeology 4, pp. 7-25.

CHAPIN, A. 2004. Power, Privilege, and Landscape in Minoan Art. A. Chapin (ed.),
CHARIS: Essays in Honor of Sara A. Immerwahr, Princeton, pp. 47-64.

CHAPIN, A. P. 2008. The Lady of the Landscape: An Investigation of Aegean Costuming

and the Xeste 3 Frescoes. C.S. Colburn and M. K. Heyn (eds.), Reading a Dynamic Canvas:
Adornment in the Ancient Mediterranean World, Newcastle, pp. 48-83.
CHAPOUTHIER, F. – DEMARGNE, P. – DESSENNE, A. 1962. Fouilles exécutées à
Mallia. Exploration du Palais 4 - Bordure méridionale et recherches complémentaires.Paris.
CHARITONIDIS, S. 1963. Thalamoïdis tafos Karpathu. ArchDelt 17, pp. 32-76.
CHATZIDAKIS, I. 1912. Tylisos minoike.
CHATZIDAKIS, I. 1921. Tylissos à l'époque minoenne: suivi d'une note sur les lanax de
Tylissos. Paris.
CHRESTOU, C. 1968. Potnia theron: eine Untersuchung über Ursprung,
Erscheinungsformen und Wandlungen der Gestalt einer Gottheit. Thessaloniki.
CHRISTOPOULOS, G.A. 1974. Prehistory and Protohistory. Athens.
COCKER, M. 2013. Birds and People. London.

COLDSTREAM, J. N. (ed.) 1973. Knossos: The Sanctuary of Demeter. London.

COLEMAN, K. 1973. Frescoes from Ayia Irini, Keos. Part 1, pp. 284-300.
COLEY, J.D. – MEDIN, D.L. – ATRAN, S. – LYNCH, E. 1997. Does Privilege have its
Rank? Folkbiological Taxonomy and Induction in Two Cultures. Cognition 64, pp. 73-112.

COOK, R. G. (2001). Avian Visual Cognition. [Online]. www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/avc/

COSTELLO, S. 2010. The Mesopotamian “Nude Hero”: Context and Interpretations. B.
Arnold and D.B. Counts (eds.), The Master of Animals in Old World Iconography, Budapest,
pp. 25-36.
COTTINGHAM, J. 1978. ‘A Brute to the Brutes?’: Descartes' Treatment of Animals.
Philosophy 53 (206), pp. 551-559.
COULIÉ, A. – PHILEMONOS-TSOPOTOU, M. 2014. Rhodes: une île grecque aux portes
de l´Orient: XVe-Ve siècle avant J.-C. Paris.
COULSON, W. D.E. 1986. The Dark Age Pottery of Messenia. Göteborg.

COUNTS, D. 2010. (ed.) The Master of Animals in the Old World Iconography. Budapest.

CROOKS, S. – TULLY, C.J. – HITCHCOCK, L.A. 2016. Numinous Tree and Stone: Re-
animating the Minoan Landscape. E. Alram-Stern, F. Blakolmer, S. Deger-Jalkotzy, R.
 210

Laffineur and J. Weilhartner (eds), Aegaeum 39: METAPHYSIS: Ritual Myth and Symbolism
in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 15th International Aegean Conference, Vienna,
Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Aegean and Anatolia Department, Austrian
Academy of Sciences and Institute of Classical Archaeology, University of Vienna, 22-25
April 2014, Leuven, pp. 157-164.

CROUWEL, J. 1972. Mycenaean Pictorial Pottery in Holland. BABesch 47, pp. 14-30.

CROUWEL, J. 1984. Fragments of Another Octopus Stirrup Jar from Kalymnos in

Amsterdam. BABesch 59, pp. 63-68.
CROUWEL, J. 1988. Mycenaean Pictorial Pottery from Outside the Citadel at Mycenae. BSA
83, pp. 25-36.
CROUWEL, J. 1989a. Pictorial Pottery from Mycenae at the Time of the Shaft Graves. R.
Laffineur (ed.), Aegaeum 3: Transition. Le monde égéen du Bronze moyen au Bronze récent.
Actes de la deuxième Rencontre égéenne internationale de l'Université de Liège, 18-20 avril
1988. Annales d'archéologie égéenne de l'Université de Liège, Liège, pp. 155-165.
CROUWEL, J. 1989b. Another Mycenaean Pictorial Vase Fragment from Berbati. BSA 84,
pp. 201-204.
CROUWEL, J. 1991. Mycenaean Pictorial Pottery. W.D. Taylour, E.B. French and K.A.
Wardle (eds.), Well Built Mycenae. The Helleno-British Excavations within the Citadel at
Mycenae, 1959-1969. Fascicle 21, Oxford.

CROUWEL, J. - MORRIS, C.E. 1995. Pictorial Pottery of Late Minoan II-IIIA2 Early from
Knossos. BSA 90, pp. 157-182.

CROUWEL, J. H. – MORRIS, C. E. 1996. The Beginnings of Mycenaean Pictorial Vase

Painting. AA 1996, pp. 197-219.
CROUWEL, J. 2006. Late Mycenaean Pictorial Pottery. A Brief Review. E. Rystedt and B.
Wells (eds.), Pictorial pursuits: Figurative Painting on Mycenaean and Geometric Pottery.
Papers from two seminars at the Swedish Insititute at Athens in 1999 and 2001, Stockholm,
pp. 15-22.
CROUWEL, J. 2007. Pictorial Pottery of LH III C Middle and its Antecedents. S. Deger-
Jalkotzy and M. Zavadil (eds.), LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms II: LH III C Middle.
Proceedings of the International Workshop Held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences at
Vienna, October 29th and 30th, 2004, Vienna, pp. 73-88.

CROUWEL, J. 2009a. Pictorial Pottery of the Latest Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age. S.
Deger-Jalkotzy and A. E. Bächle (eds.), LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms III: LH III C
Late and the Transition to the Early Iron Age. Proceedings of the international workshop held
at the Austrian Academy of Sciences at Vienna, February 23rd and 24th, 2007, Vienna, pp.
41-60.

CROUWEL, J. 2009b. A Group of Mycenaean Octopus Stirrup Jars Made in (East) Attica. D.
Danielidou (ed.), Δώρον: τιμητικός τομός για τον καθηγητή Σπύρο Ιακωβίδη, Athens, pp. 199-
210.
 211

CROWLEY, J. L. 1989. The Aegean and the East. An Investigation into the Transference of
Artistic Motifs between the Aegean, Egypt, and the Near East in the Bronze Age. Göteburg.

CROWLEY, J. L. 2010. The Aegean Master of Animals: The Evidence of the Seals, Signets
and Sealings. D.B. Counts and B. Arnold (eds.), The Master of Animals in Old World
Iconography, Budapest, pp. 75-91.

CROWLEY, J. L. 2013. The Iconography of Aegean Seals. Aegaeum 34, Leuven and Liege.

CUVIER, G. 1829. Le règne animal, vol. 1, 2nd edition. Déterville.

D’AGATA, A.-L. – LA ROSA, V. 1984. Creta Antica. Cento anni die Archeologia italiana,
1884-1984, Iraklion-Rom-Athen.

D'AGATA, A.-L. 1999. Haghia Triada. II, Statuine minoiche e post-minoiche dai vecchi
scavi di Haghia Triada (Creta). Padova.

D’AGATA, A.-L. 2001. Religion, Society and Ethnicity on Crete at the End of the Late
Bronze Age. The Contextual Framework of LM IIIC Cult Activities. R. Laffineur and R.
Hägg (eds.), Aegaeum 22: Potnia: Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age.
Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference / 8e Rencontre égéenne
internationale. Göteborg University, 12-15 April 2000, Liège, pp. 345-354.

D’AGATA, A.-L. 2005. Central Southern Crete and its Relations with the Greek Mainland in
the Postpalatial Period. A. L. D’Agata and J. Moody (eds.), Ariadne’s Threads: Connections
between Crete and the Greek Mainland in Late Minoan III (LM IIIA2 to LM IIIC).
Proceedings of the International Workshop held at Athens, Scuola Archeologica Italiana, 5-6
April 2003, Athens, pp. 109-143.

D'AGATA, A. L. 2007. Evolutionary Paradigms and Late Minoan III. On a Definition of LM

III C Middle. S. Deger-Jalkotzy and M. Zavadil (eds.), LH III C Chronology and
Synchronisms II: LH III C Middle. Proceedings of the International Workshop Held at the
Austrian Academy of Sciences at Vienna, October 29th and 30th, 2004, Vienna, pp. 89-118.
DAKORONIA, F. 1990. War-Ships on Sherds of LH III C Kraters from Kynos. H.E. Tzalas
(ed.), 2nd International Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity: Tropis II, Center for
the Acropolis Studies, Athens. Proceedings, Athens, pp. 117-122.
DAKORONIA, F. 1996. Kynos. . . Fleet. H.E. Tzalas (ed.), 4th International Symposium on
Ship Construction in Antiquity: Tropis IV, Center for the Acropolis Studies, Athens, 28, 29,
30, 31 August 1991. Proceedings, Athens, pp. 159-171.

DAKORONIA, F. 1999. Representations of Sea-battles on Mycenaean Sherds from Kynos.

H.E. Tzalas (ed.), 5th International Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity: Tropis V,
Center for the Acropolis Studies, Athens, Nauplia 1993, Proceedings, Athens, pp. 119-128.

DAKORONIA, F. 2006. Mycenaean Pictorial Style at Kynos, East Lokris. E. Rystedt and B.
Wells (eds.), Pictorial pursuits: Figurative painting on Mycenaean and Geometric pottery.
 212

Papers from two seminars at the Swedish Insititute at Athens in 1999 and 2001, Stockholm,
pp. 23-29.

DAKOURI-HILD, A. 2012. Making La Différence: The Production and Consumption of

Ornaments in Late Bronze Age Boeotia. M.-L. Nosch and R. Laffineur (eds.), Aegaeum 33:
Kosmos: Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the
13th International Aegean Conference/13e Rencontre égéenne internationale, University of
Copenhagen, Danish National Research Foundation's Centre for Textile Research, 21–26
April 2010, Leuven and Liege, pp. 471–481.

DARWIN, C. 1859. On the Origins of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Murray.

DAVARAS, C. 1973. A New Hieroglyphic Seal from Mochlos. Kadmos 12, pp. 109-113.

DAVARAS, C. 1976. Guide to Cretan Antiquities. Park Ridge.

DAVARAS, C. 1982. Hagios Nikolaos Museum. Athens.

DAVARAS, C. 1988. A Minoan Beetle-Rhyton from Prinias Siteias. BSA 83, pp. 45-54.

DAVIES, N. 1936. Ancient Egyptian Paintings. Chicago.

DAVIS, E.N. 1977. The Vapheio cups and Aegean Gold and Silver Ware. New York.

DAVIS, J. L. 1976. Polychrome Bird Jugs. A Note. AAA 9(1), pp. 81-83.

DAVIS, J. 1981. Mycenaeans at Thera: Another Look. AJA 85(1), pp. 69-70.

DAVIS, J.L. – WILLIAMS, D.F. 1981. Petrological Examination of Later Middle Bronze
Age Pottery from Ayia Irini, Keos. Hesperia 50(3), pp. 291-300.

DAVIS, J.L. 1986. Ayia Irini: Period V. Mainz am Rhein.

DAVIS, J.L. – STOCKER, S. 2016. The Lord of the Gold Rings: The Griffin Warrior of
Pylos. Hesperia 85(4), pp. 627-655.

DAWKINS, R.M. – CURRELLY, C.T. 1903-1904. Excavations at Palaikastro III. BSA 10,
pp. 192-231.

DAWKINS, R.M. – HAWES, C.H. – BOSANQUET, R.C. 1904. Excavations at Palaikastro

IV. BSA 11, pp. 258-308.

DAWKINS, R.M. – DROOP, J.P. 1911. The Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos.

DAY, P. M. – JOYNER, L. – KILIKOGLOU, V. – GESELL, G. 2006. Goddesses, Snake

Tubes, and Plaques: Analysis of Ceramic Ritual Objects from the LM IIIC Shrine at Kavousi.
Hesperia 75(2), pp. 137-175.

DAY, J. 2012. Caught in a Web of a Living World. Tree-Human Interaction in Minoan Crete.
PAN: Philosophy, Activism, Nature 9, pp. 11-21.
 213

DEGER-JALKOTZY, S. 1999. Military Prowess and Social Status in Mycenean Greece.

Robert Laffineur (ed.), Aegaum 19: Polemos: Le Contexte Guerrier en Egée a l’ Age du
Bronze, Liége, pp. 121–131.

DEGER-JALKOTZY, S. 2007. Defining LH III C Middle at the Cemetery of Elateia-Alonaki

in Central Greece. S. Deger-Jalkotzy and M. Zavadil (eds.), LH III C Chronology and
Synchronisms II: LH III C Middle. Proceedings of the International Workshop Held at the
Austrian Academy of Sciences at Vienna, October 29th and 30th, 2004, Deger-Jalkotzy,
Sigrid and Michaela Zavadil, eds. Vienna, pp. 129-159.

DEILAKI, E. 1973-1974 (1979). Nekrotaphio Evangelistrias. ADelt 29, pp. 202-204.

DEILAKI, E. 1973 (1977). Akronafplia. ADelt 28, pp. 87-94.

DEL FREO, M. 1999. Mic. ke-re-na-i nei nuovi testi in lineare B di Tebe. V. La Rosa, D.
Palermo and L. Vagnetti (eds.), Epi ponton plazomenoi: Simposio italiano di Studi Egei
dedicato a Luigi Bernabò Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli. Roma, 18-20 febbraio
1998, Rome, pp. 299-304.
DEL HOYO, J. – ELLIOTT, A. – SARGATAL, J. (eds.) 1994. Handbook of the Birds of the
World, Vol. 2: New World Vultures to Guineafowl. Barcelona.

DEMAKOPOULOU, K. – KONSOLA, D. 1981. Archaeological Museum of Thebes Guide.

Athens.

DEMAKOPOULOU, K. 1982. To Mykēnaiko hiero sto Amyklaio kai ē YE IIIG periodos stē
Lakōnia (Mycenaean shrine of the Amyklaion and the late Helladic IIIC period in Laconia.
Doctoral thesis. University of Athens.

DEMAKOPOULOU, K. – CROUWEL, J.H. 1984. Some Mycenaean Pictorial Pottery from

Boeotian Thebes. BSA 79, pp. 37-48.

DEMAKOPOULOU, K. (ed.) 1988. The Mycenaean World. Five Centuries of Early Greek
Culture, 1600-1100 B.C. Athens.

DEMAKOPOULOU, K. (ed.) 1990. Troy, Mycenae, Tiryns, Orchomenos: Heinrich

Schliemann: The 100th Anniversary of his Death. Athens.
DEMAKOPOULOU, K. – CROUWEL, J. 1992. Mycenaean Pictorial Pottery from the
Argive Heraion. Hesperia 61(4), pp. 491-500.
DEMAKOPOULOU, K. 1993. Argive Mycenaean Pottery: Evidence from the Necropolis at
Kokla (Appendix by R.E. Jones). C. Zerner, P. Zerner and J. Winder (eds.), Wace and Blegen:
Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age 1939-1989. Proceedings of the
International Conference held at the American School of Classical Studies, Athens, Dec. 2-3,
1989, Amsterdam, pp. 57-75.
DEMAKOPOULOU, K – DIVARI-VALAKOU, N. – WALBERG, G. 1994. Excavations and
Restoration Work in Midea 1990-1992. OpAth 20, pp. 19-41.
 214

DEMAKOPOULOU, K. 1996a. The Aidonia Treasure: Seals and Jewellery of the Aegean
Late Bronze Age. Athens.
DEMAKOPOULOU, K. 1996b. Midea in the Light of Recent Excavations. E. De Miro, L.
Godart and A. Sacconi (eds.), Atti e memorie del secondo Congresso internazionale di
micenologia, Roma-Napoli, 14-20 ottobre 1991. Volume 3, Rome, pp. 979-994.
DEMAKOPOULOU, K. – DIVARI-VALAKOU, N. – WALBERG, G. 1994. Excavations
and Restoration Work in Midea 1990-1992. OpAth 20, pp. 19-41.
DEMAKOPOULOU, K. – DIVARI-VALAKOU, N. – SCHALLIN, A.-L. – EKROTH, G. –
LINDBLOM, A. – NILSSON, M. – SJÖGREN, L. 2002. Excavations in Midea 2000 and
2001. OpAth 27. pp. 27-58.
DEMAKOPOULOU, K. – DIVARI-VALAKOU, N. – SCHALLIN, A.-L. 2003. Excavations
in Midea 2002. OpAth 28, pp. 7-28.
DEMAKOPOULOU, K. 2006. Mycenaean Pictorial Pottery from Midea. E. Rystedt and B.
Wells (eds.), Pictorial pursuits: Figurative painting on Mycenaean and Geometric pottery.
Papers from two seminars at the Swedish Insititute at Athens in 1999 and 2001, Stockholm,
pp. 31-43.
DEMARGNE, P. 1945. Fouilles exécutées à Mallia. Exploration des nécropoles 1. - (1921 -
1933). Paris.
DEMARGNE. P. – GALLET DE SANTERRE, H. 1953. Fouilles exécutées à Mallia.
Exploration des maisons et quartiers d'habitation 1. - (1921 - 1948). Paris.
DEMARGNE, P. 1964. Origins of Greek Art. Arts of Mankind. London.
DESBOROUGH, V.R. 1972. Bird Vases. CretChron 24, pp. 245-277.
DESCARTES, R. [1985]. The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, 3 volumes, trans. by J.
Cottingham, R. Stoothoff and D. Murdoch. Cambridge.

DESCOLA, P. 2005. Par-delà nature et culture. Paris.

DESCOLA, P. 2006. Beyond Nature and Culture. Proceedings of the British Academy 139,
pp. 137-155.
DESCOLA, P. 2009a. L’Envers du visible: ontologie et iconologie, T. Dufrene and A-
C. Taylor (eds.), Cannibalismes disciplinaires. Quand l’histoire de l’art et l’anthropologie se
rencontrent, Paris, pp. 25-36.

DESCOLA, P. 2009b. Anthropologie de la nature. Ontologies des images (suite), L’annuaire

du Collège de France, pp. 799-817.
DESCOLA, P. 2010 (ed.). La Fabrique des images. Musee du quai Branley and Somogy.
Paris.
DESCOLA, P. 2013. Beyond Nature and Culture. Chicago.
DESHAYES, J. – DESSENNE, A. 1959. Fouilles exécutées à Mallia. Exploration des
maisons et quartiers d'habitation; 2. - (1948 - 1954). Paris.
 215

DESHAYES, J. 1966. Argos. Les fouilles de la Deiras. Paris.

DETOURNAY, B. – POURSAT, J.-C. – VANDENABEELE, F. 1980. Fouilles exécutées à
Mallia. Le quartier Mu, 2. - Vases de pierre et de métal, vannerie, figurines et reliefs
d'applique, éléments de parure et de décoration, armes, sceaux et empreintes. Paris.
DEVETZI, A. D. 1992. Ta lithina protokykladika skevi. Unpublished PhD Dissertation.
University of Athens.
DIAMOND, J – DAVID BISHOP, K. 1999. Ethno-ornithology of the Ketengban People,
Indonesian New Guinea. D. Medin and S. Atran (eds.). Folkbiology, pp. 17-46.

DICKINSON, O.T.P.K. 1977. The Origins of Mycenaean Civilisation. Göteborg.

DICKINSON, O. T. P. K. 1983. Cretan Contacts with the Mainland during the Period of the
Shaft Graves. R. Hägg and N. Marinatos (eds.), The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and
Reality. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens,
31 May - 5 June, 1982, Göteborg. pp. 115-118.

DICKINSON, O.T.P.K. 1994. Comments on a Popular Model of Minoan Religion. OJA

13(2), pp. 173-184.

DICKINSON, O.T.P.K. 1997. Arts and Artefacts in the Shaft Graves: Some Observations. R.
Laffineur and P. P. Betancourt (eds), Aegaeum 16: TEHNI: Craftsmen, Craftswomen and
Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 6th International Aegean
Conference, Philadelphia, Temple University, 18-21 April 1996, Liège, pp. 45-49.

DIETRICH, B. 1987. A Case for Minoan/Mycenaean Religion, T. Eberhard (ed.),

Forschungen zur Ägäischen Vorgeschichte, Köln, pp. 173-191.
DIETZ, S. 1980. Asine II. Results of the Excavations East of the Acropolis, 1970-1974. Fasc.
2. The Middle Helladic Cemetery, the Middle Helladic and Early Mycenaean
Deposits. Stockholm.

DIETZ, S. – MOSCHOS, I. (eds.) 2006. Chalkis Aitolias I. The prehistoric periods. Athens.
DIMALEXIS, A. – XIROUCHAKIS, S. – PORTOLOU, D. – LATSOUDIS, P. – KARRIS,
G. – FRIC, J. – GEORGIAKAKIS, P. – BARBOUTIS, C. – BOURDAKIS, S. - IVOVIC, M.
– KOMINOS, T. – KAKALIS, E. 2008. The Status of Eleonora’s Falcon (Falco eleonorae) in
Greece. J Ornithol 149, pp. 23–30.
DIMOPOULOU, N. 2000. Seals and Scarabs from the Minoan Port Settlement at Poros-
Katsambas. W. Müller (ed.), Minoisch-mykenische Glyptik: Stil, Ikonographie, Funktion. V.
Internationales Siegel-Symposium Marburg, 23.-25. September 1999, Berlin, pp. 27-38.
DIMOPOULOU-RETHEMIOTAKI, N. – RETHEMIOTAKIS, G. 1978. Hysterominoiko
nekrotaphio sto Metochi Kalou Herakliou. ADelt 33, pp. 40–109.

DIMOPOULOU, N. - RETHEMIOTAKIS, G. 2000. The ‘Sacred Conversation’ Ring from

Poros. W. Müller (ed.), Minoisch-mykenische Glyptik: Stil, Ikonographie, Funktion. V.
Internationales Siegel-Symposium Marburg, 23.-25. September 1999, Berlin, pp. 39-56.
 216

DIMOPOULOU, N. - RETHEMIOTAKIS, G. 2004. The Ring of Minos and Gold Minoan

Rings: The Epiphany Cycle. Athens.

DI VITA, A. 1988-1989. Atti della Scuola. Aghia Triada. ASA 66-67, pp. 427-484.

DOBKIN DE RIOS, M. 1976. The Wilderness of Mind: Cross-Cultural Perspective. Beverly

Hills.

DÖHL, H. 1975. Tiryns-Stadt: Sondage 1968. Tiryns: Forschungen und Berichte VIII.
Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Athen, Mainz, pp. 137-154.

D'OR, L. – JANNORAY. J. – VAN EFFENTERRE, M. 1960. Kirrha. Étude de préhistoire

Phocidienne. Paris.

DOUMAS, C. 1968. The N.P. Goulandris Collection of Early Cycladic Art. Athens.

DOUMAS, C. 1977. Early Bronze Age Burial Habits in the Cyclades. Göteborg.

DOUMAS, C. – WARREN, P. 1979. Thera: A Late Cycladic III Settlement at Monolithos.

AAA 12(2), pp. 232-236.

DOUMAS, C. 1982. Art des Cyclades: collection N.P. Goulandris: marbres, poterie et métal
du 3e millénaire av. J.-C.: [exposition] Musées royaux d'art et d'histoire, Bruxelles. Brussels.

DOUMAS, C. 1983. Cycladic Art: Ancient Sculpture and Pottery from the N.P. Goulandris
Collection. British Museum. London.

ḎOUMAS, C. 1992. The Wall-paintings of Thera. Athens.

DOUMAS, C. 2000. Seal Impressions from Akrotiri, Thera: A Preliminary Report. W. Müller
(ed.), Minoisch-mykenische Glyptik: Stil, Ikonographie, Funktion. V. Internationales Siegel-
Symposium Marburg, 23.-25. September 1999, Berlin, pp. 57-65.

DOUMAS, C., - MARTHARI, M. – TELEVANTOU, C. 2000. Museum of Prehistoric Thera.

Brief Guide. Athens.

DOUMAS, C. 2002. Silent Witnesses: Early Cycladic Art of the Third Millennium BC. New
York.

DOUMAS, C. 2005. Thera: Prehistoric Times. A. Vlachopoulos (ed.), Archaeology: Aegean

Islands, Athens, pp. 312-319.
DOUMAS, C. 2008. Die Frühgeschichte der Ägäis im Licht der aktuellsten archäologischen
Funde von Akrotiri, Thera. Weilheim.
DRAGONA-LATSOUDI, A. 1977. Mikinaikos kitharodos apo ti Nafplia. ArchEph 1977. pp.
86-98.
DUHIG, C. - JONES, G. – MOURER-CHAUVIRÈ, C. – NICODEMUS, A. – REESE, D.S. –
ROSE, M.J. 2008. Chapter 12. The organic remains. W.D. Taylour and R. Janko (eds), Ayios
 217

Stephanos. Excavations at a Bronze Age and Medieval Settlement in Southern Laconia, pp.
485–525.
DUHOUX, Y. 2006. Adieu au ma-ka cnossien. Une nouvelle lecture en KN F 51 et ses
conséquences pour les tablettes linéaire B de Thèbes. Kadmos 45, pp. 1-19.
DUPRÈ, J. 1999. Are Whales Fish? D. Medin and S. Atran (eds.), Folkbiology, London, pp.
461-476.

DURKHEIM, E. 1976 [1915]. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. London.

EDER, B. 2005. Response to M. Andreadaki-Vlazaki and E. Papadopoulou. The Habitation at

Khamalevri, Rethymnon, during the 12th Century BC. A. L. D’Agata and J. Moody (eds.),
Ariadne’s Threads: Connections between Crete and the Greek Mainland in Late Minoan III
(LM IIIA2 to LM IIIC). Proceedings of the International Workshop held at Athens, Scuola
Archeologica Italiana, 5-6 April 2003, Athens, pp. 399-408.

EFFINGER, M. 1996. Minoischer Schmuck. Oxford.

ELIADE, M. 1964. Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy. Princeton.

ELLEN, R. 1999. Models of Subsistence and Ethnobiological Knowledge. Between

Extraction and Cultivation in Southeast Asia. D. Medin and S. Atran (eds.), Folkbiology,
London, pp. 91-118.

EVANS, A. 1895. Cretan Pictographs and Prae-Phoenician Script with an Account of a

Sepulchral Deposit at Hagios Onuphrios near Phaestos in its Relation to Primitive Cretan
and Aegean Culture. London.

EVANS, A. 1901–1902. The Palace of Knossos. BSA 8, pp. 1–124.

EVANS, A. 1905. The Prehistoric Tombs of Knossos. London.

EVANS, A. 1909. Scripta minoa 1. The Hieroglyphic and Primitive Linear Classes. Oxford.

EVANS, A. 1914. The ‘Tomb of the Double Axes’ and Associated Group, and the Pillar
Rooms and Ritual Vessels of the ‘Little Palace’ at Knossos. Oxford.

EVANS, A. 1921. The Palace of Minos. The Neolithic and Early and Middle Minoan Ages.
Volume I. London.
EVANS, A. 1928a. The Palace of Minos. Fresh Lights on Origins and External Relations.
Volume II,1. London.

EVANS, A. 1928b. The Palace of Minos. Town Houses in Knossos of the New Era and
Restored West Palace Section. Volume II,2. London.

EVANS, A. 1930. The Palace of Minos. The Great Transitional Age in the Northern and
Eastern Sections of the Palace. Volume III. London.
 218

EVANS, A. 1935a. The Palace of Minos. Emergence of Outer Western Enceinte, with New
Illustrations, Artistic and Religious, of the Middle Minoan Phase. Volume IV.1. London.

EVANS, A. 1935b. The Palace of Minos. Camp-stool Fresco, Long-robed Priests and
Beneficent Genii. Volume IV.2. London.

EVANS, A. 1952. Scripta minoa 2. - The Archives of Knossos: Clay Tablets Inscribed in
Linear Script B. Oxford.

EVANS, L. 2007. Fighting Kites: Behaviour as a Key to Species Identity in Wall Scenes, The
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 93, pp. 245-247.

EVANS, L. 2012. Bird Behavior in Ancient Egyptian Art, R. Bailleul LeSuer (ed.). Between
Heaven and Earth: Birds in Ancient Egypt, Chicago, pp. 91-98.

EVELY, D. 1999. Fresco: a Passport into the Past: Minoan Crete through the Eyes of Mark
Cameron = Toichographia: hena diavatērio gia to parelthon: hē Minōikē Krētē me tē matia
tou Mark Cameron. Athens.

EVELY, D. (ed.) 2006. Lefkandi IV. The Bronze Age: The Late Helladic IIIC Settlement at
Xeropolis. London.
FAURE, P. 1964. Fonctions des cavernes crétoises. Paris.
FELSCH, Rainer C. S. (ed.) 1996. Kalapodi: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen im Heiligtum der
Artemis und des Apollon von Hyampolis in der antiken Phokis. Volume 1: Die spätmykenische
bis frühprotogeometrische Keramik; die korinthische Keramik; die Graffiti auf der Keramik;
the Byzantine and Later Pottery, Mainz am Rhein.
FERGUSON-LEES J. – CHRISTIE D. A. 2001. Raptors of the World. Boston/New York.
FERNANDEZ, J. 1991. Beyond Metaphor: the Theory of Tropes in Anthropology. Stanford.
FISCHER, J. 2007. Ernährung und Fischkonsum im spätbronzezeitlichen Griechenland. E.
Alram-Stern and G. Nightingale (eds.), Keimelion: Elitenbildung und Elitärer Konsum von
der Mykenischen Palastzeit bis zur Homerischen Epoche. The Formation of Elites and Elitist
Lifestyles from Mycenaean Palatial Times to the Homeric Period. Akten des internationalen
Kongresses vom 3. bis 5. Februar 2005 in Salzburg, Vienna, pp. 125-139.

FITTON, J.L. 2009. The Aigina treasure: Aegean Bronze Age Jewellery and a Mystery
Revisited. London.

FORSDYKE, E.J. 1926-1927. The Mavro Spelio Cemetery at Knossos. BSA 28, pp. 243-296.

FORSTENPOINTNER, G. – GALIK, A. – WEISSENGRUBER, S.Z. – ZOHMANN, S. –

THANHEISER, U. – GAUSS, W. 2010. Subsistence and more in Middle Bronze Age Aegina
Kolonna: Patterns of Husbandry, Hunting and Agriculture. A. Philippa-Touchais, G.
Touchais, S. Voutsaki and J. Wright (eds.), Mesohelladika. Μεσοελλαδικά: La Grèce
continentale au Bronze Moyen. Η ηπειρωτική Ελλάδα στη Μέση εποχή του Χαλκού. The Greek
Mainland in the Middle Bronze Age. Actes du colloque international organisé par l'École
 219

française d'Athènes, en collaboration avec l'American School of Classical Studies at Athens et

le Netherlands Institute in Athens, Athènes, 8-12 mars 2006, Athens, pp. 733-742.

FOSTER, K.P. 1979. Aegean Faience of the Bronze Age. New Haven.

FOSTER, K.P. 1982. Minoan Ceramic Relief. Göteborg.

FOSTER, K.P. 1995. A Flight of Swallows. American Journal of Archaeology 99(3), pp. 409-
425.

FOSTER, K. P. 2012. The Adornment of Aegean Boats. M.-L. Nosch – R. Laffineur (eds.),
Aegaeum 33: Kosmos: Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age.
Proceedings of the 13th International Aegean Conference/13e Rencontre égéenne
internationale, University of Copenhagen, Danish National Research Foundation's Centre for
Textile Research, 21–26 April 2010, Leuven and Liege, pp. 673–684.
FOSTER, K. P. 2016. Animal Hybrids, Masks, and Masques in Aegean Ritual. E. Alram-
Stern, F. Blakolmer, S. Deger-Jalkotzy, R. Laffineur and J. Weilhartner (eds.), Aegaeum 36.
Metaphysis, Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age, Proceedings of the 15th
International Aegean Conference at the Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology,
Department Aegean and Anatolia, Austrian Academy of Sciences and at the Institute of
Classical Archaeology, University of Vienna on 22-25 April 2014. Leuven-Liege, pp. 69-75.
FREIDEL, D. – SCHELE, L. – PARKER, J. 1993. Maya Cosmos: Three Thousand Years on
the Shamans Path. New York.

FRENCH, E. 1971. The Development of Mycenaean Terracotta Figurines. BSA 66, pp. 101-
187.

FRENCH, E. 2002. Mycenae: Agamemnon's Capital: the Site in its Setting. Stroud.

FRENCH, E. 2007. Late Helladic III C Middle at Mycenae. S. Deger-Jalkotzy and M. Zavadil
(eds.), LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms II: LH III C Middle. Proceedings of the
International Workshop Held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences at Vienna, October 29th
and 30th, 2004, Vienna, pp. 175-187.

FRÖDIN, O. – PERSSON, A.W. 1938. Asine: Results of the Swedish Excavations, 1922-
1930. Stockholm.
FURTWÄNGLER, A. – LOESCHCKE, G. 1879. Mykenische Thongefaesse. Festschrift zur
Feier des 50 jährigen Bestehens des Deutschen arch. Inst. in Rom. Berlin.
FURTWÄNGLER, A. – LOESCHCKE, G. 1886. Mykenische Vasen, vorhellenische
Thongefässe aus dem Gebiete des Mittelmeeres. Berlin.
FURTWÄNGLER, A. 1900. Die antiken Gemmen, Geschichte der Steinschneide-kunst im
klassischen Altertum. Leipzig.
FURTWÄNGLER, A. 1906. Aegina das Heiligtum der Aphaia. Munich.

FURUMARK, A. 1941. The Mycenaean Pottery, Analysis and Classification. Stockholm.

 220

GAIGNEROT-DRIESSEN, F. 2014. Goddesses Refusing to Appear? Reconsidering the Late

Minoan III Figures with Upraised Arms. AJA 118(3), pp. 489-520.

GATES, C. 1989. Iconography at the Crossroads: The Aegina Treasure. R. Laffineur (ed.),
Aegaeum 3: Transition. Le monde égéen du Bronze moyen au Bronze récent. Actes de la
deuxième Rencontre égéenne internationale de l'Université de Liège, 18-20 avril 1988, Liège,
pp. 215-225.

GAUSS, W. 2006. Minos auf Ägina - Beobachtungen zu den Beziehungen Äginas zu

Kreta. E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger, D. Melman and A. Schwab (eds.), Timelines: Studies in
Honour of Manfred Bietak, Leuven, pp. 437-448.

GEJWALL, N. 1969. Lerna, a Preclassical Site in the Argolid. Vol. 1, The fauna. Princeton.

GELL, A. 1998. Art and Agency: an Anthropological Theory. Oxford.

GEORGIOU, H. S. 1979. Late Minoan Incense Burners. AJA 83(4), pp. 427-435.
GEORMA, F. - KARNAVA, A. – NIKOLAKOPOULOU, I. 2014, The Natural World and its
Representations: A View from Akrotiri, Thera. G. Touchais, R. Laffineur and F. Rougemont
(eds.), Aegaeum 37: Physis: l'environnement naturel et la relation homme-milieu dans le
monde égéen protohistorique. Actes de la 14e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Paris,
Institut National d'Histoire de l'Art (INHA), 11-14 décembre 2012, Leuven and Liege, pp.
175-182.

GERCKE, P. – HIESEL, G. 1971. Tiryns 5. Grabungen in der Unterstadt von Tiryns von
1889 bis 1929. Athens.

GESELL, G. 1976. The Minoan Snake Tube: A Survey and Catalogue. AJA 80(3). pp. 247-
259.

GESELL, G. 1985a. Town, Palace, and House Cult in Minoan Crete. Göteborg.

GESELL, G. 1985b. New Light on the Iron Age Tombs at Kavousi. T. Detorakis (ed.),
Pepragmena tou E’ Diethnous Kretologikou Synedriou, Ayios Nikolaos, 25 September – 1st
October 1981, Volume A’, Heraklion, pp. 131-137.

GESELL, G. – COULSON, W.D.E. – DAY, L.P. 1991. Excavations at Kavousi, Crete, 1988.
Hesperia 60, pp. 145-177.

GESELL, G. 2004. From Knossos to Kavousi: The Popularizing of the Minoan Palace
Goddess. A.P. Chapin (ed.), Χάρις: Essays in Honor of Sara A. Immerwahr, Princeton, pp.
131-150.

GESELL, G. 2006. Bird and Snake: Their Use as Minoan Religious Symbols. E. Tampakaki
and A. Kaloutsakis (eds.), Pepragmena Th' Diethnous Kritologikou Synedriou, Elounda, 1-6
October 2001, A3, Heraklion, pp. 313-324.

GETZ-PREZIOSI, P. 1987. Sculptors of the Cyclades: Individual and Tradition in the Third
Millenium B.C. Ann Arbor.
 221

GETZ-PREZIOSI, P. 1988. Early Cycladic Art in North American Collections. Seattle.

GETZ-PREZIOSI, P. 1994. Early Cycladic Sculpture: An Introduction. Malibu.

GETZ-PREZIOSI, P. 1996. Stone Vessels of the Cyclades in the Early Bronze

Age. Pennsylvania.

GILL, M.A.V. 1965. The Knossos Sealings: Provenance and Identification. BSA 60, pp. 58-
98.

GILL, M.A.V. 1969. The Minoan “Frame” on an Egyptian Relief. Kadmos 8, 85-102.
GILL, M.A.V. 1981. The Human Element in Minoan and Mycenaean Glyptic Art. W.D.
Niemeier (ed.), Studien zur minoischen und helladischen Glyptik. CMS Beiheft 1, Berlin, pp.
83-90.
GILL, M. 1985. Some Observations on Representations of Marine Animals in Minoan Art,
and their Identification. BCH Supplément 11, pp. 63-81.

GODART, L. – OLIVIER, J.-P. 1976-1985. Recueil des inscriptions en Linéaire A. Vols. 1-5.
Paris.
GODART, L. – TZEDAKIS, J. 1992. Témoignages archéologiques et épigraphiques en Crète
occidentale du Néolithique au Minoen Récent IIIB. Rome.
GOLDMAN, H. 1931. Excavations at Eutresis in Boeotia. Cambridge.
GOODISON, L. 2008. Horizon and Body: Some Aspects of Cycladic Symbolism. N. Brodie,
J. Doole, G. Gavalas and C. Renfrew (eds.), Horizon. Ορίζων: A colloquium on the prehistory
of the Cyclades, Cambridge, pp. 417-431.

GOODISON, L. 2011. Beyond feasting: Activities with animals at the Mesara-type tombs. E.
Kapsomenos, M. Andreadaki-Vlazaki and M. Andrianakis (eds.), Πεπραγμένα Ι΄ Διεθνούς
Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, Χανιά, 1-8 Οκτωβρίου 2006, Volume Α, Chania, pp. 179-195.

GOODMAN, F.D. 1986. Body Posture and the Religious Altered State of Consciousness: an
Experimental Investigation. Journal of Humanistic Psychology 26(3), pp. 81-118.
GOSLER, A. – BUEHLER, D. – CASTILLO, A. 2010, The Broader Significance of Ethno-
ornithology, A. Gosler and S. Tidemann (eds.), Ethno-ornithology: birds, indigenous peoples,
culture and society, London, pp. 31-48.

GRAEF, B. – LANGLOTZ, E. 1925. Die antiken Vasen von der Akropolis zu Athen I. Berlin.

GRAZIADIO, G. 1991. The Process of Social Stratification at Mycenae in the Shaft Grave
Period: A Comparative Examination of the Evidence. AJA 95, pp. 403-440.

GRIGORIADI–PHILIMONOS 1996. Kos, ADelt 51, pp. 685-692.

GRIM, J.A. 1983. The Shaman: Patterns of Religious Healing Among the Ojibway
 222

Indians. Norman.

GROENEWEGEN-FRANKFORT, H. 1951. Arrest and Movement. London.

GRUMACH, E. 1968. The Minoan Libation Formula - Again. Kadmos 7(1), pp. 7-26.
GSCHWENG, M. – KALKO E. K. V. – QUERNER U. – FIEDLER W. – BERTHOLD P.
2008. All across Africa: Highly Individual Migration Routes of Eleonora's Falcon,
Proceedings of the Royal Society B 275, pp. 2887-2896.

GÜNTNER, W. 2000. Tiryns: Forschungen und Berichte XII. Figürlich Bemalte Mykenische
Keramik aus Tiryns. Mainz am Rhein.
GÜNTNER, W. 2006. Mycenaean Pictorial Vase-painters: a View from Tiryns. E. Rystedt
and B. Wells (eds.), Pictorial pursuits: Figurative painting on Mycenaean and Geometric
pottery. Papers from two seminars at the Swedish Insititute at Athens in 1999 and
2001, Stockholm, pp. 51-61.

GÜNTNER, W. 2010. Zu einer mykenischen Vogeldarstellung aus Tiryns. C. Weiß and E.

Simon (eds.), Folia in memoriam Ruth Lindner collecta, Dettelbach, pp. 14-18.

GUGGISBERG, M. 1996. Frühgriechische Tierkeramik. Zur Entwicklung und Bedeutung der

Tiergefässe und der hohlen Tierfiguren in der späten Bronze- und frühen Eisenzeit (ca. 1600-
700 vor Chr.). Mainz.

GUGGISBERG, M. 1998. Vogelschwärme im Gefolge der großen Göttin: Zu einem

Drillingsvogelgefäss der Sammlung Giamalakis. Antike Kunst 41(2), pp. 71-86.

HÄGG, R. 1968. Mykenische Kultstätten im archäologischen Material. OpAth 8, pp. 39-60.

HÄGG, I. – HÄGG, R. (eds.) 1973. Excavations in the Barbouna Area at Asine. Uppsala.

HALBHERR, F. 1903. Resti dell'età micenea: scoperte ad Haghia Triada presso Phaestos:
rapporto sulle ricerche del 1902. Rome.

HALBHERR, F. – STEFANI, E. – BANTI, L. 1977, Haghia Triada nel periodo tardo

palaziale. ASAtene 1977, pp. 13-296.

HALL, E. 1912. Excavations in Eastern Crete Sphoungaras. Philadelphia.

HALLAGER, E. 1973. Tablets and Roundels from Khania with Linear A Inscriptions.
Kadmos 12(1), pp. 20-27.

HALLAGER, E. 1977. The Mycenaean Palace at Knossos. Stockholm.

HALLAGER, B.P. – MCGEORGE, P.J.P. 1992. Late Minoan III Burials at Khania.
Göteborg.

HALLAGER, B.P. – HALLAGER, E. (eds.) 2000. The Greek-Swedish Excavations at the

Agia Aikaterini square Kastelli, Khania 2. The late Minoan IIIC settlement. Stockholm.
 223

HALLAGER B.P. – HALLAGER, E. (eds.) 2003. The Greek-Swedish Excavations at the

Agia Aikaterini square Kastelli, Khania 3. The late Minoan IIIB settlement. Stockholm.

HALLAGER, B.P. 1997. Terminology - The Late Minoan Goblet, Kylix and Footed Cup. E.
Hallager and B. P. Hallager (eds.), Late Minoan III Pottery Chronology and Terminology:
Acts of a Meeting Held at the Danish Institute at Athens, August 12-14, 1994, Athens, pp. 15-
47.

HALLOWELL, A.I. 1926. Bear Ceremonialism in the Northern Hemisphere. American

Anthropologist 28, pp. 1-175.

HALLOWELL, A.I. 1960. Ojibwa Ontology, Behavior and World View, S. Diamond (ed.),
Culture in History: Essays in Honor of Paul Radin, pp. 19-52.
HALSTEAD, P. 1998-1999. Texts, Bones and Herders: Approaches to Animal Husbandry in
Late Bronze Age Greece. J. Bennet and J. Driessen (eds.), A-na-qo-ta. Studies Presented to J.
T. Killen. Minos 33-34, pp. 149-189.

HARTE, K. J. 2000. Birds of the Thera Wall Paintings. S. Sherratt (ed.), The Wall Paintings
of Thera. Proceedings of the First International Symposium, Petros M. Nomikos Conference
Centre, Thera, Hellas, 30 August - 4 September 1997, Vol. II 2000, Piraeus, pp. 681-698.

HARVEY, G. 2005. Animism. Respecting the Living World. London.

HASKILL, H.W. 1997. Mycenaeans at Knossos: Patterns in the Evidence. BCH Supplement
30, pp. 187-193.

HATANO, G. – INAGAKI, K. 1999. A Developmental Perspective on Informal Biology. D.

Medin and S. Atran (eds.). Folkbiology, London, pp. 321-354.

HATTLER, C. 2011 (ed.), Kykladen: Lebenswelten einer frühgriechischen Kultur. Badisches

Landesmuseum Karlsruhe. Karlsruhe.

HATZAKI, E. 2005. Postpalatial Knossos: Town and Cemeteries from LM IIIA2 to LM IIIC.
A. L. D’Agata and J. Moody (eds.), Ariadne’s Threads: Connections between Crete and the
Greek Mainland in Late Minoan III (LM IIIA2 to LM IIIC). Proceedings of the International
Workshop held at Athens, Scuola Archeologica Italiana, 5-6 April 2003, Athens, pp. 65-108.

HEALEY, C. 1993. Folk Taxonomy and Mythology of Birds of Paradise in the New Guinea
Highlands, Ethnology 32(1), pp. 19-34.

HEMINGWAY, S. 2012. The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin. Art of the Aegean Bronze
Age. New York.

HERVA, V.-P. 2006a. Flower Lovers after all? Rethinking Religion and Human-Environment
Relations in Minoan Crete. WorldArch 38(4), pp. 586-598.

HERVA, V.-P. 2006b. Marvels of the System. Art, Perception and Engagement with the
Environment in Minoan Crete. Archaeological Dialogues 13(2), pp. 221–240.
 224

HIGGINS, R. 1979. The Aegina Treasure: An Archaeological Mystery. London.

HIGH, C. 2012. Shamans, Animals and Enemies: Human and Non-Human Agency in an
Amazonian Cosmos of Alterity. M., Grotti, V. E., Ultugasheva, O. (eds.). Animism in
Rainforest and Tundra. Personhood, Animals, Plants and Things in Contemporary Amazonia
and Siberia, pp. 130-145.
HILLER, S. 1972. Fisch oder Schiff. Zu einem bemalten mittelbronzezeitlichen
Gefässfragment aus Aegina. Pantheon 30, pp. 439-446.
HILLER, S. 1977. Das minoische Kreta nach den Ausgrabungen des letzten Jahrzehnts.
Mykenische Studien 5. Vienna.
HILLER, S. 1996. Zur Rezeption Ägyptischer Motive in der Minoischen Freskenkunst.
Ägypten und Levante 6, pp. 83-105.
HILLER, S. 2001. Egypt, Crete, and the Peloponnese in the 15th and 14th Centuries B.C. V.
Mitsopoulos-Leon (ed.), Forschungen in der Peloponnes. Akten des Symposions anläßlich der
Feier ‘100 Jahre Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut Athen, Athen 5.3.-
7.3.1998, Athens, pp. 263-272.
HILLER, S. 2006a. The Rise of the Pictorial Style and the Art of Amarna. E. Rystedt and B.
Wells (eds.), Pictorial pursuits: Figurative painting on Mycenaean and Geometric pottery.
Papers from two seminars at the Swedish Insititute at Athens in 1999 and 2001, Stockholm,
pp. 63-71.
HILLER, S. 2006b. Spätminoische Pyxiden aus SM II/IIIA:1 und die Fresken aus dem Palast
von Amenophis III. in Malkata (Theben West). E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger, D. Melman
and A. Schwab (eds.), Timelines: Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, Leuven, pp. 149-165.
HILLER, S. 2006c. Keramik mit Pictorial Style-Dekor aus Ägina Kolonna. E. Rystedt and B.
Wells (eds.), Pictorial pursuits: Figurative painting on Mycenaean and Geometric pottery.
Papers from two seminars at the Swedish Insititute at Athens in 1999 and 2001, Stockholm,
pp. 73-82.
HOGARTH, D.G. 1900. Excavations at Zakro, Crete. BSA 7, pp.121-149
HOGARTH, D.G. – WELCH, F.B. 1901. Primitive Painted Pottery in Crete.

HOGARTH, D. G. 1902. The Zakro Sealings, JHS 22, pp. 76-93.

HOLLINSHEAD, M.B. 1989. The Swallows and Artists of Room Delta 2 at Akrotiri, Thera.
AJA 93, pp. 339-354.

HOLMAN, E.W. 2005. Domain-Specific and General Properties of Folk Classifications.

Journal of Ethnobiology 25(1), pp. 71-91.

HOLMBERG, E. J. 1983. A Mycenaean Chamber Tomb near Berbati in Argolis. Göteborg.

HOOD, S. – DE JONG, P. 1952. Late Minoan Warrior-Graves from Ayios Ioannis and the
New Hospital Site at Knossos, BSA 47, pp. 243-277.
 225

HOOD, S. 1961. Chronika-Knossos. ADelt 17, pp. 294-296.

HOOD, S. 1961-1962. Archaeology in Greece, 1961-62. AR 1961-1962, pp. 1-31.

HOOD, S. 1962. Sir Arthur Evans Vindicated. ILN, February 17, pp. 259-261.

HOOD, S. 1971. The Minoans. The Story of Bronze Age Crete. New York.
HOOD, S. 1978. The Arts in Prehistoric Greece. New York.

HOOD, S. 1985. Warlike Destruction in Crete ca. 1450 BC. T. Detorakis (ed.), Pepragmena
tou E´ Diethnous Kritologikou Synedriou (Ayios Nikolaos 25 September until 1st October
1981), Heraklion, pp. 170-178.

HOOD, S. 2005. Dating the Knossos Frescoes. L. Morgan (ed.), Aegean Wall Painting: A
Tribute to Mark Cameron, London, pp. 45-81.

HOULIHAN, P.F. 1986. The Birds of Ancient Egypt. Warminster.

HUNN, E. S. 1975. A Measure of the Degree of Correspondence of Folk to Scientific

Biological Classification. American Ethnologist 2, pp. 309–327.

HUNN, E. 1977. Tzeltal Folk Zoology. New York.

HUNN, E. 2007. Ethnobiology in Four Phases, Journal of Ethnobiology 27(1), pp. 1-10.

HUNN, E. – THORNTON, T. 2010. Tlingit Birds: An Annotated List with a Statistical

Comparative Analysis, in A. Gosler and S. Tidemann (eds.), Ethno-ornithology: birds,
indigenous peoples, culture and society, London, pp. 181-210.

HURN, S. 2012. Humans and other Animals. Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Human-Animal

Interactions. London.

IACOPI, G. 1931-1932. Nuovi scavi nella necropoli micenea di Jalisso. ASAtene 13-14, pp.
233 - 345.

IAKOVIDIS 1964-1966. Chronika. ADelt 19, pp. 87-95.

IAKOVIDIS, S. 1970. Perati. To nekrotafion. Athens.

IAKOVIDIS, S. 1980. Excavations of the Necropolis at Perati. Los Angeles.

IAKOVIDIS, S. 1981. Royal Shaft Graves outside Mycenae. P. Betancourt (ed.), Shaft
Graves in Bronze Age Greece, Philadelphia, pp. 17-28.

IAKOVIDIS, S. 2003. Late Helladic IIIC at Perati. S. Deger-Jalkotzy and M. Zavadil (eds.),
LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms. Proceedings of the International Workshop Held at
the Austrian Academy of Sciences at Vienna May 7th and 8th, 2001, Vienna, pp. 125-130.

IMMERWAHR, S.A. 1989. Aegean Painting in the Bronze Age. London.

 226

IMMERWAHR, S.A. 1990. Swallows and Dolphins at Akrotiri: Some Thoughts on the
Relationship of Vase-Painting to Wall-Painting. D.A. Hardy, C. Doumas, J.A. Sakellarakis
and P.M. Warren (eds.), Thera and the Aegean World III. Vol. 1: Archaeology. Proceedings
of the Third International Congress, Santorini, Greece, 3-9 September 1989, Athens, pp. 237-
245.

INGLIS, E. 2011. Jean Fouquet and the Invention of France: Art and Nation after the
Hundred Years War. New Haven.
INGOLD, T. 2011. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and
Skill. London.
ISAAKIDOU, V. – HALSTEAD, P. – DAVIS, J. – STOCKER, S. 2002. Burnt Animal
Sacrifice at the Mycenaean ‘Palace of Nestor’, Pylos. Antiquity 76.291, pp. 86-92.
JACOBS, M. 1980. Revolutions in Plant Descriptions. J. Arends, G. Boelema, C. de Groot &
A. Leeuwenberg (eds.), Liber gratulatorius in honorem H. C. D. De Wit.

JANTZEN, U. 1951. Die spätminoische Nekropole von Kydonia. F. Matz (ed.), Forschungen
auf Kreta 1942, Berlin, pp. 72–81.

JASINK, A.M. 2009. Cretan Hieroglyphic Seals: A New Classification of Symbols and
Ornamental/Filling Motifs. Pisa and Rome.

JENSEN, C.B – BLOK, A. 2013. Techno-animism in Japan: Shinto Cosmograms, Actor-

network Theory, and the Enabling Powers of Non-human Agencies. Theory, Culture &
Society 30(2), pp. 84–115.

JOLY, R. 1928. Deux larnakes trouvés à Malia. BCH 52, pp. 148-157.

JONES, B. 2007. A Reconsideration of the Kneeling Figure Fresco from Hagia Triada. P.P.
Betancourt, M.C. Nelson and H. Williams (eds.), Krinoi kai Limenes: Studies in Honor of
Joseph and Maria Shaw, Philadelphia, pp. 151-158.

JONES, B. R. 2014. Revisiting the Figures and Landscapes on the Frescoes at Hagia Triada.
G. Touchais, R. Laffineur and F. Rougemont (eds.), Aegaeum 37: Physis: l'environnement
naturel et la relation homme-milieu dans le monde égéen protohistorique. Actes de la 14e
Rencontre égéenne internationale, Paris, Institut National d'Histoire de l'Art (INHA), 11-14
décembre 2012, Leuven and Liege, pp. 493-497.

JONES, D.W. 1999. Peak Sanctuaries and Sacred Caves in Minoan Crete: Comparison of
Artifacts. Jonsered.

JONES, R.E. 1978. Composition and Provenance Studies of Cycladic Pottery with Particular
Reference to Thera. C. Doumas (ed.), Thera and the Aegean World I. Papers Presented at the
Second International Scientific Congress, Santorini, Greece, August 1978, London, pp. 471-
482.
JORDAN, B. 1975. Tierknochenfunde aus der Magula Pevkakia in Thessalien. Unpublished
PhD Thesis. University of Munich.
 227

KAMRIN, J. 1999. The Cosmos of Khnumhotep II at Beni Hasan. London.

KANT, I. [1785] 1998. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, M. Gregor (ed.). New
York.

KANTA, A. 1973. Isterominoïki sarkofagos apo to horion Marulas Rethimnis (LM

Sarcophagus from Maroulas near Rethymnon). AAA 6, pp. 315-323.

KANTA, A. 1980. The Late Minoan III Period in Crete. A Survey of Sites, Pottery, and Their
Distribution. Göteborg.
KANTA, A. 2005. Response to Haskell, Halford W. Region to Region Export of Transport
Stirrup Jars from LM IIIA2/B Crete. A. L. D’Agata and J. Moody (eds.), Ariadne’s Threads:
Connections between Crete and the Greek Mainland in Late Minoan III (LM IIIA2 to LM
IIIC). Proceedings of the International Workshop held at Athens, Scuola Archeologica
Italiana, 5-6 April 2003, Athens, pp. 223-234.
KARANTZALI, E. 1998. A New Mycenaean Pictorial Rhyton from Rhodes. V. Karageorghis
and N. Stampolidis (eds.), Eastern Mediterranean: Cyprus-Dodecanese-Crete 16th-6th cent.
B.C. Proceedings of the International Symposium. Rethymnon 13-16 May 1997, Athens, pp.
87-104.
KARANTZALI, E. – PONTING, M.J. 2000. ICP-AES Analysis of Some Mycenaean Vases
from the Cemetery at Pylona, Rhodes. BSA 95, pp. 219-238.
KARAYIANNIS, E. 1984. Minoan Complex Vessels (kernoi). Ioannina.
KARDARA, C. 1977. Aplōmata Naxou: kinēta eurēmata taphōn A kai B. Athens.
KARETSOU, A. 1976. To iero koryphes tou Iouchta. Praktika, pp. 408-418.
KARETSOU, A. 1978. To iero koryphes tou Iouchta. Praktika, pp. 232-258.
KARETSOU, A. 1981. The Peak Sanctuary of Mt. Juktas. R. Hägg and N. Marinatos (eds.),
Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the First International
Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 12-13 May 1980, Stockholm, pp. 137-153.
KARETSOU, A. – PAPADAKIS, N. - ANDREADAKI-VLAZAKI, M. (eds.) 2000. Kriti -
Aigyptos. Politismikoi Desmoi trion Chilietion. Katalogos: Archaiologiko Mouseio Irakleiou,
21 Noembriou 1999-21 Septembriou 2000. Heraklion.
KARETSOU, A. – GIRELLA, L. 2014. Kalochorafitis. Two Chamber Tombs from the LM
IIIA-B Cemetery. A Contribution to Postpalatial Funerary Practice in the Mesara. Padova.
KARO, G. 1930-33. Die Schachtgräber von Mykenai. Volume I and II. Munich.

KATSAFANAS, P. Forthcoming. The Emergence of the Drive Concept and the Collapse of
the Animal/Human Divide. P. Adamson and G. F. Edwards (eds.), Oxford Philosophical
Concepts: Animals, pp. 1-22.

KEMP, B. – WEATHERHEAD, F. 2000. Palace Decoration at Tell el-Amarna. S. Sherratt

(ed.), The Wall Paintings of Thera. Proceedings of the First International Symposium, Petros
 228

M. Nomikos Conference Centre, Thera, Hellas, 30 August - 4 September 1997, Vol. I, Athens,
pp. 491-523.

KENNA, V.G. 1960. Cretan seals; with a Catalogue of the Minoan Gems in the Ashmolean
Museum. Oxford.

KENNA, V.G. 1964. Cretan and Mycenaean Seals in North America. AJA 68, pp. 1-12.

KENNA, V.G. 1968. Studies of Birds on Seals of the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean in
the Bronze Age. OpAth. 8, pp. 23-38.

KENNA, V.G. 1969. The Cretan Talismanic Stone in the Late Minoan Age. Lund.

KERAMOPOULLOS, A. 1917. Thebaika. ADelt 3. Athens.

KILIAN, K. – PODZUWEIT, C. – HAEVERNICK, T. E. 1979. Ausgrabungen in Tiryns

1977. AA 1979(4), pp. 379-447.

KILIAN, K. – PODZUWEIT, C. – WEISSHAAR, H.-J. 1981. Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1978,

1979. AA 1981, pp. 149-256.

KILIAN, K. – HIESEL, G. – WEIßHAAR, H.J. 1982. Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1980. AA

1982, pp. 393-466.

KILIAN, K. 1983. Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1981. AA 1983, pp. 277-328.

KILIAN, K. 1987. Ältere mykenische Residenzen, Kolloquium zur Ägäischen Vorgeschichte,

Mannheim, pp. 120-124.

KILIAN, K. 1988a. Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1982/83. Bericht zu den Grabungen. AA 1988,

pp. 105-390.

KILIAN, K. 1988b. Mycenaeans Up To Date. Trends and Changes in Recent Research. E.B.
French and K.A. Wardle (eds.), Problems in Greek Prehistory. Papers Presented at the
Centenary Conference of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, Manchester, April
1986, Bristol, pp. 115-152.

KILIAN, K. 1990. Patterns in the Cult Activity in the Mycenaean Argolid: Haghia Triada
(Klenies), the Profitis Elias Cave (Haghios Hadrianos) and the Citadel of Tiryns. R. Hägg and
G. C. Nordquist (eds.), Celebrations of Death and Divinity in the Bronze Age Argolid:
Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 11-13
June, 1988, Stockholm, pp. 185-197.

KILIAN-DIRLMEIER, I. 1988. Jewellery in Mycenaean and Minoan Warrior Graves. E.B.

French and K.A. Wardle (eds.), Problems in Greek Prehistory, Bristol, pp. 161-171.

KILLEN, J. T. 1993. The Oxen's Names on the Knossos Ch Tablets. Minos 27-28, pp. 101-
107.

KILLEN, J.T. 1999. Some Observations on the New Thebes Tablets. BICS 43, pp. 217-218.
 229

KILLEN, J. T. 2006. Thoughts on the Functions of the New Thebes Tablets. S. Deger-
Jalkotzy and O. Panagl (eds.), Die neuen Linear B-Texte aus Theben. Ihr Aufschlusswert für
die mykenische Sprache und Kultur. Akten des internationalen Forschungskolloquiums an der
Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 5.-6. Dezember 2002, Vienna, pp. 79-110.
KNAPPETT, C. – CUNNINGHAM, T. 2012. Palaikastro Block M: The Proto- and
Neopalatial Town. London.
KNELL, H. – VOIGTLÄNDER, W. 1980. Die Ergebnisse in den Quadranten V2 und V12. J.
Ulf (ed.), Tiryns IX: Grabungen in der Unterburg 1971, Mainz, pp. 118-152.
KNOLL, K. 1998. Alltag und Mythos: griechische Gefässe der Skulpturensammlung.
Dresden.

KOEHL, R.B. 2006. Aegean Bronze Age Rhyta. Philadelphia.

KOEHL, R.B. 2016. The Ambiguity of the Minoan Mind. Aegaeum 36. Metaphysis, Ritual,
Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age, Proceedings of the 15th International
Aegean Conference at the Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Department
Aegean and Anatolia, Austrian Academy of Sciences and at the Institute of Classical
Archaeology, University of Vienna on 22-25 April 2014. Leuven-Liege, pp. 469 – 478.

KOHL, M. 2011. Lyraspieler in mykenischer Zeit. Ihre Stellung in der frühgriechischen

Gesellschaft. F. Blakolmer, C. Reinholdt, J. Weilhartner and G. Nightingale (eds.),
Österreichische Forschungen zur Ägäischen Bronzezeit 2009: Akten der Tagung vom 6. bis 7.
März 2009 am Fachbereich Altertumswissenschaften der Universität Salzburg, Vienna, pp.
197-203.

KONTOLEON, N. 1950. Anaskaphai Naxou. Praktika, pp. 269-280.

KONTOLEON, N. 1959. Anaskaphai Naxou. Praktika, pp. 185-186.

KONTORLI-PAPADOPOULOU, L. 1979. Mycenean Objects in the Sarmas Collection in

Patras. BSA 74, pp. 155-158.

KORRES, G. 1976. Anaskafi Pylou. Praktika 1976, pp. 139-161.

KORRES, G. 1989. Representation of a Late Mycenaean ship on the Pyxis from Tragana,
Pylos. H. Tzalas (ed.), 1st International Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity: Tropis
I, Center for the Acropolis Studies, Athens, 30 August – 1 September 1985, Proceedings,
Athens, pp. 177 – 202.
KOUROUNIOTIS, K. 1914. Pylou Messeniakis tholotos taphos. AEphem, pp. 99-117.
KOUROU, N. – KARETSOU, A. 1994. Το Ιερό του Ερμού Κραναίου στην Πατσό Αμαρίου.
L. Roccetti (ed.), Sybrita. La Valle di Amari fra Bronzo e Ferro I, Rome, pp. 81-164
KOUTSOUFLAKIS, G. B. 1999. Ship Emblems and Akrostolia in Aegean Bronze Age
Iconography: an Analysis. Eliten in der Bronzezeit: Ergebnisse zweier Kolloquien in Mainz
und Athen, Various Authors, Vol. 1. Mainz, pp. 133-149.
 230

KRAIKER, W. – KÜBLER, K. 1939. Kerameikos. Die Nekropolen des 12. bis 10.
Jahrhunderts. Berlin.
KRIGA, D. 2014. Flora and Fauna Iconography on Strainers and Kymbai at Akrotiri: Theran
Ceramic Vessels of Special Use and Special Iconography. G. Touchais, R. Laffineur and R.
Rougemont (eds.), Aegaeum 37: Physis: l'environnement naturel et la relation homme-milieu
dans le monde égéen protohistorique. Actes de la 14e Rencontre égéenne internationale,
Paris, Institut National d'Histoire de l'Art (INHA), 11-14 décembre 2012, Leuven and Liege,
pp. 499-504.

KRISTOFFERSEN, E.S. 2010. Half Beast – Half Man. Hybrid Figures in Animal Art. World
Archaeology 42(2), pp. 261–272.

KRÜGER, C. 1940. Der fliegende Vogel in der antiken Kunst bis zur klassischen Zeit.
Dissertation University of Münster.

KRZYSZKOWSKA, O. 1988. Ivory in the Aegean Bronze Age: Elephant Tusk or

Hippopotamus Ivory? BSA 83, pp. 209-234.

KRZYSZKOWSKA, O. 1990. Ivory and Related Materials: an Illustrated Guide. London.

KRZYSZKOWSKA, O. 1996. Asine Chamber Tomb I:2: The Ivories. R. Hägg, G. C.

Nordquist and B. Wells (eds.), Asine III: Supplementary Studies on the Swedish Excavations
1922-1930, Stockholm, pp. 81-90.

KRZYSZKOWSKA, O. 2005a. Aegean Seals: an Introduction. London.

KRZYSZKOWSKA, O. 2005b. Mycenaean Ivories from Tiryns. Tiryns XIII, Mainz, pp. 179-
210.

KRZYSZKOWSKA, O. 2007. The Ivories and Objects of Bone, Antler and Boar's Tusk:
Well-built Mycenae. Oxford.

KRZYSZKOWSKA, O. 2012. Seals from the Petras Cemetery: a Preliminary Overview. M.

Tsipopoulou (ed.), Petras, Siteia - 25 years of excavations and studies. Acts of a two-day
conference held at the Danish Institute at Athens, 9-10 October 2010, Athens, pp. 145-160.

KYRIAKIDIS, E. 1997. Nudity in Late Minoan I Seal Iconography. Kadmos 36, pp. 119-126.

KYRIAKIDIS, E. 2000-2001. Pithos or Baetyl? On the Interpretation of a Group of Minoan

Rings. OpAth 25-26, pp. 117-118.

KYRIAKIDIS, E. 2005a. Unidentified Floating Objects on Minoan Seals. AJA 109, pp. 137-
154.

KYRIAKIDIS, E. 2005b. Ritual in the Bronze Age Aegean: the Minoan Peak sanctuaries.
London.

LAFFINEUR, R. 1981. Le symbolisme funéraire de la chouette. L'antiquité classique 50(1-2),

pp. 432-444.
 231

LAFFINEUR, R. 1983. Mycenaeans at Thera: Further Evidence? R. Hägg and N. Marinatos

(eds.), The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality. Proceedings of the Third International
Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 31 May - 5 June, 1982, Göteborg, pp. 133-139.
LAFFINEUR, R. 1984. Mycenaean Artistic Koine. The Example of Jewelry. TUAS 9, pp. 1-
13.
LAFFINEUR, R. 1985. Iconographie minoenne et iconographie mycénienne à l'époque des
tombes à fosse. Darcque, Pascal, and Jean-Claude Poursat, eds., L'Iconographie minoenne.
Actes de la table ronde d'Athènes (21-22 avril 1983), Paris, pp. 245-266.

LAFFINEUR, R. 1993. Material and Craftmanship in the Mycenaean Shaft Graves: Imports
vs Local Productions. Minos 25-26, pp. 245-295.

LAFFINEUR, R. 1995. Aspects of Rulership at Mycenae in the Shaft Grave Period. P. Rehak
(ed.), Aegaeum 11: The Role of the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean. Proceedings of a Panel
Discussion presented at the Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, New
Orleans, Louisiana, 28 December 1992, Liège, pp. 81-94.
LAFFINEUR, R. 1998. From West to East: The Aegean and Egypt in the Early Late Bronze
Age. E. H. Cline, and D. Harris-Cline (eds.), Aegaeum 18: The Aegean and the Orient in the
Second Millennium: Proceedings of the 50th Anniversary Symposium, Cincinnati, 18-20 April
1997, Liège, pp. 53-67.

LAHELMA, A. 2007. ‘On the Back of a Blue Elk’: Recent Ethnohistorical

Sources and ‘Ambiguous’ Stone Age Rock Art at Pyhänpää, Central Finland. Norwegian
Archaeological Review 40(2), pp. 113-137.
LAMARCK, J. 1809. Philosophie zoologique. Dentu.

LANG, M. 1969. The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Messenia. Vol. 2 The Frescoes.
LA ROSA, V. I979-80, Haghia Triada II. Relazione preliminare sui saggi del 1987 e 1979.
ASAtene 57-58, pp. 49-164.

LAURENZI, L. 1938. Memorie dell’ Istituto F.E.R. T. di Rodi 2. Bergamo.

LEMBESSI, A. 1973. Kato Syme. Praktika, pp. 192-203.

LEMOS, I. S. 1994. 'Birds Revisited'. V. Karageorghis (ed.), Proceedings of the International
Symposium of the Archaeological Research Unit of the University of Cyprus and the
Anastasios G. Leventis Foundation (30-31 October 1993): Cyprus in the 11th Century
B.C, Nicosia, pp. 229-237.

LENZ, D. 1995. Vogeldarstellungen in der ägäischen und zyprischen Vasenmalerei des 12.-9.
Jahrhunderts v. Chr.: Untersuchungen zu Form und Inhalt. Espelkamp.

LERAT, L. 1935. Trouvailles mycèniennes à Delphes. BCH 59, pp. 329-375.

LERAT, L. 1961. Fouilles à Delphes, à l'est du grand sanctuaire. BCH 85, pp. 316-366.
 232

LEVI, D. 1925-26. Le cretule di H. Triada e di Zakro. ASAtene 8-9, pp. 71-156.

LEVI, D. 1929. Le cretule di Haghia Triada, ASAtene 8-9, pp. 71-201.

LEVI, D. 1957-58. L’archivio di cretule di Festòs. ASAtene 35-36, pp. 7-192.

LEVI, D. 1959. La villa rurale minoica di Gortina. BdA 44, pp. 237-267.

LEVI, D. 1961-1962. La tomba a tholos di Kamilari presso a Festòs. ASAtene 39-40, pp. 7-
148.

LEVI, D. 1976. Festòs e la civiltà minoica. Rome.

LEVI, D. – CARINCI, F. 1988. Festòs e la civiltà minoica. Rome.

LÉVI-STRAUSS, C. 1963. Totemism. Boston.

LEWIS-WILLIAMS, J.D. – DOWSON, T.A. 1988. The Signs of All Times: Entoptic
Phenomena in Upper Paleaolithic Art. Current Anthropology 29, pp. 201-245.
LEWIS-WILLIAMS, J. D. 2010. Conceiving God: the Cognitive Origin and Evolution of
Religion. London.
LIECKFELD, C.P. – STRAAß, V. 2002. Mythos Vogel: Geschichten – Legenden – 40
Vogelporträts.

LINDSTRØM, T.C. 2012. ‘I am the Walrus’: Animal Identities and Merging with Animals –
Exceptional Experiences? Norwegian Archaeological Review 45(2), pp. 151-176.

LINNAEUS, C. 1735. Systema naturae, sive regna tria naturae systematice proposita per
classes ordines, genera & species. Leiden.

LINNAEUS, C. 1751. Philosophia botanica. Stockholm and Amsterdam.

LLOYD, G.E.R. 2011. Humanity between Gods and Beasts? Ontologies in Question. Journal
of the Royal Anthropological Institute 17, pp. 829-845.

LONG, C.R. 1974. The Ayia Triadha Sarcophagus: a Study of Late Minoan and Mycenaean
Funerary Practices and Beliefs. Göteborg.

LOVEJOY, A.O. 1936. The Great Chain of Being: a Study of the History of an Idea.
Cambridge.

LOVELACE, C. 2015. Swallow Imagery in the Spring Fresco. Pursuit - The Journal of
Undergraduate Research at the University of Tennessee 6(1), Article 14.

LUNCZER, C. 2009. Vögel in der griechischen Antike: Eine Untersuchung über Kenntnisse
und Wahrnehmung der antiken Vogelwelt. Dissertation University of Heidelberg.
 233

MAAß, M. 2007. Maler und Dichter, Mytos, Fest und Alltag: griechische Vasenbilder aus
der Sammlung des Badischen Landesmuseums Karlsruhe. Karlsruhe.

MACGILLIVRAY, J. A. 1983. Cycladic Jars from Middle Minoan III Contexts at

Knossos. R. Hägg and N. Marinatos (eds.), The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality.
Proceedings of the Third International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 31 May
- 5 June, 1982, Göteborg. pp. 153-158.
MACGILLIVRAY, J.A. – SACKETT, L.H. – DRIESSEN, J.M. 1998. Excavations at
Palaikastro, 1994 and 1996. BSA 93, pp. 221-268.
MACKEPRANG, M.B. 1938. Late Mycenaean Vases, AJA 42(4), pp. 537-559.
MAIURI, A. 1923-24. Ialysos. Scavi della Missione Archeologica Italiana a Rodi. ASAtene 6-
7, pp. 83-256.
MALAFOURIS, L. 2008. Is it 'Me' or is it 'Mine'? The Mycenaean Sword as a Body-part. D.
Borić and J. Robb (eds.), Past Bodies: Body-Centered Research in Archaeology, Oxford, pp.
115-123.
MANDLER, J.M. 1992. The Foundations of Conceptual Thought in Infancy. Cognitive
Development 7, pp. 273-285.

MARAN, J. 2000. Das Megaron im Megaron. Zur Datierung und Funktion des Antenbaus im
mykenischen Palast von Tiryns. AA 2000(1), pp. 1-16.

MARAN, J. 2001. Zur Frage des Vorgängers des ersten Doppelpalastes von Tiryns. S. Böhm
and K.-V. von Eickstedt (eds.), ITHAKI: Festschrift für Jörg Schäfer zum 75. Geburtstag am
25. April 2001, Würzburg, pp. 23-29.
MARAN, J. 2006. Coming to Terms with the Past: Ideology and Power in Late Helladic
IIIC. S. Deger-Jalkotzy and I.S. Lemos (eds.), Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean Palaces
to the Age of Homer, Edinburgh, pp. 123-150.
MARANGOU, C. 1990. Rowers Paddling Sailing Ships in the Bronze Age. H. Tzalas (ed.),
Tropis II, 2nd International Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity (Delphi 1987),
Athens, pp. 259-270.
MARINATOS, N. 1987a. Kunst und Religion im alten Thera. Zur Rekonstruktion einer
bronzezeitlichen Gesellschaft. Athens.
MARINATOS, N. 1987b. An Offering of Saffron to the Minoan Goddess of Nature: The Role
of the Monkey and the Importance of the Saffron. Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium
1985, Uppsala, pp. 123-132.
MARINATOS, N. 1989. The Tree as a Focus of Ritual Action in Minoan Glyptic Art. I. Pini
(ed.), Fragen und Probleme der Bronzezeitlichen Ägäischen Glyptik. 3. Internationalen
Marburger Siegel-Symposium 5.-7. September 1985. CMS Beiheft 3, Berlin, pp. 127-144.
MARINATOS, N. 1993. Minoan Religion. Ritual, Image, and Symbol. Columbia.
MARINATOS, N. 1997. Minoan and Mycenaean Larnakes: A Comparison. J. Driessen and
A. Farnoux (eds.), La Crète mycénienne: Actes de la Table Ronde Internationale organisée
 234

par l'École française d'Athènes (26-28 Mars 1991), BCH Supplément 30, Athens, pp. 281-
292.

MARINATOS, N. 2000. Nature as Ideology: Landscapes on the Theran Ships. S.

SHERRATT (ed.), The Wall Paintings of Thera. Proceedings of the First International
Symposium, Petros M. Nomikos Conference Centre, Thera, Hellas, 30 August - 4 September
1997, Vol. II, pp. 907-913.

MARINATOS, S. 1933. La marine créto-mycénienne. BCH 57, pp. 170-235.

MARINATOS, S. 1937. Ai minoikai theai tou Gazi. ArchEph, pp. 278-291.

MARINATOS, S. 1951. Anaskaphai megarou Vathypetrou (Kretes). Praktika 1951, pp. 258-
272.

MARINATOS, S. 1960. Praktika Anaskaphai en Pylou, Praktika 1960, pp. 195-209.

MARINATOS, S. 1963. Praktika Anaskaphai en Pylou, Praktika 1963, pp. 114-121.

MARINATOS, S. 1964. Some Hints about Eastern Mediterranean Mythology. ArchEph

1964, pp. 1-14.

MARINATOS, S. 1965. Anaskaphai en Pylou, Praktika 1965, pp. 102-120.

MARINATOS, S. 1969. Excavations at Thera II (1968 Season). Athens.

MARINATOS, S. 1971. Excavations at Thera IV (1970 Season). Athens.
MARINATOS, S. 1972. Excavations at Thera V (1971 Season). Athens.
MARINATOS, S. 1974. Excavations at Thera VI (1972 Season). Athens.
MARINATOS, S. – HIRMER, M. 1973. Kreta, Thera und das mykenische Hellas. München.
MARSHALL, F.H. 1911. Catalogue of the Jewellery, Greek, Etruscan, and Roman, in the
Departments of Antiquities, British Museum. London.
MARTHARI, M. 1984. The Destruction of the Town at Akrotiri, Thera, at the Beginning of
LC I: Definition and Chronology. J.A. MacGillivray and R.L.N. Barber (eds.), The
Prehistoric Cyclades: Contributions to a Workshop on Cycladic Chronology (in Memoriam:
John Langdon Caskey, 1908-1981), Edinburgh, pp. 119-133.
MARTHARI, M. 1990. Investigation of the Technology of Manufacture of the Local LBA
Thera Pottery: Archaeological Consideration. D.A. Hardy, C.G. Doumas, J.A. Sakellarakis,
and P.M. Warren (eds.), Thera and the Aegean World III. Vol. 1: Archaeology. Proceedings
of the Third International Congress, Santorini, Greece, 3-9 September 1989, London, pp.
449-458.

MARTHARI, M. 1993. The Ceramic Evidence for Contacts between Thera and the Greek
Mainland. C. Zerner, P. Zerner and J. Winder (eds.), Wace and Blegen: Pottery as Evidence
for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age 1939-1989. Proceedings of the International Conference
 235

held at the American School of Classical Studies, Athens, Dec. 2-3, 1989, Amsterdam, pp.
249-256.
MARTHARI, M. 2000. The Attraction of the Pictorial: Observations on the Relationship of
Theran Pottery and Theran Fresco Iconography. S. Sherratt (ed.), The Wall Paintings of
Thera. Proceedings of the First International Symposium, Petros M. Nomikos Conference
Centre, Thera, Hellas, 30 August - 4 September 1997, Vol. II, Athens, pp. 873-889.

MARTHARI, M. 2009. An MM Seal with Swallow Motif from Knossos and its
Interconnections with Late MC-LC I Theran Iconography. D. Danielidou (ed.), Δώρον:
τιμητικός τομός για τον καθηγητή Σπύρο Ιακωβίδη, Athens, pp. 419-439.

MARZLUFF, J.M. – ANGELL, T. 2005. In the Company of Crows and Ravens. London.

MASSETI, M. 1997. Representations of Birds in Minoan Art. International Journal of

Osteoarchaeology 7, pp. 354-363.

MASSETI, M. 2000. Did the Study of Ethology Begin in Crete 4000 Years Ago? Ethology
Ecology and Evolution 12(1), pp. 89-96.

MASTRAPAS, A., 1991. I anthropini ke i zoïkes morfes stin proïstoriki keramiki ton
Kikladon. Athens.

MASTROKOSTAS, E. 1963. Anaskaphi tou Teichous Dymaion. ADelt 18, pp. 111-114.

MATTHÄUS, H. 1979. Two Mycenaean Bronzes. BSA 74, pp. 163-173.

MATTHÄUS, H. 1980. Die Bronzegefässe der kretisch-mykenischen Kultur. Munich.

MATTHÄUS, H. 1981. Kyknoi de esan to arma. Spätmykenische und urnenfelderzeitliche

Vogelplastik. H. Lorenz (ed.), Studien zur Bronzezeit. Festschrift für Wilhelm Albert v.
Brunn, Mainz, pp. 277-298.

MATHIOUDAKI, I. 2009. Honouring the Dead with Polychrome Pots: the Case of Mainland
Polychrome Pottery in Peloponnesian Funerary Contexts (an Interpretative Approach). H.
Cavanagh, W. Cavanagh and J. Roy (eds.), Honouring the Dead in the Peloponnese.
Proceedings of the conference held in Sparta 23-25 April 2009, Nottingham, pp. 459-466.

MATZ, F. 1928. Die frühkretischen Siegel: eine Untersuchung über das Werden des
minoischen Stiles. Berlin.

MATZ, F. 1958. Göttererscheinung und Kultbild im minoischen Kreta. Mainz.

MAVRIYANNAKI, C. 1972. Recherches sur les larnakes minoennes de la Crète occidentale.

Rome.

MAXIMOVA, M.I. 1927. Les vases plastiques dans l'antiquité. Paris.

MCCALLUM, L. R. 1987. Decorative Program in the Mycenaean Palace of Pylos: The

Megaron Frescoes. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
 236

MCDONALD, W. A. – WILKIE, N. C. (eds.) 1992. Excavations at Nichoria in Southwest

Greece. Volume II: The Bronze Age Occupation. Minneapolis.
MCENROE, J. C. 2010. Architecture of Minoan Crete: Constructing Identity in the Aegean
Bronze Age, Austin.
MCINERNEY, J. 2010. The Cattle of the Sun: Cows and Culture in the World of the Ancient
Greeks, Princeton and Oxford.

MCGOWAN, E. 2006. Experiencing and Experimenting with Embodied Archaeology: Re-

embodying the Sacred Gestures of Neopalatial Minoan Crete. Archaeological Review from
Cambridge 21(2), pp. 32-57.

MCGOWAN, E. 2011. Ambiguity and Minoan Neopalatial Seal Imagery. Uppsala.

MCMULLEN FISHER, S. - GIERING, K.L. 1994. A Pictorial Stirrup Jar from the
Mycenaean Citadel of Midea. JPR 8, pp. 8-20.
MCMULLEN FISHER, S. 1998. The Mycenaean Pictorial Pottery. G. Walberg (ed.),
Excavations on the Acropolis of Midea: Results of the Greek-Swedish Excavations under the
Direction of Katie Demakopoulou and Paul Åström. Volume I. The Excavations on the Lower
Terraces 1985-1991, Stockholm, pp. 100-109.
MCMULLEN FISHER, S. – GIERING, K.L. 1998. The Pictorial Stirrup Jar. G. Walberg
(ed.), Excavations on the Acropolis of Midea: Results of the Greek-Swedish Excavations
under the Direction of Katie Demakopoulou and Paul Åström. Volume I. The Excavations on
the Lower Terraces 1985-1991, Stockholm, pp. 109-113.
MCMULLEN FISHER, S. 2007. The Mycenaean Pictorial Pottery. Walberg, Gisela. 2007.
Midea: The Megaron Complex and Shrine Area. Excavations on the Lower Terraces 1994-
1997, Philadelphia, pp. 106-111.
MEE, C. 1982. Rhodes in the Bronze Age. Warminster.
MELAS, E.M. 1985. The Islands of Karpathos, Saros and Kasos in the Neolithic and Bronze
Age. Göteborg.
MEROUSIS, N.I. 2000. Oi eikonographikoi kykloi ton YM III larnakon. Oi diastaseis tes
eikonographias sta plaisia ton taphikon praktikon. Dissertation, University of Thessaloniki.
MEROUSIS, N. 2013. Vlachopoulos, A. (ed.) Paintbrushes: Wall-painting and Vase-painting
of the 2nd Millennium BC in Dialogue, Athens, pp. 135-138.
MICHAUD, J.-P. 1972. Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en
1971. BCH 96(2), pp. 593-816.
MILITELLO, P. 1998. Haghia Triada I. Gli Affreschi. Bottega d'Erasmo.
MILITELLO, P. – LA ROSA, V. 2000. New Data on Fresco Painting from Ayia Triada. S.
Sherratt (ed.), The Wall Paintings of Thera. Proceedings of the First International
Symposium, Petros M. Nomikos Conference Centre, Thera, Hellas, 30 August - 4 September
1997, Vol. II, Athens, pp. 991-997.
 237

MILLER, E. B. 1984. Zoomorphic Vases in the Bronze Age Aegean. Dissertation, New York
University.
MILLER, M. 2011. The Funerary Landscape at Knossos: a Diachronic Study of Minoan
Burial Customs with Special Reference to the Warrior Graves. Oxford.

MISCH, P. 1992. Die Askoi in der Bronzezeit: eine typologische Studie zur Entwicklung
askoider Gefässformen in der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Griechenlands und angrenzender
Gebiete. Jonsered.

MOMMSEN, H. – MARAN, J. 2000-2001. Production Places of some Mycenaean Pictorial

Vessels: the Contribution of Chemical Pottery Analysis. OpAth 25-26, pp. 95-106.

MOORE, A.D. – TAYLOUR, W.D. 1999. The Temple Complex: Well Built Mycenae. The
Helleno-British Excavations within the Citadel at Mycenae, 1959-1969. Oxford.
MORGAN, L. 1978. The Ship Procession in the 'Miniature Fresco'. C. Doumas (ed.), Thera
and the Aegean World I. Papers Presented at the Second International Scientific Congress,
Santorini, Greece, August 1978, London, pp. 629-644.
MORGAN, L. 1985. Idea, Idiom and Iconography. P. Darcque and J-C. Poursat (eds.),
L'Iconographie minoenne. Actes de la table ronde d'Athènes (21-22 avril 1983), Athens, pp.
5-19.
MORGAN, L. 1987. A Minoan Larnax from Knossos. BSA 82, pp. 171-200.

MORGAN, L. 1988. The Miniature Wall paintings of Thera: a Study in Aegean Culture and
Iconography. Cambridge.

MORGAN, L. 1989. Ambiguity and Interpretation. I. Pini (ed.), Fragen und Probleme der
Bronzezeitlichen Ägäischen Glyptik. 3. Internationalen Marburger Siegel- Symposium 5.-7.
September 1985. CMS Beiheft 3, Mainz, pp. 145-162.

MORGAN, L. 1995. Of Animals and Men: The Symbolic Parallel. C. Morris (ed.), KLADOS:
Essays in Honour of J. N. Coldstream, London, pp. 171-184.

MORGAN, L. 2005. New Discoveries and New Ideas in Aegean Wall Painting. L. Morgan
(ed.), Aegean Wall Painting: A Tribute to Mark Cameron, London, pp. 21-44.

MORGAN, L. 2016. The Transformative Power of Mural Art: Ritual, Space, Symbolism, and
the Mythic Imagination. Aegaeum 36. Metaphysis, Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean
Bronze Age, Proceedings of the 15th International Aegean Conference at the Institute for
Oriental and European Archaeology, Department Aegean and Anatolia, Austrian Academy of
Sciences and at the Institute of Classical Archaeology, University of Vienna on 22-25 April
2014. Leuven-Liege, pp. 187-197.

MORRICONE, L. 1967. Eleona e Langada: Sepolcreti della tarda Età del Bronzo a Coo.
ASAtene 43-44, pp. 5-311.

MORRICONE, L. 1972-1973. Coo - scavi e scoperte nel 'Serraglio' E in localita minori

(1935-1943). ASAtene 50-51, pp. 139-396.
 238

MORRIS, C. 2001. The Language of Gesture in Minoan Religion. R. Laffineur and R. Hägg
(eds.), Aegaeum 22: Potnia: Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of
the 8th International Aegean Conference / 8e Rencontre égéenne internationale. Göteborg
University, 12-15 April 2000, Liège, pp. 245-251.
MORRIS, C. - PEATFIELD, A. 2004. Experiencing Ritual: Shamanic Elements in Minoan
Religion. M. Wedde (ed.), Celebrations: Selected papers and discussions from the Tenth
Anniversary Symposion of the Norwegian Institute at Athens, 12-16 May 1999, Bergen, pp.
35-59.
MORTON 2001. The Role of the Physical Environment in Ancient Greek Seafaring. Leiden.
MOUNTJOY, P.A. 1986. Mycenaean Decorated Pottery: A Guide to Identification. Göteborg.
MOUNTJOY, P.A. 1988. The LH IIIA Pottery from Ayios Stephanos, Laconia. E.B. French
and K.A. Wardle (eds.), Problems in Greek Prehistory. Papers Presented at the Centenary
Conference of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, Manchester, April 1986, Bristol,
pp. 185-191.
MOUNTJOY, P. A. 1993. Mycenaean Pottery: An Introduction. Oxford.
MOUNTJOY, P. A. 1995. Thorikos Mine no. 3: The Mycenaean Pottery. BSA 90, pp. 195-
228.
MOUNTJOY, P. A. 1997-1998. An Octopus Stirrup Jar from Kalymnos. OpAth 22-23, pp.
152-154.

MOUNTJOY, P. A. 1999. Regional Mycenaean Decorated Pottery. Vols. 1, 2. Rahden.

MOUNTJOY, P.A. 2003. Knossos: the South House. London.

MOUNTJOY, P. A. 2005. Mycenaean Connections with the Near East in LH IIIC: Ships and
Sea Peoples. R. Laffineur and E. Greco (eds.), Aegaeum 25: Emporia: Aegeans in the Central
and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference/10e
Rencontre égéenne internationale, Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14-18 April 2004,
Liège and Austin, pp. 423-427.

MOUNTJOY, P. A. 2009. The Late Minoan II-III and Mycenaean Pottery from the 1911
Excavations at Phylakopi on Melos. BSA 104, pp. 73-135.

MÜLLER, K. 1909. Alt-Pylos II: Die Funde aus den Kuppelgräbern von Kakovatos. AM 34,
pp. 269–328.

MÜLLER, K. 1915. Frühmykenische Reliefs aus Kreta und vom griechischen Festland. J.d.I
XXX, pp. 242-336.
MÜLLER, H.P. 1995. Das Problem der Tierbezeichnungen in der althebräischen
Lexikographie. SEL 12, pp. 135-147.

MUHLY, P. 1992. Minōikos laxeutos taphos ston Poro Hērakleiou (anaskaphēs 1967).
Athens.
 239

MYERHOFF, B.G., 1976. Shamanic Equilibrium: Balance and Mediation in Known and
Unknown Worlds. W.D. Hand (ed.), American Folk Medicine, A Symposium, Berkeley, pp.
99–108.

MYERS, J. 1902-1903. Excavations at Palaikastro II. The Sanctuary-Site of Petsofa. BSA 9,

pp. 356-387.

MYLONAS, G. E. 1936. Eleusiniaka. AJA 40(4), pp. 415-431

MYLONAS, G. E. 1953. Anaskaphi nekrotaphio Eleusinos. Praktika, pp. 81-88.

MYLONAS, G. E. 1964. Grave Circle B of Mycenae. Lund.

MYLONAS, G. E. 1966. Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age. Princeton.

MYLONAS, G. E. 1969. Vases with Bird Representations. AAA 2(2), pp. 210-212.
MYLONAS, G. E. 1970. Vases with Bird Representations - II. AAA 3(1), pp. 89-91.

MYLONAS, G. E. 1972. Anaskafi Mikinon (Mycenae). Praktika 1970, pp. 118-124.

MYLONAS, G. E. 1983. Mycenae Rich in Gold. Athens.

MYNOTT, J. 2012. Birdscapes: Birds in Our Imagination and Experience. Princeton.

NAIR, P.T. 1974. The Peacock Cult in Asia, Asian Folklore Studies 33(2), pp. 93-170.

NEUMANN, G. 2006. '...Gans und Hund und ihresgleichen...'. S. Deger-Jalkotzy and O.

Panagl (eds.), Die neuen Linear B-Texte aus Theben. Ihr Aufschlusswert für die mykenische
Sprache und Kultur. Akten des internationalen Forschungskolloquiums an der
Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 5.-6. Dezember 2002, Vienna, pp. 125-138.

NIEMEIER, W.-D. 1985. Die Palaststilkeramik von Knossos: Stil, Chronologie und
historischer Kontext. Berlin.

NIEMEIER, W.-D. 1989. Zur Ikonographie von Gottheiten und Adoranten in den Kultszenen
auf minoischen und mykenischen Siegeln. I.Pini, (ed)., Fragen und Probleme der
Bronzezeitlichen Ägäischen Glyptik. 3. Internationales Marburger Siegel-Symposium 5.-7.
September 1985, Berlin, pp. 163-186.

NIEMEIER, W.-D. 1990. Cult Scenes on Gold Rings from the Argolid. R. Hägg and G.C.
Nordquist (eds.), Celebrations of Death and Divinity in the Bronze Age Argolid: Proceedings
of the Sixth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 11-13 June, 1988,
Stockholm, pp. 165-170.

NIEMEIER, W-D. 1992. Iconography and Context: The Thera Frescoes. R. Laffineur and J.L.
Crowley, (eds.), Aegaeum 8: EIKON. Aegean Bronze Age Iconography: Shaping a
Methodology. 4th International Aegean Conference, University of Tasmania, Hobart, 6-9
April 1992, Liège, pp. 97-104.
 240

NIGHTINGALE, G. 2008. Tiny, Fragile, Common, Precious. Mycenaean Glass and Faience
Beads and Other Objects. C.M. Jackson and E.C. Wager (eds.), Vitreous Materials in the Late
Bronze Age Aegean, Oxford, pp. 64-104.

NIKOLAKOPOULOU, I. 2007. Aspects of Interaction between the Cyclades and the

Mainland in the Middle Bronze Age. F. Felton, W. Gauss and R. Smetana (eds.), Middle
Helladic Pottery and Synchronisms. Proceedings of the International Workshop Held at
Salzburg, October 31st – November 2nd, 2004, Vienna, pp. 347-359.

NIKOLAKOPOULOU, I. – GEORMA, F. – MOSCHOU, A. – SOFIANOU, P. 2008.

Trapped in the Middle: New Stratigraphic and Ceramic Evidence from Middle Cycladic
Akrotiri, Thera. N. Brodie, J. Doole, G. Gavalas and C. Renfrew (eds.), Horizon. Ορίζων: A
colloquium on the prehistory of the Cyclades, Cambridge, pp. 311-324.
NIKOLAKOPOULOU, I. 2009. 'Beware Cretans Bearing gifts'. Tracing the Origins of
Minoan Influence at Akrotiri, Thera. C.F. Macdonald, E. Hallager and W.-D. Niemeier (eds.),
The Minoans in the central, eastern and northern Aegean - new evidence: Acts of a Minoan
Seminar 22-23 January 2005 in collaboration with the Danish Institute at Athens and the
German Archaeological Institute at Athens, Athens, pp. 31-39.
NIKOLAKOPOULOU, I. 2010. Middle Cycladic Iconography: a Social Context for ‘A new
Chapter in Aegean Art'. O. Krzyszkowska (ed.), Cretan Offerings. Studies in Honour of Peter
Warren, London, pp. 213-222.
NIKOLAKOPOULOU, I. 2013. Middle Minoan III beyond Crete: the Evidence from Thera.
C. F. Macdonald and C. Knappett (eds.), Intermezzo: Intermediacy and Regeneration in
Middle Minoan III Palatial Crete, London, pp. 213-219.

NILSSON, M.P. 1950. The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and its Survival in Greek Religion.
2nd rev. ed. Lund.

OLIVIER, J.-P. 1975. Le disque de Phaistos. Paris.

ONASSOGLOU, A. 1985. Die "talismanischen" Siegel. Berlin.

OULIÉ, M. 1926. Les animaux dans la peinture de la Créte préhellénique. Dissertation.

University of Paris.

PALAIMA, T. G. 2003. Reviewing the New Linear B Tablets from Thebes. Kadmos 42, pp.
31-38.
PANAGIOTAKI, M. 1999. The Central Palace Sanctuary at Knossos. London

PANTELIDOU, M. 1970. Taphoi tis Pylou. AAA 3, pp. 124-136.

PAPADATOS, Y. 2005. Tholos Tomb Gamma: A Prepalatial Tholos Tomb at Phourni,

Archanes. Philadelphia

PAPADIMITRIOU, I. 1950. Anaskaphai en Mykenais. Praktika 1950, pp. 203-233.

PAPADIMITRIOU, I. 1951. Anaskaphai en Mykenais. Praktika 1951, pp. 194-203.

 241

PAPADIMITRIOU, A. 2010. Oi anaskaphes sto Nosokomeio tou Argous, A. Philippa-

Touchais, G. Touchais, S. Voutsaki and J. Wright (eds.), MESOHELLADIKA: The Greek
Mainland in the Middle Bronze Age, Paris, pp. 45-56.

PAPADIMITRIOU, A. – THALER, U. – MARAN, J. 2015. Bearing the Pomegranate Bearer:

A New Wall-Painting Scene from Tiryns. H. Brecoulaki, J.L. Davis and S. R. Stocker (eds.),
Mycenaean Wall Painting in Context: New Discoveries, Old Finds Reconsidered, Athens, pp.
173-211.

PAPADOPOULOS, T. J. 1976. Excavations at Aigion - 1970. Göteborg.

PAPADOPOULOS, T. J. 1978-1979. Mycenaean Achaea. Göteborg

PAPADOPOULOS, T. J. 1980. Zwei neue Entenaskoi aus Achaea. AA 1981, pp. 166-170.

PAPADOPOULOS, T. J. 1986. A Mycenaean Inlaid Dagger from Messenia (?) in Japan.

Filia epi is Georgion E. Mylonan dia ta 60 eti tu anaskafiku tu ergu. Library of the
Archaeological Society of Athens 103, Athens, pp. 127-135.

PAPADOPOULOS, T. J. 1998. The Late Bronze Age Daggers of the Aegean I. Stuttgart.

PAPADOPOULOS, A. 2009. Warriors, Hunters and Ships in the Late Helladic IIIC Aegean:
changes in the iconography of warfare? C. Bachhuber and R.G. Roberts (eds.), Forces of
Transformation: The End of the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean. Proceedings of an
international symposium held at St. John's College, University of Oxford, 25-6th March
2006, Oxford, pp. 69-77.
PAPADOPOULOS, T. J. – KONTORLI-PAPADOPOULOU, L. 2012. Specific Types of
Jewellery from Late Bronze Age Tombs in Western Greece as Evidence for Social
Differentiation. M.-L. Nosch and R. Laffineur (eds.), Aegaeum 33: Kosmos: Jewellery,
Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 13th International
Aegean Conference/13e Rencontre égéenne internationale, University of Copenhagen, Danish
National Research Foundation's Centre for Textile Research, 21–26 April 2010, Leuven and
Liege, pp. 515–522.
PAPADOPOULOU, Z. 2013. Middle Cycladic Pictorial Pottery from Antiparos: The Case of
the Nippled Ewer of the Birds. Vlachopoulos, A. (ed.), Paintbrushes: wall-painting and vase-
painting of the 2nd millennium BC in dialogue. Athens, pp. 71-73.
PAPAGEORGIOU, I. 2014. The Practice of Bird Hunting in the Aegean of the Second
Millennium BC: An Investigation, BSA 109, pp. 111-128.
PAPAGIANNOPOULOU, A. 1990. Some Changes in the BA Pottery Production at Akrotiri
and their Possible Implications. D.A. Hardy, C.G. Doumas, J.A. Sakellarakis, and P.M.
Warren (eds.), Thera and the Aegean World III. Vol. 1: Archaeology. Proceedings of the
Third International Congress, Santorini, Greece, 3-9 September 1989, London, pp. 57-66.
PAPAGIANNOPOULOU, A. 1991. The Influence of Middle Minoan Pottery on the
Cyclades. Göteborg.
 242

PAPAGIANNOPOULOU, A. 2008. From Pots to Pictures: Middle Cycladic Figurative Art

from Akrotiri, Thera. N. Brodie, J. Doole, G. Gavalas and C. Renfrew (eds.), Horizon.
Ορίζων: A colloquium on the prehistory of the Cyclades, Cambridge, pp. 433-449.
PAPAPOSTOLOU, I. 1974. Perisilloyi archeon kai elassones anaskafe: 2. Eis ditikin Kritin.
Praktika, pp. 247-256.
PAPAPOSTOLOU, I.A. – GODART, L. – J.-P. OLIVIER. 1976. Grammiki A sto minoïko
archio ton Chanion. Athens and Rome.
PAPATHANASSOPOULOS, G. 1981. Neolithic and Cycladic civilization. Athens.
PAPATSAROUCHA, E. 2014. Minoan Landscapes: Plant Communities and Their Artistic
Representations. G. Touchais, R. Laffineur and F. Rougemont (eds.), Aegaeum 37: Physis:
l'environnement naturel et la relation homme-milieu dans le monde égéen protohistorique.
Actes de la 14e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Paris, Institut National d'Histoire de l'Art
(INHA), 11-14 décembre 2012, Leuven and Liege, pp. 199-210.
PARIBENI, R. 1903. Lavori eseguiti dalla mission archaeological italiana nel palazzo e nella
necropolis di Haghia Triada dal 23 febbraio al 15 iuglio 1903. Rendlinc 5(12), pp. 317-351.
PARIBENI, R. 1904. Richerche nel sepolcreto di Haghia Triada presso Phaestos. MonAnt 14,
pp. 678 – 756.
PARIBENI, R. 1908. Il sarcofago dipinto di Haghia Triada, MonAnt XIX, pp. 677-756.
PASCHALIDIS, C. P. 2001. New Pictorial Ceramic Finds from Brauron, Attica: Stylistic
Evidence for Local Production. SMEA 43.1, pp. 93-110.
PEARSON, J.L. 2002. Shamanism and the Ancient Mind: A Cognitive Approach to
Archaeology. Walnut Creek.
PEATFIELD, A. 1990. Minoan Peak Sanctuaries: History and Society. OpAth 18, pp. 117-
132.
PEATFIELD, A. 1992. Rural Ritual in Bronze Age Crete: The Peak Sanctuary at Atsipadhes.
Cambridge Archaeological Journal 2(1), pp. 59 – 87.
PEATFIELD, A. 1995. Water, Fertility, and Purification in Minoan Religion. C. Morris (ed.),
Klados: Essays in Honour of J. N. Coldstream, BICS, Supplement 63, London, pp. 217-227.
PEATFIELD, A. 2001. Divinity and Performance on Minoan Peak Sanctuaries. R. Laffineur
and R. Hägg (eds.), Aegaeum 22: Potnia: Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age.
Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference / 8e Rencontre égéenne
internationale. Göteborg University, 12-15 April 2000, Liège, pp. 51-55.
PELON, O. 1970. Exploration des maisons et quartiers d'habitation ; 3. - Le quartier E, 1963
– 1966. Paris.
PENDLEBURY, H.W. – PENDLEBURY, J.D.S. – MONEY-COUTTS, M.B. 1935-36.
Excavations in the Plain of Lasithi I. The Plain of Trapeza. BSA 36, pp. 5-131.
PERNIER, L. 1902. Scavi della mission italiana a Phaestos 1900-1901. Rapporto
preliminare.
 243

PERNIER, L. 1935. Il palazzo minoico di Festòs; scavi e studi della Missione archeologica
italiana a Creta dal 1900. Rome.

PERROT, G. – CHIPIEZ, C. 1894. History of Art in Primitive Greece. London.

PERSSON, A.W. 1931. The Royal Tombs at Dendra near Midea. Lund.

PERSSON, A. W. 1942. New Tombs at Dendra near Midea. Lund.

PETRAKIS, V. 2004. Ship Representations on Late Helladic III C Pictorial Pottery: Some
Notes. Inferno IX, pp. 1-5.
PETRAKIS, V. P. 2011. Politics of the Sea in the Late Bronze Age II-III Aegean:
Iconographic Preferences and Textual Perspectives. G. Vavouranakis (ed.), The Seascape in
Aegean Prehistory, Athens, pp. 185-234.
PETSAS, P.M. 1971. Eyion (Aiyion). ArchDelt 26(B1), pp. 175-185.
PHARAKLAS, N. 1968. Thive (Thebes). ArchDelt 23(B1), pp. 207-224.

PHILIPPIDES, M. 1985. Birds, Bards, and Gods: A Mycenaean Fresco. The Classical
Bulletin 61(2), pp. 25-28.

PHILLIPS, J. 2006. Why?... And Why Not? Minoan Reception and Perceptions of Egyptian
Influence. E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger, D. Melman and A. Schwab (eds.), Timelines:
Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, Czerny, Ernst, Irmgard Hein, Hermann Hunger,
Dagmar Melman and Angela Schwab, eds. Volume 2, Leuven, pp. 293-300.

PHILLIPS, J. 2008. Aegyptiaca on the Island of Crete in Their Chronological Context: A

Critical Review, Volume 1 and 2. Wien.

PICARD, O. 1991. Guide de Delphes. Le Musée. Athens.

PILAFIDIS-WILLIAMS, K. 1998. The Sanctuary of Aphaia on Aigina in the Bronze Age.

Munich.

PINI, I. 1973. Ein Siegelabdruck im Archäologischen Museum Iraklion. Ta pepragmena tu G'

Diethnus Kritoloyiku Sinedriu (Rethymno, 18-23 Sept. 1971), Athens, pp. 221-230.

PINI, I. 1989. Ergänzende Bemerkungen zum 'Ring des Minos'. AA 1989(1), pp. 1-4.

PLATON, E. 1987. Elephantina plakidia apo to anatoliko ktirio sti Zakro. Eilapine: tomos
timētikos gia ton kathēgētē Nikolao Platōna, Heraklion, pp. 209-226.

PLATON, L. 2013. Iconography Workshops at Minoan Zakros. Marrying Political-Religious

Symbolism with Expressive Freedom? Vlachopoulos, A. (ed.) Paintbrushes: wall-painting
and vase-painting of the 2nd millennium BC in dialogue, Athens, pp. 95-99.

PLATON, N. 1952a. Anaskafi LM III. Praktika, pp. 619 – 648.

 244

PLATON, N. 1952b. E archaologike kinisis en Kriti kata to etos 1952. CretChron 6, pp. 471-
481.

PLATON, N. 1959. H archaeologiki kinisis en Kriti kata to etos 1959. CretChron 13, pp. 359-
393.

PLATON, N. 1963. Archaiotitis kai mnimeia Kritis. ADelt 17, pp. 281-301.

PLATON, N. 1966. Minoïki lira (A Minoan Lyre). ArchEph 54, pp. 208-232.

PLATON, N. 1971. Zakros: the Discovery of a Lost Palace of Ancient Crete. New York.

PLATON, N. 1983. The Minoan Thalassocracy and the Golden Ring of Minos. R. Hägg and
N. Marinatos (eds.), The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality. Proceedings of the Third
International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 31 May - 5 June, 1982, Göteborg,
pp. 65-69.

PLATON, N. 1990(1993). Anaskafi Zakru. Praktika, pp. 279-299.

POLLARD, J. 1977. Birds in Greek Life and Myth. London.

POPHAM, M.R. 1965. Some Late Minoan III Pottery from Crete. BSA 60, pp. 316-342.

POPHAM, M.R. 1967. Late Minoan Pottery, a Summary. BSA 62, pp. 337-351.

POPHAM, M. R. 1970. The Destruction of the Palace at Knossos. Pottery of the Late Minoan
III A Period. Göteborg.
POPHAM, M. R. 1971. Excavations at Lefkandi, Euboea, in 1970. AJA 75(2), p. 211.

POPHAM, M.R., 1973. Sellopoulo Tomb 4. Some Aspects of the Finds, Ta pepragmena tu G'
Diethnus Kritoloyiku Sinedriu (Rethymno, 18-23 Sept. 1971), pp. 268-273.

POPHAM, M.R. - CATLING, H.W. 1974. Sellopoulo Tombs 3 and 4, Two Late Minoan
Graves near Knossos. BSA 69, pp. 195-257.

POPHAM, M.R. – SACKETT, L.H. – THEMELIS, P.G. (eds.) 1979. Lefkandi I. The Iron
Age. The Settlement. The Cemeteries. London.

POPHAM, M.R. (et al.) 1984. The Minoan Unexplored Mansion at Knossos. Oxford.

POPHAM. M.R. 1994. Late Minoan II to the End of the Bronze Age. D. Evely, H. Hughes-
Brock, and N. Momigliano (eds.), Knossos: A Labyrinth of History. Papers Presented in
Honour of Sinclair Hood, British School at Athens, Greece, Oxford, pp. 89-103.

POPHAM, M. R. – GILL, M. 1995. The Latest Sealings from the Palace and Houses at
Knossos. Oxford.
 245

PORTER, R. 2011. Insights into Egyptian Horus Falcon Imagery by Way of Real Falcons and
Horus Falcon Influence in the Aegean in the Middle Bronze Age. Journal of Ancient Egyptian
Interconnections 3(3), pp. 27-52.

POURSAT, J.-C. 1977. Catalogue des ivoires mycéniens du Musée national d'Athènes.
Athens and Paris.

POURSAT, J.-C. – PELON, O. – BRAURAIN, C. – DARCQUE, P. – VERLINDEN, C.

1984. Malia. BCH 108(2), pp. 880-891.

POURSAT, J.-C. 1992. Guide de Malia au temps des premiers palais, le quartier Mu. Paris.

POURSAT, J.-C. 1996. Fouilles exécutées à Malia: Le quartier Mu III. Artisans minoens: Les
maisons-ateliers du quartier Mu. Athens.

POURSAT, J.-C. 2000. Les sceaux hiéroglyphiques dans l’administration minoenne: usage et
fonction. M. Perna (ed.), Administrative Documents in the Aegean and Their Near Eastern
Counterparts: Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Naples, February 29 - March 2,
1996, Torino, pp. 187-191.

PRENT, M. 2005. Cretan Sanctuaries and Cults. Continuity and Change from Late Minoan
IIIC to the Archaic Period. Leiden and Boston.

PRESTON, L., 2004a. Final Palatial Knossos and Post Palatial Crete: a Mortuary Perspective
on Political Dynamics, G. Cadogan (ed.), Knossos: Palace, City, State, Heraklion, pp. 137-
145.

PRESTON, L. 2004b. Contextualising the Larnax: Tradition, Innovation and Regionalism in

Coffin Use on Late Minoan II-IIIB Crete. OJA 23(2), pp. 177-197.
PRESTON, L. 2009. Ritual Activity at Karphi: A Reappraisal. A.-L. D’Agata and A. Van de
Moortel (eds.), Essays on Ritual and Cult in Crete in Honor of Geraldine C. Gesell, Hesperia
Supplements 42, Princeton, pp. 137-151.
PRIVITERA, S. 2008. The LM III Frescoes from the Villaggio at Haghia Triada: New
Observations on Context and Chronology. Creta Antica 9, pp. 111-137.

PROKOPIOU-GODART, T. 1990, ΥΜ Θολωτός τάφος Σάτας Αμαρίου Ρεθύμνης, in

Πεπραγμενα του 6ου Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, vol. A2, pp.185-205.

PROTONOTARIOU-DEILAKI, E. 1965 (1960), EphArch, pp. 123-133.

PROTONOTARIOU-DEILAKI, E. 1980. I timvi tu Argus. Doctoral Dissertation, University

of Athens. Athens.

RAMBACH, J. 2000. Kykladen I and II. Bonn.

REESE, D. S. – MARK, J. R. – PAYNE, S. 1995. The Minoan Fauna. J. W. Shaw and M. C.

Shaw (eds.), Kommos: An Excavation on the South Coast of Crete. Vol. I: The Kommos
 246

Region and Houses of the Minoan Town. Part I: The Kommos Region, Ecology, and Minoan
Industry, Princeton, pp. 163-291.

REESE, D.S. 2008. Faunal Remains from Late Helladic Lerna (Argolid, Greece).
Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 8(1), pp. 5-25.

REGAN, T. – SINGER, P. (eds.). 1989. Animal Rights and Human Obligations. Englewood
Cliffs.

REHAK, P. 1994. The Aegean ‘Priest’on CMS I 223. Kadmos 33, pp. 76-84.

REHAK, P. - YOUNGER, J.G. 2008. Minoan Culture: Religion, Burial Customs and
Administration, C.W. Shelmerdine (ed.), The Cambridge companion to the Aegean Bronze
Age, Cambridge, pp. 165-184.
REHM, E. 1997. Kykladen und Alter Orient. Bestandskatalog des Badischen Landesmuseums
Karlsruhe. Karlsruhe.
RENFREW, C. 1972. The Emergence of Civilisation. The Cyclades and the Aegean in the
Third Millennium B.C. London.
RENFREW, C. 1985. The Archaeology of Cult. The Sanctuary at Phylakopi. London.
RENFREW, C. 1991. The Cycladic Spirit. London.
RENFREW, C. – DOUMAS, C. – MARANGOU, L. – GAVALAS, G., (eds.) 2007a. Keros,
Dhaskalio Kavos: the Investigations of 1987-88. Keros Volume 1. Cambridge.
RENFREW, C. – BRODIE, N. – MORRIS, C. – SCARRE, C., (eds.) 2007b. Excavations at
Phylakopi in Melos 1974-77. London.
RETHEMIOTAKIS, G. 1979. Larnakes and Vases from Kavrochori of Iraklion (in Greek).
ArchDelt 34, pp. 228-259.

RETHEMIOTAKIS, G. 1987. Larnakes kai angeia apo to Kavrochori Herakleiou. EILAPINE.

Tomos timetikos gia ton kathegete Nikolao Platona. Heraklion, pp. 235-243.

RETHEMIOTAKIS, G. 1995. Minoïke larnaka apo to Klima Mesaras. ArchEph 134, pp. 163-
183.

RETHEMIOTAKIS, G. 1997a. A Chest-Shaped Vessel and Other LM IIIC Pottery from

Kastelli Pediada. J. Driessen and A. Farnoux (eds.), La Crète mycénienne: Actes de la Table
Ronde Internationale organisée par l'École française d'Athènes (26-28 Mars 1991), Athens,
pp. 407-421.
RETHEMIOTAKIS, G. 1997b. Late Minoan III Pottery from Kastellis Pediada. E. Hallager,
and B. P. Hallager (eds.), Late Minoan III Pottery Chronology and Terminology: Acts of a
Meeting Held at the Danish Institute at Athens, August 12-14, 1994, Athens, pp. 305-326.

RETHEMIOTAKIS, G. 2001. Minoan Clay Figures and Figurines: from the Neopalatial to
the Subminoan Period. Athens.
 247

RETHEMIOTAKIS, G. 2013. Larnakes apo to Kyparissi Irakleioy - Nea stoiheia gia tin
paroysia tis eikonas toy minoikoy anaktoroy se parastaseis nekrolatreias. Themelion. 24
meletes gia ton daskalo Petro Themeli apo toys mathites kai synergates toy, Athens, pp. 1-15.
RICHTER, G. M. 1953. Handbook of the Greek Collection. Metropolitan Museum.
Cambridge.
RODENWALDT, G. 1912. Die Fresken des Palastes. Athens.
ROUSIOTI, D. 2001. Did the Mycenaeans Believe in Theriomorphic Divinities? R. Laffineur
and R. Hägg (eds.), Aegaeum 22: Potnia: Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age.
Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference / 8e Rencontre égéenne
internationale. Göteborg University, 12-15 April 2000, Liège, pp. 305-314.
ROUSSAKI, M. 2014. New Evidence in Minoan Pictorial Wall Painting: ‘The Swallows
Fresco’from the Knossos Area. G. Touchais, R. Laffineur and F. Rougemont (eds.), Aegaeum
37: Physis: l'environnement naturel et la relation homme-milieu dans le monde égéen
protohistorique. Actes de la 14e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Paris, Institut National
d'Histoire de l'Art (INHA), 11-14 décembre 2012, Leuven and Liege, pp. 539-542.

RUDOLPH, W. 1971. Tiryns 1968: Mykenische und nachmykenische Streufunde von der
Unterburg. U. Jantzen (ed.), Tiryns: Forschungen und Berichte V. Mainz, pp. 87-103.

RUSSELL, H.M. 2006. Sacred or Profane: Swallow-Painted Nippled Ewers from Akrotiri. J.
Day (ed.), Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology (SOMA 2004): Proceedings of the
eighth annual meeting of postgraduate researchers, School of Classics, Trinity College,
Dublin. 20-22 February 2004, Oxford, pp. 147-153.

RUTKOWSKI, B. 1965. Les sarcophages minoens et mycéniens en dehors de la Grèce.

ArcheologiaPar 15 (1964), pp. 153-176.

RUTKOWSKI, B. 1966. Larnasky egejskie (Aegean Larnakes). Warsaw.

RUTKOWSKI, B. 1986. The Cult Places of the Aegean. New Haven.
RUTKOWSKI, B. 1991. Petsofas. A Cretan Peak Sanctuary. Warsaw.
RUTTER, J. 1974. The Late Helladic IIIB and IIIC Periods at Korakou and Gonia in the
Corinthia. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
RUTTER, J. 1992. Cultural Novelties in the Post-Palatial Aegean World: Indices of Vitality
or Decline? W.A. Ward and M.S. Joukowsky (eds.), The Crisis Years: The 12th Century B.C.:
From Beyond the Danube to the Tigris, Iowa, pp. 61-78.
RUTTER, J. 2014. Reading Post-palatial Mycenaean Iconography: Some Lessons from
Lefkandi. Y. Galanakis, T. Wilkinson and J. Bennet (eds.), Αθύρματα: Critical Essays on the
Archaeology of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honour of E. Susan Sherratt, Oxford, pp. 197-
205.

RUUSKANEN, J. 1992. Birds on Aegean Bronze Age Seals: a Study of Representation.

Rovaniemi.
 248

SACKETT, L.H. – POPHAM, M.R. – WARREN, P.M. – ENGSTRAND, L. 1965.

Excavations at Palaikastro VI. BSA 60, pp. 248-315.

SACKETT, L.H. – POPHAM, M.R. 1970. Excavations at Palaikastro VII. BSA 65, pp. 203-
242.

SAKELLARAKIS, J. 1966. Archeotites kai mnimia Kendrikis kai Anatolikis Kritis (Central
and Eastern Crete). ArchDelt 21(B2), pp. 411-419.

SAKELLARAKIS, J. 1971. Elefandinon plion ek Mikinon (An Avory Boat from

Mycenae). ArchEph, pp. 188-233.

SAKELLARAKIS, J. 1976. Kretische Siegel in griechischen Heiligtümern. Tübingen.

SAKELLARAKIS, J. – SAKELLARAKI, E. 1979. Excavation at Archanes (in Greek).

Praktika, pp. 331-392.

SAKELLARAKIS, J. 1992. The Mycenaean Pictorial Style in the National Archaeological

Museum of Athens. Athens.

SAKELLARAKIS, J. 1996. Minoan Religious Influence in the Aegean: The Case of Kythera.
BSA 91, pp. 81-99.

SAKELLARAKIS, J – SAPOUNA-SAKELLARAKI, E. 1997. Archanes. Minoan Crete in a

New Light. Vols. I and II. Athens.

SAKELLARAKIS, J. 2011. Kythēra: to Minōiko Hiero koryphēs ston Hagio Geōrgio sto
vouno. Athens.

SALONEN, A. 1973. Vögel und Vogelfang im alten Mesopotamien. Helsinki.

SANTILLO FRIZELL, B. 1986. Asine II, Results of the Excavations East of the Acropolis,
1970-1974, Fasc. 3: The Late and Final Mycenaean Periods. Stockholm.

SARGNON, O. 1987. Les bijoux préhelléniques. Paris.

SAVIGNONI, L. 1904. Scavi della Missione italiana a Phaestos 1902-1903. MonAnt, pp. 313
– 676.

SCHAAFSMA, P. 1994. Trance and Transformation in the Canyons: Shamanism and

Early Rock Art on the Colorado Plateau. S. Turpin (ed.), Shamanism and Rock
Art in North America, San Antonio, pp. 45–72.

SCHIERING, W. 1982. Landbegehungen in Rethymnon und Umgebung. Berlin.

SCHLIEMANN, H. 1878. Mycenæ: a Narrative of Researches and Discoveries at Mycenæ

and Tiryns. London.

SCHLIEMANN, H. 1880. Mycenae. A Narrative of Researches and Discoveries at Mycenae

and Tiryns. New York.
 249

SCHLIEMANN, H. 1886. Tiryns: the Prehistoric Palace of the Kings of Tiryns: the Results
of the Latest Excavations. London.

SCHMIDT, J. – SCHEID, C. – KOTRSCHAL, K. – BUGNYAR, T. – SCHLOEGL, C. 2011.

Gaze Direction – A Cue for Hidden Food in Rooks (Corvus frugilegus)?, Behavioural
processes 88, pp. 88-93.

SCHOFIELD, E. 1996. Wash and Brush up at the "Travellers' Rest": The Caravanserai
Reconsidered. D. Evely, I.S. Lemos and S. Sherratt (eds.), Minotaur and Centaur: Studies in
the archaeology of Crete and Euboea presented to Mervyn Popham, Oxford, pp. 27-33.

SCHOFIELD, E. 2007. Lefkandi in Late Helladic III C Middle. S. Deger-Jalkotzy and M.

Zavadil (eds.), LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms II: LH III C Middle. Proceedings of
the International Workshop Held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences at Vienna, October
29th and 30th, 2004, pp. 301-313.

SCHOEP, I. – KNAPPETT, C. 2004. Dual Emergence: Evolving Heterarchy, Exploding

Hierarchy. J.C. Barrett and P. Halstead (eds.), The Emergence of Civilisation Revisited,
Oxford, pp. 21-37.
SCHÜRR, D. 1976. Vogel und Fisch auf dem Votivtäfelchen von Psychro. Kadmos 15(1), pp.
89-93.

SEAGER, R. 1906. Excavations at Vasiliki. Transactions of Archaeology. Pennsylvania.

SEAGER, R. 1912. Explorations in the Island of Mochlos. Boston.

SEIRADAKI, M. 1960. Pottery from Karphi. BSA 55, pp. 1-37.

SEIXAS, C.S. – BEGOSSI, A. 2001. Ethnozoology of Fishing Communities from Ilha

Grandes (Atlantic Forest Coast, Brazil). Journal of Ethnobiology 21, pp. 107-135.

SERJEANTSON, D. 2009. Birds. New York and Cambridge.

SGOURITSA, N. 2012. Remarks on Jewels from the Mycenaean Settlement and Cemetery at
Lazarides on Eastern Aegina. M.-L. Nosch and R. Laffineur (eds.), Aegaeum 33: Kosmos:
Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 13th
International Aegean Conference/13e Rencontre égéenne internationale, University of
Copenhagen, Danish National Research Foundation's Centre for Textile Research, 21–26
April 2010, Leuven and Liege, pp. 539–545.

SHAPLAND, A. 2009. Over the Horizon: Human-Animal Relations in Bronze Age Crete.
Unpublished PhD thesis. University College London.

SHAPLAND, A. 2010a. Wild Nature? Human-Animal Relations on Neopalatial Crete.

Cambridge Archaeological Journal 20(1), pp. 109-127.

SHAPLAND, A. 2010b. The Minoan Lion: Presence and Absence on Bronze Age Crete.
WorldArch 42(2), pp. 273-289.
 250

SHAPLAND, A. 2013. Shifting Horizons and Emerging Ontologies in the Bronze Age
Aegean. C. Wyatts (ed.), Relational Archaeologies. Humans – Animals – Things. Abingdon,
pp. 190-208.

SHAW, J. W. 1977. Excavations at Kommos (Crete) during 1976. Hesperia 46(3), pp. 199-
240.

SHAW, J.W. 2006. Kommos. A Minoan Harbor Town and Greek Sanctuary in Southern
Crete. Princeton.

SHAW, J. W. 1978. Evidence for the Minoan Tripartite Shrine. AJA 82(4). pp. 429-448.

SHAW, M. 1978. A Minoan Fresco from Katsamba. AJA 82, pp. 27-34.

SHAW, M. 2005. The Painted Pavilion of the ‘Caravanserai’ at Knossos. L. Morgan (ed.),
Aegean Wall Painting: A Tribute to Mark Cameron, London, pp. 91-111.

SHAW, M. – CHAPIN, A. 2006. The Frescoes from the House of the Frescoes at Knossos: A
Reconsideration of their Architectural Context and a New Reconstruction of the Crocus Panel.
BSA 101, pp. 57-88.

SHAW, M. 2011. A Decorated Minoan Pyxis from House X at Kommos. W. Gauß, M.

Lindblom, R.A.K. Smith and J.C. Wright (eds.), Our Cups Are Full: Pottery and Society in
the Aegean Bronze Age. Papers Presented to Jeremy B. Rutter on the Occasion of his 65th
Birthday, Oxford, pp. 242-250.
SHERRATT, S. 1981. The Pottery of Late Helladic III C and its Significance. Unpublished
Ph.D. thesis. Oxford.
SHERRATT, S. 2000. Catalogue of Cycladic Antiquites in the Ashmolean Museum. The
Captive Spirit. Oxford.
SHIMP, C.P. – HERBRANSON, W.T. – FREMOUW, T. 2001. Avian Visual Attention in
Science and Culture. R.G. Cook (ed.), Avian Visual Cognition,
www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/avc/shimp/
SCHON, R. 2007. Chariots, Industry, and Elite Power at Pylos. M.L. Galaty and W.A.
Parkinson (eds.), Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces II, Los Angeles, pp. 133-145.
SIEVEKING, J. – HACKL, R. (eds.) 1912. Die königliche Vasensammlung zu München.
Munich.

SIMANDIRAKI-GRIMSHAW, A., 2010. Minoan Animal-Human Hybridity. D.B. Counts

and B. Arnold (eds.), The Master of Animals in Old World Iconography, Budapest, pp. 93-
106.

SIMANDIRAKI-GRIMSHAW, A. - STEVENS, F. 2012. Adorning the Body: Animals as

Ornaments in Bronze Age Crete. M. L. Nosch and R. Laffineur (eds.), Aegaeum 33: Kosmos:
Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 13th
International Aegean Conference/13e Rencontre égéenne internationale, University of
 251

Copenhagen, Danish National Research Foundation's Centre for Textile Research, 21–26
April 2010, Leuven and Liege, pp. 597-608.

SINCLAIR, R. – TUKE, L. – OPIANG, M. 2010. What the Locals Know: Comparing

Traditional and Scientific Knowledge of Megapodes in Melanesia, A. Gosler and S.
Tidemann (eds.), Ethno-ornithology: birds, indigenous peoples, culture and society, London,
pp. 115-140.

SLENCZKA, E. 1974. Tiryns. Forschungen und Berichte, Band VII. Figürlich bemalte
mykenische Keramik aus Tiryns. Mainz.
SMEE, M.H. 1966. A Late Minoan Tomb at Palaikastro. BSA 61, pp. 157-162.
SMITH, R. 2010. Mochlos IIB: Period IV. The Mycenaean Settlement and Cemetery: The
Pottery. Philadelphia.
SOLES, P. - SOLES, J. S. – DAVARAS, C. 2003. Mochlos IA, Period III. Neopalatial
Settlement on the Coast: The Artisans’ Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri. The
Sites. Philadelphia.

SOLES, J.S. 2008. Mochlos IIA: Period IV, the Mycenaean Settlement and Cemetery: the
Sites. Philadelphia.

SOTIRAKOPOULOU, P. – STAMPOLIDIS, N.C. 2007. Aegean Waves: Artworks of the

Early Cycladic Culture in the Museum of Cycladic Art at Athens. Milan.

SOTIRAKOPOULOU, P. 2010. The Cycladic Middle Bronze Age: A 'Dark Age' in Aegean
Prehistory or a Dark Spot in Archaeological Research? A. Philippa-Touchais, G. Touchais, S.
Voutsaki and J. Wright (eds.), Mesohelladika. Μεσοελλαδικά: La Grèce continentale au
Bronze Moyen. Η ηπειρωτική Ελλάδα στη Μέση εποχή του Χαλκού. The Greek Mainland in the
Middle Bronze Age. Actes du colloque international organisé par l'École française d'Athènes,
en collaboration avec l'American School of Classical Studies at Athens et le Netherlands
Institute in Athens, Athènes, 8-12 mars 2006, Athens, pp. 825-839.
SPAER, M. 2001. Ancient Glass in the Israel Museum: Beads and Other Small Objects.
Jerusalem.
SPARTZ, E. 1962. Das Wappenbild des Herrn und der Herrin der Tiere in der minoisch-
mykenischen und frühgriechischen Kunst. Dissertation University of Munich.
SPYROPOULOS, T.G. 1972. Hysteromyk̄enaïkoi Helladikoi thēsauroi. Athens.
SPYROPOULOS, T.G. – CHADWICK, J. – MELENA, J.L. 1975. The Thebes Tablets 2.
Salamanca.
STEEL, L. 1999. Wine Kraters and Chariots: the Mycenaean Pictorial Style
Reconsidered. P.P. Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur and W.-D. Neimeier (eds.),
Meletemata: Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters
His 65th Year. Vol. III, Liège, pp. 803-811.
STEFANI, E. – BANTI, L. 1930-31. La grande tomba a tholos di Haghia Triada. ASAtene 13-
14, pp. 146-251.
 252

STOCKER, S. R. – DAVIS, J.L. 2004. Animal Sacrifice, Archives, and Feasting at the Palace
of Nestor. J.C. Wright (ed.), The Mycenaean Feast, Princeton, pp. 59-75.
STOCKHAMMER, P. 2009. The Change of Pottery's Social Meaning at the End of the
Bronze Age: new evidence from Tiryns. C. Bachhuber and R. G. Roberts (eds.), Forces of
Transformation: The End of the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean. Proceedings of an
international symposium held at St. John's College, University of Oxford, 25-6th March 2006,
Oxford, pp. 164-169.
STRESEMANN, E. – NOWAK, E. 1958. Die Ausbreitung der Türkentaube in Asien und
Europa. Journal für Ornithologie 99(3), pp. 243-396.

STUBBING, F.H. 1947. The Mycenaean Pottery of Attica. BSA 42, pp. 1-75.

STUBBINGS, F.H. 1975. The Circus Pot Reconsidered. Wandlungen: Studien zur antiken
und neueren Kunst: Ernst Homann-Wedeking gewidmet. Institut für klassische Archäologie
der Universität München, Waldsassen-Bayern, pp. 16-18.

SUMMERS, D. 2003. Real Spaces: World Art History and the Rise of Western Modernism.
London and New York.

SVENSSON, L. – MULLARNEY, K. – ZETTERSTRÖM, D. 2009. Collins Bird Guide.

London.

SYMEONOGLOU, S. 1973. Kadmeia I. Mycenaean Finds from Thebes, Greece, Excavation

at 14 Oedipus St. Göteborg.

TAMVAKI, A. 1973. Some Unusual Mycenaean Terracottas from the Citadel House. BSA 68,
pp. 207-265.

TAYLOUR, L.W. 1964. The Mycenaeans. London.

TAYLOUR, W. D. – JANKO, R. 2008. Ayios Stephanos: Excavations at a Bronze Age and

Medieval Settlement in Southern Laconia. London.

TELEVANTOU, C. 1994. Akrotiri Thiras: I tihografies tis Ditikis Ikias. Vivliothiki tis en
Athines Arheoloyikis Eterias 143. Athens.
THIMME, J. 1966. Badisches Landesmuseum: Neuerwerbungen 1965. Jahrbuch der
Staatlichen Kunstsammlungen in Baden-Württemberg III, pp. 223-225.
THIMME, J. 1977. Art and Culture of the Cyclades: Handbook of an Ancient Civilisation.
Karlsruhe.
THOMAS, C - WEDDE, M. 2001. Desperately Seeking Potnia. R. Laffineur and R. Hägg
(eds.), Aegaeum 22: Potnia: Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of
the 8th International Aegean Conference / 8e Rencontre égéenne internationale. Göteborg
University, 12-15 April 2000, Liège, pp. 3-14.
TIDEMANN, S. – WHITESIDE, T. 2010. Aboriginal Stories: The Riches and Colour of
Australian Birds, A. Gosler and S. Tidemann (eds.), Ethno-ornithology: birds, indigenous
peoples, culture and society, London, pp. 153-180.
 253

TOUCHAIS, G. 1978. Chronique des fouilles et decouvertes archéologiques en Grèce en

1977. BCH 102(2), pp. 641-770.

TOUCHAIS, G. 1985. Chronique des fouilles en 1984, BCH 109, pp. 759-862.

TOURNAVITOU, I. 1997. Jewellers' Moulds and Jewellers' Workshops in Mycenaean

Greece: An Archaeological Utopia. C. Gillis, C. Risberg, and B. Sjöberg (eds.), Trade and
Production in Premonetary Greece: Production and the Craftsman. Proceedings of the 4th
and 5th International Workshops, Athens 1994 and 1995, Jonsered, pp. 209-256.

TOYNBEE, J.M.C. 1973. Animals in Roman Life and Art. London.

TRANTALIDOU, K. 1990. Animals and Human Diet in the Prehistoric Aegean. D.A. Hardy,
J. Keller, V.P. Galanopoulos, N.C. Flemming and T.H. Druitt (eds.), Thera and the Aegean
World III. Vol. 2: Earth Sciences. Proceedings of the Third International Congress, Santorini,
Greece, 3-9 September 1989, London, pp. 392-405.

TRANTALIDOU, K., 2000. Animal Bones and Animal Representations at Late Bronze Age
Akrotiri. S. Sherratt (ed.), The Wall Paintings of Thera. Proceedings of the First International
Symposium, Petros M. Nomikos Conference Centre, Thera, Hellas, Vol. II. , 30 August - 4
September 1997 2000, Piraeus, pp. 709-735.

TRANTALIDOU, K. 2001. Zootechnia kai oikonomia sto Akrotiri. I.M. Danezis (ed.)
Santorini: Thira, Thirasia, Aspronisi, Ifaisteia, Athens, pp. 193-204.

TRANTALIDOU, K. 2013. Dans l'ombre du rite: vestiges d'animaux et pratiques

sacrificielles en Grèce antique. Note sur la diversité des contextes et les difficultés de
recherche rencontrées. G. Ekroth and J. Wallenstein (eds.), Bones, behaviour and belief: The
zooarchaeological evidence as a source for ritual practice in ancient Greece and beyond,
Stockholm, pp. 61-86.
TRIPATHI, D. N. 1988. Bronzework of Mainland Greece from c. 2600 B.C.to c. 1450 B.C.
Göteborg.
TSIPOPOULOU, M. – VAGNETTI, L. 1999. A Bath-Tub Larnax from Tourloti (Sitia), East
Crete. SMEA 41(1), pp. 123-143.
TSOUNTAS, C. 1888. Anaskaphai taphon en Mykenais, ArchEph, 119-180.
TSOUNTAS, C. 1897. Mētrai kai xiphē ek Mykenōn.
TSOUNTAS, C. 1889. Epeuvai en te lakonike ke o taphos tu Vaphio, ArchEph, 129-172.
TSOUNTAS, C. 1899. Kykladika. Volumes I and II.
TURNER, A. 2010. The Barn Swallow. London (e-book).

TYLOR, E. B. 1871. Primitive Culture. London.

TZAMIS, A.I. 1989. “Ikria” on Minoan Seals. 1st International Symposium on Ship
Construction in Antiquity. Piraeus.
 254

TZEDAKIS, J. 1969. Anaskafi IM III A/B nekrotafiu is periohin Kalamiu Hanion (A LM

IIIA-B Cemetery at Kalamion near Khania). AAA 2(3), pp. 365-369.

TZEDAKIS, J. 1970. The Minoan Kitharodos. AAA 3, pp. 111-112.

TZEDAKIS, J. 1971. Larnakes Isterominoïku nekrotafiu Armenon Rethimnis (Cemetery at

Armenoi Rethymni). AAA 4(2), pp. 216-222.
TZEDAKIS, J. 1973. Archaiotitis kai mnimeia Dytikis Kritis, ADelt 25, pp. 465-478.
TZEDAKIS, J. – MARTLEW, H. 2012. Armenoi: The Late Minoan III Necropolis and the
Town. E. Mantzourani and P.P. Betancourt (eds.), Philistor: Studies in Honor of Costis
Davaras, Philadelphia, pp. 239-245.
VAN EFFENTERRE, H. – VAN EFFENTERRE, M. 1976. Fouilles exécutées à Mallia.
Exploration des maisons et quartiers d'habitation ; 4. - Le quartier O, 1956 – 1960. Paris.
VAN EFFENTERRE, M. 1978. Cretan Ships on Sealstones: Some Observations. C. Doumas
(ed.), Thera and the Aegean World I. Papers Presented at the Second International Scientific
Congress, Santorini, Greece, August 1978, London, pp. 593-597.

VAN EFFENTERRE, H. 1980. Le palais de Malia et la cité minoenne. Athens.

VAN GENNEP, A. 2000. The Rites of Passage. London.

VANPOOL, C. 2009. The Signs of the Sacred: Identifying Shamans Using Archaeological
Evidence, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28, pp. 177–190

VANPOOL, C.S. – VANPOOL, T. 2009. The Semantics of Local Knowledge: Using

Ethnosemantics to Study Folk Taxonomies Represented in the Archaeological Record,
Journal of Anthropological Research 65(4), pp. 529-554.
VANPOOL, C. – NEWSOME, E. 2012. The Spirit in the Material: A Case Study of Animism
in the American Southwest. American Antiquity 77(2), pp. 1-19.

VANSCHOONWINKEL, J. 1982. La barque dans la culte et la religion créto-mycéniens.

Revue des Archéologues et Historiens d' Art de Louvain 15, pp. 20-56.

VANSCHOONWINKEL, J. 1990. Animal Representations in Theran and Other Aegean Arts.

D.A. Hardy, C.G. Doumas, J.A. Sakellarakis and P.M. Warren (eds.) Thera and the Aegean
World III. Vol. 1: Archaeology. Proceedings of the Third International Congress, Santorini,
Greece , 3-9 September 1989 1990, London, pp. 327-347.

VANSCHOONWINKEL, J. 1996. Les animaux dans l'art minoen. D. Reese (ed.) Pleistocene
and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers, Madison, pp. 351-412.

VASILICOU, D. 2000. Mycenaean Signet Rings of Precious Metal with Cult Scenes, Athens.
VELDHUIS, N. 2004. Religion, Literature and Scholarship: The Sumerian Composition
Nanse and the Birds. With a Catalogue of Sumerian Bird Names. Leiden.
 255

VERDELIS, N.M. 1963. The West House. J. Chadwick (ed.), The Mycenae Tablets III.
Philadelphia, pp. 13-29.

VERMEULE, E.T. 1960. The Mycenaeans in Achaia. AJA 64, pp. 1-21.

VERMEULE, E.T. 1964. Greece in the Bronze Age. Chicago.

VERMEULE, E. T. 1965. Painted Mycenaean Larnakes. JHS 85, pp. 123-148.

VERMEULE, E.T. – TRAVLOS, J. 1966. Mycenaean Tomb beneath the Middle

Stoa. Hesperia 35, pp. 55-78.

VERMEULE, E. 1975. The Art of the Shaft Graves at Mycenae.

VERMEULE, E., - KARAGEORGHIS, V. 1982. Mycenaean Pictorial Vase Painting.

Cambridge.

VICKERY, K.F. 1936. Food in Early Greece. Urbana.

VIKATOU, O. 2004. Kladeos. ADelt 53, pp. 230-233.
VITEBSKY, P. 1995. The Shaman: Voyages of the Soul, Trance, Ecstacy and Healing from
Siberia to the Amazon. London.
VIVEIROS DE CASTRO, E. 1998. Cosmological Deixis and Amerindian Perspectivism.
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 4(3), pp. 469-488.
VLACHOPOULOS, A. 2000. The Reed Motif in the Thera Wall Paintings and its Association
with Aegean Pictorial Art. S. Sherratt (ed.), The Wall Paintings of Thera. Proceedings of the
First International Symposium, Petros M. Nomikos Conference Centre, Thera, Hellas, 30
August - 4 September 1997, Vol. II, Athens, pp. 631-656.

VLACHOPOULOS, A. 2003. The Late Helladic IIIC ‘Grotta Phase’ of Naxos. its
Synchronisms in the Aegean and Its Non-Synchronisms in the Cyclades. S. Deger-Jalkotzy
and M. Zavadil (eds.), LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms. Proceedings of the
International Workshop Held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences at Vienna May 7th and
8th, 2001, Vienna, pp. 217-234.
VLACHOPOULOS, A. 2006a. Hē hysteroelladikē IIIG periodos stē Naxo : ta taphika synola
kai hoi syschetismoi tous me to Aigaio. Athens.
VLACHOPOULOS, A. 2006b. Archaeology: Aegean Islands. Athens.
VLACHOPOULOS, A. 2007a. Disiecta Membra: The Wall Paintings from the 'Porter's
Lodge' at Akrotiri. P.P. Betancourt, M.C. Nelson and H. Williams (eds.), Krinoi kai Limenes:
Studies in Honor of Joseph and Maria Shaw, Philadelphia, pp. 131-138.
VLACHOPOULOS, A. 2007b. Monolithos. A Mycenaean Installation on Thera. ALS 5, pp.
105-111.

VLACHOPOULOS, A. G. 2008. The Wall Paintings from the Xeste 3 Building at Akrotiri:
Towards an Interpretation of the Iconographic Programme. N. Brodie, J. Doole, G. Gabalas
 256

and C. Renfrew (eds.), Horizon. Ορίζων: A colloquium on the prehistory of the Cyclades,
Cambridge, pp. 451-465.

VLACHOPOULOS, A. – GEORMA, F. 2012. Jewellery and Adornment at Akrotiri, Thera:

The Evidence from the Wall Paintings and the Finds. M.-L. Nosch and R. Laffineur (eds.),
Aegaeum 33: Kosmos: Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age.
Proceedings of the 13th International Aegean Conference/13e Rencontre égéenne
internationale, University of Copenhagen, Danish National Research Foundation's Centre for
Textile Research, 21–26 April 2010, Leuven and Liege, pp. 35–42.

VLACHOPOULOS, A. 2013. From “Koine” to “Void”? The Art of Paintbrushes in

Postpalatial Greece. Vlachopoulos, A. (ed.) Paintbrushes: wall-painting and vase-painting of
the 2nd millennium BC in dialogue. Athens, pp. 187-191.
VLACHOPOULOS, A. – ZORZOS, L. 2014. Physis and Techne on Thera: Reconstructing
Bronze Age Environment and Land-Use Based on New Evidence from Phytoliths and the
Akrotiri Wall-Paintings. G. Touchais, R. Laffineur and F. Rougemont (eds.), Aegaeum 37:
Physis: l'environnement naturel et la relation homme-milieu dans le monde égéen
protohistorique. Actes de la 14e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Paris, Institut National
d'Histoire de l'Art (INHA), 11-14 décembre 2012, Leuven and Liege, pp. 183-198.

VLACHOPOULOS, A. 2016. Images of Physis or Perceptions of Metaphysis? Some

Thoughts on the Iconography of the Xeste 3 Building at Akrotiri, Thera. Aegaeum 36.
Metaphysis, Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age, Proceedings of the 15th
International Aegean Conference at the Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology,
Department Aegean and Anatolia, Austrian Academy of Sciences and at the Institute of
Classical Archaeology, University of Vienna on 22-25 April 2014. Leuven-Liege, pp. 375-
384.

VOIGTLÄNDER, W. 1971. Tiryns. Unterburg-Kampagne 1971. AAA 4(3), pp. 398-406.

VOIGTLÄNDER, W. Die Palastkeramik. Mainz am Rhein.

VOLLGRAFF, W. 1904. Fouilles d'Argos. BCH 28, pp. 364-399.

VON DEN DRIESCH, A. – BOESSNECK, J. 1990. Die Tierreste von der mykenischen Burg
Tiryns bei Nauplion/Peloponnes. Tiryns XI. Mainz.
VOUTSAKI, S. 1997. The Creation of Value and Prestige in the Aegean Late Bronze Age.
Journal of European Archaeology 5(2), pp. 34-52.

VOUTSAKI, S. 1998. Mortuary Evidence, Symbolic Meanings and Social Change: A

Comparison between Messenia and the Argolid in the Mycenaean Period. K. Branigan (ed.),
Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age, Sheffield, pp. 41-58.
VOUTSAKI, S. 1999. Mortuary Display, Prestige and Identity in the Shaft Grave Era. Eliten
in der Bronzezeit: Ergebnisse zweier Kolloquien in Mainz und Athen, Various Authors, Vol. 1,
Mainz, pp. 103-118.
VOUTSAKI, S. 2010. From the Kinship Economy to the Palatial Economy: The Argolid in
the Second Millennium BC. D.J. Pullen (ed.), Political Economies of the Aegean Bronze Age:
 257

Papers from the Langford Conference, Florida State University, Tallahassee, 22–24
February 2007, Oxford and Oakville, pp. 86-111.
WACE, A.J.B. – LAMB, W. 1919-1921. Excavations at Mycenae. BSA 24, pp. 185-209
WACE, A.J.B. et al. 1921-1923. Excavations at Mycenae. BSA 25, pp. 1-434.
WACE, A.J.B. 1932. Chamber Tombs at Mycenae. Oxford.
WACE, A.J.B. 1939. Excavations at Mycenae. BSA 45, pp. 203-228.
WACE, A.J.B. 1949. Mycenae: an archaeological history and guide. Princeton.
WACE, H. – WILLIAMS, C. 1963. Mycenae Guide, 3rd ed.
WACHSMANN, S. 1995. Paddled and Oared Ships Before the Iron Age. J. Morrison (ed.),
The Age of the Galley: Mediterranean Oared Vessels since Pre-Classical Times, London, pp.
10-35.
WACHSMANN, S. 1996. Bird-head Devices on Mediterranean Ships. H.E. Tzalas (ed.), 4th
International Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity: Tropis IV, Center for the
Acropolis Studies, Athens, 28, 29, 30, 31 August 1991. Proceedings, Athens, pp. 539-572.

WACHSMANN, S. 1998. Seagoing Ships & Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant. Texas.
WACHSMANN, S. 2011. Which Way Forward? On the Directionality of Minoan/Cycladic
Ships. Skyllis 11(2), pp. 12-18.
WALBERG, G. 1967. Finds from the Excavations in the Acropolis of Midea 1939. OpAth 7,
pp. 161-176.
WALBERG, G. 1983. Provincial Middle Minoan Pottery. Mainz.
WALBERG, G. 1994. The Find-Context of the Pictorial Stirrup Jar from Midea. JPR 8, pp. 7.
WALBERG, G. 1998. Excavations on the Acropolis of Midea: Results of the Greek-Swedish
Excavations under the Direction of Katie Demakopoulou and Paul Åström. Volume I. The
Excavations on the Lower Terraces 1985-1991. Stockholm.
WALDSTEIN, C. 1905. The Argive Heraeum. Boston.
WALTERS, H.B. – SMITH, C.H. – FORSDYKE, E.J. 1893. Catalogue of the Greek and
Etruscan vases in the British Museum. London.

WAPNISH, P. 1985. Animal Names and Animal Classifications in Mesopotamia: An

Interdisciplinary Approach Based on Folk Taxonomy. Dissertation Columbia University.

WAPNISH P. 1995. Towards Establishing a Conceptual Basis for Animal Categories in

Archaeology. D.B. Small (ed.), Methods in the Mediterranean: Historical and Archaeological
Views on Texts and Archaeology, Leiden, pp. 233–273.

WARREN, P. 1969. Minoan Stone Vases. London.

WARREN, P. 1972. Myrtos: An Early Bronze Age Settlement in Crete. London.

 258

WARREN, P. 1984. Early Minoan - Early Cycladic Chronological Correlations. J.A.

MacGillivray and R.L.N. Barber (eds.), The Prehistoric Cyclades: Contributions to a
Workshop on Cycladic Chronology (in Memoriam: John Langdon Caskey, 1908-
1981), Edinburgh, pp. 55-62.
WARREN, P. 1988. Minoan Religion as Ritual Action. Gothenburg.
WARREN, P. 1990. Of Baetyls. OpAth 18, pp. 193-206.

WARREN, P. 1995. Realism and Naturalism in Minoan Art - Partes pro Toto.
Papadogiannakis, N.E. (ed.), Pepragmena tou Z' Diethnous Kritologikou Synedriou, Vol. A2:
Tmima Archaiologiko, Rethymno, pp. 973-980.
WARREN, P. M. 1997. Late Minoan III Pottery from the City of Knossos: Stratigrapical
Museum Extension Site. E. Hallager, and B. P. Hallager (eds.), Late Minoan III Pottery
Chronology and Terminology: Acts of a Meeting Held at the Danish Institute at Athens,
August 12-14, 1994, Athens, pp. 157-184.
WARREN, P. M. 2000. From Naturalism to Essentialism in Theran and Minoan Art. S.
Sherratt (ed.), The Wall Paintings of Thera. Proceedings of the First International
Symposium, Petros M. Nomikos Conference Centre, Thera, Hellas, 30 August - 4 September
1997, Athens, pp. 364-380.
WARREN, P. M. 2005, Response to Hatzaki, Eleni. 2005. Postpalatial Knossos: Town and
Cemeteries from LM IIIA2 to LM IIIC. A. L. D’Agata and J. Moody (eds.), Ariadne’s
Threads: Connections between Crete and the Greek Mainland in Late Minoan III (LM IIIA2
to LM IIIC). Proceedings of the International Workshop held at Athens, Scuola Archeologica
Italiana, 5-6 April 2003, Athens, pp. 97-103.
WARREN, P. M. 2007. Characteristics of Late Minoan III C from the Stratigraphical
Museum Site at Knossos. S. Deger-Jalkotzy and M. Zavadil (eds.), LH III C Chronology and
Synchronisms II: LH III C Middle. Proceedings of the International Workshop Held at the
Austrian Academy of Sciences at Vienna, October 29th and 30th, 2004, Vienna, pp. 329-343.

WATROUS, L.V. 1991. The Origin and Iconography of the Late Minoan Painted Larnax.
Hesperia 60, pp. 285-307.

WATROUS, L.V. 1992. Kommos 3: An Excavation on the South Coast of Crete. The Late
Bronze Age Pottery. Princeton.

WAXMAN, S.R. 1999. The Dubbing Ceremony Revisited: Object Naming and
Categorization in Infancy and Early Childhood. D. Medin and S. Atran (eds.). Folkbiology,
London, pp. 233-284.

WEDDE, M. 1992. Pictorial Architecture: For a Theory-Based Analysis of Imagery. R.

Laffineur and J.L. Crowley (eds.), Aegaeum 8: EIKON. Aegean Bronze Age Iconography:
Shaping a Methodology. 4th International Aegean Conference, University of Tasmania,
Hobart, 6-9 April 1992, Liège, pp. 181-203.
 259

WEDDE, M. 1996. From Classification to Narrative: The Contribution of Iconography

towards Writing a History of Early Aegean Shipbuilding. Mediterranean Historical Review
11, pp. 117-164.
WEDDE, M. 1999. Talking Hands: a Study of Minoan and Mycenaean Ritual Gesture - Some
Preliminary Notes. P. Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur, and W.-D. Niemeier (eds.),
Meletemata: Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters
His 65th Year. Vol. III, Liège, pp. 911-920.
WEDDE, M. 2000. Towards a Hermeneutics of Aegean Bronze Age Ship Imagery. Mannheim
and Möhnesee.
WEDDE, M. 2002. Birdshead Revisited: the Bow Morphology of the Early Greek Galley,
H.E. Tzalas (ed.), 7th International Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity: Tropis VII,
Center for the Acropolis Studies, Athens. Proceedings, Athens, pp. 837-846.

WEILHARTNER, J. 2007. Die Tierbezeichnungen auf den neuen Linear B-Texten aus
Theben. E. Alram-Stern and G. Nightingale (eds.), Keimelion: Elitenbildung und Elitärer
Konsum von der Mykenischen Palastzeit bis zur Homerischen Epoche. The Formation of
Elites and Elitist Lifestyles from Mycenaean Palatial Times to the Homeric Period. Akten des
internationalen Kongresses vom 3. bis 5. Februar 2005 in Salzburg, Vienna, pp. 339-351.

WEINGARTEN, J. 1983. The Zakro Master and His Place in Prehistory. Göteborg.

WEINGARTEN, J. 1985. Aspects of Tradition and Innovation in the Work of the Zakro
Master. P. Darcque and J-C Poursat (eds.), L'Iconographie minoenne. Actes de la table ronde
d'Athènes (21-22 avril 1983), Athens, pp. 167-179.
WEINGARTEN, J. 2009. The Zakro Master and Questions of Gender. K. Kopaka (ed.),
Aegaeum 30: Fylo: Engendering Prehistoric 'Stratigraphies' in the Aegean and the
Mediterranean. Proceedngs of an International Conference, University of Crete, Rethymno 2-
5 June 2005, Liège and Austin, pp. 139-149.
WENGROW, D. 2013. The Origins of Monsters: Image and Cognition in the First Age of
Mechanical Reproduction. Princeton.
WHITLEY, D.S. 1994. Shamanism, Natural Modeling and the Rock Art of Far Western
North American Hunter-Gatherers. S.A. Turpin (ed.), Shamanism and Rock Art in North
America. San Antonio, pp. 1–43.

WHITLEY, D.S. 2000. The Art of the Shaman: Rock Art of California. Salt Lake City.

WIENCKE, M.H. 1969. The Beulah H. Emmet Collection of Minoan Seals. AJA 73(1), pp.
33-38.

WILBERT, J. 1987. Tobacco and Shamanism in South America. New Haven.

WILLIAMS, G. 2005. Religions of the World: Shinto. Philadelphia.

WOOLFSON, E., 2008. Corvus: a Life with Birds. London.

 260

WYATT, J. 2012. Bird Identification from Art, Artifacts, and Hieroglyphs: An

Ornithologist’s Viewpoint, R. Bailleul LeSuer (ed.). Between Heaven and Earth: Birds in
Ancient Egypt, Chicago, pp. 83-90.

XANTHOUDIDES, S. 1907. Ek Kretes. ArchEph, pp. 157-170.

XANTHOUDIDES, S. 1923. Archaiologiki peripheria (Kritis). ADelt 6, pp. 154-163.

XANTHOUDIDES, S. 1924. The Vaulted Tombs of Mesara: an Account of Some Early

Cemeteries of Southern Crete. London.

XENAKI-SAKELLARIOU, A. 1958. Les cachets minoens de la collection Giamalakis. Paris.

XENAKI-SAKELLARIOU, A. 1985a. Hoi thalamōtoi taphoi tōn Mykēnōn: anaskaphēs Chr.

Tsounta, 1887-1898 = Les Tombes à chambre de Mycènes: fouilles de Chr. Tsountas, 1887-
1898. Paris.

XENAKI-SAKELLARIOU, A. 1985b. Identité minoenne et identité mycénienne à travers les

compositions figuratives. P. Darcque and J-C. Poursat (eds.), L'Iconographie minoenne. Actes
de la table ronde d'Athènes (21-22 avril 1983), Athens, pp. 293-309.

XENAKI-SAKELLARIOU, A. – CHATZILIOU, C. 1989. 'Peinture en métal' a l'époque

mycénienne. Athens.

YALOURIS, A. – YALOURIS, N. 1989. Olympia. Ein Führer durch Museum und Heiligtum.
Athens.

YASUR-LANDAU, A. 2010. On Birds and Dragons: A Note on the Sea Peoples and
Mycenaean Ships. Y. Cohen, A. Gilan and J.L. Miller (eds.), Pax Hethitica: Studies on the
Hittites and their Neighbours in Honour of Itamar Singer, Wiesbaden, pp. 399-410.
YON, M. 1992. Duck’s Travels. P. Åström (ed.), Acta Cypria. Acts of an International
Congress on Cypriote Archaeology Held in Göteborg on 22-24 August 1991, Vol. 2, Jonsered,
pp. 394-407.
YOSHIHIKO, M. 2013. Iconology of Fuji Painting: Japanese Psyche in Perspective of
Animism, Shamanism and Mountain Worship (Iconology of Japanese Culture). Kindle
Edition.

YOUNGER, J.G. 1998. Music in the Aegean Bronze Age. Jonsered.

YULE, P. 1980. Early Cretan Seals: a Study of Chronology. Mainz.

ZAPHIROPOULOS, N. 1960. Anaskaphai Naxou. Praktika 1960, pp. 330-339.

ZAPHIROPOULOS, N. 1968. Cycladic Finds from Keros. AAA, pp. 97-100.

ZEIMBEKI, M. 2005. 'Nurturing the Natural': a Cognitive Approach in the Study of the Xeste
3 Aquatic Imagery. A. Dakouri-Hild and S. Sherratt (eds.), Autochthon: Papers presented to
 261

O. T. P. K. Dickinson on the occasion of his retirement, Institute of Classical Studies,

University of London, 9 November 2005, Oxford, pp. 242-251.

ZERVOS, S. 1920. Rhodes: capitale du Dodécanèse. Paris.

ZERVOS, C. 1956. L'art de la Crète néolithique et minoenne. Paris.

ZERVOS, C. 1957. L'art des Cyclades du début à la fin de lâ̕ ge du bronze, 2500-1100 avant
notre ère. Paris.
262