9 minute read
A Comparison of the Cycladic Figurine and the Mesopotamian Eye Idol Felix Dows-Miller
A Comparison of the Cycladic Figurine and the Mesopotamian Eye Idol
Cycladic Figurine
At face value, the Mesopotamian eye idol and the Cycladic figurine appear distinct. They are separated by up to 2,600 years and differ in both form and material; the Mesopotamian eye idol is of the softer alabaster and is only 9.1 centimetres long, as opposed to the Cycladic figurine which is made of marble and is 17 centimetres in length. Whilst both are small and depict a human figure, the Cycladic figurine is certainly more complex than the geometric Mesopotamian eye idol. In addition, Tell Brak and Milos, where the two objects respectively were found, are separated by over 900 miles, and unsurprisingly the cultures found at either location differ.
However, there is a case to be made that these objects are far more similar than they might appear; unfortunately, there is limited evidence as to their use or the methods of their creation, but these can be
Felix Dows-Miller
Lower Sixth
inferred from what is known of the objects’ corresponding cultures and those of contemporary objects.
Perhaps the most important similarity is that both objects had at least some spiritual significance, as evidenced by the fact that the Cycladic figurine was found in a tomb, and the Mesopotamian eye idol was found in the Eye Temple at Tell Brak. Death is central to many religions, and whilst evidence of Cycladic religious practices is scarce, it is reasonable to draw parallels with their contemporaries in mainland Greece, who in turn influenced the later Greek religion, which heavily ritualised death and burial. Similarly, the Eye Temple was a place of religious importance, and whilst more is known about Mesopotamian religion, it is still unclear to whom the temple and therefore the idols were dedicated. Similarly, it is not known to whom the Cycladic figurine is devoted, and since evidence of contemporary Cycladic religion is scarce, it is even more difficult to validate any claims made as to the identity of the figurine. It is possible, however, that the figure does represent a female deity, as it certainly represents a woman, and it can be observed from objects such as the later Minoan snake goddess figurines that depictions of women often occurred in a religious context. Due to Crete’s proximity to the Cyclades, a level of cultural exchange is to be expected, yet a fair criticism of drawing conclusions from this is that the snake goddess figurines are from the neopalatial period of 1700-1500BC, which is much later than the 2600-2500BC date given for the Cycladic figurines. However, the depiction of women in a religious context would neither be individual nor original to the Cyclades, evidenced by the Venus of Willendorf, which is estimated to be around 25,000 years old.
It can be inferred from the fact that both objects held religious significance that they were unlikely practical objects in any secular sense, and so were likely left as offerings. But it is unclear whether they are depictions of a deity, or people, such as worshippers who deposited the idol in the Eye Temple, or the deceased in whose tomb the Cycladic figurine was found.
Both the idol and the figurine certainly offer some insight into the religious role of women in their respective cultures. The Mesopotamian eye idol’s shape is like that of both the Minoan snake goddess1 and the Venus of Willendorf, in that it widens from top to bottom. This shape may be indicative of ideals of feminine appearance in Mesopotamia, while the Cycladic figurine’s slender shape may represent different cultural expectations of beauty. The lack of any great detail in both objects One possibility regarding the dedication may have been a stylistic choice, done to of the Mesopotamian accentuate the eye idol is Inanna, the general shape and goddess associated with thus emphasise the love, war, and political feminine figure. power amongst other Nevertheless, a things. She is a possible simpler design may candidate not only due to have been chosen her eminence as Queen for a multitude of Heaven and her association with a range of other reasons, such as the effort and of culturally significant concepts; but also therefore cost associated with intricate because the idol is shaped with a bottom features. to top taper, easily construed as a feminine figure. Of course, it does not follow that It is also possible that both objects instead because the idol may represent a woman it focus on representation of worshippers, must be Inanna, yet given the significance due to the wealth of other similar figurines she held in Mesopotamian religion, it is found in the Eye Temple and throughout likely that if the idol depicts any female the Cyclades. Other comparable cultures goddess, then it is Inanna. preferred individual depictions of their
deities which were far more elaborate and infrequent than either the eye idol or the Cycladic figurine. For instance, later cult statues built by the Greeks such as the statue of Zeus at Olympia, finished in 466BC, stand as evidence of single, more detailed depictions in a culture like that which produced the Cycladic figurine. As for the eye idol, The Burney Relief of the later Isin-Larsa period is an example of a singular detailed depiction of a female deity produced in Mesopotamia, and is strikingly complex when contrasted with the eye idols. Both comparisons of these objects span around 2,000 years, so despite their proximity any comparison is tenuous at best; regardless, both objects clearly share the possibility of depicting worshippers, as they both have comparable later cultures that chose to depict deities in lesser quantities. Despite the distance between the two objects, both materials — marble and alabaster — are similarly useful for the creation of art, namely both can be dyed when heated. There is evidence of this practice in Cycladic culture contemporary to the figurine, in the form of a carved marble head which retains lines of red pigment running vertically down its cheeks and horizontally across its forehead. Whilst the eye idols do not suggest pigmentation, the predecessors to those of the Uruk period did produce art decorated with colour, such as a jar exhibited in the Erbil Civilisation Museum6, created by the
Halaf pottery culture in around 4900-4300, which is covered in various geometric patterns. Despite a lack of evidence, it is still a possibility that both objects may have possessed pigmentation which has now faded. Whilst the objects bear many similarities, there are also major differences between them and their contexts, such as the Mesopotamian eye idol being found beside smaller idols in the Eye Temple7, which are thought to represent children. The existence of these smaller [T]he individual figurines therefore questions the veracity craftsman’s style may have of the claim that their shape depicted an ideal female figure, as they also influenced the possess a top to bottom final piece. taper. Perhaps instead they were more practical with a wide base as they would have more easily been able to stand unaided. Whilst the Cycladic figurines also vary in size, this could be because they are spread throughout the Cyclades, and so the individual craftsman’s style may have influenced the final piece. Since many of the Cycladic figurines were found in tombs, it is plausible that they depicted the dead rather than a mourner, whereas with the eye idols this is far less likely. The figurine may have acted in an analogous way to the Roman imagines8 , wax casts of the deceased’s face kept to remember the dead. If true, the figurine may have served a more practical purpose than previously suggested. However, this hypothesis is contradicted by the fact that most of the Cycladic figurines are female, which may instead suggest Mesopotamian Eye Idol that they were devoted to a female chthonic deity or represented worshippers mourning in perpetuity; also imagines were kept in the family home and not in tombs. The Cycladic figurines may have mainly depicted women because lamenting could have been a woman’s role, as it later was in Greece, or even if funeral rites for women and men varied in that figurines were left for women but not men.
Whilst the objects’ use is a potential point of divergence, the fact there have been more Mesopotamian eye idols found than Cycladic figurines is an unequivocal difference. One potential reason for this is that the Cycladic figurines seem to have been left on death, whereas the Mesopotamian eye idols have apparently been left in an act of worship; if so, then it is logical that more idols exist than figurines. Due to their scattering throughout the Cyclades, the figurines likely functioned as a long-term offering, left in the deceased’s tomb to immortalise them or to grant them safe passage by appeasing a chthonic deity. This would also explain why they are not all concentrated in one place, as they are individual to the tomb in which they were left. Another potential reason why more eye idols have been found is thus that, since they were all located in the Eye Temple and not dispersed like the Cycladic figurines, this may have resulted in comparatively more of the idols being found, as they were all in one place.
Explanations for the objects’ differences in the aggregate found also highlight differences between the two civilisations. For instance, Tell Brak could have sourced the alabaster to make the idols locally in stalagmitic deposits or in springs of calcareous water, whereas Milos did have some immediate sources of marble to create the figurine but it was likely imported from the islands of Naxos or Paros as they traded it prolifically. This highlights that the Cycladic culture on Milos was likely more trade-based than Tell Brak, due to the nature of island living and the precedent of widespread trade connections of the Bronze Age Mediterranean.
Along with their acquisition, the materials also vary in that marble is harder than alabaster, at a four as supposed to three on the Mohs hardness scale; this means that the tools for carving the marble figurines had to be more robust, and the population on Milos likely used the naturally occurring obsidian to create the figure. Conversely, the people of Tell Brak could have achieved their idol with softer tools, requiring less effort to make. This may suggest the Cycladic figurine was a more permanent offering than the idol of Tell Brak; a claim which lines up with the difference in abundance and detail.
Ultimately, there is no way of discerning the exact use of either object, due to the lack of evidence, but it is fair to say there is a multitude of speculative similarities. Whatever their use, they clearly held value to the people who made them; and indeed, they still do for us in the modern day, in the form of the insights they offer into their respective cultures and as points of comparison.
