MINOAN FOOT AMULETS AND THEIR NEAR EASTERN COUNTERPARTS

by KEITH BRANIGAN

When the first examples of the Minoan foot amulets were discovered, in the tholos tombs of the Mesara, they attracted the attention of both Evans and Xanthoudides who saw in them yet further proof.of the close relationship of prepalatial Crete to Old Kingdom Egypt. Since then the foot amulet has been almost completely neglected, and it has never indeed been subjected to a elose study for its own sake. The present article is an attempt to rectify this situation, and to see what can be learnt from the foot amulets about early Minoan religion, scripts, and foreign contacts. The paper falls into four major parts, the first of which is an analysis of the Minoan foot amulets in terms of typology, chronology, distribution, and materials utilised. The foreign parallels are similarly, but more briefly treated, in the second section, and the rela­tionship between them and the Minoan amulets is discussed. In the third part the meaning and significance of the amulets is discussed, and this leads into the fourth section which attempts to establish the relationship between the amulets and the hieroglyphic sign 11. The amulets in the shape of a hoof are discussed in relationship to sign 28 on the Phaistos Disc. The paper con­cludes with a short .summary, and is followed by a catalogue of Minoan and Aegean foot amulets.

Analysis and Classification.

The catalogue of Minoan foot and hoof amulets appended to this paper includes twenty examples, in addition to three from elsewhere in the Aegean and a number of dubious ones. Of these twenty amulets, fifteen are in the

8 Keith Branigan

CMS

11 ~ '0 11 LS

's

l1r) ? •

1 3 5

Fig. 1

Minoan Foot Amulets 9

shape of a human foot, the remaining five being in the form of a hoof. The human feet can be divided into three classes. (Fig. 1)

Class 1: A reasonably accurate portrayal of the human foot, with little more than the ankle represented above it. The sole is flat, the foot is clearly distinguished from the leg, and with the possible exception of No. 2 (Tylissos) there is a single suspension hole above the ankle. In one case (No. 3, Lebena) laces incised on the top of the foot appear to imply that the foot is represented as wearing a shoe. Most of the feet show no clear indication as to which foot is represented but No's 7, 8, and 9 (Agia Triadha) and No. 15 (Palaikastro) all appear to be right feet. Twelve examples (2-5,7-9, 11-15).

Class 2: A schematic rendering of the human foot with no clear distinc­tion made between the foot and the leg. The height is normally greater than the length. There is a single suspension hole in or above the ankle. The excavator recorded No. 6 (Agia Triadha) as representing a left foot. Two examples (1 and 6).

Class 3: An amulet in which the foot is no longer prominent, being at­tached to a distinct leg, so that it is perhaps best referred to as a leg amulet. One example (10).

Of the dubious foot amulets catalogued, the two from Platanos (and presumably the similar ones referred to but not illustrated by Xanthou­dides) would fall into class 1, and that from Phaistos would fall within class 2. The three examples from elsewhere in the Aegean are all of class 1.

16 le eMS

\:? Fig. 2

The five hoof amulets can best be treated as a group, although each has its own peculiarities. (Fig. 2) No's 16 to 19 certainly represent cloven hooves, and this is probaly true also of No. 20, although the shape of the back of the hoof is unusual and raises some doubts. This is also the shortest of the hoof amulets, the rest continuing the leg some way above the hoof. No's 16, 18, and 19 each have a single perforation through the leg, but No. 20 has a flat projection from its top in which the suspension hole has

10 Keith Branigan

been bored. The example from Phaistos (No. 17) may be an unfinished example, since not only is its carving and detail noticeably less meticulous than that of the other amulets, but it lacks a suspension hole.

None of the Minoan amulets can be closely dated from its associations, although fourteen of them came from deposits covering the period Early Minoan I - Middle Minoan n, and the three from Lebena can be placed a little more precisely within the period EM.n-MM.!a. In addition, the amulet from Tylissos (No. 2) is not earlier than MM.!, nor are the unfin­ished hoof and the dubious amulet of class 2 from Phaistos. The bronze leg amulet from Psychro is unlikely to be earlier than MM.n. On the basis of these late examples it would be possible to argue that all of the Minoan amulets are as late as MM.!, but this is probaly not the case. Certainly the unusual and quite distinct leg amulet from Psychro cannot be used to argue the case. The two amulets from Agios Kosmas and Zygouries on the Greek mainland were fortunately found in clear Early Helladic n associations, and the small example from a grave on Despotikon is dated to Early Cy­cladic n. On all but the most unorthodox Aegean chronologies, these three amulets (fig. 3) would be contemporary with Early Minoan n in Crete. It is difficult to dissociate the fifteen Minoan amulets from these three, all the more so since no EH.nI and MH.I examples have been found to fill the gap between Early Helladic n and Middle Minoan 1. Furthermore not only does the distribution of the Aegean foot amulets argue strongly for a Minoan source, but in the case of Agios Kosmas there is a "bottle" sealstone of typical Minoan type also from the EH.n floor deposit 1 to prove the existence of contact between Attica and Crete in EH.n. Bearing in mind the many signs of cultural contact during the second phase of the Aegean Early Bronze Age, between Crete, the Cyclades, and the Greek mainland 2,

it is altogether reasonable to believe that many of the Minoan amulets found in the Mesara tholoi and dated between EM.! and MM.n were man­ufactured during Early Minoan n.

(MS

f Fig. 3

1 G. Mylonas Agios Kosmas (1958) 159, fig. 166, 14. 2 C. Renfrew "Cycladic Metallurgy and the Aegean Early Bronze Age" AlA, 71,

15-17, K. Branigan "Silver and Lead in Prepalatial Crete" AlA 72, 227-228.

Minoan Foot Amulets 11

We might hope to gain some confirmation of this from the sort of materials of which the various amulets are made, but it is difficult to draw satisfactory conclusions from this source of evidence, since fourteen of them are dubiously described as made of "steatite". Dr. Warren has recently warned us of the dangers of taking this term at face value 3. If the term is used correctly, then the majority of the amulets might well have been man­ufactured in EM.ll or III since steatite was frequently used for small vases and, of more relevance, for seals tones during these periods 4. Some of the pieces allegedly made of steatite however appe~r to be made of serpentine (e.g. No. 15 Palaikastro, No. 18 Giamalakis Collection, and No. 20 Daw­kins Collection - now in the Ashmolean Museum) and are therefore more likely to date to Middle Minoan I or later. Apart from steatite and ser­pentine, other materials were infrequently used to manufacture foot amulets; ivory for No. 5 from Krasi, clay for No's 1 and 2 from Lebena and Tylissos respectively, limestone for No. 11 from Koumasa, and bronze for the leg amulet from Psychro, No. 10. The distribution of the Minoan amulets is illustrated in Fig. 4. That they are concentrated within a small region centred on the Mesara is clear, and becomes even more so if one disregards the leg amulet of late date from Psychro and the serpentine amulet probably of MM.I-ll date from Palaikastro. All three hoof amulets with a known provenance were found in this southern region. It might be fairly argued therefore that these amulets are characteristic of the Early Bronze Age "Mesara Culture", and this would again favour a date within EM.ll - EM.Ill for the manufacture of most of them.

• FOOT AMUI..ETS

... HOOF AMULE.TS

• LEEr AMULETS

•

• I:. MA M

.. A

Fig. 4

t

3 P. Warren "Two Palatial Stone Vases f.rom Knossos" BSA 60, 154-55. 4 Warren op. cit. (fn. 3) 154.

12 Keith Branigan

Egyptian and Syrian Parallels.

Both Xanthoudides and Evans were convinced that the Minoan amulets were conscious imitations of Egyptian leg amulets, and that they constituted powerful evidence for an immigration from Egypt into Crete 5. Xanthoudides went so far as to refer to "precisely similar" and "exact" parallels from Egypt. No one has ever challenged these comparisons, yet it is clear from a glance at the Egyptian leg amulets in figure 5 that there is a fundamental difference between the Egyptian and Minoan amulets. Whilst the Minoan examples may best be described as foot amulets, the Egyptian ones must be called leg amulets. (Fig. 5, 1-5). Indeed, the foot is barely represented at all on some Egyptian leg amulets. It seems that the Egyptian amulets may represent a totally dif­ferent concept altogether to that associated with their Minoan "parallels"; there is at least a difference of emphasis. There are stylistic differences too. All the Egyptian leg amulets which the writer has yet seen have been schematic representations of the leg and foot. This applies not only to the profile of the limb, which reveals little or no attempt to show the curves of the leg, but also its three dimensional shape, since all the Egyptian amulets are carved in the flat. Minoan foot amulets are representations in the round. Differences of material are to be expected of course, but the absence of any carnelian or sard examples in Crete may at least be taken as a firm indication that we are dealing with Minoan products rather than imports from Egypt. All the Egyptian examples known to the writer are made of one stone or the other.

The Egyptian leg amulets seem to have had a relatively restricted floruit. Petrie dates them to the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties 6, and I have been unable t.o find either earlier or later examples. Xanthoudides' reference to First Dynasty examples cannot be substantiated 7. The period of the Fifth and Sixth dynasties (c. 2494 - 2181 BC) 8 overlaps almost entirely with Early Minoan II (c. 2700 - 2200 BC or 2400 - 2100 BC) 9, so that it is difficult to establish which type of amulet appeared first. In· view of the considerable differences between' the Egyptian and Minoan amulets, we may be discussing a case of contemporary spontaneous invention. On the other hand there are more than thirty stone bowls of Egyptian manufacture from Crete, dating to the

5 A. J. Evans Palace of Minos Il, 45 and in Xanthoudides Vaulted Tombs of Me-sara, x, S. Xanthoudides, op. cit. 31, 129.

6 W. F. Petrie Amulets 1l. 7 Xanthoudides op. cit. (fn. 5) 3l. 8 W. Stevenson Smith Old Kingdom in Egypt 73 . 9 The first date is mine based on a close study of the relevant materiaJ, the second

is Hutchinson Prehistoric Crete 17. F. Matz Crete and Early Greece 239 gives lower dates however, 2250-2100 BC.

Minoan Foot Amulets 13

Old Kingdom and mostly to the Fourth to Sixth Dynasties 10. If one fol­lows Warren and believes that they arrived in Crete at "approximately the time of their floruit in Egypt", then a connection between the Minoan and Egyptian amulets seems more certain. There is perhaps some reason to think however that the bowls were exported to Crete in Middle Minoan I-II 11,

and if this was the case then there is little else to suggest contacts with Egypt in Early Minoan II.

I 2- "3 tr 5

[l [1 Ll rlLl (, '1- 8 10

CJ

~ ~ Fig. 5

It is tempting to suggest that both the bowls and the idea of a leg or foot amulet were transferred to Crete through Syria, since two of the three leg amulets found at Byblos are of Egyptian type and one of these, of carnelian, is surely an Egyptian export 12. But Minoan contacts with Syria were only opened on a notable scale in Early Minoan Ill, and are represented in the archaeological record principally by exports and imports of the Middle Minoan I and II phases 13. There is thus no reason to suppose that the Minoans derived the idea of a foot amulet from Syria. A link be­tween the Minoan and Syrian foot amulets however must be postulated for two reasons. Firstly, the third foot amulet from Byblos is of Minoan type

10 P. War.ren "The First Minoan Stone V.asesand Early Minoan Chronology" Kr. Chroni~a 1965 28-39.

11 K. Branigan "The Eavliest Aegean Scripts - The Prepalatial Background" Kad­mos 8, 21-22.

12 M. Dunand Fouilles de Byblos I 117, No. 1747. 13 e. g. K. Branigan "Further Light on Prehistoric Relations between Crete and

Byblos" AlA, 71, 117-121, V.E.G. Kenna "Ancient Crete -and the use of the Cylinder Seal". AlA, 72, 321-336.

14 Keith Branigan

- it is a foot and ankle only, and is "in the round". (Fig. 5, 7). Further­more the design carved on its base is paralleled on the foot amulet from Palaikastro and on two of the dubious foot amulets from the Mesara (fig. 6, 15, 21,22). Secondly, there are three hoof amulets from Byblos, in contrast to the complete absence of hoof amulets in Egypt. Two of the three Byblite hoof amulets find close Minoan parallels. The only foot or hoof amulets which do not have a suspension hole bored through the leg but through a tang­like projection from the top of it are the hoof amulet in the Giamilakis collection and Byblos 7202. (cf. fig. 2, 20, fig. 5, 10). The correspondance between the unfinished hoof from Phaistos and a similar piece from Byblos (No. 393) is more remarkable, the manner of depicting the leg and hoof being identical (cf. fig. 2, 17, fig. 5, 8). Furthermore the Phaistos hoof comes from a Middle Minoan deposit , contemporary with the expansion of trade between Crete and Syria referred to above. Unfortunately the Byblite amulets are not closely dated, though they appear to fall in the late third and early second millennium BC. As far as is known, they are therefore contemporaries of their Minoan and Egyptian parallels.

15 2:l. ;l.\ SYBLOS

~ m "... ...... ....... ~ @})

(I) ~ a ~:::J IS ;l.0

" ZYGrOUR\£S

Fig. 6

The Significance and Meaning of the Foot Amulets.

Both Evans and Xanthoudides sought to explain the meaning of the Minoan foot amulets by reference to the Egyptian leg amulets. Thus Evans emphasises that "they were invariably attached as amulets to the anklets of the dead, arm shaped pendants being suspended from the wrists" 14;

14 A. J. Evans Palace of Minos I, 125.

Minoan Foot Amulets

and Xanthoudides, following Evans, concludes that they were intended "to give strength to the limb" 15. .

This is ar. attractive proposal and one which may well be a correct interpretation of the amulets' function, but it is based on erroneous infor­mation. I have been unable to find a single example of an Egyptian amulet which was discovered tied to the ankle of a corpse. Of the six instances where the position of the leg amulet (or amulets) is recorded, each and everyone was strung on a necklace 16. Petrie confirms that amulets were not normally tied to ankles, but were usually on necklaces or around the wrists 17. He classes the leg amulet amongst his "amulets of similars" 18,

which he believes were intended to influence similar parts on behalf of the wearer. In the case of the leg amulet (wrt) the influence which it was ex­pected to exert is clear from the meaning of the word· - "power of walking". Whether or not this "power" was expected to operate in both life and death, or in the latter alone is uncertain. Dunand certainly would see the leg amulet as essentially a burial piece, dedved from the Osirian myth and representing part of Osiris' dismembered body 19. Petrie is non-committal on the question of the distinction between amulets for the living and those for the dead 20, and only Dechelette has argued that the leg amulets were worn in everyday life, believing them to represent trophies commemorating the defeat of enemies 21.

There is no reason to think that Dechelette was right, since the amuletic associations of the Egyptian leg amulets are well established. The other amulets with which they commonly appear on necklaces include face and fist amulets, the former thought to signify the power of the senses, and the latter "action" 22, amulets in the form of the cardium edule shell (for pro­tection against witchery) and the Eye of Horus. The characteristic assem­blage of amulets in which the leg amulets appear thus provide their wearer with both mental and physical power and vitality, with a certain degree of protection, and perhaps with the assurance of the restoration of life. Unfor­tunately we cannot be certain of the significance of the Eye of Horus worn as a common amulet. If it indeed signified the power of revival after death, then we could more certainly ascribe the leg-amulets to a purely funerary

15 X.anthoudides op. cit. (fn. 5) 31. 16 W. E. Petrie Cemetery of Abydos I, 18, 19, Amulets 53, groups 1, 2, 7, and 14. 17 Petrie op. cit. (fn. 6) 52. 18 Petrie op. cit. (fn. 6) 2, 3, 9, class 15. 19 Dunand op. cit. (fn. 12), 193. 20 Petrie op. cit. (fn. 6), 5. 21 .in Dunand op. cit. (fn. 12) 193. 22 Petrie op. cif. (£n. 6) 9, 11.

r I I

16 Keith Branigan

function, since where the associations of the leg amulets are known, they appear to invariably include Eye amulets.

The contribution which the Egyptian leg amulets may make to our understanding of the Minoan foot amulets is therefore more limited than we might have hoped. This is all the more so since we have already seen that whilst the Egyptian amulets represent the leg from the knee downwards, the Minoan ones are basically representations of the foot. There is a real possibility therefore that the function and significance of the Minoan amulets may be different to those of the Egyptian ones. We should at least expect there to be a difference of emphasis. This impression is strengthened by the absence of amulets in the form of a cloven hoof amongst the two hundred and seventy-five classes of amulet listed by Petrie. If we disregard the Egyptian evidence, as it seems we should, then we have just four clues as to the meaning of the Minoan foot amulets.

Firstly, there are the contexts in which the foot amulets were found. It is not surprising to find that almost all of the provenanced examples came from tombs, mainly the circular tombs of the Mesara, since these are the source of by far the largest proportion of our Early Minoan corpus of material. There are a few exceptions however. The Middle Minoan foot from Tylissos was found in the settlement, and so was the hoof amulet from Phaistos, also of Middle Minoan date. A third Middle Minoan example from a settlement may be represented by a dubious specimen from Phaistos, catalogue No. 21. Fortunately settlement contexts for earlier examples are confirmed by the two amulets from the Greek mainland. Both were found in dwelling houses of the Early Helladic II period 23. These isolated examples from the mainland, of typical Minoan form, can hardly be disregarded in our discussion of the Minoan amulets. These, together with the two or three Middle Minoan examples, suggest that in the Aegean the foot amulet was worn in life as well as death. Further confirmation of this is perhaps suggested by the discovery of hoof and foot amulets (as opposed to Egyp­tian style leg amulets) in the settlement at Byblos.

One of the Minoan amulets however was discovered in neither a tomb or a settlement but in the votive deposit at Psychro. Significantly this is our only Minoan leg amulet and it is our only example made of metal. It is also perhaps the latest foot or leg amulet yet discovered in Crete, and is a most important link with our second piece of evidence, the larger, votive feet and legs of non-suspension type found in Crete. There are very few of these, apart from those found in peak sanctuaries. The only com-

23 The dating of both of these to EH.Il is based on Caskey's re-interpretation of the Early HeIladic period in the Argolid (Hesperia XXIX, 1960). They vere previ­ously dated to EH.IlI.

Minoan Foot Amulets 17

prehensive excavation report for a peak sanctuary is that for Petsopha 24,

but Faure's exhaustive survey of the known and probable sanctuary sites has emphasised the basic similarity which exists not only in the siting and design of the sanctuaries but also in the figurines and other votive objects found within them 25 . What is true of Petsopha would therefore seem to be generally applicable to the other peak sanctuaries. At Petsopha Myres found a variety of votive clay hands, heads, and legs, as well as complete human and animal figurines. For the most part the legs were single examples, representing both right and left legs, normally painted either white or red­brown, and in one case wearing a white boot on the foot. In addition there was one unusual example representing both legs from the waist downwards. The significance of these votives, and indeed of the whole group at Petsopha, is uncertain. The very variety of the votives however may indicate the direction in which we should look for their interpretation, since whilst some might be claimed as seeking powers or protection, others may be seeking the destruction of the pests they represent. In other words, the votives represent petitions, which were apparently carried to the deity of the sanctuary in the smoke of the fire into which the votives were thrown. The character of the petitions can only be postulated on the basis of the nature of the various votives. In the case of human legs, both male and female (as indicated by the two different colours used), the most probable petition would be healing. One may argue for a significance akin to that of the Egyptian leg amulets - the power of walking - but even then such a petition is most likely to have come from the man or woman with weak or diseased legs. One is tempted to relate the pair of legs to a case of paralysis·26

•

The extent to which we may draw a parallel between the votive legs and the foot amulets depends to some degree on establishing a point of contact between them. There was a single item in the Petsopha assemblage which may provide such a contact. This was a clay foot which Myres considered may have been an independent votive rather than a fragment from a broken clay leg. Unfortunately Myres did not illustrate this important piece. Two votive clay feet were found however in a sanctuary at Mallia, dating to the Late Minoan era ZT. Associated with them were three tubular vases (paralleled in the peak sanctuaries at Koumasa, Chamaizi, and Ka-

24 J. L. Myres "The Sanctuary Site of Petsofa" BSA IX. 25 P. Faure "Nouvelles Recherches sur Trois Sortes de Sanctuaires Cretois) BCH 91,

114-28. 26 I understand that some prehistoric rock engravings show men struck in the

spine w~th their legs detached from their bodies, perhaps indicating paralysis of the spine.

27 F. Chapouthier & P. Demargne Etudes Cretoises XII, 11, fig. 3.

2

18 Keith Branigan

telionas), an unusually large pair of bronze tweezers, an altar, and a col­lection of shells. These feet are like enlarged foot amulets without the suspension hole, but their function in the sanctuary remains a mystery. I believe there are no other instances where votive feet have been found in household shrines, unless a clay foot from Sklavakambos, dating MM.IlI­LM.II, originally stood in a small domestic shrine 28.

For the most part, the peak sanctuaries appear at the beginning of the palatial era, so that the earliest votive legs belong to MM.I, just as our only leg amulet is no earlier than MM.Il. It is difficult to point to any foot amulets which may confidently be dated as late as MM.Il - LM.Il, and the vast majority are probably earlier than MM.I. Thus, whilst the foot amulets belong mainly to the Early Bronze Age, the votive legs and sole example of a leg amulet are Middle Bronze Age, and the Mallia and Sklavakambos large votive feet are Late Bronze Age. It is highly unlikely therefore that there is anything but the most tentative relationship between the Early Minoan foot amulets and the Late Minoan clay feet.

On the other hand it is possible to postulate a relationship between the foot amulets and the votive legs, since the former rapidly disappear as the latter become common in the peak sanctuaries of the Middle Bronze Age. I have elsewhere attempted to demonstrate that the religion of the peak sanctuaries represents a consolidation of several independent cults and rituals of the Early Bronze Age 19, and in this context the case for relating the Early Minoan foot amulets to the Middle Minoan votive legs is perhaps strengthened. It is now possible to suggest that there was a major develop­ment in Minoan religious thought, whereby the protection previously af­forded by the foot amulet was now considered obtainable from a deity. That is, there was a movement away from superstition and magic towards a formalised belief in a supernatural being.

Nevertheless, one is entitled to ask why the transition from amulet to votive should have entailed a transition from foot to leg also. There is no satisfactory answer to this question, and for this reason if no other, a direct line of descent from foot amulet to votive leg must be regarded as no more than a tentative hypothesis. It follows that a similar view must be taken of any suggestion that the meaning of the amulets and of the votives was identical; it is a possibility but no more.

There remain two minor clues as to the possible significance or mean­ing of the foot amulets. One of the foot amulets and at least two of the

28 S. Marinatos Eph. Arch 1945, 87, pt nI, 4. Since this article was begun I have noted that five large clay feet of the Late Bronze Age were found at Ayia lrini on Ceos, BCH 91, "Chronique des Fouilles 1966" figs. 13-14.

19 K. Branigan "The Genesis of the Household Goddess" Studi Micenei ed Egeo­Anatalid Vln (1969) 28-38.

Minoan Foot Amulets 19

dubious examples carry incised designs on their base, illustrated in fig. 6, 15, 21, 22. In ad<lition one of the foot amulets of Minoan type from Byblos also carries an incised design on its base. (Fig. 6) The use of these amulets as sealstones has perhaps some significance itself, since if we are right in believing that the seal designs were the equivalent of a signature, then we see here a determined attempt to ensure that the powers vested in the amulet are working for the protection or the good of their owner alone. That is to say, the amulets are highly personalised. If this is so, then we are faced with an intriguing problem, since all four seal designs yet discovered on the base of foot amulets include a common motif, which for sake of a better term we may call the "branch motif". With only four extant foot amulet seals tones on which to base an opinion we would be justified in dismissing the prominence of this motif as coincidence. It may well be, but if it is not them what is its significance. Does it imply that the foot amulets were all worn by people of one rank, one tribe, one profession, one faith or whatever? Again there is at present no answer to this query but it is an important one and we must hope that further sealstones of this type will be discovered to throw light upon it.

Finally, we may consider whether or not the materials of which the foot amulets are made may themselves reveal something of the amulets' meaning. In the case of the Egyptian leg amulets for example, one feels there must be a significance in the fact that virtually all of them are made of carnelian and the remainder of sard; no other materials appear to be used 30. The Minoan foot amulets do not display quite the same uniformity of material, but very nearly so. Excluding the Psychro leg amulet, ten of the fourteen foot amulets are made from steatite or serpentine (in most cases we cannot be sure which). The remainder are two of clay, one of ivory and one of limestone. The use of three materials other than steatite/ serpentine, and in particular the appearance of two amulets made in clay - which is hardly likely to have been regarded as possessing any amuletic qualities -suggests that the material of which the amulets were made was not con­sidered important. Steatite and serpentine were stones widely used by the lapidaries of EM.II - MM.! so that their use for stone amulets should not surprise us. It is interesting to recall however that according to Pliny, serpentine was thought to protect one from headaches and snakes 31. Protec­tion from the latter might well be sought by wearing. an amulet shaped like a foot and ankle - the part of the body likely to be bitten - partic­ularly in an island like Crete where snakes are common, and include poi- .

30 Based on a sample of fifty leg amulets from four different sites and from· purchases on the .antiquity market.

31 PIiny XXXVI, 1 and XXXVIII, 54.

I I

!I 11

~ j

~ ~ I i

11

20 Keith Branigan

sonous species amongst their number. This is an attractive hypothesis for several reasons. It explains why the Minoans developed a foot amulet rather than a leg amulet, it helps to explain the presence of two clay feet in the shrine of the Snake Goddess at Mallia, it relates the majority of the Minoan foot (and hoof) amulets to a material of known amuletic value, and it might helps us to understand why the use of the amulets declines at the very time when the first shrines of the Snake Goddess are being established 32. There is of course no evidence to prove or disprove the hypothesis, there are just the foregoing considerations to be borne in mind.

The Amulets and the Scripts.

In discussing the origin and significance of three other signs of the Minoan hieroglyphic scripts I suggested that signs were chosen for these scripts either because they were common enough to be instantly recognisable or else because they possessed a particular cult significance 33. The foot amulet of course ful£ills both requirements, yet it does not appear in the hieroglyphic scripts. Its nearest relative in the scripts is sign 11, a leg bent at the knee. We have' seen that the Minoans, despite contact with both Syria and Egypt, never adopted the Egyptian leg amulet. At present we have only the bronze example from Psychro, and later than this we have the large votive clay feet from Mallia, Sklavakambos and Ayia lrini, suggesting that in the Aegean the foot remained related to religion and ritual long after the main period of contact with the Egyptian leg amulets . If sign 11 of the hieroglyphic script is to be related to any known artifacts of the period EM.HI - MM.H, then it seems that it must be to the votive legs from the peak sanctuaries. These at least show the whole leg, and it is perhaps significant that some of the legs are bent at the knee though never as markedly as the leg of sign 11. The sign­ificance of the legs appears to be different to that of the foot amulets, so that there would seem to be no point of contact at all between the amulets and the hieroglyphic sign 11. The only exception might be the bronze leg amulet from Psychro which may have been patterned on the sign rather than vice-versa.

Sign 28 on the Phaistos disc, a hoof, may perhaps owe something to the hoof amulets. The sign represents the same part of the animals leg as do the hoof amulets, and these amulets may be rather later than the main group of foot amulets and closer in time to the Phaistos disc. The hoof from

32 For a discussion of this see Branigan op. cit. (fn. 29). 33 -Branigan "The Origin of the Hieroglyphic Sign 18" Kadmos 4, 81, 83, "The

Prehistory of Hieroglyphic Signs 12 and 36" Kadmos 5, 115-117.

Minoan Foot Amulets 21

Phaistos itself is Middle Minoan, and the seal design on the base of the Platanos hoof is suggestive of an MM.!-I! date. If a connection exists be­tween sign and ·amulet it need not be a direct one however, since both may simply be styled on the hoof of the bull or agtimi, independently of one another. None of the other signs on the disc can confidently be identified with amulets, although signs 32 and 33 (dove and fish) do have a few amuletic parallels 34. The best that can be said is that it seems probable that the hoof sign on the Phaistos disc is of Minoan derivation and is perhaps related in some way to the fashion of wearing hoot amulets. This conclusion is in accord with other recent discussions of the Phaistos disc and some of its signs 35.

Summary.

Minoan foot amulets belong mainly to the period EM.I! - MM.!, whilst the variety in the form of an animals hoof may begin as early but certainly remain in use into MM.I!. There is little reason to see any direct link between the Egyptian leg amulet and the Minoan foot amulet, but foot and hoof amulets found in Syria do show some resemblance to Minoan examples. The purpose and significance of the amulets is uncertain but they may have been worn as a protection from snake-bites. There is no reason to relate the foot amulets to sign 11 of the hieroglyphic script, and a connection be­tween the hoof amulet and sign 28 on the Phaistos disc is no more than a possibility.

Catalogue of Aegean Foot and Hoof Amulets.

Minoan Foot Amulets. (Fig. 1)

1) Lebena. tBCH 1959 Chronique des Fouilles 1958, Crete, fig. 14, 6. Glay foot of class 2, with single suspension hole. Context, EM.II - MM.Ia.

2) Tylissos. Eph. Arch. 1912 fig. 37, 14. Clay foot of class 1 with? two suspension holes. Ht. 3.2 Lth. 3.6. Context, MM.I-DM.

3) Lebena. ILN August 6, 1960. Steatite foot of class 1 with single suspension hole. A criss-cross paHern on the top of the foot ·appears to represent laces, implying that the foot wears a boot. Context, EM.II-MM.Ia.

34 e. g. Zervos L'art de la Crete, pIs. 201, 203. 35 e.g. E. Grumach "Zur Herkunft des Diskus von Phaistos" Proc. 2nd Interna­

tional Creteological Congress I., paper 30, C. Davaras "Zur Herkunft des Diskos von Phaistos" Kadmos 6, 101-105.

I

22 Keith Branigan

4) Marathokephalo. Arch. Delt. 1918 par. 22, fig. 8. Steat1te foot of class 1 with single suspension hole. Ht. 1.4 Lth. 1.5. Context, EM.VMM.I.

5) Krasi. Arch. Delt. 1929 fig. 15. Ivory foot of class 1 with single suspension hole. Context, EM.I-MM.I.

6) Ag1a Triadha, Annuario 1933 (XIII-XIV) fig. 58, p. Steatite foot of class 2 with single suspension hole. Ht. 3.0 Lht. 2.5 Context, EM.I-MM.II.

7) Agia Triadha. Annuario 1933 (XIII-XIV) fig. 58, q. Steatite foot of class 1, broken off helow the suspension hole(s.). Ht. 3.0 (incomplete) Lht. 3.6 Context, EM.I-MM.II.

8) Agia Triadha. Annuario 1933 (XIII-XIV) fig. 58, r. Steatite foot of class 1 with single suspension hole. Ht. 1.5 Lth. 1.6 Contex;t, EM.I-MM.II.

9) Agia Triadha. Annuario 1933 (XIII-XIV) fig. 58, s. Steatite foot of class 1, broken off below the suspension hole(~.). Ht 1.4 (Iincomplete) Lth. 1.9 Context, EM.I-MM.II.

10) Sacred Cave, Psychro. BSA 1900 (VI) fig. 46. A bronze leg with a single suspen­sion hole. Ht. 3.2 Lth. 1.5 Context, MM.II-Geometric.

11) Tholos B, Koumasa. Xanthoudides, Vaulted Tombs of Mesara 1924, plo XXXVla, 132 Grey limestone foot of cLass 1 with single suspension hole. Ht. 3.0 Lth. 3.5 Context, EM.I-MM.I.

12) Tholos B, Koumasa. Xanthoudides op. cit. pI. XXVI a, 134. Bluish steatite foot of class 1, broken across the suspension hole. Ht. 1.1 Uncomplete) Lth. 1.3 Context, EM.I-MM.I.

13) Tholos B, P1atanos. Xanthoudides op. cit. pI. LVIII, 1143. Steatite foot of class 1, with single suspension hole. Ht. 1.6 Lth. 1.9 Context, EM. Ilb-MM.II.

14) Tholos B, Platanos. Xanthoudides op. cit. pI. LVIII, 1144. Steatite foot of class I, with single suspension hole. Ht. 1.4 Lth. 2.0 Context, EM.IIb-MM.II.

15) ·Palaikastro. BSA 1923 (Supplementary Papers No. 1) fig. 133. Steatite foot of class 1, with single suspension hole. The base carries an incised "bl'anch" pattern. Ht. 2.1 Lth. 3.1 Context, purchased. The excavators suggest it may have come from the EM.II-MM.II ossuaries.

Minoan Hoof Amulets. (fig. 2)

16) Lebena. BOH 1959 Chronique des Fouilles 1958, fig. 14, 5. ? Ivory hoof with seal design of undisclosed nature on its base and a single suspension hole. Context, EM.II-MM.Ia.

17) Phaistos. Annuario 1955 (XXX-XXXII) p. 413, fig. 36 top right. Steatite hoof with no suspension hole; possibly unfinished. Context, MM.I-II.

18) Unprovenanced, Giamala1cis Collection. Etudes Cretoises 1958 (X) pI. I, 3. Black steatite hoof wJth seal design on the base. Ht. 2.2 Lht. 1.2 Context, unknown.

19) Tholos B, Platanos. Hoof of unidentified stone with seal design on the base, and broken off ·across the suspension hole. Ht. 1.6 (incomplete) Lht. 1.2 Context, EM.IIb-MM.II.

20) Unprovenanced, Dawkins Collection (now in the Ashmolean). CMS 1968 (VIII), No. 32. BLack steatite hoof w1th single suspension hole in a projecting tang, and a seal design on the base. Ht. 1.3 Lth. 0.8 Context, unknown.

Minoan Foot Amulets 23

Dubious examples of Minoan Foot Amulets.

21) Phaistos. Annuario 1955 (XXX-XXXII) p. 425, fig. 4>a. Steatite ? foot of class 2 with single suspension hole. On the base is a seal design incol'porating a "branch" motif and a zig-zag. Context, MM.I-II.

22) PI3Jtanos. Xanthoudides op. cit. pI. XIV, 1057. Ivory seals tone ~n the shape of a very broad foot. The design on the base incorporates la "branch" motif and criss­cross pattern. Context, EM.III-MM.II.

23) Platanos. Xanthoudides op. cit. pI. XIV, 1114. Ivory sealstone which in profile is shaped like a foot but .is in fact broader and ribbed along the top of the leg. This gives the seal the appearance of representing four feet rather than one. Context, EM.III-MM.II.

24-31) Platanos, tholos B and burials in antechambers of tholos A. Xanthoudides op. cit. p. 115. Xanthoudides .refers to "about ten" 4vory seals of the type described in detail under No's 22 and 23. These two are the ondy examples illustrated by Xanthoudides. Context, EM.III-MM.II.

Cycladic and Mainland Foot Amulets. (Fig. 3)

32) Aghios Kosmas, settlement. Mylonas, Aghios Kosmas 1958 fig. 166, 14. A broken foot with single suspension hole. Ten holes are bored into the remaining area of the base. Ht. 2.75 Lth. 2.5 (incomplete) Context, late EH.II.

33) Zygounies, settlement. Blegen, Zygouries 1928 pI. XX, 3. A foot with single suspension hole and seven holes bored into the base. Context, EH.II.

34) Despotikon, gl'ave. Eph. Arch. 1898 pI. 8, 54. A small foot with ? single suspen­sion hole. Ht. 1.2 Lth. 1.0 Context, EC.II.