DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.1117#0220
'SNAKE FRAMES' INFLUENCED BY HOLY BOW 175
pre-eminently ritual object was influenced in form by actual bows of a sacral
nature dedicated to the Minoan Goddess,1 the existence of which we may,
indeed, infer from the bone arrow-plumes found in the Repository of her
Central Shrine at Knossos - carved and painted, as we shall see, to represent
her sacred 'adder mark'.3 Here again the bow and snake elements are
combined.
Not the least prominent impersonation of the Minoan Goddess was
as the huntress armed with bow and arrow, and it was in this guise, indeed,
that she survived, as Diktynna or Britomartis, amongst the later Eteocretans.
It has been already pointed out above that the Double Axe rising in the
middle of these objects, as seen in Figs. 131, 133, b, c, itself represents an
assimilation of these ritual 'frames' to the ' Horns of Consecration'.''
That these, in fact, are ' snake frames', influenced in form by both the Snake
holy bow of the Goddess and the ' Horns of Consecration ', may be thought
the most probable conclusion. Their snake-like aspect, indeed, must strike
all observers, and if, as seems probable, we have here a ritual object formed
of the stuffed skins of two or, in some cases, of three sacred reptiles, we
should not, especially when the stumped head of the Goddess herself is
taken into consideration, expect much detail in the heads. In the case, how-
ever, of both versions of the Mycenae intaglio, Fig. 133, b and c, one of the
eyes seems to be actually rendered in relief. The binding together of the
prepared skins or bodies of the reptiles would have been a natural process
in the construction of the framework.'' In the case, however, of the signet-
1 Nilsson remarks {op. tit., p 315) that regarded as a necessity. The comparison
'it may be that the holy bow of the Goddess made (pp. tit., p. 316) with the gold pendant
was used as a ritual object, and also trans- from Aegina is interesting, but its design is
formed'. of too late a date (serving, as I have shown,
- P. of M., i, p. 54S, Fig. 399, a. J. II. S., 1892, pp. 20T, 202, as a model for
3 See below, p. 179, Fig. 141. Italo-Hallstatt ornaments) to afford any real
' See above, p. 171'. Nilsson {pp. tit., help towards the interpretation of the'frames'.
p. 315) also suggests that 'the characteristi- The jewel in question, which shows a male God
cally vivid imagination of the Minoans effected standing on a kind of lotus-boat and grasping
a formal modification of the object under two swans, is, as pointed out by me {pp. til.,
the influence of the horns of consecration '. p. 19S), based on a duck-hunting scene of the
r' I am unable to understand Nilsson's Egyptian Nilotic cycle. The curving objects
objection {ptp. tit., p. 313) that the linking that present a resemblance to those of the
together of the objects as seen on the two ' snake frames' start from behind the thighs
Mycenae gems ' by three cross-bars in each of of the standing figure on either side. They
the two lower curves' would be 'evidently show cross-lines and have bud-like termina-
inrpossible if snakes are intended'. In the tions. As a matter of fact, this scheme, as
case of'snake frames', such as seem to be im- suggested {op. tit., p. T99), may have been
plied, this binding together might rather be influenced by the Egyptian hieroglyphic
pre-eminently ritual object was influenced in form by actual bows of a sacral
nature dedicated to the Minoan Goddess,1 the existence of which we may,
indeed, infer from the bone arrow-plumes found in the Repository of her
Central Shrine at Knossos - carved and painted, as we shall see, to represent
her sacred 'adder mark'.3 Here again the bow and snake elements are
combined.
Not the least prominent impersonation of the Minoan Goddess was
as the huntress armed with bow and arrow, and it was in this guise, indeed,
that she survived, as Diktynna or Britomartis, amongst the later Eteocretans.
It has been already pointed out above that the Double Axe rising in the
middle of these objects, as seen in Figs. 131, 133, b, c, itself represents an
assimilation of these ritual 'frames' to the ' Horns of Consecration'.''
That these, in fact, are ' snake frames', influenced in form by both the Snake
holy bow of the Goddess and the ' Horns of Consecration ', may be thought
the most probable conclusion. Their snake-like aspect, indeed, must strike
all observers, and if, as seems probable, we have here a ritual object formed
of the stuffed skins of two or, in some cases, of three sacred reptiles, we
should not, especially when the stumped head of the Goddess herself is
taken into consideration, expect much detail in the heads. In the case, how-
ever, of both versions of the Mycenae intaglio, Fig. 133, b and c, one of the
eyes seems to be actually rendered in relief. The binding together of the
prepared skins or bodies of the reptiles would have been a natural process
in the construction of the framework.'' In the case, however, of the signet-
1 Nilsson remarks {op. tit., p 315) that regarded as a necessity. The comparison
'it may be that the holy bow of the Goddess made (pp. tit., p. 316) with the gold pendant
was used as a ritual object, and also trans- from Aegina is interesting, but its design is
formed'. of too late a date (serving, as I have shown,
- P. of M., i, p. 54S, Fig. 399, a. J. II. S., 1892, pp. 20T, 202, as a model for
3 See below, p. 179, Fig. 141. Italo-Hallstatt ornaments) to afford any real
' See above, p. 171'. Nilsson {pp. tit., help towards the interpretation of the'frames'.
p. 315) also suggests that 'the characteristi- The jewel in question, which shows a male God
cally vivid imagination of the Minoans effected standing on a kind of lotus-boat and grasping
a formal modification of the object under two swans, is, as pointed out by me {pp. til.,
the influence of the horns of consecration '. p. 19S), based on a duck-hunting scene of the
r' I am unable to understand Nilsson's Egyptian Nilotic cycle. The curving objects
objection {ptp. tit., p. 313) that the linking that present a resemblance to those of the
together of the objects as seen on the two ' snake frames' start from behind the thighs
Mycenae gems ' by three cross-bars in each of of the standing figure on either side. They
the two lower curves' would be 'evidently show cross-lines and have bud-like termina-
inrpossible if snakes are intended'. In the tions. As a matter of fact, this scheme, as
case of'snake frames', such as seem to be im- suggested {op. tit., p. T99), may have been
plied, this binding together might rather be influenced by the Egyptian hieroglyphic