DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.8944#0081
MYCENAEAN TREE AND PILLAR CULT.
179
early Egyptian tradition, the symbol now shows a tendency to acquire two
legs and even at times a head. On the Tarsus seal1 it appears above
an altar and associated with other ritual scenes, in slightly variant forms
in which the lower limb has divided into two legs and the circle at the
top has sometimes a kind of conical cap (see Fig. 54, 3). On a cylinder2
it is seen in the hands of an attendant behind a princely worshipper in
a form which combines the two legs with the original lower limb (Fig. 54, 4).
It will be sufficient to compare this last modification with those on the
Tarsus seal to see that in the Mycenaean figure we have to do with
another member of the same series. In other words the Mycenaean symbol
is a direct derivative from the Egyptian ankh, as a sign of divinity,
through intermediate forms which must be sought in the cycle of Hittite
iconography. This symbol both on the Tarsus and Indilimma seals is
placed in juxtaposition with a triangular sign probably denoting a Goddess
and must itself be taken to represent the male member of a divine pair.
The allied form (Fig. 54, 6) was copied by me from a stele at Carthage, and
was surmounted by the orb and crescent of two conjoined divinities.
In the present case the curved ends of three of the limbs suggest as
already noted that this ancient symbol has been crossed by that of the double
axe, and its substitution in the place of the axe and armed figure on the ring
from the Mycenae treasure seems to show that it stands here in connexion
with the same God. It may therefore have a direct bearing on the subject
immediately below it.
The discoverer of the Vapheio ring failed to recognise the character of
the representation on this side of the field and even described it as ' an object
like an insect, but of disproportionate size.'3 Max Mayer, Furtwiingler,
H. von Fritze and others have since seen in it a helmet with a long crest
resting on a shield. A close examination had long convinced me that the
representation in question really consisted of a small female figure in the
usual flounced dress, with one arm bent under her and the other stretched
forward, jjrostrate on a large Mycenaean shield. On the more recently
discovered ring from Mycenae we now see a different version of the same
scene. A female figure in the habitual costume this time leans forward
resting her two arms in a pensive attitude on the balustrade of what appears
1 Cf. Thomas Tyler, Babylonian and Orien-
tal Record, 1887, pp. 150, 151, and 'The
Nature of Hittite Writing,' Traits. Congress
of Orientalist*, London, 1892, p. 261 seqq.
As Tyler rightly points out, this development
of the symbol stands in a near relation to the
' headed triangle ' emblem of Baal and Ash-
toreth on Carthaginian stelae. Here the side
limbs assume the form of arms and this an-
thropomorphised symbol seems to have
affected the later development of the sacred
cone at Paphos and elsewhere. The distin-
guishing feature of the Carthaginian modifi-
cation of the Ankh is the arms, in the
Hittite the legs.
2 Lajarde, op. ril. PI. XVIII. Fig. 7.
3 Tsuntas, 'E<p. 'Apx- 1890, p. 170 ' ai-n-
Ktip.ev6v ri itrel iVTopov virepfityeBts.' Max
Mayer (Jahrbuch d. Arch. Inst. 1892, p. 189),
recognised the shield but took the figure
above it for a helmet with a high crest. He
regards the shield and the imaginary helmet
as having been laid aside by the male figure.
But the analogy of the parallel ring Fig. 68
shows that the figure is simply an attendant.
N 2
179
early Egyptian tradition, the symbol now shows a tendency to acquire two
legs and even at times a head. On the Tarsus seal1 it appears above
an altar and associated with other ritual scenes, in slightly variant forms
in which the lower limb has divided into two legs and the circle at the
top has sometimes a kind of conical cap (see Fig. 54, 3). On a cylinder2
it is seen in the hands of an attendant behind a princely worshipper in
a form which combines the two legs with the original lower limb (Fig. 54, 4).
It will be sufficient to compare this last modification with those on the
Tarsus seal to see that in the Mycenaean figure we have to do with
another member of the same series. In other words the Mycenaean symbol
is a direct derivative from the Egyptian ankh, as a sign of divinity,
through intermediate forms which must be sought in the cycle of Hittite
iconography. This symbol both on the Tarsus and Indilimma seals is
placed in juxtaposition with a triangular sign probably denoting a Goddess
and must itself be taken to represent the male member of a divine pair.
The allied form (Fig. 54, 6) was copied by me from a stele at Carthage, and
was surmounted by the orb and crescent of two conjoined divinities.
In the present case the curved ends of three of the limbs suggest as
already noted that this ancient symbol has been crossed by that of the double
axe, and its substitution in the place of the axe and armed figure on the ring
from the Mycenae treasure seems to show that it stands here in connexion
with the same God. It may therefore have a direct bearing on the subject
immediately below it.
The discoverer of the Vapheio ring failed to recognise the character of
the representation on this side of the field and even described it as ' an object
like an insect, but of disproportionate size.'3 Max Mayer, Furtwiingler,
H. von Fritze and others have since seen in it a helmet with a long crest
resting on a shield. A close examination had long convinced me that the
representation in question really consisted of a small female figure in the
usual flounced dress, with one arm bent under her and the other stretched
forward, jjrostrate on a large Mycenaean shield. On the more recently
discovered ring from Mycenae we now see a different version of the same
scene. A female figure in the habitual costume this time leans forward
resting her two arms in a pensive attitude on the balustrade of what appears
1 Cf. Thomas Tyler, Babylonian and Orien-
tal Record, 1887, pp. 150, 151, and 'The
Nature of Hittite Writing,' Traits. Congress
of Orientalist*, London, 1892, p. 261 seqq.
As Tyler rightly points out, this development
of the symbol stands in a near relation to the
' headed triangle ' emblem of Baal and Ash-
toreth on Carthaginian stelae. Here the side
limbs assume the form of arms and this an-
thropomorphised symbol seems to have
affected the later development of the sacred
cone at Paphos and elsewhere. The distin-
guishing feature of the Carthaginian modifi-
cation of the Ankh is the arms, in the
Hittite the legs.
2 Lajarde, op. ril. PI. XVIII. Fig. 7.
3 Tsuntas, 'E<p. 'Apx- 1890, p. 170 ' ai-n-
Ktip.ev6v ri itrel iVTopov virepfityeBts.' Max
Mayer (Jahrbuch d. Arch. Inst. 1892, p. 189),
recognised the shield but took the figure
above it for a helmet with a high crest. He
regards the shield and the imaginary helmet
as having been laid aside by the male figure.
But the analogy of the parallel ring Fig. 68
shows that the figure is simply an attendant.
N 2