Dissertation committee:
Ελευθέριος Πλάτων, αναπλ. καθηγητής, Τμήματος Ιστορίας & Αρχαιολογίας, Ε.Κ.Π.Α.
Γεώργιος Βαβουρανάκης, αναπλ. καθηγητής, Τμήματος Ιστορίας & Αρχαιολογίας, Ε.Κ.Π.Α.
Κωνσταντίνος Κοπανιάς, αναπλ. καθηγητής, Τμήματος Ιστορίας & Αρχαιολογίας, Ε.Κ.Π.Α.
Ελένη ΜΑτζουράνη, καθηγήτρια, Τμήματος Ιστορίας & Αρχαιολογίας, Ε.Κ.Π.Α.
Αφροδίτη Χασιακού, Λέκτορας, Τμήματος Ιστορίας & Αρχαιολογίας, Ε.Κ.Π.Α.
Ευγενία Γιαννούλη, ανάπλ. καθηγήτρια, Τμήματος Ιστορίας, Αρχαιολογίας και Διαχείρισης πολιτισμικών Αγαθών, Παν/μιο Πελοποννήσου
Summary:
The term Horns of Concecration preoccupied our thinking from the start, while the arrival of processual archeology ruled out all that was not observable or measurable, such as symbolism. Thus, the discussion of the Minoan double horn (DH) was suspended indefinitely, but the success of the schematic DH, in the context of modern popular culture, is indicative of an apt symbolism with references to the image of the Minoan bull. The study did not deny the Evansian perception of a schematic bucranium, but has not accepted it uncritically. Looking at new data from Akrotiri, Thira, it discusses technique, which incorporates DH into a tradition of ‘manipulations’, culturally prescribed. As handling cannot be separated from intentionality (usage) and intentionality from habit (behavior), the integration of Theran DHs into a framework of correlations was explored with particular reference to the ritual confirmation of social space and the marking of the built environment. Moreover, avoiding morphological comparisons by analogy allowed the reappraisal of conditions, which, on the one hand, encouraged the evolution of DH and its utilization by Cretan societies and, on the other, facilitated its integration into Theran architecture and wall painting.
As a vehicle of ideology, the ox’s contribution to the creation of the Knossian Kefala appears to have been of paramount importance; so, treating the DH as a non-arbitrary sign of physical association with the ox, led to consider emergence, rather than origin ―i.e. not an extraneous, adventitious appearance. Man manipulated and consumed the wild body: hunted, butchered, ate, digested, and transformed it into a tool; tamed it and placed it in the yoke, exploited and depicted the bull in every possible way and means; they familiarized with it. Part of it, sharp, hard and extremely powerful, can be denatured by appropriate manipulations; however, being extra-human ―essentially incomprehensible and potentially dangerous― it became mediator, between the tangible and imaginary worlds. The correlation of DH and animal sacrifice shaped the artifact and placed it at the center of sensory theatrical rituals, which activated memory. The animal limb turned artifact by handling, long before the man-made DH appeared; thus, body architecture defined the high―low opposition.
Incorporating verticality, ascend, religiosity and possibly prophylaxis, the pars pro toto was associated with experiences of seismic ruination and formed into a catholic sign of the built environment. Associated with construction, it was inextricably linked to the verticality of the façade and architecturality was explored in relation to the functional unit, which encourages ascent. The fact, that the peak was crowned by DHs, placed verticality at the center of the discussion; but at the same time magnified the challenge of a horizontal architecture. However, at Akrotiri, due to a lack of reversibility, the study reviewed iconography, horn rituals and structures, eschewing typology in favor of highlighting vertical associations. Where presence constitutes social space, DHs were visible and as they combed space, their apotropaic character activated in values of coexistence.
Entrance systems allowed the consideration of DHs in relation to representations of bulls ―not independently of them― and because the artefact is not convincing as an emblem of enthroned power, its significance was associated with rituals. Representation and ritual action were examined in the context of the Minoan megastructure, whose construction responded to demographic pressures and the need to confirm social ties, which in large populations, spatially dispersed, are not self-evident. In symbolic constitutions, the giver is claiming presence and depositing special cornual simulacra, climbers identified themselves as social subjects, at least, during the Peak Sanctuary era.
The material symbol is an artifact with directionality and, as such, is not only taught but at the same instructs and directs its audience. The archaeologist need not become a decipherer in order to approach it, because interpretation is not a matter of breaking codes. If this is true, the kind of interrogation to which a symbol can be subjected will never lead to final interpretations and certainly will not lead to rules and laws. The double horn emerged from the deep stratigraphy of the impressive Knossian tell and reached Akrotiri without migrating. It is architectural and it is Minoan, but also belongs to the symbolic background of Aegean civilization, from as far back as horned mammals go. Its immanence can be traced in availability and affordances, which allowed or even imposed its manipulation.
The incomprehensible connection of bull and structure, the architecturality of crowning with DHs, the wall painting of the adyton, cornual rituals and artifacts illustrate the association of bull and architectural DH, hinting at a structured social practice, which, perhaps, operated in a preconscious manner.
