IS DIVINITY A GENDER ISSUE? THE CASE OF THE MINOAN “GODDESS” By Priscilla Field Masters Thesis in Archaeology Department of Archaeology, Conservation and Historical Studies Faculty of Humanities University of Oslo 2007 ABSTRACT Ever since Arthur Evans discovered the delightfully elegant world of the Minoans, the numerous depictions of seemingly important women have been difficult to ignore. These women, however, are invariably considered to be goddesses, or at the very least, in service to a/the goddess. This study attempts to make a case for a number of these “goddesses” to be allowed entry into the secular world. Such prominent women should not automatically be relegated to the sacred sphere in time-honoured binary fashion where men hold power in a temporal capacity and women can only do likewise within a religious framework. Our cultural expectations, both present and inherited, should be suspended and the archaeological record itself be given the opportunity to speak for itself. Chapter 1 outlines the plot, introduces the characters and sets the scene for enactment of the Minoan drama. The historical background forms the backdrop against which all future interpretations are played out. Chapter 2 endeavours to tease out the reasons for the original deification of a number of Minoan women and to assess how “gender-neutral” these assessments have been. Chapter 3 presents the myriad ways in which Bronze Age women in the Mediterranean participated in their communities. It also attempts to make a case for the influence and power Minoan women might have had: with particular reference to their links with saffron. Chapter 4 presents two case-studies: the “goddess” from Xeste 3 at Akrotiri and the “goddess” on the Mochlos ring. The denouement comes in Chapter 5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would first and foremost like to thank my supervisors Rasmus Brandt and Ingrid Fuglestvedt: their advice and feedback was greatly valued. I am also grateful to Konstantinos Chilidis for taking the time to discuss my ideas and Espen Uleberg for helping to create a database which lay behind my initial explorations of this topic. The staff at the Norwegian Institute and the Nordic Library were also very helpful during my stay in Athens researching this paper. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: The Plot: Introducing the Characters and Setting the Scene……….. 1 1.1 Introduction: The Plot…………………………………………………… 1 1.2 Introducing the Characters………………………………………………. 3 1.2.1 Akrotiri and the “Goddess” from Xeste 3……………………….. 3 1.2.2 Mochlos and the Mochlos ring…………………………………... 7 1.3 Setting the Scene: History of Research………………………………….. 8 1.3.1 Evans and his Legacy……………………………………………. 9 1.3.2 The Great Goddess………………………………………………. 10 1.3.3 Cherchez la femme………………………………………………. 11 1.4 Minoan Frescoes and Glyptic: Theoretical Approaches and Problems with Interpretation……………………………………………………….. 13 Chapter 2: How Divine!? The Evidence … and Rebuttal………………………… 17 2.1 Consensus gentium and the intersubjective field ……………………….. 17 2.2 Ambiguity ……………………………………………………………….. 19 2.2.1 Religion, Ritual and Reality……………………………………… 19 2.2.2 Sex and Gender Minoan Style……………………………………. 22 2.3 Seek and Ye Shall Find………………………………………………….. 24 2.4 Foreign Influence: Adaptation and Adoption……………………………. 26 2.5 Guardians and Groupies of the “Goddess” ……………………………... 29 2.6 The Mystery at Knossos: The Case of the Missing Monarch …………... 31 2.7 From Woman to “Goddess” …………………………………………….. 34 2.7.1 Xeste 3…………………………………………………………… 34 2.7.2 The Mochlos Ring……………………………………………….. 35 2.8 Summary of Chapter 2…………………………………………………... 36 Chapter 3: What do Women do? ………………………………………………….. 38 3.1 They Supervise, Write, Treat the Sick…………………………………... 38 3.2 They Weave...………………………………………… ………………… 39 iii 3.3 They Trade………………………………………………………………. 41 3.3.1 Hair-coil or Hard Cash? …………………………………………. 43 3.4 Women, Crocuses and Saffron…………………………………………... 44 3.4.1 Saffron: Its Use and Significance………………………………... 47 3.5 The Silk Connection……………………………………….…………….. 50 3.6 Tree Shakers and Transport: Is Nothing Sacred? ……………………….. 52 3.7 Evidence for Minoan Trade in Cloth, Saffron and Perfume…………….. 53 3.8 Summary of Chapter 3…………………………………………………... 54 Chapter 4: When is a Goddess not a Goddess? …………………………………… 56 4.1 Xeste 3: Proposed “Upgrade”: from Goddess to V.I.P………………….. 56 4.1.1 The Necklace: The Evidence…………………………………….. 57 4.1.2 The Necklace Reinterpreted: Duck Weights…………………….. 59 4.1.3 And Dragonflies…………………………………………………. 61 4.1.4 Monkeys and Griffins……………………………………………. 62 4.1.5 Seating Fit for a “Goddess” ……………………………………... 63 4.1.6 Saffron, Silk and Ships…………………………………………... 63 4.2 The Mochlos Ring: An Alternative Interpretation………………………. 64 4.2.1 The “Sacred Tree”, “Divine Boat” and the Silk Connection…….. 66 4.2.2 Rings as Status Symbols: a Female Prerogative? ……………….. 67 4.3 Summary of Chapter 4…………………………………………………... 68 Chapter 5: Conclusion: the Denouement………………………………………….. 70 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Fig. 1 Chronological Table (from Rehak & Younger 1998, 99) ………………. 4 Fig. 2 The “Goddess” and her Companions in Xeste 3 (from Immewahr 1990, 60, Fig. 20………………………………………………………………... 5 Fig. 3 The “Goddess” in all her Glory (from Doumas 1992, 158, Pl. 122)…….. 6 Fig. 4 The Mochlos Ring (from Seager 1912, Fig. 52) ………………………... 7 Fig. 5 From Male to Female in a Few Strokes of the Brush (Evely 1999, 258)... 23 iv Fig. 6 The Isopata Ring (from CMS II.3 51) …………………………………... 25 Fig. 7 Female Receiving/Presenting a Sceptre (from Krattenmaker 1995, 126 Fig. 4)……………………….…..……………………….…..………….. 32 Fig. 8 Tutankhamun and Queen (from Smith 2003, 191 Fig. 3) ……….……… 33 Fig. 9 The Jewel Fresco (from Evely 1999, 164) …….…..……………….…… 33 Fig. 10 Woman Feeding Animal (from CMS II.6 30) ……………………….….. 42 Fig. 11 Woman Carrying animal (from CMS II.7 23) …………………………... 42 Fig. 12 Woman with Animal (“Miscellaneous Pose”) (from CMS II.6 31) …….. 42 Fig. 13 Arthur Evans’ “Saffron Sign” (from Evans 1921, 643 Fig. 477) ……….. 45 Fig. 14 “Warrior Goddess” from Knossos (from Younger 1995, Pl. LIIIg) ……. 51 Fig. 15 The Archanes Ring (from Cain 2001, 36 Fig. 11) ……………………… 52 Fig. 16 The “Goddess” from Xeste 3 and her Necklaces (from Doumas 1992, 163) ……………………………………………………………………… 57 Fig. 17 A Shag (left) (and a Bronze Weight in the Shape of an Unidentified Water Fowl (right) from the Uluburun Shipwreck (adapted from Pulak 1996, 476 & van Poppel, 2007) …………………………………………. 61 Fig. 18 Egyptian Amulet: a Mosquito/fly(?) with a Falcon Head (from Arnold 1995, 48) ………………………………………………………………… 62 Fig. 19 The Bayeux Tapestry. Backward-facing Animal Prows and Fantastical Animals Cavorting Underneath (from Bayeux Tapestry) ………………. 67 BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………… 73 v vi CHAPTER 1: THE PLOT, INTRODUCING THE CHARACTERS AND SETTING THE SCENE 1.1 Introduction: The Plot The Minoan world appears to have been overflowing with goddesses, priestesses and to a lesser extent priests: the odd god rounds out the picture. The religious nature of Minoan society seems to have been bolstered by the disproportionately large number of depictions of important female figures and the corresponding lack of dominant males. The so-called lack of [male] ruler iconography seems to be puzzling: the women have been mainly identified as divinities. Goddesses appear to be less threatening than mortal women to modern sensibilities. “Demoting” women to the sacred sphere appears to neutralise their power. Notwithstanding a current preoccupation with structure and agency, most theories/ theorists still seem to implicitly attribute the exercising of agency to males (Scott 1997, 6). As Margaret Conkey and Janet Spector point out, even language favours male engagement: passive verb forms are generally used for females reserving active forms for male (Conkey & Spector 1998, 20). The same principle can be seen in our religious terminology: the default for divinity often appears to be male. A brief foray into a few dictionaries was illuminating. The Cambridge Dictionary defines a goddess as “a female god” whilst a god is “a spirit or being believed to control some part of the universe or life and often worshipped for doing so”. A goddess in The Miriam Webster, like in the Cambridge Dictionary is “a female god” whilst a god, in addition to the usual supernatural definitions, is “a person or thing of supreme value” or “a powerful ruler”. Not only are these women shorn of any semblance of secular power, but to a monotheistic culture with a supreme male figure (there are no definitions for Goddess, with a capital “G”), their deification implicitly subordinates them: language reflects and at the same time reinforces our perceptions. I began to search for dissention within the ranks: was it accepted unanimously that these eminent women were goddesses? The “goddess” depicted on the wall of Xeste 3 at Akrotiri drew my attention due to what seemed to be very consistent references to her divine status. However, it transpired that there were some (admittedly in the minority) who did not seem completely convinced: some instances of quotation marks placed around the word “goddess” (e.g. Laffineur 2000, 890-906) could be noted, as well as a few references to the “so-called goddess” (e.g. Televantou 2000, 831-843). This sparked my interest to try and discover what 1 the initial basis was for interpreting this woman’s divine incarnation. If she was not as firmly ensconced in the heavenly realm as she generally was perceived to be, then the field could be opened up to further enquiry. Was it the case that, in the words of Colin Renfrew (1985, 20), when outlining the process through which the presence of religious ritual could be established, the fresco could “not be explicable in secular terms in the light of what we know of the society”? Could there be another explanation for her obviously high status? Women on glyptic are also frequently immortalised. Scenes involving “goddesses” in boats attracted my interest. Why were these figures considered to be divine? A number of these crafts have been identified as “cult boats” due to their appearance as “fantastical in comparison with normal ship-building practices as evidenced by the corpus” (Wedde 1990, 14; Marinatos 1933, 223; Betts 1971, 325-334).