Tag Archives: Sculpture

Listening to the Singing Colossi

February 18, 2023 Joanna Pyrgies Leave a comment

We had already crossed to the west bank from the east bank of the Nile, departing from the iconic temples of the living gods in Karnak and Luxor and heading off to mortuary temples of kings and queens of the pharaonic Egypt. The sun slowly started to set down a little by little, turning the sand red till the foot of the barren mountains sheltering the Valley of the Kings further in the west. We followed its path to the dusk. “Suddenly, up ahead, sitting incongruously in a field by the side of the road, perched a pair of enthroned […] statues, each of the size of a [multi-story] building” (Perrottet 2003:335). The outlines of the two sitting figures made of stone were sharpened by the sunlight of the setting sun and their features seemed outstanding. Amazed by the gigantic monuments, we clambered out of our bus and came closer to face them in their whole majesty.

The temple largest of all

The so-called Colossi of Memnon, for the twin massive statues actually are, “sit [on the floodplain, today] in a recess, while [once they must have been] visible for [kilometres] around” (Perrottet 2003:335). They are situated in the Upper Egypt, in the area of the ancient Theban Necropolis, located west of the River Nile from the modern city of Luxor (“Colossi of Memnon” 2020). “[Although] much damaged [today], they have even preserved “a potent aura of [magnificence], if not of magic” (Perrottet 2003:335). As such they “still attract much tourists by their gigantism and their mystery” (Boorstin 1993-2012:162). Each colossus is composed of two pieces of stone; the weight of each seated figure is estimated at around 720 tons, whereas their pedestals are of 300 tons a piece (Foerster 2016). The base of each statue, although taller than most people are, is still partly buried underground and so they both can turn out to be larger after being completely unearthed (Jimmy 2017). An geologist and ethnomineralogist, Eric Gonthier even estimates the weight respectively to 1 300 tons for the statues and 500 tons for their platforms (Grimault, Pooyard 2012). Including the stone platforms on which they stand (each 4 metres high), every colossus reaches a towering 18 metres in height (“Colossi of Memnon” 2020). Additionally, the two statues are rising about 15 metres apart from each other (Ibid.).

The last feature suggests they were originally intended to guard the gates (pylons) of the vast mortuary or memorial temple, as it is visible in other Egyptian temples of the New Kingdom, mostly on the eastern bank of the Nile (“Colossi of Memnon” 2020). “Egyptian colossi [as those of Memnon] therefore have played an especially conspicuous role in the afterlife of ancient Egyptian art. They have often outlived the buildings to which they were attached” (Boorstin 1993-2012:162). The already not existing sanctuary has been ascribed to Amenhotep III (1411-1375 BC), the pharaoh of the Eighteenth Dynasty (“Colossi of Memnon” 2020). Accordingly, the twin statues are believed to depict the pharaoh (as much as the colossi of Abu Simbel show Ramses II) “in a seated position, [with] his hands resting on his knees and his [now ruined head] facing eastwards towards the river. Two shorter figures are carved into the front throne alongside his legs: these [are said to represent] his wife Tiye and mother Mutemwiya. The side panels depict the Nile god Hapi” (Ibid.)

The massive construct of the temple is thought to have been erected during the pharaoh’s lifetime (“Colossi of Memnon” 2020). Taking into account the size of the so-called Amenhotep III’s statues themselves, in his days the complex must have been the largest and most opulent in Egypt and so it has been estimated as covering a total of 35 hectares (Ibid.). By comparing the Colossi of Memnon with other gigantic seated figures in Egypt, such as the colossi of Abu Simbel (10 metres tall), and the statues at Luxor (14 metres in height), it seems that Amenhotep III’s temple outmatched even later constructions of great pharaohs, such as Ramesses II’s Ramesseum or Ramesses III’s Medinet Habu (Ibid.). Even the greatest of all, the Temple of Karnak dedicated to Egyptian gods themselves, as it stood in Amenhotep’s time, was apparently smaller (Ibid.). Isn’t it strange?

Why did the temple disappear?

The temple itself “stood on the edge of the Nile floodplain, and successive annual inundations gnawed away at its foundations” (“Colossi of Memnon” 2020). This is also visible today, when the Nile waters reach the Colossi’s feet. Also shortly after the temple was constructed, an earthquake destroyed it in around 1200 BC (Ibid.). It is said there were left only the two huge Colossi at the entrance still standing (Ibid.). Aftermath, the ruins of the temple could either have been dismantled by later kings, or purloined with its portions reused for later monuments (Ibid.). The Colossi themselves are claimed to have been further damaged by another earthquake in 27 BC, after which they were partly reconstructed by the Romans (Ibid.).

Who is Memnon?

The modern Arabic name for the colossi is Kom el-Hatan, but it is generally known as the Colossi of Memnon (“Colossi of Memnon” 2020). Why? Because the statues apparently used to sing …

“Ancient Greek travellers named the northern statue [of the Colossi] ‘Memnon’ in honour of the Trojan War hero” (Boorstin 1993-2012:162). However, with time the both Colossi were described alike (Boorstin 1993-2012:162; Scott 1984:22; Littleton 2005:852). According to the Greek mythology, Memnon was the king of Ethiopia who led his armies to Troy’s defence but was ultimately slain during combat by the Greek warrior, Achilles (Boorstin 1993-2012:162; . “Zeus, who favoured Memnon, granted him immortality” (Littleton 2005:852). The crucial for the Colossi’s name, however, is the fact that according to the Greek mythology, he was the son of Eos (Roman Aurora), the goddess who is the personification of the dawn in Greco-Roman mythology (Boorstin 1993-2012:162). After her son death, Eos is said to have shed tears every morning; the signing of the statues was hence attributed to Eos’ mourning for her son (Ibid.). According to another version, the heard sound was actually the effect of Memnon’s singing to his mother (Littleton 2005:852), “when she appeared each day as the dawn above the eastern horizon” (Brome Weigall 2015:248). For this reason the Colossus “became famous in classical literature as ‘the signing Memnon’ because at sunrise it would emit strange sounds” (Boorstin 1993-2012:162).

Records of the stones singing

The earliest written reference to the signing statues comes from the Greek historian and geographer, Strabo (63 BC-24AD) who claimed to have heard their song during his visit at the site around 24BC (Boorstin 1993-2012:162; Brome Weigall 2015:248; Mystery History 2019). At the beginning he was rather sceptical and “suspected a machine installed by [Egyptian] priests” (Boorstin 1993-2012:162), which could have been responsible for emitting the sounds (Brome Weigall 2015:248). The second century Greek traveller and geographer, Pausanias (110-180AD) compared the statue’s voice to the string of a lyre breaking (Mystery History 2019). Others described it as the striking of brass, a gong, the blast of a trumpet, the sound of harp strings, the singing of human voices or a strange ghostly, almost divine whistling (Boorstin 1993-2012:162; Brome Weigall 2015). Many visitors also left inscriptions on the base of the statues reporting whether they had heard the sound or not (Boorstin 1993-2012:162; Brome Weigall 2015:248; Mystery History 2019).

“[In] about 65AD, a traveller scratched a record of his visit to the [singing] colossus upon its pedestal; and from that time onwards it became customary to write verses or epigrams upon the pedestal. Eight governors of Egypt thus inscribed their names, and several other persons of distinction recorded the fact of their visit” (Brome Weigall 2015:248). Nearly ninety inscriptions are still legible today (“Colossi of Memnon” 2020). While inspecting the Colossi, we took a closer look at the base; “among the centuries of graffiti, [there] were strings of Latin epigrams and Greek poems, all written with the same motivation as modern tourist scribble. Nestled in among the Daryl Jones, Christmas 1811 and Ich bin ein Berliner were notes from the likes of Lucius Charisius (122 AD), [strategos of the local nomes (Rosenmeyer 2018:28)] and Falernus” (Perrottet 2003:335), a Greek poet and sophist (Perrottet 2003:335; Rosenmeyer 2018:171).

Evolution is coming backwards

For more than two centuries the singing statues also brought tourists from Rome itself, including several emperors (Brome Weigall 2015:248; Boorstin 1993-2012:162; Mystery History 2019). “When Hadrian and his wife, Sabina, arrived in [130AD], the singing Memnon remained silent on their first morning. But it spoke up the next day and inspired their court poetess to compose a paean to both Memnon and the emperor” (Boorstin 1993-2012:162). However, some visitors failed to hear the sound, in which case it was believed that the demigod, Memnon, was angry (Brome Weigall 2015:248). “Emperor Septimius Severus in [202AD] was not either so fortunate. When the statue repeatedly refused to speak to him, he tried to conciliate it by repairing its cracks [made mostly by the earthquake in 27 BC]” (Boorstin 1993-2012:162; see Scott 1984:22).

In comparison to the original construction, the repairing works undertaken by the Romans were conducted rather crudely (Scott 1984:22). Whereas the upper half of the northern statue toppled in the first century, after Strabo its lower part was not affected (Ibid.:22) and “[he] heard a sound issue from the remaining portion of the figure” (Ibid.:22). Nevertheless, the Romans decided to also repair the rear part of the pedestal (Ibid.:22). It was because they had assumed that it would not be able to support “the added load of the upper torso they intended to place on the truncated statue” (Ibid.:22). While being repaired, its “individual blocks of quartzite, each weighing about 10 tons were fitted together in five tiers for the trunks, and a block weighing around 50 tons was used for the head” (Ibid.:22). The original stone used was quartzite quarried at Gebel el Ahmar, near Cairo, which is nearly 700 kilometres away! (Scott 1984:22; Foerster 2016; Jimmy 2017; Mystery History 2019). “[The] newly worked stone [used by the Romans] came from quarries at Aswan, to the south of Thebes much nearer to the city than Gebel el Ahmar [(over 200 kilometres)]” (Scott 1984:22), and it was transported cut in much smaller blocks (Ibid.:22). ”‘The restoration [carried by the Romans] was a far simpler project than the original construction, or than a restoration by use of a single block,’ [admit] the Lawrence Berkeley scientists” (Ibid.:22).

Originally, each of the Colossi was carved out of one solid piece of quartzite stone, which according to some sources originally weighed over 1000 tons a piece (Foerster 2016; Jimmy 2017; Mystery History 2019). The famous report within Artie Gold’s Book of Marvels, from 1937, even contained an estimate of 1200 tons for each statue (Mystery History 2019), whereas Eric Gonthier claims they weigh now 1 300 tons a piece, so before being carved they must have been even heavier (Grimault, Pooyard 2012).

Having been restored, the statue has never been heard to sing again (Boorstin 1993-2012:162; Scott 1984:22). How was it able to do so then? It is believed that after the earthquake in 27BC, the statue “was damaged in such a way that it made ringing noises early in the morning. Scientists suggest that air trapped in a pocket within a statue caused the mysterious noise” (Littleton 2005:852); it was possible as the sun heat “caused dew trapped within the statue’s crack to evaporate, creating a series of vibrations that echoed through the thin desert air” (Wolfe 2020). After the restorations of the pedestal, the pocket was apparently filled in and the mysterious sound stopped (Scott 1984:22). Against such a theory is, however, the fact that “the cracks have multiplied since then. [Yet] no song has come back with them” (Boorstin 1993-2012:162). “Even so, the name of Memnon remained attached to the statues” (Littleton 2005:852).

Evidence of high technology

Who created these Colossi? How were they made? As a matter of fact, if you research the Colossi of Memnon, there is virtually no explanation how these were cut and carved (Jimmy 2017). Still, they are clearly an astonishing ancient accomplishment and the monuments which are even today found highly compelling (Ibid.). After some authors they were not built by ancient Egyptians, who only adopted them, but were achieved by a now lost advanced civilization (Foerster 2016; 2019; Jimmy 2017; Mystery History 2019). Does it sound ridiculous? A thorough analysis actually reveals a definite evidence of high technology applied in the construction of the Colossi.

Transportation

First of all, the two massive blocks of stone must have been transported hundreds kilometres away (Foerster 2016; Jimmy 2017; Mystery History 2019). They weighed around 1000 tons a piece (or even more), assuming they were later cut and carved in a position on the site (Foerster 2016). As it is stated above, they were quarried and dragged from Gebel el Ahmar, nearly 700 kilometres away from Thebes, in modern day Cairo (Scott 1984:22). That quarry was actually proven to have been utilized by dynastic Egyptians for various statues and other stone structures but the question is how they were able to move so massive blocks of stone (Jimmy 2017). In comparison, the Romans restoring one of the statues used a quarry just 200 kilometres away from the site (Scott 1984:22). They also transported and utilized far much smaller blocks of stone than the Colossi’s builders (Ibid.:22).

In the case of more modern installation for the Los Angeles County Museum of Art in 2012, the task was to move a 340-ton boulder sculpture and place it above a 140-metre viewing pathway (Jimmy 2017; “Levitated Mass” 2020). To accomplish the feat, the rock was loaded onto a 90-metre long, 196-wheeled transporter custom-built by Emmert International only for this reason (“Levitated Mass” 2020). “Because of the transporter’s size and needs, the boulder could only be moved at night at a maximum speed of about [12 kilometres] per hour” (Ibid.). It was all about to move something that was less than half a weight of the each Colossus and almost the third of the weight of what every of these statues would have been prior to being cut and carved (Jimmy 2017).

Generally, Egyptologists theorized that different stone blocks would have been moved by ancient Egyptians over tree trunks (Foerster 2016; Jimmy 2017). However, that is completely unrealistic when you consider something such big and massive as the Colossi over that far of a distance (Jimmy 2017).

Super hard stone

The fact the statues are both made of quartzite amazes (Foerster 2016; Jimmy 2017; Mystery History 2019). Quartzite is a super hard stone (Foerster 2016). It is seven out of ten on the Mohs Scale of Hardness, with a diamond being a ten (Foerster 2016; Jimmy 2017). Most megalithic structures around Egypt and elsewhere around the world are carved out of granite and basalt, which is approximately a six out of ten on the Mohs Scale and granite varies between six and seven depending on its kind (Foerster 2016; Jimmy 2017). How they were able to cut and carve the stone remains a complete mystery (Jimmy 2017). The dynastic Egyptians had not used steel to cut stones until about 800 BC. (Foerster 2016). So what did they use instead? Modern Egyptologists claim that stone hammers and bronze chisels were applied to cut and carve any stone, including basalt, granite and even quartzite (Jimmy 2017).

Although, the use of such primitive methods may have been more possible in case of smaller feats, which is ether doubtless, the size of the Colossi is astounding and to consider that the ancient Egyptian sculptors would have used the basic tools for both quarrying and then cutting and carving so large and hard boulders seems incredibly unlikely (Jimmy 2017).

Sun-blasted

Although the Colossi of Memnon are hugely damaged today, upon a closer inspection, there is an incredible advanced precision visible in highly precise cuts on the stone (Jimmy 2017; Mystery History 2019). Such advanced cutting technology was utilized in various areas of these statues prior to their destruction (Jimmy 2017; Mystery History 2019). There is evidence discovered by professional geologists that apart from having been toppled by the earthquakes, the Colossi had also been heat blasted (Foerster 2016; Jimmy 2017; Mystery History 2019). Some theorize that they may have been subjected to a plasma blast from the Sun tens of thousands of years ago, which further validate the theory that the dynastic Egyptians did not create these statues (Jimmy 2017). Possibly they just found them, and it was actually the previous civilization existing before the great cataclysm who would have created the statues with some sort of advanced technology (Foerster 2016; 2019; Jimmy 2017; Mystery History 2019).

Effects of a world-wide catastrophe?

According to some authors, there was a world-wide catastrophic event that struck the planet of Earth around 12 000 years ago (Foerster 2019). Some claim it was a comet or pieces of a comet that wreaked havoc, wiped out almost all life and changed the environment of the entire planet (Ibid.).

The Earth itself had once been in a vertical position, which changed after the catastrophe to twenty three and half degrees (Foerster 2019). Such a process in turn led to a sudden change of a climate, which shifted from tropical to temperate and from temperate to Arctic (Ibid.). In Catastrophobia (2001) Barbara Hand Clow shows that a series of cataclysmic disasters happened in around 12 000 years ago, caused by a massive disturbance in the Earth’s crust (Ibid.). As a result, most of the human population died out and those who survived had to find refuge in recesses such as caves (Ibid.). According to the author, this stands for the caveman period, from around 10.000 to 4000 BC (Ibid.). The rise of civilization, such as Sumeria, the Indus Valley and Egypt, was not hence a sign of the very first evolvement of human civilization but rather the renewal of humanity (Ibid.).

An American physicist, Dr. Paul LaViolette in turn states in his work Galactic Superwaves and their Impact on the Earth (2001) that the center of our galaxy is not a black hole but a pulsar and every thirteen thousand years or half of a precessional cycle (which takes approximately 26000 years), the center of the galaxy fills up with energy (Foerster 2019). Accordingly, around 12 000, it released this energy, which successively spread across the galactic plane, entered the solar system, created the asteroid belt and went through the Sun and shot solar plasma straight at the planet of Earth (Ibid.).

There is also the work by the geologist Robert Schoch, Forgotten Civilization: The Role of Solar Outbursts in Our Past and Future (2012) in which the author emphasizes the solar plasma theory (Foerster 2019). Finally, Brien Foerster in Aftershock: The Ancient Cataclysm That Erased Human History (2016) summarizes the most compelling aspects of all these theories and puts them together in a cohesive manner (Ibid.).

Schoch claims that the solar plasma did not strike all over the earth but very specific, random locations (Foerster 2019). Such a phenomenon is so intense in terms of heat that it would vaporize anything where it was struck, with all organic life in a first row (Ibid.). What the geologist proposes is that at the end of the Last Ice Age (around 12 000 years ago), the solar plasma caused especially the northern ice sheet to vaporize, which eventually led to the Great Flood (Ibid.). Mounting scientific evidence is showing the world’s oceans rose by one hundred metres very rapidly, within a year (Ibid.). So rather than the legendary Atlantis being a landmass that sank, the waters rose and buried its civilization and possibly others (Ibid.).

The erased face of the statues

The Earth’s life was destroyed but what was left behind would be stone structures (Foerster 2019). In some parts of the globe, however, there is observable strange damage to the stone surface (Ibid.). The geologists think that the stone must have been struck with intense and almost instantaneous blasts of heat of 2000 degrees Celsius (Foerster 2016; 2019). The evidence for such a heat is a crystalline nature of the interior of the stone, which had been heat flashed or cooked not to the point of melting but to the point of causing the stone to expand by creating major cracks on the surface (Ibid.). It is defined as possible evidence of an ancient cataclysmic heat of solar plasma (Ibid.).

The same is believed to have happened in the case of the Colossi of Memnon (Foerster 2016; 2019). The surface of the front of the statues is completely erased but it is unlike simple defacement made by time, people or even an earthquake (Foerster 2016; 2019; Jimmy 2017). It is actually confirmed by geologists, that their face appears heat blasted by having been burnt off with possibly plasma ejection from the Sun (Foerster 2016; 2019). The surface there appears scorched, with visible crystalline structures which cannot be a result of a simple fire but intense heat that would have expanded the crystals inside the stone (Ibid.). It is supported by the fact that the Colossi’s sides are less damaged, with their back not destroyed at all (Ibid.). So it may have been an effect of a heat blast coming in from the east, likely at sunrise (Ibid.). This fits in turn with the idea of the geologist Robert Schoch that plasma stroke some sites on the earth 12 000 years ago (Ibid.).

Moreover, the same effects are also hugely visible at other megalithic stone statues and other structures in the area, which confirms the plasma ejection theory (Foerster 2016; 2019).

Lack of logical explanations

The Colossi of Memnon are listed as containing some of the largest megalithic blocks that have currently been recorded and investigated across the world and although these statues have virtually crumbled over the epochs, records of the Colossi stretch back many centuries (Mystery History 2019).

These structures once possessed an astonishing characteristic many claimed as a divine experience that drew countless individuals on a pilgrimage across the desert to witness it at first light of the Sun every morning (Mystery History 2019). The Colossi themselves are oriented towards the sunrise at winter solstice, which suggests that as many other monuments worldwide, they were designed as an astronomical device (Ibid.). Although modern academia would like to attribute these feats to ancient Egyptians, any logical explanation of how their construction was achieved or indeed how the Colossi were so precisely carved with simple tools remain absent from all given so far explanations (Jimmy 2017).

Not only their transport or creation but also their aim and the way of destruction call for further studies. Although throughout modern research, there have been a number of fearless individuals exposing the phenomenon of the statues to the world, it simultaneously seems to be overlooked or even deliberately ignored by mainstream academia (Mystery History 2019).

Striking anomalies

There are many other ancient anomalies that can be found across much of ancient Egypt and outside it (Mystery History 2019). Not only are the ancient pyramids in Egypt a clear feat of a highly capable ancient engineering but also many of the still existing ancient temples are testament to a now lost yet once incredibly advanced ancient civilization, and although many academic scholars takes for granted the theory that the pyramids once served as the burial places of pharaohs, the truth is that the original purpose of these ancient structure still remains unclear (Ibid.).

Ancient megalithic structures, such as the Colossi of Memnon show moreover clear evidence of lost technology, unquestionably left by high speed high rotation stone cutting technologies as many of the tombs and other artifacts found throughout the ancient ruins (Mystery History 2019). Many of them, though wrongly defined, still exist but there were also some astonishing structures in Egypt that although are now lost, they have been recorded and documented by the ancients, specifically by the Greeks and Romans (Ibid.). Today, the existence of such monuments is usually misinterpreted, erroneously identified or even questioned, as it is in the case of the famous Labyrinth of Egypt. Generally, what is actively taught is clearly inaccurate and there are many holes in the theories proposed by many modern-day scholars, unless they are proven by repeating the alleged process of ancient construction (Jimmy 2017). It is striking that the Colossi of Memnon and many other examples of megalithic structures around Egypt and elsewhere around the world could not simply have been made by the primitive methods proposed and stated by the main-stream scholars (Jimmy 2017; Mystery History 2019).

Although any speculations about the unknown origins of the Colossi of Memnon are openly denied, “these two battered [giants] remain. [Even silent, they are still standing proudly] on the Nile floodplains, [like] three-dimensional hieroglyphs of the grandeur of Egypt [and its mysteries]” (Boorstin 1993-2012:162).

Featured image: Colossi of Memnon. Source: “Valley of the Kings and Queens, Colossus and Hatshepsut Tour” (2020) Civitatis.

By Joanna
Faculties of English Philology, History of Art and Archaeology.
University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland;
Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw, Poland;
University College Dublin, Ireland.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

“Colossi of Memnon” (2020). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/3gp4eNm>. [Accessed on 3^rd July, 2020].

“Levitated Mass” (2020). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/2DaBLwx>. [Accessed on 3^rd July, 2020].

Boorstin D. J. (1993-2012) The Creators: A History of Heroes of the Imagination. New York: Vintage Books. A Division of Random House, INC.

Brome Weigall A. E. P. (2015) Guide to the Antiquities of Upper Egypt. Cambridge University Press.

Civitas (2020) Photo: “Colossi of Menon”. In: “Valley of the Kings and Queens, Colossus and Hatshepsut Tour”. In: Civitatis. Available at <https://bit.ly/31VUeav>. [Accessed on 4th July, 2020].

Foerster B. (2016) Largest Stone Sculptures Of Ancient Egypt: 12,000 Years Old? Available at <https://bit.ly/2YTLZcQ>. [Accessed on 3^rd July, 2020].

Foerster B. (2019) Aftershock: The Ancient Cataclysm That Erased Human History. Available at <https://bit.ly/38u2RKg>. [Accessed on 3^rd July, 2020]

Grimault, J. Pooyard P. (2012) The Revelation of the Pyramids. Ekwanim Production &Wild Bunch.

Jimenea F. (2020) Photo: “The Colossi of Memnon”. In: Elite Readers. Available at <https://bit.ly/3inUN2q>. [Accessed on 3^rd July, 2020].

Jimmy (2017) “Massive Egyptian Stone Statues – The Colossi of Memnon – Lost Ancient Civilizations”. In: Bright Insight. Available at <https://bit.ly/31CQDhf>. [Accessed on 3^rd July, 2020].

Littleton, C. S. (2005) Gods, Goddesses, and Mythology: Inca-Mercury. Volume 6. New York, London, Singapore: Marshall Cavendish.

Mystery History (2019) “Thousand Ton ‘Singing Statues’ Found In Egypt?” In: Mystery History. Available at <https://bit.ly/2YTdwv5>. [Accessed on 3^rd July, 2020].

Perrottet T. (2003) Pagan Holiday: On the Trail of Ancient Roman Tourists. New York: Random House Trade.

Photo: “The Colossi of Memnon” (2019). In: Reddit. Available at <https://bit.ly/2ZzGUW9>. [Accessed on 3^rd July, 2020].

Rosenmeyer P. A. (2018) The Language of Ruins: Greek and Latin Inscriptions on the Memnon Colossus. Oxford University Press.

Scott A. (1984) “Roman Repairs Stopped Memnon Singing”. In: New Scientist. No 1420.

Vankin D. Willon P. (2012) “Westward, ho! for LACMA’s Art Rock”. In: Los Angeles Times. Available at <https://lat.ms/3f0G2R1>. [Accessed 3rd July, 2020].

Wolfe K. (2020) Colossi of Memnon. In: Atlas Obscura. Available at <https://bit.ly/3ilzhvj>. [Accessed on 3^rd July, 2020].

AFRICA, ETHIOPIA

Aksumite Megaliths of Commemoration in the Continuous Tradition of Ethiopia

October 1, 2022 Joanna Pyrgies Leave a comment

My destination was one of the busiest and significant cities in Eastern Africa, which is today known as Aksum or Axum (Casely-Hayford 2010). Once, it was a huge and thriving city and it was ranked among Rome, Persia and China, as one of the four greatest powers (Ibid.). It had a considerable claim to fame (Ibid.). According to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, it was actually Axum, where the King’s Solomon and the Queen of Sheba’s son, Menelik literally brought the Arch of the Convent in the first millennium BC. (Ibid.). Accordingly, within the city walls of Aksum are the solid foundations of the Judaic-Christian traditions (Ibid.). The first Christian church was built by the king Ezana in the fourth century AD. (Ibid.). And so it was the first Ethiopian emperor to have converted to Christianity (Ibid.). The coins from that period bear both, the Christian and pagan signs, such as the cross and the crescent moon and the sun, the latter equally visible on incense burners, being stored in Ethiopian churches alongside with other liturgical objects; hence there was a continuity of the ruler, and the Judaic tradition alike, before and after the Christianity came (Ibid.).

After leaving the site of the Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion, we headed off to the Central Stelae Park in Aksum. While we were approaching the hill of the royal commemoration, two slender grey granite towers started growing before us on the blue horizon.

Aksumite Empire

Located on the Horn of Africa, the ancient kingdom of Aksum (the Aksumite Empire is not just Aksum alone but the region known as Tigray), became an international empire in the first millennium AD. (Finneran 2007:146; Sullivan 2019), having “contacts with the eastern Mediterranean world, the Nile Valley, Arabia and even further across the Indian Ocean to India and China. Aksum also forged [in the early fourth century (c. 324)] its own distinctive Christian identity [that lasts till nowadays embodied by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church]” (Finneran 2007:146). The Aksum region had been populated and expanded by Agaw people since the fourth century BC (Sullivan 2019) but it had grown out from the Proto-Aksumite Culture (Finneran 2007). The latter reaches back to the first millennium BC and so the Ethio-Sabaean period with its long traditions related to the empire of the Queen of Sheba, whose capital was possibly located in Marib (today Yemen) but with its boundaries stretching over both South Arabia and Ethiopia (Finneran 2007; Sullivan 2019). Although the Queen of Sheba lived centuries before the kingdom of Aksum, its kings proving their right to the crown, claimed descent from Menelik, a legendary son of the famous Queen and King Solomon of Israel (Sullivan 2019).

The might of the first Christian Emperor Ezana is confirmed by his slab stone carved in a multilingual inscriptions; it includes the local Geʿez language, still used by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, there are also inscriptions in an international language of ancient Greeks, alongside the language called Sabaean, which was spoken just in that part of Africa, apart from southern Arabia (modern day Yemen) (Casely-Hayford 2010). It is so an evidence that the Queen of Sheba’s language was present in the heart of Ethiopia; it also frequently appears on stone elements, revealing pagan symbols, scattered around Aksum (Ibid.). Historians think the language died out in the eighth century but it first occurred around one thousand BC., and so it had originated in the kingdom of Sheba and was brought later to Ethiopia (Ibid.). Simultaneously, it points deeper in the past, to the kingdom of Aksum’s origins (Ibid.).

Yet before the fourth century and the first Christian king of Ezana, “the Kingdom of Aksum had a complex social hierarchy [:] an upper elite of kings and nobles, a lower elite of lesser nobles as well as wealthy merchants and farmers, and finally a tier of ordinary people such as small farmers, craftsmen, and traders. [Aksumite elaborated tombs] suggest that the elite enjoyed extravagant burial practices, including funerary monuments known as stelae” (Sullivan 2019).

Central Stelae Park

Aksum is famous for grave markers or stelae made of solid granite; they are thought to be ones of the largest pieces of stone ever to come out of a quarry; usually, they are dated back to pre-Christina times of the first or second centuries (Casely-Hayford 2010). Yet, there is more to the matter of dating …

The tallest monuments of this type reaches at over 300 meters and weigh hundreds of tons (Casely-Hayford 2010). Equally, they are examples of most impressive monuments ever built in the ancient world (Ibid.). We must also remember that those large Aksumite stelae are single pieces of rock (Ibid.), as much as Egyptian obelisks. The features of the stelae, which are marking ancient burial places of Ethiopian emperors have been continuously echoing down the past of the region (Ibid.). That continuous tradition is taking the story of the Ethiopian kingdom back to the very beginnings of Christianity but the kingdom went back much further in time, even before the times of Solomon and Sheba.

The largest and well carved stelae are present at the Central Stelae Park with the multi-storied carved features: two of them are now standing: looking from the south, there is stela two (the Obelisk of Axum) in the centre, stela three (King Ezana’s Stela) on the right (eastern) side, and on the left – “stela one, [the Great Stela] lies recumbent at the western edge of the group. [Stela] two was toppled in antiquity and was removed to Rome during the Italian occupation in the 1930s from where it was returned [in 2007]” (Finneran 2007:165). Stela three, in turn, is standing now supported by a system of lifts with blocks and ropes preventing it from falling down (Ibid.). “Three other, smaller multi-storied stelae, [fourth, fifth and sixth], stand to the east of the main group.” (Finneran 2007:165). The obelisks are believed to be “manifestations of secular and ideological power” (Finneran 2007:165) of the Aksumite rulers and had once a funerary function (Finneran 2007:165). While “stela one is associated with the complex of the Mausoleum and East Tomb, [stelae two and three are related to] a warren of catacombs beneath the stela park” (Finneran 2007:165).

Afterlife Palace of the Kings

As Finneran (2007:165) notes “the stelas are more than mere tomb markers. [They] embody a great deal of symbolic and social meaning.” This architecture traces back to the ways of building of the Aksumite people, which has been also continued in sacral buildings of Christianity, as monasteries and churches (Casely-Hayford 2010). They equally inspired famous churches of Lalibela. At top of some complete stelae there is the pagan symbol of the Rising Sun, being also repeated in later Christian architecture (Ibid.). By these means, it is a continuous historical narrative of the history of Ethiopia (Ibid.). The stelae number one, two and three “were elaborately carved with inscriptions from top to bottom. They also had stone doors and fake windows” (Sullivan 2019). After some scholars “the tomb [is] a palace for the dead king [in the afterlife]” (Finneran 2007:167) and the door may suggest access to this sphere (Ibid.:168). Carvings that cover the stelae accordingly depict building elements, such as the endings of the wooden beams and windows, composing multi-story houses that would be inhabited by Aksumite emperors in the afterlife (Casely-Hayford 2010); they are thus “like the skyscrapers to the immortality” (Ibid.). As it is widely accepted the monuments were carved, brought to the site and erected in the pre-Christian Aksumite period, that is to say around 200-300 AD by subjects of the Kingdom of Aksum (Finneran 2007:165-173).

“Chronologically it is obvious that the stelae should be associated with the pre-Christian burial rituals of the […] kingly elite, possibly commemorating not an individual, rather a dynasty. […] The development of a royal mausoleum […] during the third century is evidence of a rupture with the earlier capital zone on the summit of Beta Giyorgis and the creation of a new type of kingship, removed from the proto-Aksumite intermediate-level society towards a semidivine kingship and dynastic system” (Finneran 2007:169). The royal obelisks “face southwards […] at the foot of Beta Giyorgis, [and] the approaching traveller […] would have passed along a line of throne bases, […] which may have been the bases of large statues, possibly of [Aksumite] kings” (Finneran 2007:167). This means “the area was a dedicated royal necropolis”, (Finneran 2007:168) designed to project a royal power beyond life (Ibid). This is why more elaborated and massive stelae had been erected at the site. Still the one question stays unanswered – HOW? (Foerster 2016).

From the left: the Obelisk of Axum and the King Ezana’s Stela. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

The Great Stela or the fallen stela number one weighs 520 tons and is 33 metres high and as such stays the largest monolith to have been raised once by humans (not to mention lying megalithic blocks from the Baalbek site, weighing over 800 to 1000 tons) (Finneran 2007:168; Simon Fraser; SFU 2020) “[Yet] the indications are that [the stela] was never successfully erected.” (Finneran 2007:165). “The Great Stele was carved on all four sides and represents a thirteen-storey building” (SFU 2020).

“Stela two – the Obelisk of Axum – is a smaller version of stela one. […] In total the monolith was 24,6 metres long and weighed [approximately 200 (SFU 2020)] tons; it was intentionally destabilised during antiquity and broke into five pieces” (Finneran 2007:168). According to an archaeological survey in 1997, “the structure was undermined from the front [the south side] and was pushed forwards from the back [the north side] with the result that the baseplate was displaced southwards and the stela itself cracked as it impacted upon the ground” (Finneran 2007:168).

Stela three or King Ezana’s Stela – is around 21 m high and weighs approximately 160-170 tons. “it is the only large stela that was never relocated nor ever fell down, and is presumably the last obelisk erected in Aksum. […] Following the concerns of the stela’s tilting position, it was structurally consolidated in 2008” (SFU 2020).

With the coming of Christianity, pagan rituals and stelae constructions ceased (Finneran 2007:168). This is probably why the stela two was toppled, and the door handle of the stela one was deliberately defaced (Ibid). Yet, it seems “strange that [King Ezana’s Stela] was spared” (Finneran 2007:168). On the whole, we may assume that “bar the toppling of [the Obelisk of Axum], the transition to Christianity was marked by a general acceptance of pre-existing sacred spaces and respect for monuments” (Finneran 2007:168).

How …?

The all monuments were made of local stone (Finneran 2007:168). “The number of quarry sites have been surveyed on the slopes of Gobdera Hills” (Finneran 2007:168) – 4 kilometres west of Aksum (Finneran 2007:168; Connah 2016:129), from where “came the granite used for the dressed stones of local Aksumite buildings and some of the stelae” (Graham Conna 2016”129). After Finneran (2007:169) “the stone was then moved across the southern flanks of Beta Giyorgis into the town. […] It is hypothesized that the motive power could have been provided by elephants”. Some other scholars suggest it was achieved by means of wooden rollers …

Irrespective of any hypothesis, some facts must be considered : namely, the distance between the quarries and the necropolis, the mountainous topography of the Gobdera Hills, Beta Giyorgis and Aksum itself, and possibilities of an elephant or a group of these animals dragging one piece of multi tons megalith through often a narrow and steep area. And it must have been one piece only as the stelae were carved out of one single piece of rock. Assuming the fact they were carved on site, the block dragged must have been larger and heavier before it was reshaped and erected.

Stelae and stelae …

More primitive stelae in Aksum. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

Erection of stelae in Axum has got a long ancient tradition. Although “the Aksumite stelae owe little to the Semitic idea of the Nephesh, or memorial stone, […] it must be assumed that the use of stelae came to prominence as part of the strong process of acculturation between the northern Tigray highlands and the steppic Sudanic lowlands to the west, [yet in the pre-Aksumite period]. Stelae are also very diversely decorated, embracing a wide range of motifs, such as [the South-Arabian inspired crescent disc symbolism, a carved Egyptian ankh symbol, lances, house-like structure]” (Finneran 2007:172-173). Major part of such monoliths, however, is much more primitive and roughly carved in the comparison to the royal obelisks (e.g. Beta Giyorgis, Matara, Hinzat, Sidamo, Munro-Hay, the Gudit Stelae Field) (Foerster 2016; Finneran 2007:172-173). There are also groups of stelae unique to the south of Ethiopia, with a similar funeral function but strikingly different features and iconography. They mostly appear in the region of Soddo and are referred to as the stones of Gragn (see: Language of the Megalithic Tiya).

‘Is it possible that the royal and more elaborated obelisks from Aksum are far older than presumed?’, wonders Foerster (2016). He suggests that ‘some of these granite stelae could in fact be more ancient, and were inherited by the Kingdom of Axum and were re-erected by them. The major damage to the [stela one] may be evidence of a massive catastrophe that severely impacted the first builders, perhaps 12,000 years ago, [possibly by earthquakes]’. Similar devastation of the megalithic constructions is also visible while looking closer at the tombs on site with a strikingly similar megalithic masonry.

When did the tradition start?

On the other side, “the royal stela is carved as a skeuomorphic representation of a multi-storied building constructed from wood and stone. The door and window frames […] are also reflected in the church building at the monastery of Debre Damo (sixth century), inter alia, and are suggested by architectural reconstructions of Aksumite palace building” (Finneran 2007:165,167). Very characteristic of the royal stelae is also “the distinctive curved [top] of the multi-stored construction, which resembles the symbol of the moon deity [from the time of the pre-Aksumite empire]. The presence of small holes here may imply that a metallic plaque had been fixed upon the tops of the megaliths” (Finneran 2007:1767-168). Is it then a continuation of the long-term Ethiopian tradition from the more ancient symbols of the crescent moon and wooden architecture to the repetition of the same patterns in the stone stelae dressing? Or maybe it happened the other way round, assuming the stelae had been already present there and adapted as much as some of the tombs structures? And finally, how did the Aksumite subjects shape blocks of granite rock and on that scale? (Foerster 2016).

Giant’s playground

I stood by the fallen stela number one and I could not help feeling the enormity of the structure at which I felt like shrinking. “The indentations on each side of the stela are elaborately undercut. This concept causes the strong Aksum sunlight to enhance the apparent relief of the carved surfaces” (SFU 2020). This is why the play of light on the stela carvings were giving a distinctive visual impression (Finneran 2007:167) that it is no longer a stone but a giant busk of a living being moving along in the sun. Then, I looked around the Park. Everywhere, there were some multi-ton megalithic pieces scattered around as if by a storm, and left among the trunks of still standing stelae: some were partially protruding from the ground, sometimes with precise patterns carved on them, others assuming more regular shapes being probably once a part of a bigger construction. All of those elements looked like abandoned toys in the playground of a giant who had forgotten to collect them.

In Ethiopia, any efforts of separating legends from facts is difficult: fragmented stones preserved within churches covered in Sabaean characters, striking connections to the world of the Old Testament, and outstanding faith in the legend of Menelik bringing the Arch of the Convent to Aksum, are all closely tied to the unique traditions of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church (Casely-Hayford 2010). Yet, is there in this already complex riddle any convenient place for an alternative archaeology of the Aksumite megalithic culture?

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Simon Frazer University (SMU) (2020) “Aksumite Stelae: true treasures of human craftsmanship.” In: Museum of Archaeology & Ethnology. Available at <https://bit.ly/3aLucZt>. [Accessed on 26^th January, 2020].

Casely-Hayford, G. (2010). Lost Kingdoms of Africa Series 1, Episode 2: “Ethiopia”. Howitt S., Lilley I., Bates M. IWC Media for BBC.

Connah, C. (2016) African Civilizations: An Archaeological Perspective. Cambridge University Press.

Foerster, B. (2016) “The Amazing Megalithic Obelisks Of Axum In Ethiopia” In: Inca Hidden Tours. . Available at <https://bit.ly/36s5iKQ>. [Accessed on 26^th January, 2020].

Sullivan, K. (2019) “The Kingdom of Axum: Facts and Legends of a First Millennium Powerhouse.” In: Ancient Origins. Available at <https://bit.ly/2O2Er1w>. [Accessed on 26^th January, 2020].

Finneran, N. (2007) The Archaeology of Ethiopia. New York and London: Routledge.

ASIA, JAPAN

The Idea Behind the Jomon Pottery and its Representations

September 17, 2022 Joanna Pyrgies 4 Comments

The matter of pottery and its invention was one of numerous subjects dedicated to Southeast and East Asian Archaeology, which I studied during one of my chosen modules at the university. Although for many scholars the subject of pottery does not seem to tell a compelling story, it turned out to give me a highly interesting insight into general research and the question about the time of pottery’s invention, as according to universal knowledge, its appearance is conventionally associated with the Neolithic, which is, in turn, joined with the high-speed revolution in the development of human kind. Nevertheless, such an idea mostly concerns the area of the Middle East. In Far East Asia countries, such as Japan or China, the subject of pottery should be regarded differently.

Development of pottery has been generally linked to the Neolithic period and primarily associated with the Old Europe and Middle East, with its earliest introduction believed to have occurred in west Asia (Ganj Darreh in western Iran) (circa 7300 BC.) (Rudgley 2000:28; Kobayashi 2004:5, Fig.1.2). In such a context, pottery, together with a craft of weaving, polished stone tools, a sedentary lifestyle (permanent settlements), religion, monuments, and domesticated plants or animals, is still used to describe Neolithic cultures around the world, conventionally appearing around 10000-8000 BC. (Solovyeva 2017:157; The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica 2021). Nevertheless, as it is supported by archaeological finds, an invention of pottery had already taken place much earlier, surely in the Palaeolithic, and further eastwards, more precisely in north-east Asia, including the Amur River basin in Eastern Russia (eastern Siberia), China (Jiangxi, a southeast Chinese province) and Japan (Rudgley 2000:28-29; Kobayashi 2004:5, Fig.1.2; Norman 2004-2021).

Yet before 1960, it was believed that the earliest Japanese pottery came back from around 2500 BC. (Omoto, Takeishi, Nishida, Fukui 2016:534). But when the so-called Jōmon pottery from the site of Natsushima (Yokosuka, Kanagawa Prefecture) was radiocarbon dated back to around 7000 BC., it turned out to be a real watershed in the archaeology of prehistory (Rudgley 2000:28). Other contemporary excavations at Fukui Cave in Nagasaki Prefecture not only revealed shreds of pottery, which were around 3000 years older than those from Natsushima (Serizawa 1976:2; Kobayashi 2004:9), but also proved “a direct continuity from [the microlithic culture of] the late Japanese Palaeolithic, [showing] a strong communality with the mainland […], to the [times of the] pottery-using [Jōmon]” (Kobayashi 2004:9,12,14). Further archaeological finds of undecorated pottery fragments in a charcoal residue at the Odai-Yamamoto Site (Sotogahama Town, Aomori Prefecture), pushed the beginnings of Japanese pottery even earlier in time to around 13000 BC. (Jomon Japan 2017). Still the oldest examples of undecorated, simple pottery vessels of the Jōmon culture are said to have been first produced around the same time, at the site of Shinonouchi in Nagano (Cartwright 2017) and at the sites in southern Kyūshū (Kakoinohara in Kagoshima Prefecture) (Kobayashi 2004:15-17,19). At the time of the mentioned excavations, the fact of the earliest pottery finds in Japan simultaneously questioned a common idea about a cultural predominance of ancient China over Japan in terms of innovations (Rudgley 2000:28-29). And although continuous excavations proved that pottery fragments also appeared in eastern Siberia around the same time as the Japanese evidence of earthenware vessels, and even earlier (c. 18 000 BC.) in southern China, pottery of the Jōmon culture in Japan is treated as an archaeological phenomenon and often referred to as the earliest pottery in the world (Norman 2004-2021; Rudgley 2000:29; Kobayashi 2004:5, Fig.1.2,19; cf. Kenrick 1995), though it should be rather called the earliest pottery tradition due to its continuous development over thousands of years (Lewis 23^rd September, 2021).

The Jōmon period, which covers a vast expanse of time of approximately thirteenth thousands years (Palmer 2007:49), can roughly fall within the Neolithic time range in Europe or in the Middle East, and so it is usually described as “Japan’s Neolithic period” (MET 2022; see: Solovyeva 2017:157; Kobayashi 2004:5, Fig.1.2; Bleed 1976:107). Still, it is important to mention that at its earliest stages, it overlaps with European and Middle Eastern Palaeolithic and Mesolithic periods (Kobayashi 2004:5, Fig.1.2). Bleed (1976:107) simultaneously claims that describing the entire Jōmon period as Neolithic is actually “unfortunate” and incorrect. Accordingly, if the agricultural revolution constitutes one of the significant aspects recognising the period of Neolithic, the Japanese Neolithic should only refer to the period with the end of the Jōmon culture, between 900 BC. and 300 AD., when the Yayoi culture introduced the agriculture and started to cultivate white rice (Lewis 23^rd September, 2021; Kobayashi 2004:133; cf. Barton 2012).

The Jōmon culture is the earliest one that we can identify in Japan. Yet it is little known about it because it was unfamiliar with the writing (Burns 2017). For this reason, the main source of knowledge about it are archaeological finds, such as pottery (Ibid.). Conventional time frames given for the Jōmon culture usually differ, depending on a given source (Cf: Solovyeva 2017:157; Kobayashi 2004:5, Fig.1.2). The chronology shown below is provided by scholars, such as Tatsuo Kobayashi (2004:5, Fig.1.2) and ChungHae Amana Oh (2011:35), and has been established basing on estimated radiocarbon dates from the last decade of the twentieth century (Amana Oh 2011:35). Accordingly, the Jōmon culture spans between 13600 BC. to 900 BC. and is traditionally divided into the subsequent periods: Incipient (13600-9200 BC.), Initial (9200-5300 BC.), Early (5300-3500), Middle (3500-2500), Late (2500-1200 BC.), and Final (1200-900BC.), when the Jōmon style wares and statues were gradually replaced by Yayoi pottery (ChungHae 2011:35, Kobayashi 2004:5, Fig.1.2).

The Jōmon culture came into existence with the end of the Last Glacial Period, and when it was in a gradual process of development, the Global Warming with significant climate change had already begun (Kobayashi 2004:1; Jomon Japan 2017). Consequently, sea levels rose in the contemporary world, causing in the region the inflow of the warm Tsushima Current into the Sea of Japan, and furthermore the growth of abundant forests of beech, chestnut, walnut and acorn in the Japanese archipelago (Kobayashi 2004:19). With time, “the ocean moved further inland, bringing with it [additional wealth] of fish and shellfish” (Jomon Japan 2017). Such favourable climate changes allowed contemporary groups of humans to use and “[manipulate] the resources available to them in the natural environment” (Kobayashi 2004:3). Jōmon groups initially led a nomadic and then a semi-sedentary life (MET 2022; Jomon Japan 2017); at that time, they built their villages composed of “pit dwellings arranged around central open spaces” (MET 2022), mostly along the ocean coast or along rivers and lakes, and obtained their food by gathering and fishing, collecting shellfish and hunting (Jomon Japan 2017). There was no need to move further, as they could dispose a large quantity of natural resources in one place, being usually stored in deep house pits (Kobayashi 2004:21). Kobayashi (2004:21) speculates that Jōmon peoples could have lined their storage pits with clay, as in the case of the West Asian Natufian culture, and so the Jōmon pottery could have originated from Japanese peoples’ observations that protruding fragments of the clay-lining hardened by the heat from nearby ovens (Ibid.:21). Or, there was a case when a piece of clay from the house wall (e.g. Ganji Darehor) or one dropped from the clay lining of a basket (e.g. North American southwest), was accidentally burnt and fire-hardened (Ibid.:21). Consequently, the Jōmon culture could have started processing clay wider to finally use it as a substance for containers (Ibid.:21). Although these are only some of speculations about actual foundations of pottery in Japan (Ibid.:21), they may constitute “a clue to the origins of pottery making in this region” (Ibid.:21).

Gradual increase in temperatures in Japan resulted in further remarkable inventions (Kobayashi 2004:7), such as “adoption of revolutionary new technologies and tools” (Ibid.:7). Typical of the Jōmon culture was an innovative way of cooking by means of pottery, which allowed them with time to initiate a typically sedentary lifestyle (Jomon Japan 2017). Accordingly, greater settlements were established, together with constant residential centres, sometimes featuring graveyards (e.g. Kakinoshima Site, Hakodate City, Hokkaido), and later also impressive monuments in the form of stone circles (e.g. Oyu Stone Circle, Kazuno City, Akita Prefecture or Kiusu Earthwork Burial Circles, Chitose City, Hokkaido) (Ibid.).

According to the archaeological evidence, It is said that groups of people who produced the earliest pottery mainly inhabited the main Japanese island of Honshu, though the centre of the mature Jōmon culture was more likely established in southern Hokkaido and northern Tohoku (northern end of Honshu) (e.g. Irie Takasago Shell Midden, Toyako, Town, Hokkaido or Futasumori Shell Midden, Shichinohe Town, Aomori Prefecture) (Jomon Japan 2017). Such a hypothesis is also supported by the fact that, despite that Honshu and Hokkaido areas had been divided by the Tsugaru Strait, different Jōmon peoples from these areas produced pottery of comparable shapes and by using analogous designs (Ibid.).

The Jōmon pottery was produced by hand, by employing turntables but without the use of a proper wheel, which had been unknown in Japan till the Yayoi phase of development (Kobayashi 2004:77; MET 2022). “The clay was mixed with a variety of adhesive materials, including mica, lead, fibres, and crushed shells, [and when] completely dry, [the pottery] was fired in an outdoor bonfire at a temperature of no more than about 900°C” (MET 2022). Kobayashi (2004:21) compares the earliest Japanese pottery manufacture to a contemporary process of baking a cake of crushed nuts and water. The Jōmon pottery is characterised by a cord pattern and hence the name of the culture – ‘Jōmon’, which stands for a ‘cord design’ (MET 2022). Apart from pottery vessels, also typical of the Jōmon culture were intriguing “[clay] figurines […] and other ritual [objects], demonstrating a rich spirituality” (Jomon Japan 2017). Most recognisable of all are definitely the so-called Dogu. Some researchers believe such pottery clay figures actually represent divine ancestors of the ancient Japanese (Burns 2017).

Shintō, the traditional native religion of Japan based on Japanese mythology, can be translated as the way of gods, literally kami-no-michi, where kami means gods (Shintō 2022). Hence, Japanese people believe in kami celestial beings who are still to reside in modern Japan (Burns 2017). According to an ancient Japanese tradition, there are millions of Kami; each has its own personal characteristics and can inhabit different entities, such as people and animals, or even objects (Ibid.). They come down to earth from Takama-ga-hara (High Plain of Heaven), and inhabit Jinja, which are in the Japanese Shintō religion places of worship devoted to various kami (Ibid.). Kami, in turn, are usually thought to be represented as the Dogu figurines (Ibid.). Around 15,000 Dogu representations in the form of various human-like creatures have been found throughout Japan (Ibid.). Also, according to alternative researchers, Dogu are surely to represent the mythological Kami that visited the earth in ancient times; they have goggle-like eyes and their bodies are covered with rivets, which may indicate an outfit or a type of an armour.

“While the many excavations of Jōmon sites have added to our knowledge of specific artifacts, they have not helped to resolve certain fundamental questions concerning the people of the protoliterate era, such as their ethnic classification and the [actual origins] of their language [and of phenomenal pottery vessels and clay figurines they unceasingly produced]” (MET 2022).

Edwina Palmer (2007:49) suggests that while discussing Jōmon Japanese culture, one should use plural Jōmon peoples as the term should be understood as various groups of “the population spanning at least thirteen millennia across the whole of the present Japanese archipelago”(Ibid.:49). The author also believes “that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that some [Jōmon groups] spoke an Austronesian language or languages” (Ibid.:49). Such assumptions have resulted from a long-term debate on the origins of the Jōmon culture in Japan (Cf. Palmer 2007). Scholars, like Charles Loring Brace et al. (1990) and Peter Bellwood (1997) supported an ‘Out of Taiwan’ hypothesis, postulating that Jōmon culture might have been established by migrations from Taiwan (Palmer 2007:47-49). Simultaneously, it is claimed that in the Jōmon period, some groups travelled by sea from Sundaland (modern-day Southeast Asia) due to a postglacial flooding and eventually settled down on the islands of present-day Japan (Ibid.:47). Even though these two theories seem contradictory, Palmer (2007:47) assumes that “an ‘Out of Sunda’ scenario of migration to Japan in the [Jōmon] period is not necessarily entirely incompatible with an ‘Out of Taiwan’ theory” (Ibid.:47). And so she concludes that there must have been numerous migrations in Japan during a long-time Jōmon period, according to “[a] common-sense approach […] that humans were never traveling in only one direction at any time […]” (Ibid.:48). Such an approach “may, [at the same time], accommodate many aspects of the various theories proposed” (Ibid.:48). Similarly, it is underlined by Ryan W. Schmidt and Noriko Seguchi (2014:43), who claim that the Jōmon culture was rather like an ethnic mosaic composed of various Palaeolithic peoples migrating to the islands of Japan, and so “in this respect, the biological identity of the Jōmon is heterogeneous, and it may be indicative of diverse peoples who belonged to a common culture, known as the [Jōmon]” (Ibid.:43). That, in turn, agrees with the claim that “the [Jōmon] revolution, [creating pottery], did not arise from [an isolated] microlithic culture in the archipelago, nor was it the result of just a single wave of influence from the continent, but rather a [consequence] of several phases of intervention and interaction” (Kobayashi 2004:14). Consequently, there were hypotheses the pottery could have originated in the continental East Asia, invented independently by different groups of people, and then brought with numerous waves of migrations to contemporary Japan and consequently adopted by its inhabitants (Ibid.:19).

The Jōmon pottery is generally distinguished by its characteristics (Cartwright 2017) “that [clearly identify its makers] and [set] them apart from all other [later] Japanese [or contemporary Asian] cultures” (Bleed 1976:107), including the first cases of pottery in Western Asia (Kobayashi 2004:20). A suggested similarity of the Jōmon pottery to examples found in eastern Siberia, China, the Korean peninsula or Taiwan has been challenged, adding to that the pottery in Japan is generally dated earlier than in most parts of contemporary East Asia (except for China and Siberia), where its invention was possibly a result of analogous technologies (Palmer 2007:48; Kobayashi 2004:19; Rudgley 2000:28-29; Norman 2004-2021). Only later, like in the Early Jōmon period, “[similarities] between pottery produced in Kyūshū and contemporary Korea suggest that regular commerce existed between the Japanese islands and the Korean peninsula, [together with the Mainland Southeast Asia]” (MET 2022). It is also theorised that the earliest pottery may have been invented independently in various locations in East Asia, with eastern Siberia, China and the Japanese archipelago in the lead (Kobayashi 2004:20). Moreover, by studying the origins of pottery in Neolithic Middle East, it can be analogically assumed that the Jōmon pottery could also have had a few different foundations (Chosuke in Kobayashi 2004:20).

On the other side, the question of the earliest pottery finds ascribed to the Jōmon culture between the Incipient and Initial periods appears much more complex in terms of its different but subsequential decorative styles (Bleed 1976:108), such as “linear relief, fingernail impression, and simple cord marking” (Ibid.:108). Such pottery remains were usually unearthed further from the said mature Jōmon centre (Jomon Japan 2017), namely, in the area from southern Tohoku to Kyūshū (Bleed 1976:108), which is the region considered “the forefront of the [Jōmon] revolution” (Kobayashi 2004:17). Additionally, it is evident that such early examples of pottery were made by peoples with divergent tools, technologies and skills (Bleed 1976:109). “In sum, […] all the evidence available indicates that during [the Incipient period in Japan, the Jōmon culture] continued to be [highly] complex […], characterized by regionally diverse and distinctive technologies. This kind of complexity and regional diversity is also apparent during the succeeding cultural horizon, [when throughout] central Honshu, fingernail-impressed pottery was [subsequently] replaced by ceramics finished with simple exterior cord marking” (Ibid.:109). Generally, foremost features of the Jōmon pottery and its technological homogeneity are more widely observed only with its later stages (Cf. Bleed 1976), yet, “the population of Jōmon Japan [remained] by no means [anthropologically] homogeneous” (Palmer 2007:49).

In conclusion, the invention and continuity of the Jōmon pottery mostly resulted from the plentiful environment of the Japanese archipelago, together with its effective adaptation and development by independent groups of contemporary humans (Shinpei in: Kobayashi 2004:19; Bleed 1976:113). Kobayashi (2004:20) compares the invention of Jōmon pottery to the so-called ‘springboard principle’, where a technological knowledge of manufacturing earthenware vessels met the actual human needs for such a product (Cf. Kohler in: Kobayashi 2004:20). Yet, apart from being regarded as a product of a technological development, playing mostly a functional role as a container and a cooking vessel, the early Japanese pottery should be equally seen as the beginning of the Jōmon cultural revolution, and so could be interpreted wider, by means of social, economic, religious and artistic ways of expression (Kobayashi 2004:12,22).

Featured image: Reconstruction of the Sannai-Maruyama Site in the Aomori Prefecture. The site shares cultural similarities with settlements of Northeast Asia and the Korean Peninsula, as well as with later Japanese culture, pointing to continuity between ancient and modern Japanese culture. Photo by 663highland (2014). CC BY 2.5. In: ‘Jōmon period’, in Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia (2022).

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Barton L. (2012). “First Farmers: The Origins of Agricultural Societies by P. S. Bellwood, and: The Peopling of East Asia: Putting Together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics ed. by L. Sagart, R. Blench, and A. Sanchez-Mazas, and: The Origins of Pottery and Agriculture ed. by Y. Yasuda (review)”. In: Asian Perspectives, Volume 51, Number 2, Fall 2012, pp. 321-333. The University of Hawaiʻi Press.

Bleed P. (1976). “Origins of the Jōmon Technical Tradition”. In: Asian Perspectives , Vol. 19, No. 1, Japanese Prehistory. University of Hawai’i Press, pp. 107- 115.

Burns, K. (2017). “A Spaceship Made of Stone”, in Ancient Aliens, Season 12, Episode 14. Los Angeles: Prometheus Entertainment.

Cartwright M. (2017). “Jomon Pottery”. In: World History Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/3lzAhOU>. [Accessed 18^th September, 2021].

ChungHae Oh A. (2011). Cosmogonical Worldview in Jomon Pottery: Comparative Structural Analysis of the Pottery Decorations from the Katsusaka Culture in the Chubu Highlands, Japan (ca. 3,300-2,900 BCE). Nagoya: Sankeisha Co. p. 35.

‘Dogū’ (2022), in: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/3DhmSVS>. [Accessed 11^th September, 2022].

‘Jinja’ (2021), in: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/3d2yCB0>. [Accessed 11^th September, 2022].

‘Jōmon period’, in Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia (2022). Available at <https://bit.ly/3d3wOrE>. [Accessed 11^th September, 2022].

Jomon Japan (2017). “Jomon Archaeological Sites in Hokkaido and Northern Tohoku”. In: Jomon Japan (Jomon Prehistoric Sites in Northern Japan) Youtube Channel. Available at <https://bit.ly/39lCGXM>. [Accessed 18^th September, 2021].

Kenrick D. M. (1995). Jomon of Japan: The World’s Oldest Pottery. London, UK: Kegan Paul International.

Kobayashi T. (2004). Jomon Reflections. Forager life and culture in the prehistoric Japanese archipelago. Kaner S., Nakamura O. eds. Oxford, UK: Oxbow Books.

Lewis H. (23^rd September, 2021). “Week 3: Defining the Neolithic: Early pottery, Jomon; East Asian centres of domestication”. In: ARCH30810-Southeast & Asian Archaeology. School of Archaeology. University College Dublin.

MET: Department of Asian Art (2022). “Jōmon Culture (ca. 10,500–ca. 300 B.C.).” In: Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000. Available at <https://bit.ly/3hN0tEB>. [Accessed 18^th September, 2021].

Munsterberg H. (1970). “Jomon Pottery”. In: The Arts of Japan. An Illustrated History. Clarendon: Charles Tuttle Publishing.

Norman J. M. (2004-2021). “The Oldest Known Pottery”. In: HistoryofInformation.com. Exploring the History of Information and Media through Timelines. Available at <https://bit.ly/3EMh84Y>. [Accessed 24^th September, 2021].

Omoto K., Takeishi K., Nishida S., Fukui J. (published online in 2016). “Calibrated 14C Ages of Jomon Sites, NE Japan, and their Significance”. In: Volume 52 , Issue 2: 20th Int. Radiocarbon Conference Proceedings, 2010, pp. 534 – 548. The Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona Proceedings of the 20th International Radiocarbon Conference, edited by Jull A. J. T. ed. Cambridge University Press. Available at <https://bit.ly/3hIZpkP>. [Accessed 19^th September, 2021].

Palmer E. (2007). “Out of Sunda? Provenance of the Jōmon Japanese”. In: Japan Review, No. 19. International Research Centre for Japanese Studies, National Institute for the Humanities, pp. 47-75.

Rudgley R. (2000). The Lost Civilizations of the Stone Age. New York: A Touchstone Book Published by Simon & Schuster pp. 28-29.

Schmidt R. W., Seguchi N. (2014). Jomon Culture and the peopling of the Japanese archipelago: advancements in the fields of morphometrics and ancient DNA. Japanese Journal of Archaeology 2, (JJA). pp. 34–59.

Serizawa C. (1976). “The Stone Age of Japan”. In: Asian Perspectives, XIX (I), pp. 1-14.

Shintō (2022) in: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/3BrvlUf>. [Accessed 11^th September, 2022].

Solovyeva E. (2017). “Clay Anthropomorphous images of the Jomon Period, Japan”. In: Schwarzberg H. and Becker V. Bodies of Clay : On Prehistoric Humanised Pottery. Oxbow Books, Limited, pp. 157-164.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica (2021). “Neolithic: anthropology”. In: Encyclopaedia Britannica. Available at <https://www.britannica.com/event/Neolithic>. [Accessed 27^th September, 2021].

AMERICA, MEXICO

Identity of the Man Found in the Sarcophagus of Palenque

December 19, 2021 Joanna Pyrgies Leave a comment

Presumably, in order to preserve the precious archaeological find in its original state, Dr. Alberto Ruz Lhuillier had not unsealed the unearthed sarcophagus for six months since it was discovered (My Gen 2021). And it took archaeologists an additional week of work before they eventually lifted the five-ton beautifully carved lid of the sarcophagus, on 28th November, in 1952 (Ibid.).

Mayan Matryoshka-style

Eventually, it turned out that the inside of the rectangular stone slab of the tomb had been additionally closed off with another smaller slab, attached by means of stone plugs in the holes (Quetzal Resistance 2011; My Gen 2021). The additional and strangely shaped lid ultimately uncovered the final resting place of the dead, whose long and beautifully attired skeleton was lying inside a similarly-shaped coffin (My Gen 2021). As a result, the whole tomb design slightly resembles a set of Matryoshka dolls, where one of a smaller size is placed inside a larger one.

Howard Carter examining the innermost coffin of Tutankhamun. On the whole, there were three coffins, decreasing in size. Exclusive to The Times – The New York Times photo archive, via their online store (1922). Public domain. Photo source: “Tutankhamun” (2021). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

The interesting shape of the smaller coffin lid, sometimes compared to a body-shape, drew Graham Hancock’s attention (2016:158); he connects it with a specific type of Egyptian coffins with a widen bottom (Ibid.:158). It is a characteristic that also appears in the shape of the coffin under the Temple of the Inscriptions (Ibid.:158). Yet, the Egyptian caskets were made of wood and had wide bases as they were often placed vertically, as if they were standing (Ibid.:158). By comparison, Pakal’s coffin was carved out entirely of solid stone and was arranged horizontally (Ibid.:158). The author therefore wonders why the builders of the sarcophagus took more trouble extending its lower part since it had no practical application (Ibid.:158). Or maybe it was the shape itself, which really mattered? (Ibid.:158); it actually resembles the aforementioned keyhole symbol, but which is turned upside down and with a circle part squashed, looking slightly like an eclipse. Moreover, the Matryoshka-style of Palenque sarcophagus had been also applied in Egyptian royal coffins, such as the set of Tutankhamun’s three coffins, characterized each by a decreasing size (Tyldesley 2016).

Descendant of the race of giants

All the archaeological reports accordingly claim that in the sarcophagus in Palenque, there was found a skeleton of a tall man (My Gen 2021; Hancock 2016:158). Nevertheless, the same scientific sources never give any precise information about the exact measures of the skeleton (My Gen 2021). In my opinion, it is not sufficient to argue that some person is tall or not as such descriptions are quite subjective as they may be based on a personal judgement.

Anthropological Museum of Mexico City. Funerary dress and jewellery of king Pakal of Palenque, seventh century AD. Photo by Wolfgang Sauber – Own work (2008). CC BY-SA 3.0. Photo and caption source: “Kʼinich Janaabʼ Pakal” (2021). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

Accordingly, such a matter as the height of an individual should be given in detail. In spite of the information missing, some alternative researchers, however, keep trying to calculate an approximate skeleton’s height, basing on equally estimated measurements of the strangely shaped sarcophagus’ cut in stone, which was specially designed for the corpse (My Gen 2021). Such estimates can be only possible to obtain by means of the provided accurate measurements of the main, rectangular lid of the sarcophagus, which are the following: the square slab of the tomb is 30 centimetres (10 inches) thick, 90 centimetres (3 feet) wide and 3,7 metres (12,5 feet) long (Hancock 2016:159). As a result of a mathematical analysis, the skeleton would have belonged to a male measuring well over 2,2 metres in height (over 7,3 feet) (My Gen 2021).

Who was really buried in Pakal’s tomb?

Although the skeleton found inside the sarcophagus is usually recognized as the remains of the king Pakal, his identity has become repeatedly questioned (My Gen 2021; Von Däniken 1991:182).

First doubts arouse mainly due to the inconsistent date of 633 AD., which is the latest among those found on the sarcophagus and so it does not chronologically correspond to the conventional date of Pakal’s death (Von Däniken 1991:182). The doubts have deepened even more together with the results of interdisciplinary identification examination of the skeletal remains from the sarcophagus, which were presented at “a symposium organized by Vera Tiesler and Andrea Cucina for the Sixty-eighth Annual Meeting of the Society of American Archaeology in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in April 2003” (Wordtrade.com 2021). During the project directed by a specialist in Maya civilization remains, Prof. Vera Tiesler, a wide range of laboratory analyses had been used with comparative data, including archaeological, bioanthropological and epigraphical studies of the Maya culture (Ibid.). Age assessment of the individual was mainly carried out by means of morphological observations and histological methods, including even mathematical approaches applied by paleo-demographers (Ibid.).

Temple of the Foliated Cross in Palenque features mysterious openings in the shape of keyhole. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

Yet, during the conference, there was no mention about results of radiocarbon dating of the bones or whether it had ever been conducted (My Gen 2021; see: Wordtrade.com 2021). It is only known that there was no DNA extraction, which Vera Tiesler explains by the fact of a very poor and fragmentary condition of the studied skeletal remains, which have been hardly preserved in seventy-five percent (Wordtrade.com 2021). As a result, even though the time of the individual’s death is relatively recent in comparison with other analysed skeletal remains from cultures existing before our era, the age determination and other analyses of Palenque skeletal remains may be erratic and inconsistent (Ibid.).

Inconsistent results

Particular results of one of the conducted examinations, however, seem quite reliable and they entirely put the identity of the individual found in the sarcophagus under question. Precisely, it was the analysis of wear on the skeleton’s teeth, which has placed the age of their owner at death as forty years old, which is simultaneously an average lifetime of the ancient Mayas (“Kʼinich Janaabʼ Pakal” 2021). Consequently, it means the skeleton must have belonged to a man forty years younger than Pakal at the moment of his death, when he was eighty years old (“Kʼinich Janaabʼ Pakal” 2021; Hancock 2016:158; My Gen 2021). Such a contradiction may have resulted either by a wrong interpretation of the dates ascribed to Pakal’s lifetime or the fact the skeletal remains do not belong to Pakal at all.

Despite such conflicting results, most scholars have no doubts about the identity of the skeletal remains in the sarcophagus in Palenque and so they reject any possibility it may not be the skeleton of the king Pakal (Wordtrade.com 2021). Probably, in order to achieve a compromise, they have accepted that at the moment of his death Pakal could be either in the low age range, estimated between forty and fifty years, or the highest estimated age of eighty years (Ibid.). But does it bring any final conclusion to the question of age of the skeletal remains and, indirectly, of dating the burial itself?

Temple of the Inscriptions, seen from the Palace side. It is built on the stepped pyramid with nine platforms. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

Such a wide range of an acceptable age for the found skeleton is justified by scholars due to particular challenges in its precise age determination (Wordtrade.com 2021). After Prof. Vera Tiesler the human remains under question cause particular difficulties in their studies, not only because they are extensively fragmented, but also because of the age range of the individual (Ibid.). Skeletal specialists agree that it is highly difficult to precisely estimate skeletal age in case of the dead adults, especially those who were over fifty years old at the moment of their death (Ibid.). This is why the results cannot be more precise or consistent unless some novel and conclusive methods are applied in this context.

Which way leads to the afterlife?

If the conducted examinations of the found skeleton generally fail in determining the identity of the buried individual, is it possible to find out missing answers in the imagery of his sarcophagus? The latter is undoubtedly one of the most fascinating Mayan monuments and is still the subject of a fierce debate even today, which is especially about an intriguing relief on the lid. Despite different interpretations of the scene, scholars generally believe that it depicts a mythological image or the king’s journey into the world of the dead. For the Mayans of the Classic period, the afterlife was located in the underground world filled with water and so it was associated in the earthly world with actual water reservoirs or caves (Eberl 2013:311; see 😊). Accordingly, the dead body of the ruler was to rest in the burial chamber in the centre of the Temple of the Inscriptions, symbolizing an artificial cave and the king’s descent into the earth, by means of the steps leading down to the underworld (Ibid.:311). The stone lid of Pakal’s sarcophagus was therefore intended to recreate his journey to the afterlife (Ibid.:311).

But if this interpretation is correct, and the Mayan underworld was located underground, why does a small pipe of psychoduct led Pakal’s soul from the tomb back to the temple outside it?

The Tree of Life

Cosmological Mythology of the ancient Maya was recorded in the Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel, a Latin compilation of Mayan texts from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (Wagner 2013:288). The act of creation described there was preceded by the destruction of the world by the flood (Ibid.:288), also mentioned by numerous independent sources, such as the “Book of Genesis” in the Bible and the Sumerian epic of Gilgamesh (see😊

*Tablet of the cross restored from the Temple of the Cross. Photo by* Ineuw (2017). Public domain. Photo source: “Tablet of the Cross restored” (2017). In: Wikipedia Commons.

As the story goes, the very centre of the created world inhabited by the Maya was graphically marked by the Tree of Life, connecting the zenith with the nadir (Hohmann-Vogrin 2013:200). Not without a surprise, such a motif also appears in the Celtic and Scandinavian cultures (see😊. In the Mayan iconography, the central motif of the panel in the Temple of the Cross is a symbolic representation of such a tree that grows from the sacrificial bowl (Wagner 2013:288; see😊 The image must be strongly stylized because it resembles more a cross rather than a tree. After experts, branches covered with flowers grow on its both sides, whereas the two-headed serpent hanging on it symbolizes the eternally green tree and the colour of the centre of the cosmos (Ibid.:288). Additionally, on its highest branch, the god Itzamna sits on the throne, dressed as blue birds (Ibid.:288).

Here I must admit to myself that if I interpreted the relief of the Temple of the Cross myself, I would never have noticed some of the described details without a professional help of specialists.

Hidden birds game

On the sarcophagus from Planeque there are hieroglyphs and more or less abstract images. Starting from the top of the lid positioned in a vertical position, there is found a central motif that was recreated with slight changes on the later and the aforementioned relief from the sanctuary of the Temple of the Cross (Dr. Alberto Ruz Lhuillier in: Von Däniken 1991:187; see😊. In the first place, it is easy to notice a kind of a cross just in the middle, whose arms divide the surface, and metaphorically the world into four parts, and at the same time indicate the four cardinal points with its arms (see: Eberl 2013:314; Von Däniken 1991:186).

A drawing of the lid of the tomb of Maya ruler Pacal the Great. Drawing by Madman2001 – Made it myself based on several drawings References for this description (or part of this) or for the depiction in the file are not provided (2008). CC BY-SA 2.0. Image modified. Photo and caption source :“Temple of the Inscriptions” (2021). In: *Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia*.

According to experts having translated its imagery, a whole ornithological garden can be seen in the relief around the cross, including the Mayan bird Quetzal and the bird Moan, symbolising death (Von Däniken 1991:186-187; Wołek 2012:18). The latter was probably crouching just below the squatting anthropomorphic figure. Indeed, a strongly stylized outline of a pair of eyes and something that looks like a duck bake are visible there. Similar element also appears in the relief of the Temple of the Cross, but no one interprets it there as the bird Moan heralding death …

Furthermore, after a conventional interpretation of the relief from the Temple of the Cross, at the top of the Tree of Life sits the Mayan god Itzamna, depicted once again in the form of a bird (Wagner 2013:282). Its mirror image with small changes was also carved on earlier Pakal’s sarcophagus (see: Dr. Alberto Ruz Lhuillier in: Von Däniken 1991:187). For consistency of the both interpretations, it must be just the same bird in the both representations. But if Itzamna is sitting at the top of the cross, where is Quetzal? Apparently, it is crouching on the head of a man lying under the Tree of Life … (Von Däniken 1991:186). I need to admit that I cannot discern anything there except for elements looking like bird feathers, probably being a part of the lying man’s headgear … Dr. Ruz, in turn, sees Quetzal wearing the mask of Tlaloc and is one of miniature mythological creatures coming out from a two-headed dragon … (Ibid.:187). Still nothing … I cannot see either the dragon or a creature wearing Tlaloc’s mask and jumping out of any head… Yet, according to translating the lid experts, a proper interpretations of the imagery is only possible when the lid is viewed from a horizontal position … (Von Däniken 1991:188; Wołek 2012:18)

Intricate complex of the Palace in Palenque, with courtyards, chambers and corridors, and four-levelled square tower, possibly used for observing astronomical events. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

As a matter of fact, most scientists believe that the imagery on Pakal’s sarcophagus should only be interpreted in a horizontal arrangement (Von Däniken 1991:188; Wołek 2012:18). And here is another contradiction. The relief from the Temple of the Cross, which depicts the same main motif, can be only analysed in a vertical position, and the correct positioning of the relief is evidenced by two male figures standing on both sides of the Tree of Life, while it is depicted vertically.

Why is it so that the both images sharing exactly the same elements have been interpreted separately and so incoherently?

Academic and alternative interpretations of the image

Continuing the analysis of the sarcophagus lid from the vertical position, it can be noticed that under the Tree you can see the gaping mouth of the Earth Monster, which grins its teeth dangerously and threatens with its tusks (see: Von Däniken 1991:186-187). This element is missing in the later relief from the Temple of the Cross, likewise the main character of the scene on the sarcophagus. It is a male figure in a reclining position, situated just under the Tree of Life. Some experts claim it is Pakal who at the moment of his death falls into the mouth of the underworld, or of the Earth Monster armed with teeth, to be reborn like the god of corn (Von Däniken 1991:187; Eberl 2013:314).

The Tree of Life itself seems to grow out of the Earth-Monster between its tusks, and pierce the belly of the lying man with its roots. In addition, strange vines appear to grow from the man’s mouth and nose and on the back of his head. Maybe it is the Tree of Life that wants to consume the individual? Others argue that the “creepers” on the back of the king’s head are only part of an intricately pinned up hairstyle or headgear (Von Däniken 1991:187). As I mentioned earlier, some experts notice there the bird Quetzal, which would crouch on the king’s head (Ibid.:186).

‘Or maybe the ruler is inside a large skyrocket and goes into space?’, ask the proponents of the ancient astronaut theory, who support the thesis that ancient peoples around the world had contacts with representatives of a highly developed alien civilization, whom they consequently took for gods (Von Däniken 1991:188; Burns 2012).

And under the influence of such a hypothesis, the “creepers” or headdress ornaments, magically turn into double wires running inside the spacecraft (see: Von Däniken 1991:188; Burns 2012). Such a theory has been successfully instilled by a controversial researcher and author, Enrich von Däniken. By taking a closer look at the lid in an upright position, he has noticed that the figure depicted takes the position of today’s cosmonauts during the launch of a space rocket (Von Däniken 1991:188; Burns 2012). You can also see that the ‘cosmonaut’ is touching some devices with his hands, which look like levers (Von Däniken 1991:188; Burns 2012). His feet rest on some kind of pedals (Von Däniken 1991:188; Burns 2012). And beneath it, you can see what resembles flames and not the teeth of an Earth Monster (Von Däniken 1991:188; Burns 2012). Additionally, the king has something like a breathing apparatus in front of his face (Von Däniken 1991:188; Burns 2012). ‘This element is called’ giver of life ‘,explains Giorgio A. Tsoukalos, one of Däniken’s followers (Burns 2012). ‘So it seems logical that it could be oxygen. It is also logical that in space a man would need a similar breathing mask’, he says (Ibid.).

Following this interpretation of the sarcophagus lid, we may come to the conclusion that the picture presented in it proves the theory of the relationship between the Mayan rulers and aliens. So which interpretation is correct?

New definitions of old truths

Various representations of the bird Quetzal and the Mouth of the Underworld or the Earth Monster, are typical imagery features of the religion and mythology of the Mesoamerican peoples, and therefore also of their art (see😊. As we can see, a similar sarcophagus motif of the cross was also immortalized on a later relief from the Temple of the Cross. But was it meant as the Tree of Life for the Maya?

Temple of the Inscriptions in front of a mysterious hill, which apparently is not a natural formation. Intricate complex of the Palace in Palenque, with courtyards, chambers and corridors, and four-levelled square tower, possibly used for observing astronomical events. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

All such interpretations are found within a framework of modern speculations and guessing, likewise contemporarily invented names given to ancient cultures, their architectural structures and artifacts (Von Däniken 1991:175-176; Hancock 2016:156). The Temple encompassing Pakal’s sarcophagus certainly was not called the Temple of the Inscriptions by the Maya themselves (Ibid.:175-176). In turn, the Earth Monster was imagined as an anthropomorphic-zoomorphic figure mainly by the Aztecs, who worshiped it under the female name Tlaltecuhtli (see😊 The Aztecs, however, were one of the most recent cultures of Mesoamerica, whose development was only interrupted by the Spanish Conquest in the sixteenth century.

By applying the same known matrix of mythological interpretations to all discovered artifacts from the world of ancient cultures in Mesoamerica does not really add anything in determining the real meaning behind them. It only causes that we are stubbornly going around in circles, putting another painting into the same frames. According to archaeologists and art historians, the Maya could create metaphorical representations of nature, which they provided with divine features, as many other ancient cultures around the world did. Then the Earth Monster jaws would be a universal and metaphorical image of the underworld or the gateway to the underworld, in which the Mayans certainly believed and worshiped (see😊. By the time of the Aztecs, such an image could gradually evolve to finally adopt the image of the half human goddess Tlaltecuhtli.

Exclusivity for the truth

On the other hand, the image on the sarcophagus may not originally have been purely symbolic, but with time it took on just such a character; perhaps a Mayan artist initially tried to recreate a scene he had seen or heard about, but he dressed it in images that were understandable to his contemporaries, or to himself.

Temple of the Inscriptions is adjacent to Temple XIII, where another tomb of Palenque was found in 90s of the twentieth century by archaeologists. Yet, it is the sarcophagus from the pyramid of the Temple of the Inscriptions that still attracts most attention. Temple of the Inscriptions in front of a mysterious hill, which apparently is not a natural formation. Intricate complex of the Palace in Palenque, with courtyards, chambers and corridors, and four-levelled square tower, possibly used for observing astronomical events. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

It did not necessarily have to be a spacecraft launch or the maw belonging to a monster that looks as if it had been taken alive from Mayan nightmares. It could have been an image of a phenomenon or truth that once terrified, but at the same time aroused a sort of respect among various inhabitants of Mesoamerica at the time. What was that? We do not know. And perhaps we will never know the truth. Besides, no one can claim exclusivity for the true understanding of the Mayan images, and no diploma or academic degree guarantees their correct interpretation. One would have to arrange a chat with an ancient Maya first. I wonder how the ancients would react to contemporary interpretations of scenes that they once created. Probably their jaw would drop …

The sculptor of the sarcophagus could actually have left a hieroglyphic inscription on its surface, which would identify the man imagined there (see: Von Däniken 1991:182,186). The problem is that some of the hieroglyphs found on the sarcophagus still cannot be deciphered (Von Däniken 1991:186; Hancock 2016:157).

In the Mouth of the Earth Monster

In the central part of the Temple of the Inscriptions, suspended at the top of the stepped pyramid, there is a series of stairs steeply sloping down from enormous stone slabs of the floor (Hancock 2016:157). The sandstone steps are polished by the soles of millions of tourists visiting Palenque and are now quite slippery, also due to the tropical humidity hovering in the air (Ibid.:157). The stairs lead to the crypt. ‘The Earth Monster’s Mouth’ measures 7 metres in height and 9 metres in length (Ibid.:158). The burial chamber is now separated from the visitors by a heavy grating, and additionally, a usually foggy glass hinders the access to it together with a possibility of seeing the sarcophagus in detail (Von Däniken 1991:184).

Fortunately, in the Anthropological Museum in Mexico City, there is a replica of the sarcophagus, which I was able to successfully photograph, although the inability to use a flash significantly worsened the sharpness of the image (see: Von Däniken 1991:185). Thus you need to have much patience to make a successful shot of this famous and controversial monument. The image itself is also often reproduced in various forms by local Indians who sell them massively to tourists. You can then hang such a woven or painted picture on the wall, of course in a vertical position, and keep trying to solve its mystery for hours after returning home from Mexico.

Featured image: Temple of the Inscriptions is adjacent to Temple XIII, where another tomb of Palenque was found in 90s of the twentieth century by archaeologists. Yet, it is the sarcophagus from the pyramid of the Temple of the Inscriptions that still attracts most attention. Temple of the Inscriptions in front of a mysterious hill, which apparently is not a natural formation. Intricate complex of the Palace in Palenque, with courtyards, chambers and corridors, and four-levelled square tower, possibly used for observing astronomical events. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

“Kʼinich Janaabʼ Pakal” (2021). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/3wDUojb>. [Accessed on 18^th June, 2021].

“Tablet of the Cross restored” (2017). In: Wikipedia Commons. Available at <https://bit.ly/3w0x4f3>. [Accessed on 6^th June, 2021].

“Temple of the Cross Complex” (2021). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/3bt35UL>. [Accessed on 14^th May, 2021].

“Temple of the Inscriptions” (2021). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/3gRGiFr>. [Accessed on 14^th May, 2021].

“Tutankhamun” (2021). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/35NDanJ>. [Accessed on 24^th June, 2021].

Burns K. (2012). “The Mayan Conspiracy”. Ancient Aliens; Episode 1 (32); Season 4. Prometheus Entertainment.

Eberl M. (2013). ”Śmierć i koncepcje duszy”. Jawińska M. trans. In Majowie. Niezwykła cywilizacja. [Maya. Gottkonige im Regenwald]. Grube N., Eggenbrecht E., Seidl M. eds. Warszawa: Grupa Wydawnicza Foksal.

Hancock G. (2016). Ślady palców bogów. [Fingerprints of Gods]. Kołodziejczyk G. trans. Warszawa: Amber.

Hohmann-Vogrin A. (2013). ”Jedność w przestrzeni i czasie – architektura Majów.” Jawińska M. trans. In Majowie. Niezwykła cywilizacja. [Maya. Gottkonige im Regenwald]. Grube N., Eggenbrecht E., Seidl M. eds. Warszawa: Grupa Wydawnicza Foksal.

My Gen (2021). “In plain sight: Mayan – Lord Pakal’s Tomb”. In: My Generation; www.MyGen.com. Available at <https://bit.ly/2SH2RmT>. [Accessed on 17^th June, 2021].

Quetzal Resistance (2011).”K’inich Janaab’ Pakal-Palenque Dynasty 603 – 683ad”. In Quetzal Resistance. Available at <https://bit.ly/3q7wA4S>. [Accessed on 17^th June, 2021].

Tyldesley J. (2016). “8 things you (probably) didn’t know about Tutankhamun”. In: History Extra. The official website for BBC History Magazine and BBC History Revealed. Available at <https://bit.ly/3wUcU71>. [Accessed on 24^th June, 2021].

Von Daniken E. (1991). Dzień, w którym przybyli bogowie. 11 sierpnia 3114 roku prz. Chr. [Der Tag, and em die Gotter kamen. 11. August 3114 v. Chr.]. Serafińska T. trans. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Prokop.

Wagner E. (2013). ”Mity kreacyjne Majów i kosmografia”. Jawińska M. trans. In Majowie. Niezwykła cywilizacja. [Maya. Gottkonige im Regenwald]. Grube N., Eggenbrecht E., Seidl M. eds. Warszawa: Grupa Wydawnicza Foksal.

Wołek I. (2012). “Dookoła świata: Tajemnice Majów. Jukatan – Meksyk”. In: Kurier Powiatowy. Available as PDF. Available at <https://bit.ly/2UipdeZ>. [Accessed on 19^th June, 2021].

Wordtrade.com (2021). “Review Essays of Academic, Professional & Technical Books in the Humanities & Sciences: Maya”. In: Wordtrade.com/American History. Available at <https://bit.ly/3cQRcZC>. [Accessed on 18^th June, 2021].

EUROPE, GREECE

White Idols from the Cycladic Islands of the Aegean

Gallery December 12, 2021 Joanna Pyrgies Leave a comment

It was supposed to be a high-speed ferry ride from Crete (Heraklion Port) to Santorini (Thera), which usually takes around two hours. In our case, the estimated time was disrupted by a sudden storm that broke out at sea. Raging waves ruthlessly played with our boat throughout the whole sea crossing. People were swinging on their feet or wading across the deck of the ferry, which was dangerously shaken in its foundations, together with tearing the screens off the walls. Passengers felt as if they had been on a roller coaster, with their stomach approaching the throat. The lucky ones managed to get to the toilet on time, primarily still available, and others grabbed the last resort, usually one of the paper bags distributed dispassionately by the crew.

My friend sitting next to me got frozen in fear of another stomach contraction, squeezing the edges of the bag in the fingers. The colours of her face kept changing from pale white to green. In the midst of this collective hysteria, apparently I was the only person who felt well. Maybe yet except for the crew, who looked at me in disbelief.

‘Could I go outside?’, I asked hesitantly. ‘I just can’t handle staying inside’.

It was indeed stuffy inside the ferry; all windows and doors were closed tightly. and the atmosphere became more and more unpleasant due to the sick passengers.

In response to my question, two crew members looked at each other and one of them in turn looked at me asking: ‘Don’t suffer from seasickness?’,
‘It looks like no’, I smiled.

Finally the captain agreed, and after a while I was standing outside, in the crisp sea air, with the rope strongly tied around my waist and firmly attached to the side of the jumping on the waves ferry. The gusts of wind were hitting me with all its force and blowing up the folds of my long and light skirt. The rough sea kept splashing over my face again and again, leaving flecks of salt on my skin and in the long locks of hair, dancing in the breeze.

When we finally got to the port of Santorini, the storm ceased. The sun shone and the earth emanated with an usual peace, as if black clouds never appeared in this area. However, it is known that this volcanic island in particular has experienced the wrath of nature. There was always something happening in Santorini, known in Greek as Thera, and the face of the island has been shaped in equal measure by people and nature (Chabińska-Ilchanka et al. 2015:45).

“As its own archipelago, Santorini encompasses the islands of Thíra, Thirassiá, Asproníssi, Palea Kaméni and Nea Kaméni, which all lie in the southern part of the Cyclades, and are the result of [ancient] volcanic activity” (“Cyclades” 2021). Five thousand years ago, there was a thriving center of Minoan civilization on the archipelago (Chabińska-Ilchanka et al. 2015:45). In mid-two thousand BC., a volcano erupted on Thera, or in fact the entire island blew out, as it had grown out of a volcano (Ibid.:45; see: When Gods Turned against the Minoans). The volcanic eruption destroyed everything, not only the island itself and its closest area, but also had a negative impact on the entire world of that time, including the Minoan culture, for which the volcanic eruption was the beginning of the end (Ibid.:45). The volcano itself collapsed into the abyss of the sea but it did not disappear (Ibid.:45).

After volcanologists monitoring the island, the volcano is going to be reborn and will erupt again in the future (Chabińska-Ilchanka et al. 2015:45). The trace of those dramatic events not only changed the shape of the island, looking now like a crescent, but also made one of the largest calderas in the world, that is to say. the collapsed crater flooded by the waters of the sea (Ibid.:45). It is naturally still active, which may be felt by microseismic activity. At that time, it is possible to observe rings forming on the water. While staying on Satorini, I noticed it once in the morning, while I was reaching for a glass of water on my table. Such a phenomenon is not usually dangerous and does not last long.

In the port, my friend was still recovering from the seasickness. Surely, I did not look too good either; I was covered from head to toe with flecks of sea salt, and my hair for the same reason formed a kind of stiff and disheveled basket on my head. Additionally, it turned out that the car sent by the hotel did not show up to pick us up from the port. Fortunately, several taxis and buses were waiting for the visitors, and one of the drivers offered to take two emaciated travelers, because our hotel was on his way. He did not take a cent from us. It was probably because we looked like two poor relatives who had managed to finally save enough to go on holidays.

Towns and villages on Santorini are all like taken from postcards. The town of Pyrgos, built at the foot of Mount Profitis Ilias and in the center of hinterland, is one of the hidden gems of Santorini. Life there seems slower and more relaxing. It is also a fantastic place for taking beautiful pictures. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

The towns and villages of the main island are trully picturesque: the former capital of Santorini, Pyrgos, inland (the city’s name sounds almost like my surname, and so my origins may be possibly traced to Greece), seaside Oia in the north or Fira, the charming capital of the island (Chabińska-Ilchanka et al. 2015:45). Although Pyrgos is situated almost in the central island, like most towns on Santorini, it is built up the hill so it is still possible to observe the sea from its highest parts.

Among other things, Oia and Fira are famous for the fact that their buildings descend along the steep shore built by the volcanic eruption almost to the surface of the sea (Chabińska-Ilchanka et al. 2015:45). The buildings of the insular towns look like cubist paintings hung on the deep blue canvas of the sea and the sky (Ibid.:45). The landscape is composed of bright, regular blocks of houses and countless outbuildings, blue domed roofs, miniature terraces, stairs, steps, squares and streets (Ibid.:45). And all this is clustered on small areas, around the hills or cliffs, as if glued together (Ibid.:45). In this picturesque maze, holidaymakers can wander for hours, stepping into tiny galleries, museums, jewelry stores, boutiques and romantic cafes or wine bars (Ibid.:45). The white dry wine produced in Santorini tastes especially good, which is usually chosen by food connoisseurs to go with seafood dishes (Ibid.:45). On the other side, lunch or dinner in a tavern on the cliff, overlooking the endless blue of the sea with the spots of scattered islands, is a pure pleasure (Ibid.:45).

Early forms of the Cycladic idols in the form of a violin. The Museum of Prehistoric Thera, Fira. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

One of a typical female idols of the Cycladic culture in the Archaeological Museum of Thera, Fira. It represents a possibly pregnant woman with her arms under the breast. The features of the face are invisible. The most intriguing is an oval and elongated head. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

From the south of the island, where we were staying, we drove to Fira by a hired car, where we got after a quarter of an hour. Actually, it is a very tiny island. First, we went to the port hugged to the rock face, and from there we climbed to the top of the two hundred meter volcanic cliff on which the city was built (Chabińska-Ilchanka et al. 2015:45). You can get there on the back of a donkey or on foot along the paved path, as we did (Ibid.:45). The two must-see sights in Fira were definitely the Archaeological Museum of Thera and the Museum of Prehistoric Thira. While most of the Minoan frescoes excavated in Akrotiri (the Minoan town destroyed by the volcano) are preserved by the National Archaeological Museum of Athens, they two also boast impressive collections of artifacts found on the island throughout its cultural development, starting from Prehistory. Apart from being one of the center (or an important colony) of the Minoan civilization, the island also housed the so-called Cycladic culture, having developed around the third millennium BC. (the period of Late Neolithic and Bronze Age). Its main objects of art are Cycladic marble figurines, also known as Cycladic idols.

Group of three figurines, early Spedos type, Keros-Syros culture (EC II). *Photo by Smial (2006). CC BY-SA 2.5.* Colours intensified. Photo source: “Cycladic art” (2021). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

Idols are objects of art typical of various prehistoric and ancient cultures, particularly from the Paleolithic to the Bronze Age, such as figurines of Venus, various representations of Neolithic goddesses, like the Cypriot Idol of Pomos, or more abstract depictions, including bronze discs from Cappadocia (PWN 2007:156). Most outstanding idols, however, come from the Cycladic culture in the Aegean Sea (Ibid.:156). The turn of the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age is a period of rapid development of settlement, trade and many other areas of life (Rutkowski 2009:7). During this period, the most interesting art depicting idols, apart from Crete, comes from the Cycladic islands, whose influences also reached the Minoan civilization (Ibid.:7). The Cyclades belonged in the Bronze Age (from 3000 BC.) to the circle of Aegean cultures (Barucki et al. 2009:170). They constitute the Aegean archipelago of thirty-one islands around the sacred island of Delos, where Apollo and Artemis were born. Hence their name ‘cyclic’ (“Cyclades” 2020).

The largest Cycladic island of all is Naxos, Apart from them, there are also Syros, Santorini, Mykonos, Amorgos, Paros and Antiparos (“Cyclades” 2020). The residential buildings on the Cyclades, except for Thera, are poorly known (Barucki et al. 2009:170). Moreover, the art having developed there was, in comparison to Crete and mainland Greece, of a peripheral character, and many of their products refer to the Minoan art and its famous frescoes (Ibid.:170). In addition to the Minoan Thera, valuable frescoes have been also found on Melos (Filakopi) (Ibid.:170). On the other side, the Cyclades equally produced original and unique of the archipelago works of art, with which this region of the world is now clearly associated (Barucki et al. 2009:170; Rutkowski 2009:7-9).

Together with my friend, who is a historian of art, we came to the island of Santorini to continue our research on the Minoan culture, which we had alrady started on Crete. Our aim was thus to describe the archaeological site of Akrotiri and Minoan artifacts exhibited by the museums in Fira. Nevertheless, the Cycladic culture seemed to me equally attracting. It developed into successive phases, from the Late Neolithic, throughout the Bronze Age, till circa 1050 BC., and although it is slightly older, the Cycladic culture stays in part chronologically parallel to the Minoan civilisation (3000-1100BC), The Cycladic art flourished north of Crete and for me the archipelago of Santorini constituted a symbolical gateway to the islands’ cycle.

On numerous and usually tiny Cycladic islands, small human figures were massively carved; they usually do not exceed a dozen or so centimetres in height (Rutkowski 2009:7). They were made of clay or stone, but most often of snow-white marble, as in the Cyclades (Paros, Naxos) there are deposits of precious marble, from which vases and figurines were made (Barucki et al. 2009:170). While the Cycladic ceramics usually imitated the forms of stone vessels and statuettes (Ibid.:170).

Head of a female figure, Spedos type, Keros-Syros culture (EC II, 2700–2300 BCE; Louvre). *Photo by Unknown artist – Jastrow (2006). Public domain.* Image cropped and sharpened. Photo source: “Cycladic art” (2021). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

In Cycladic art, the earliest methods of shaping the human figure were limited to the simplest forms, and it was only from those models that the larger plastic compositions developed (Majewski 1935:23). A characteristic early type is composed by the so-called violin idols (Ibid.:25). They have a long neck, a circular part of the arms, and the lower part modelled in the form of a semicircle by a curved waistline (Ibid.:25). By these means, such figurines resemble the shape of a violin, or, as it is also noticed, the outlines of the island of Cyprus. Such examples are also preserved by the museums of Fira,

Other Cycladic idols mostly illustrate highly simplified but still naturalistic figurative representations; they usually show naked women, also pregnant, with arms folded at the waist level, above the belly, or under their breast, like in the case of a marble female figurine from the island of Paros, preserved by the Museum of Louvre in Paris, France (PWN 2007:56; Rutkowski 2009:7-9). It represents a standing woman with arms folded under her breasts, whose body is characterized by a compact form and a synthesizing interpretation of anatomical details, such as the geometric outline of the breast, resembling two pyramids, and the pubic triangle (Rutkowski 2009:9).

Generally, figurines are built on the principle of geometrical parts of the body, usually with an elongated almond-shaped head or one in the form of an upside down triangle, a small, almost rectangular body and usually joined (early examples) or separate legs (PWN 2007:56; Rutkowski 2009:7-9). This is a style that is generally defined as the tendency to synthesize human forms (Barucki et al. 2009:170; Rutkowski 2009:7-9). The Polish researcher, the author of the first monograph on Cycladic art, Kazimierz Majewski (1935), supposes that the mutual relationship of individual parts of the body, i.e. the head, torso and legs, testifies to the application of almost mathematical rules by artists creating these works of fine art (Rutkowski 2009:7,9).

Although only a few figures have traces of polychrome, it is assumed that the natural white surface of the stone, especially the face, was usually enlivened with elements painted with a thick contour line in red; thus the outlines of the eyes and mouth were made (Rutkowski 2009:8-9; Barucki et al. 2009:170). Such a technique may have been also applied to a marble figurine from the Late Bronze Age, found on the island of Amorgos, now in the Museum of Louvre, in Paris (Rutkowski 2009:8). It possibly represents a female head; its schematic almond shape is only identified by an elongated nose (Ibid.:8). The lack of facial features without being underlined by paint gives the sculpture a rather raw expression (Ibid.:8).

It is believed that Cycladic idols may have been related to the sepulchral practices prevailing on the islands, as most of the statuettes come from graves, characteristic of the archipelago, namely of box, tolos and chamber types (Rutkowski 2009:9; Barucki et al. 2009:170).

Pyrgos is the largest and the well-preserved medieval settlement on Santorini, though almost completely omitted by tourists. Thanks to that, the atmosphere in Pyrgos is truly idyllique. This is also why the town offers almost empty mazes of blue-white narrow streets and lanes, sometimes leading under low and long passages. Copyright©Archaeotravel.

The figurines placed in the graves of the dead were usually small (Rutkowski 2009:9). However, the Cycladic artist did not abstain from making large human (female) heads and statues reaching a height of about one and a half meters (Ibid.:8-9). Some researchers believe that such large figures were placed in holy places dedicated to the cults of nature deities (Ibid.:9).

The best-known examples of Cycladic art also include male figurines depicting warriors or characters playing musical instruments (Rutkowski 2009:9). The latter group, including the figure of the Harpist of Keos, are distinguished by a much greater degree of detail in their form and equipment (Rutkowski 2009:9;Barucki et al. 2009:170). There are also some examples with visible facial features, like eyes and a mouth, and even few elements of clothes, such as necklaces.

Cycladic idols, of the FAF type below, in the National Archaeological Museum of Athens. *Photo by I, Sailko (2008). CC BY 2.5.* Image cropped. Colours intensified. Photo source: “Cycladic art” (2021). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

During the period of the greatest development of this type of art, that is, in the third millennium BC. there were many workshops, and the stylistic differences between the statuettes make it possible to distinguish artistic individualists, which are referred to by convention, for example, by the name of private collections (Rutkowski 2009:9). The contemporary interest in Cycladic art is evidenced by the fact that a museum has been established in Athens (opened in October 2019), the core of which is the collection of N.P. Goulandris, collecting mainly figurines of Cycladic masters (Ibid.:9). But the admiration for this field of fine arts dates back to the time when in the early twentieth century, artists such as Pablo Picasso or Hans Arp looked for inspiration to express the ‘new’ in form, yet modeled on the works of primitive and ancient art, in which there was a tendency of synthesizing natural forms (Ibid.:9). Thus, in the art of the early Bronze Age, there were achievements that are still valid and admired to this day (Ibid.:9).

We still travelled around Santorini, enjoying its natural though dangerous beauty, which for ages has ideally mingled with the manmade constructions, scattered around the island. Leaving the coast behind, we headed off towards the centre of the island with its charming town, Pyrgos. At each step, apart from numerous traces left by the Minoans, there were tell-tales of the white marble idols. Sometimes, a copy of some sculpture was crouching in front of the door of somebody’s house, another time the idols were sold in souvenir shops for tourists. They all keep welcoming and inviting deeper inside their sacred cyclic kingdom of the tiny islands, dancing on the turquoise waves of the Aegean Sea. … And I have accepted their invitation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

“Eidolon” (2021). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/2MzgPEb>. [Accessed on 4th February, 2021].

“Cyclades” (2020). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/3czRVz4>. [Accessed on 4th February, 2021].

“Cycladic art” (2021). In: Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/3tqwnL3>. [Accessed on 4th February, 2021].

“Kultura cykladzka” (2020). Wikipedia. Wolna Encyklopedia. Available at <https://bit.ly/3pOI9Nm>. [Accessed on 4th February, 2021].

Barucki T. et al. (2009). “Cykladzka sztuka”. In: Sztuka świata. Leksykon A-K, tom 12. [Historia del Arte, vol. 12]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Arkady.

Chabińska-Ilchanka, E., Dylewska K., Horecka K., Jaskulski M., Kastelik M. M., Łatka M., Ressel E., Willman A., Żywczak K. (2015) Niezwykłe miejsca świata. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo SBM Sp. zo.o.

Majewski K. (1935). “Figuralna plastyka cykladzka. Geneza i rozwój form”. In: Archiwum Towarzystwa Naukowego we Lwowie, Section I, Volume VI, Book 3. Drukarnia Naukowa we Lwowie.

PWN (2007). Słownik terminologiczny sztuk pięknych, p. 156. Kubalska-Sulkiewicz K., Bielska-Łach M., Manteuffel-Szarota A. eds. Wydanie piąte. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

Rutkowski B. (2009). “Sztuka mykeńska i minojska”. In: Sztuka świata, tom. 2 [Historia del Arte, vol. 2]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Arkady.