Provenance and Context

Kefalonia is the largest of the Ionian islands, an island chain oriented north–south along the western coastline of the Greek mainland and facing the Ionian Sea to the west (Figure 1). The district of Livatho in the south-west of the island, where the ornaments were found, was settled by Mycenaeanized communities in the fourteenth century bc, but the area became more populated and gained in significance in the post-palatial period, peaking in the Late Helladic (LH hereafter) IIIC Late (1100–1060 bc) and declining during the Sub-Mycenaean (second half of the eleventh century bc). The ornaments originate from two different cemeteries about 3 km distant from one another (Figure 1: nos. 1, 2).

Figure 1. Sites mentioned in the text. 1, 2) Mazarakata and Lakkithra; 3) Delos; 4) Dendra and Tiryns; 5) Mycenae; 6) Pylos; 7) Sellopoulo; 8) Palaikastro and Kato Zakros; 9) Karfi; 10) Rocavecchia; 11) Gualdo Tadino; 12) Frattesina; 13) Terramare of Redù and Casinalbo; 14) Dupljaja; 15) Borgo Panigale. Basemap © European Environmental Agency Copernicus Land Monitoring Service, 2021.

The first ornament (Brodbeck-Jucker, Reference Brodbeck-Jucker1986: 73–77, 135, pl. XV, no. 51) (Figure 2) comes from Mazarakata. Today it is in the Laténium Museum in Neuchâtel (Switzerland), as part of the collection of Mycenaean vases and other artefacts that Charles-Philippe de Bosset, a Swiss army officer and British governor of Kefalonia (1810–14), had removed from tombs of the hitherto unexplored cemetery. It is dated to the Protovillanovan period and is therefore not earlier than the twelfth century, like most of the pottery in the collection.

Figure 2. a, b) The Mazarakata ornament, recto and verso. © Laténium, parc et musée d’archéologie, Hauterive (Neuchâtel) Switzerland.

The second ornament (Figure 3) came from Sp. Marinatos’ 1931 excavation of the Lakkithra cemetery (Marinatos, Reference Marinatos1932: 41, pl. 18). The tomb (tomb A: Figure 4), one of four tombs in the cemetery, belongs to a particular type, exclusive to the Livatho district, which developed in the twelfth century. It is labelled ‘cave dormitory’ because of the organization of its interior space, with very deep burial pits arranged in rows on either side of a ‘footpath’. The pits contained several disturbed inhumations, making it impossible to identify individual burials and their accompanying grave goods. Tomb A, with ten pits, was the wealthiest, containing numerous vessels and jewellery that included a gold necklace, an antique by the time of its deposition in the grave (Figure 5). Pit 6 contained a sword, spear, and the possible remains of a wooden shield, most probably from the burial of a single warrior. Pit 2, where the ornament was found, was not intensively used. Only four small vases in the Argostoli Museum have A2 inscribed on them (AM1109, AM1124, AM1118, and AM1059), all datable to the twelfth century. The other finds consisted of a 12.3 cm-long knife (AM1170), three fragments of sheet bronze (AM1196) (Marinatos, Reference Marinatos1932: pl. 16, bottom, lower row), two stone ‘buttons’ (known as conuli), and three beads of sardonyx (AM1196) (Marinatos, Reference Marinatos1932: pl. 15, top left, bottom row). No information was published regarding the number, age, or gender of the individuals in the pit; although the knife suggests at least one adult male, the individual buried with the gold ornament remains unidentified.

Figure 3. Gold ornament from Lakkithra. © Greek Ministry of Culture, Ephorate of Antiquities of Kephallenia and Ithaki.

Figure 4. Interior of tomb A, Lakkithra.

Figure 5. Chain and beads from Lakkithra tombs Δ above and A below (see Marinatos, Reference Marinatos1932: pl. 18). © Greek Ministry of Culture, Ephorate of Antiquities of Kephallenia and Ithaki.

The Ornaments and Their Iconographic and Technological Connections

The ornament from Mazarakata, which was found creased, incomplete, and damaged at the edges, is made from an extremely thin (0.19 mm thick) gold sheet. The fragment measures 2.3 × 3.8 cm. If originally round, which seems likely, the object’s diameter would have been approximately 12 cm. It is finely decorated in repoussé, worked from front and back. Near the edge there is a row of embossed circles between bands of tiny lozenges framed by rows of dots. The main motif that is still present is part of a circle with concentric bands within. Three holes in the perimeter have been interpreted as stitch holes for attaching to a fabric (Brodbeck-Jucker, Reference Brodbeck-Jucker1986: 74).

The Lakkithra ornament is complete, although torn in several places. A flat 9.7 cm-long piece with an irregular contour, it is made from a gold sheet c. 0.3 mm thick and weighs 3.4 g. It is bent along the perimeter, forming an unevenly preserved fold (max. 0.4 mm wide) that was intended to secure it on its support. The main decoration consists of a four-spoked wheel motif at one end, with two rectilinear bands springing from it and culminating in antithetic volutes at the other end. Ring-and-dot motifs decorate the centre of the four parts of the wheel, while others are symmetrically placed at its base and in the centre of the volutes. The bands are filled with slanted lines, as are some of the empty spaces. The decoration is most likely to have been executed by chasing on a flat mould, probably of wood or bone, which could have been the rigid surface of the object that the piece decorated.

The motifs decorating the Kefalonian ornaments have been compared with motifs that were widespread in Nordic and central European Bronze Age contexts. These are generally accepted to have had a cultic significance related to cosmology, the sun and its journey through the sky, and even to the actual goddess or god of the sun as a central figure of European religion (Peroni, Reference Peroni1989: 308; Kristiansen & Larsson, Reference Kristiansen and Larsson2005: 297–308; Kristiansen, Reference Kristiansen, Christensen, Hammer and Warburton2013; Valent et al., Reference Valent, Jelínek and Lábaj2021). A related symbolism is that of the bird, usually waterfowl, that is commonly represented with solar motifs on various artefact types and media, singly or as protomes on double-headed bird boats believed to carry the sun on its celestial journey (Kaul, Reference Kaul1998). A most remarkable example is the famous three-dimensional sun symbol on the ceramic model of a chariot pulled by waterfowl from Dupljaja (Serbia; location on Figure 1, no. 14) (see Müller-Karpe, Reference Müller-Karpe2006; for a reappraisal, see Molloy et al., Reference Molloy, Amicone, Pendić, Janović and Mitrivić2024).

The circular motifs on the artefacts from Kefalonia correspond to the two main types of solar discs that appear in central European iconography and are widely known in the second millennium (Valent et al., Reference Valent, Jelínek and Lábaj2021), namely the concentric rings (Mazarakata) and the four-spoked wheel or cross-in-circle (Lakkithra). On the Mazarakata piece, a detail of a bird’s head is arguably identifiable in the curved row of short oval impressions to the left of the solar motif (Bettelli, Reference Bettelli2002: 156). Equally plausible is Bettelli’s suggestion that the antithetic spirals at the end of the hatched bands on the Lakkithra ornament, which are absent in European iconography, are a variation of the stylized bird protome motif.

The closest parallels for the Kefalonian pieces, although derivative themselves, are gold discs from Italy: two from a hoard in Gualdo Tadino in Umbria (Peroni, Reference Peroni1963; Bettelli, Reference Bettelli2002: 155–56, note 110, fig. 59: 1, 2) (Figure 6; location on Figure 1, no. 11) and two pairs of similar discs from the site of Rocavecchia in Apulia (Maggiulli, Reference Maggiulli2006: 129, Reference Maggiulli, Borgna and Guida2009: 3018–19; Scarano & Maggiulli, Reference Scarano, Maggiulli, Meller, Risch and Pernicka2014) (Figure 7a; location on Figure 1, no. 10), in both cases from votive or ritual contexts. The compositional analysis of the metal from the Rocavecchia discs has shown that they were produced in pairs (Numrich et al., Reference Numrich, Scarano, Gonzato, Pernicka, Jung, Crispino and Martinelli2024). With a convex outer profile, they would have been fixed on a wooden support (Scarano & Maggiulli, Reference Scarano, Maggiulli, Meller, Risch and Pernicka2014: 14, fig. 44a) with bronze nails (some of which were recovered). Iconographically less similar to the Kefalonian ornaments are discs from further north in Italy: the terramare of Redù and Casinalbo (location on Figure 1, no. 13) near Modena (Bermond Montanari, Reference Bermond Montanari, Brea, Cardarelli and Cremaschi1997: 733–34, fig. 433a, b; Giordani & Pellacani, Reference Giordani, Pellacani and Cardarelli2014: 837–38, fig. 509), Borgo Panigale (location on Figure 1, no. 15) near Bologna (Catarsi Dall’Aglio, Reference Catarsi Dall’Aglio1976: figs. 3 & 6; Bermond Montanari, Reference Bermond Montanari, Brea, Cardarelli and Cremaschi1997: 734, fig. 432a, b), and a possible disc in tiny fragments from Frattesina (location on Figure 1, no. 12) in the lower valley of the Po (Salzani, Reference Salzani2003: 44–45; Calò & D’Alfonso, Reference Calò, D’Alfonso and Bellintani2020: 233–36). The consensus is that the Italian discs’ shape and decoration reflect the highly symbolic significance of the sun in European contexts (Bettelli, Reference Bettelli2002, Reference Bettelli2012; Jung, Reference Jung, Alram-Stern and Nightingale2007; Càssola Guida, Reference Càssola Guida, Carinci, Cucuzza, Militel and Palio2011, Reference Càssola Guida and Chiabà2014; Scarano & Maggiulli, Reference Scarano, Maggiulli, Meller, Risch and Pernicka2014).

Figure 6. (a) and (b) Gold disc from Gualdo Tadino. Reproduced by kind permission of Musei Nazionali di Perugia–Direzione regionale Musei nazionali Umbria, Museo Archeologico nazionale dell’Umbria (6a). Reproduced by permission of Edizioni Università di Trieste (6b).

Figure 7. a) Disc from Rocavecchia (Maggiulli, Reference Maggiulli2006: fig. 3A); b) head band(?) from Delos (Jung, Reference Jung, Alram-Stern and Nightingale2007: fig. 2). Reproduced by kind permission of All’Insegna dell’Giglio (7a) and the Austrian Academy of Science (7b).

In the Aegean region, the full range of sun-related motifs with European ancestry is only to be found on a group of gold leaf fragments, not in disc form, that were part of the foundation deposit of the Artemision on the island of Delos (location on Figure 1, no. 3) (Matthäus, Reference Matthäus1979; Jung, Reference Jung, Alram-Stern and Nightingale2007, Reference Jung, Borgna and Càssola Guida2009). These include a main fragment (Figure 7b), consisting of part of a curved band decorated with concentric solar discs in repoussé, combined with a double-headed ‘bird barge’, fragments of parts of water birds, and a separate curved fragment with a small four-spoked wheel design (Jung, Reference Jung, Alram-Stern and Nightingale2007: fig. 6.3). While the deposit has a terminus post quem of 700 bc, this was a secondary deposition, and stylistically the ornaments should be broadly contemporary with the Italian and Kefalonian finds.

On Kefalonia, the Mazarakata ornament is technologically and iconographically the closest to the Artemision band and the Italian discs. Its main motif, though missing its centre, compares well with the circles on the Artemision band, being composed of continuous recessed and raised concentric rings, while the curved oval impressions on the left edge (which, as mentioned, were probably part of a bird protome) could have belonged to a stylized ‘barge’ like the ‘bird barge’ on the Delos band. The embossed circles are in a chain, but the motif itself compares with the circles in the centres of the Rocavecchia, Gualdo Tadino, and Delos motifs. On the other hand, the bands with chains of tiny lozenges are not present elsewhere. The Mazarakata piece thus clearly belongs to the same group but cannot be said to be the product of the same craftsman or workshop.

The Lakkithra piece, on the other hand, has rightly been regarded as different from the rest, and not only because of its unique shape. Undoubtedly, the person who created or commissioned it was familiar with non-Mycenaean motifs and their meaningful combination. The cross-in-circle is comparable to those on the Gualdo Tadino and Rocavecchia discs and the fragment from the Artemision assemblage, and the ring-and-dot motif within panels is not unlike similar motifs within sections of the Italian discs. Given that the bands and antithetic spirals of the piece could be a variation of the stylized bird protome motif, the conceptual framework of the piece is thus compatible with the European symbolic representation of the sun and solar vehicle. However, several features distinguish this piece from the rest, suggesting that it was manufactured by a local, or at least an Aegean, craftsman. The artefact is crafted from a gold sheet that is thicker than the other examples and is folded around the edges to fix it onto a surface; this is a common Mycenaean method for goldwork, including for making gold relief beads, examples of which come from the Mazarakata collection at the Laténium Museum in Neuchâtel, as noted by Brodbeck-Jucker (Reference Brodbeck-Jucker1986: 71–73, pl. XV: nos. 46–50).

In terms of iconography too, the motifs are by no means absent from the Late Bronze Age Aegean repertoire and predate the twelfth century. The famous stone mould from Palaikastro in Crete (see below), probably intended for casting small objects for ritual, is unique in showing a four-spoked wheel motif, considered a representation of the sun disc (Xanthoulides, Reference Xanthoulides1900), and a smaller disc, probably held by a figure. It has been assigned to the Late Minoan III period (fifteenth–eleventh century bc), although a much earlier, Middle Minoan date (nineteenth–seventeenth century bc), was proposed recently (Velsink, Reference Velsink2016). On pottery, the cross-in-circle motif appears in various guises: on Mycenaean pictorial vases the chariots have four-spoked wheels, some with ‘sea anemone’ or ‘rosette’ fillers (Furumark Motif (FM) 39.2-3,8; FM 27:35). A version of the simple cross ‘rosette’ (FM 17:36) decorates some discs of Mycenaean stirrup jars, including LH IIIC Late jars from Kefalonia (Marinatos, Reference Marinatos1932: 41; Souyoudzoglou-Haywood, Reference Souyoudzoglou-Haywood2025: pl. 16: A1347, A1341); a couple of bases of pots also bear the motif, possibly as the potter’s signature (Souyoudzoglou-Haywood, Reference Souyoudzoglou-Haywood2025: pl. 6: A1465, pl. 16: A1487). The motif with antithetic spirals at the end of the bands, which has no European parallels, could have been inspired by the Mycenaean stemmed spiral (FM 49), which also occurs as an antithetic spiral on Kefalonian LH IIIC pottery (Souyoudzoglou-Haywood, Reference Souyoudzoglou-Haywood2025: pl. 13: 15–16), or alternatively by the Minoan-Mycenaean ‘lily’ or ‘waz lily’, which occurs as relief beads in a variety of materials, including ivory, glass, and gold (Higgins, Reference Higgins1961: 79–80, nos. 12–16, pls. 8–10). Finally, the slanting lines design that fills the main empty spaces is the Mycenaean LH IIIC zigzag (FM 61.13-17), which features on many Kefalonian vases (Brodbeck-Jucker, Reference Brodbeck-Jucker1986: figs 7: 15a, b and 12: 36).

In sum, while the Lakkithra piece shares its basic technology, solar iconography, and symbolism with the Mazarakata piece, its hybrid form is owed to both a native and an exogenous input. Comparable cases in the Aegean context are the sun wheels of the Tiryns treasure, where amber beads were mounted on a series of gold wires to create unique three-dimensional cross-in-circle objects, which Maran (Reference Maran, Hahn and Weiss2013) regarded as a local creation—although Jung (Reference Jung2020: 178–81) recently suggested an origin in the Po area of northern Italy. The gold band from Delos is also considered an Aegean creation (Jung Reference Jung, Borgna and Càssola Guida2009: 239), possibly part of a headdress that, in combination with the birds, recalls the diadems from the Sub-Mycenaean figures from Karfi (Crete; location on Figure 1, no. 9).

Funerary Context, Purpose, and Function

The Kefalonia ornaments differ from other similar finds, whether in Italian or in Aegean contexts, that were used during cultic events or ceremonies for the living, albeit of diverse kinds. In common with them, they imply communication with the supernatural at a time of ‘crisis’, but unlike them their deposition is directly connected with the treatment of an individual’s dead body. Thus, they are closely related to the identity and social status in life of the deceased, and equally of the burying group (Cavanagh & Mee, Reference Cavanagh and Mee1998: 109–10; Parker Pearson, Reference Parker Pearson1999: 83–84).

The Mazarakata ornament probably decorated a funerary garment or shroud. The dressing of the corpse was a standard practice in funerals in the Aegean throughout the Late Bronze Age, as attested by the jewellery and ‘buttons’ found with burials, iconographic evidence, and rare surviving fragments of textiles (Benzi, Reference Benzi, La Rosa, Palermo and Vagnetti1999; Siennicka, Reference Siennicka, Yvanez and Wozniak2025). Decorated textiles would also have been used during secondary or commemorative burial rites (Cavanagh, Reference Cavanagh1978; Gallou, Reference Gallou2005: 120, 122). Decoration with gold was, however, exceptional. Gold leaf ornaments, which would have been stitched or glued onto cloth (Higgins, Reference Higgins1961: 82–83), go back to the elite burials of the sixteenth century bc; many were found in the Shaft Graves at Mycenae, while looting may account for their rarity from many later princely tombs.

The Lakkithra gold ornament would have been mounted on a piece of wood or bone. Its overall shape suggests a handle of some sort, but the object that it may have been attached to was not found. Incomplete or damaged grave goods are not unusual in Mycenaean tombs. One reason is the common practice of ritually destroying grave goods, known as symbolic ‘killing’ (Åström, Reference Åström and Laffineur1987; Soles, Reference Soles, Betancourt, Karageorghis, Laffineur and Niemeier1999 with references). Leaving aside looting, an alternative explanation for the presence of only parts of composite grave goods is that components may have been separated and reused or removed at the time of later burials or cult activities (Boyd, Reference Boyd, Harrell and Driessen2015).

The uniqueness of the Lakkithra artefact makes identifying the type of object it decorated uncertain as well as intriguing. Two possibilities seem the most plausible in the Mycenaean cultural context: the ornament could have covered the handle of a bronze mirror (Marinatos, Reference Marinatos1932: 41) or it decorated the hilt of a small weapon, a dagger or a knife.

In the latter case, its possible role as an item of insignia dignitatis is a tantalizing interpretation. The imagery of the sun disc motif on offensive and defensive weapons, particularly in the Carpathian basin (Matthäus, Reference Matthäus1979; Bettelli, Reference Bettelli2012) may betray a European connection. The centres of the spirals of the Lakkithra ornament could have covered the two rivets attaching the blade of a dagger to its hilt. However, the ornament is too short to cover the hilt plate of the popular type D dagger (Papadopoulos, Reference Papadopoulos1998: 24–27, pls 56–58), while the position of the rivets would not fit the smaller Peschiera type dagger (Papadopoulos, Reference Papadopoulos1998: 29–30, pl. 22). Moreover, the Lakkithra piece has an uncharacteristic flat surface, making it awkward to hold, even if it were a purely ceremonial weapon.

A mirror handle would be less problematic in an Aegean context. Typically, mirrors are East Mediterranean and Middle Eastern toilet implements, found in the Aegean (although not in the Cyclades) from the fifteenth century onwards. Fragments of a probable bronze mirror came from a burial monument at Oikopeda (LH IIIA2–IIIB) on Kefalonia itself (Marinatos, Reference Marinatos1932: 177). While mirrors became a feature of Iron Age Europe, they were exceptional in the Bronze Age; the small corpus from Sicily (Pantalica) are considered either imitations of Aegean mirrors or imports (LoSchiavo et al., Reference LoSchiavo, Macnamara and Vagnetti1985).

Like dagger hilts, the handles of Aegean mirrors are also longer than the Lakkithra piece and rounder in section, but on the signet rings of Mycenae (Figure 8) and Pylos (locations on Figure 1, nos. 5 and 6) (Davis & Stocker, Reference Davis and Stocker2016: 645, no. 4, fig. 12a, b) the goddesses are shown holding them from below. The typical Aegean mirror (Catling’s type 1) has no tang (‘tangless’), with two rivet holes as standard for the attachment of the handle (Catling, Reference Catling1964: 224–25; Baboula, Reference Baboula2000: 60; Alvarez, Reference Alvarez2023) (Figure 9a). Such holes could be matched with the centre of the volutes of the Lakkithra piece. Although not conclusive, these observations make a mirror the likeliest of the two suggested interpretations for the Lakkithra piece.

Figure 8. Gold signet ring from Mycenae (Evans, Reference Evans1901: fig. 64).

Figure 9. Aegean mirrors. a) Catling type 1 mirror (Baboula, Reference Baboula2000, fig. 1a); b) mirror with ivory handle, tomb of Clytemnestra, Mycenae.

Reproduced by kind permission of the author (9a); image 9b by Zde under Creative Commons license 3.0 (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mycenaean_findings,_NAMA,_191178.jpg).

Almost all Late Bronze Age mirrors from the Aegean (and Cyprus) come from funerary contexts. Most surviving handles belonged to prestigious objects, are made of ivory, and bear elaborate carved decorations in low relief (Poursat, Reference Poursat1977; Baboula, Reference Baboula2000; Alvarez, Reference Alvarez2023). Although we cannot assume that wooden handles were equally elaborate, an exemplar from Dendra (location on Figure 1, no. 4) was carved in imitation of the ivory mirror handle from Mycenae (Persson, Reference Persson1931: 96, no. 20, figs 71, 72, pl. XXX III 1). In the sixteenth and fifteenth centuries, mirrors were placed in the graves of warriors (Paschalidis, Reference Paschalidis, Nosch and Laffineur2012; Davis & Stocker, Reference Davis and Stocker2016; Alvarez, Reference Alvarez2023). They continue to be high-status symbols, although not linked with any particular social category (Alvarez, Reference Alvarez2023). In the twelfth century the use of mirrors as grave goods becomes less common and geographically more localized.

Mirrors in Aegean funerary contexts have been assigned a range of symbolic interpretations. Paschalidis (Reference Paschalidis, Nosch and Laffineur2012) suggests that they mostly stood for the love of beauty in life continuing in the afterlife. Baboula (Reference Baboula2000: 68–69) proposes that they held a different symbolic meaning for the two sexes and that in rich male burials the exotic materials used for the handles expressed elite status. Alvarez (Reference Alvarez2023) contends that the mirror contributed to the construction of the ideological identity of the deceased and the burying group. She also found indications that at Kato Zakros in Crete the mirrors were used for ceremonies (Alvarez, Reference Alvarez2023: 197). Davis and Stocker (Reference Davis and Stocker2016: 650) posit a ritual significance for the mirror in the Griffin Warrior burial at Pylos, seeing an interactive relationship between the mirror itself and the signet ring from the same tomb (cat. no. 4) depicting a mirror held by a goddess.

The association between the mirror and the sun is of particular relevance here. It appears in different cultures at different times and can be attributed to the mirror’s shape and reflective surface. For the Bronze Age Aegean, Goodison (Reference Goodison1989: 87) considered this a possibility, referring to Persson’s (Reference Persson1942: 45, 89) suggestion that mirrors could sometimes be solar symbols.

Ideologies of the Sun and Funerary Symbolism

In previous discussions of the Kefalonian ornaments, little consideration was given to possible local antecedents of motifs and ideologies. Were the solar symbols and symbolisms foreign to the Bronze Age Aegean belief systems? Arthur Evans saw heavenly bodies as especially important in Minoan religion and identified motifs in art that he thought represented them, while maintaining that the Minoans worshipped a Warrior-Sun god. This has not been substantiated. Nanno Marinatos (Reference Marinatos2010) put forward the case for a Minoan solar goddess, but her views, heavily reliant on Middle Eastern parallels, have met with scepticism. Goodison, on the other hand, suggested that Minoan religion may have included a cult of the sun itself (Goodison, Reference Goodison1989, Reference Goodison, Laffineur and Hägg2001; see also Banou, Reference Banou2008) and discussed the possible sun symbol motifs alongside likely worshipper figures on seals (Goodison, Reference Goodison1989: 12–15, Reference Goodison, Laffineur and Hägg2001: 78, pl. XVIII a–e) and the relevance of the cross-in-circle sun motif on the Palaikastro mould (Figure 10; location on Figure 1, no. 8). She pointed out that the motif appears in various guises on Minoan seals, often with religious associations or connections with death (Goodison, Reference Goodison1989: 13, 75–76, fig. 14 j–o). Associations between death and the sun in the funerary landscape have also been explored with positive results in studies of the alignments of Minoan tholos tombs (Branigan, Reference Branigan1970: 104–05), as well as some Mycenaean tholos tombs on the Greek mainland (Davis et al., Reference Davis, Chapin, Banou, Hitchcock, Fotiadis, Laffineur, Lolos and Vlachopoulos2017). Moreover, archaeoastronomical work on the Minoan palaces (Blomberg & Henriksson, Reference Blomberg and Henriksson2006) has confirmed their orientation to celestial bodies.

Figure 10. The Palaikastro mould in the Archaeological Museum of Heraklion, Crete (1370–1200 bc). Width: 22.5 cm, height: 10 cm. Image by Olaf Tausch under Creative Commons license 3.0 (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gussform_Palekastro_04.jpg).

The other European symbols on the ornaments, namely the bird and the ship (see Matthäus, Reference Matthäus1980a: 252–55, Reference Matthäus1980c, Reference Matthäus and Lorenz1981), were not foreign to the symbology of the Bronze Age Aegean either. Aquatic birds in particular often appear in connection with the divine, for example in association with seated priestesses or goddesses, as on the Tiryns signet ring (Sakellariou, Reference Sakellariou1964: 202, no. 179), and ‘Mistress of Animals’ (Younger, Reference Younger1988: 182–83). Opinion differs regarding the depiction of birds as representing the epiphany of a deity (see Mylonas, Reference Mylonas1977: 118–19), although the scene on the signet ring from Sellopoulo in Crete (Persson, Reference Persson1942: 35–36, 171, fig. 2) is convincing. Moreover, the connections between birds and death, which is an aspect of the animal’s multifaceted symbolism in European contexts (see Goldhahn, Reference Goldhahn2019), is also attested in the Aegean. Typically, in Minoan iconography they are found with cult symbols, double axes or horns of consecration, while ceramic birds are propped up on the lids of some larnakes, i.e. funerary chests (e.g. Gallou, Reference Gallou2005: fig. 22). Generally, aquatic birds are regarded as having eschatological symbolism in both Mycenaean and Minoan iconography (Binnberg, Reference Binnberg2018: 141, 143).

The same is true of ships, which, in mortuary contexts in the Aegean, echo the European sun barge. Along with the chariot, the ship is thought to refer to the soul’s journey to the underworld (Gallou, Reference Gallou2005: 46–49). Especially suggestive are the depictions of ships on Minoan larnakes, some with bird protomes on the prow, and grave goods of model boats or images of ships.

This brief survey spans several centuries between the third and the second millennium bc. Nevertheless, the examples cited are significant in showing that European symbols and ideologies transmitted eastwards in the twelfth century feature within societies that did not lack related traditions, cosmological concerns, and the symbols to express them.