The Sissi Genius Lentoid: A Lapis Lacedaemonius Seal from

Final Palatial Crete

Diana Wolf

Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at

Athens, Volume 91, Number 3, July-September 2022, pp. 351-384
(Article)

Published by American School of Classical Studies at Athens

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2972/hesperia.91.3.0351

For additional information about this article

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/865517

For content related to this article

https://muse.jhu.edu/related_content?type=article&id=865517
he s per ia 91 (2022) THE SISSI GENIUS
Pages 351–384
LENTOID
A L ap i s L ac e dae mon i u s S e al
f r om Fi nal Pal at ial C r e t e

A B S T R AC T

A Final Palatial lapis lacedaemonius seal, here called the Sissi Genius Lentoid,
was recovered during the 2018 excavation of the Court-Centered Building
at Sissi, East Crete. The seal instantly drew attention because of its rare ma-
terial and unique iconography that shows a Minoan genius flanked by the
foreparts of two agrimia. An examination of the object within the context of
Late Minoan II–III hard stone glyptic, particularly the lapis lacedaemonius
seals, reveals ideological and sociopolitical links between Sissi and other
Cretan sites, including neighboring Malia. The lentoid belongs to a group
of seals that clearly formed prestige items used by sociopolitical elites who
were exercising control over the surrounding land, possibly as delegates of
the Knossos palace.

I N T RO D U C T I O N

During the 2018 campaign on the Kephali at Sissi, an exceptional seal came
to light.1 Cut in a deep green lapis lacedaemonius with light green inclusions,
the lentoid seal instantly stood out among the seals thus far uncovered at

1. This study has been carried out
within the framework of the Aegean
Interdisciplinary Studies (AEGIS)
research group at the Université
catholique de Louvain, Belgium. It
is supported by a Fund for Scientific
Research (F.R.S.-FNRS) fellowship
(2019–2023) and a scholarship at the
French School at Athens (May 2021).
I would like to thank Jan Driessen for
permission to publish the seal, for his
support and helpful feedback on the
manuscript, and for the photograph
of the lapis lacedaemonius blocks at
Knossos. Further thanks go to Maria
Anastasiadou, responsible for the study
and publication of the seals of the
Sissi project, for her invaluable advice
and guidance throughout the writing
process and for her images of the Sissi
Genius Lentoid, including a modern
impression and drawing of the seal face
by Angeliki Theodoropoulou. I thank
Charlotte Langohr for her helpful
comments on ceramics and chronology,
Ophélie Mouthuy for her consent to
publish the seal found under her direc-
tion, Nicolas Kress for his adaptation
of the Sissi site plan (originally by
Eleftheria Zografou), and Diamantis
Panagiotopoulos for permission to
reproduce images courtesy of the Cor-
pus der minoischen und mykenischen
Siegel, Heidelberg. Moreover, I wish to
thank Agnes Schwarzmaier (Anti-
kensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu
Berlin) for enabling me to study the
lapis lacedaemonius seals within the
museum’s collection. Finally, I would
like to thank the Editor of Hesperia and
the two anonymous reviewers for their
helpful comments and suggestions.

© American School of Classical Studies at Athens

352 Diana Wol f

Sissi.2 Moreover, the figural representation of its intaglio—a Minoan genius

in front of the foreparts of two Cretan wild goats, or agrimia—is so far unique
within contemporary glyptic, a term used to refer to Aegean seals as an object
group irrespective of their individual material and production technique.
The seal’s importance in the context of Final Palatial Sissi and its
connections to other Cretan sites inspired an in-depth study of all known
seals in lapis lacedaemonius, or Spartan basalt,3 throughout Crete and the
Aegean. Thus far 54 examples in lapis lacedaemonius are known; the stone
remains comparatively unusual for the manufacture of seals. It is only in
Late Minoan (LM) II–IIIA that seals cut in it amount to a group that can
be studied systematically. By iconographically and stylistically locating the
Sissi seal within this group, this article attempts to recognize the implica-
tions of its presence at Final Palatial Sissi.4

T H E S I S S I G EN I U S LEN TO I D

The seal, referred to here as the Sissi Genius Lentoid, was discovered dur-
ing the sieving of a fill excavated in room 15.5, located in the east wing
of the Neopalatial Court-Centered Building at Sissi (Fig. 1).5 While the
pottery of this fill dates mainly to a Middle Minoan (MM) IIIA horizon,
indicative of the construction of this part of the complex, there were also
a few later ceramic intrusions, likely caused by the subsequent LM IIIB
nearby reoccupation of the east wing.6 The seal itself can be dated to the
Final Palatial period on stylistic and typological grounds.7
Cleaning by the Sissi project’s conservator Pepi Saridaki immediately
revealed a lentoid seal with a convex face and conical back (Fig. 2). With
a maximum diameter of 2.17 cm, the seal exceeds the size of average Neo-
palatial lentoid seals (ca. 1.5 cm) but fits well within Final Palatial glyptic.8
The smooth and clear-cut intaglio, which lacks signs of abrasion and wear,
is easily visible to the naked eye.

Icono g rap hy
The intaglio of the Sissi Genius Lentoid displays a heraldic composition
with a central Minoan genius flanked by the foreparts of two agrimia. The
term “Minoan genius” is a conventional one used to reference a specific
hybrid creature in Aegean iconography, recognized as “a distinct species of

2. For all Sissi seals found up until
2017, see Anastasiadou 2012a, 2012b,
2012c, 2018. Eleven additional seals,
including the Sissi Genius Lentoid,
were uncovered during the 2017–2019
campaigns, and they are presented in
Anastasiadou 2022.
3. Both terms are regularly encoun-
tered in Bronze Age glyptic studies.
The stone was also known as krokeatis
lithos (κροκεάτης λίθος), marmor lace-
daemonium, or serpentino, and today
it is primarily referred to by the Italian
name porfido verde antico; see Warren
1992, p. 285; Zezza and Lazzarini
2002, pp. 259–260. This article largely
uses the term lapis lacedaemonius,
which has become the established ter-
minology of the Corpus der minoischen
und mykenischen Siegel (CMS) and is
also found in Krzyszkowska 2005, the
standard reference work for Aegean
seals.
4. Dates for the LM II–IIIA2/
Final Palatial period correspond to
1440/1430 to 1340/1330 b.c. following
Warren 2010.
5. Anastasiadou 2022, p. 607. On
the Court-Centered Building, see
Driessen 2016, 2018a, 2018b, 2021b.
The seal was found through sieving by
M. Libert.
6. Jusseret 2012, p. 152. The
preliminary ceramic analysis is being
conducted by C. Langohr (pers. comm.,
May 2021).
7. Anastasiadou 2022, p. 608.
8. On the size of Neopalatial seals,
see Krzyszkowska 2005, p. 126; on
sizes within Final Palatial glyptic, see
Krzyszkowska 2005, p. 196.
 The Sissi Geni us Lentoid 353

Sissi

Malia

Neopalatial
Prepalatial
LM III
Postpalatial
conjectural wall
Coordinates system: Local
findspot of the Sissi
Genius Lentoid N. Kress & E. Zografou
2021 · © EBSA

Figure 1. Site plan of the Kephali

at the archaeological site of Sissi.
Colored walls outline the Court-
Centered Building with findspot
(room 15.5) of the Sissi Genius Len-
toid marked. Plan N. Kress, E. Zografou;
courtesy Belgian School at Athens
supernatural being”9 that developed out of the hippopotamus-shaped Egyp-
tian demigod Taweret.10 First appearing in MM IIB, it was represented in
an upright standing, human-like posture. By LM I, it was regularly depicted
as a hybrid creature with a slim, anthropomorphic physique combining lion
arms and legs with a conch-shaped appendage evolved from a crocodile
back and a hippopotamus or lion head.11 The Sissi Genius Lentoid’s features

9. Blakolmer 2016, p. 135. genii, see Sambin 1989; Weingarten

10. Weingarten 1991. 1991; Rehak 1995; Blakolmer 2015a;
11. On the iconography of Minoan 2015b; 2016, pp. 134–141.
354 Diana Wol f

a b c d
Figure 2. Sissi Genius Lentoid:
(a) seal face; (b) impression;
are reduced to very basic shapes that prevent clear identification. The three
(c) drawing; (d) profile. Not to scale.
creatures on the seal have double-drilled eyes made by a solid drill for the Drawing (c) A. Theodoropoulou; cour-
inner circle and a tubular drill for the outer circle. These stylistic traits are tesy (a, d) Belgian School at Athens and
common in LM IIIA1; Younger defined these as the decisive criterion for M. Anastasiadou, (b, c) M. Anastasiadou
an assemblage termed the “spectacle-eyes group.” This group comprises
representational motifs popular throughout Final Palatial hard stone glyptic
and predominantly features quadrupeds, hybrids, and so-called Master of
Animals (potnios theron) scenes.12
The genius is depicted in left profile, holding a libation jug with both
arms extended in front of its chest.13 Its smooth and distinctive body parts
show no internal articulation—unlike other genii whose dorsal appendages
are sometimes decorated with hatching or lines.14 The sleek planes of the
upper and lower body are connected by an extremely thin midriff, rendered
by a small cylindrical incision. Its limbs are composed of simple geometric
shapes: lines for the arms and legs and dots for feet. Unlike other genii that
typically have leonine limbs,15 the Sissi Genius has generic arms and legs
that could belong to any quadruped. The same applies to the goats. There
is no fluid connection between the body and its extremities; instead, its
arms and legs seemingly stick out of its body, which is common for figural
representations in Final Palatial glyptic.16
From the head emanates a gently curved, toothed S-spiral reminiscent
of the notched horns of wild goats. Glyptic parallels were recognized by
Blakolmer who called this genius type an “insect-agrimi variant” and con-
sidered it a possible outcome of a process of reemploying elements of the
Neopalatial agrimi as an iconographic idiom for genii in the Final Palatial
period.17 The combination of such an insect-agrimi variant genius with two

12. Younger 1986, 2000. The
“spectacle-eyes group” in Younger’s
catalog (2000, pp. 356–360) comprises
232 seals, 17 of which are lapis lace-
daemonius. Five more can be added:
CMS II.3, no. 216; CMS V, Suppl. 3.1,
no. 33; CMS V, Suppl. 3.2, no. 384; the
Sissi Genius Lentoid; and a seal from
Maroulas (see Papadopoulou 2011,
pp. 622–623, 625, fig. 28).
13. This posture is characteristic,
even for genii with empty hands.
Cf. CMS I, no. 232; CMS II.3,
no. 112b; CMS V.1, no. 201; CMS VI.2,
no. 305; CMS XI, no. 208.
14. See, e.g., CMS VIII, no. 65;
CMS IX, no. 129.
15. E.g., on the lapis lacedaemonius
lentoid CMS V, Suppl. 1B, no. 153.
16. See Younger 1986, p. 121; 2000,
p. 347; Krzyszkowska 2005, p. 203.
17. Blakolmer 2015a, pp. 200–201.

a b
Figure 3. Drawings of lentoid seals
with similar imagery comparing the
Sissi Genius Lentoid (a) with two
from LM II–IIIA: (b) CMS VI.2,
no. 430, reportedly from Sybrita;
(c) CMS VII, no. 126, reportedly from
Cyprus. Not to scale. Drawing (a) A. The-
odoropoulou; courtesy (a) M. Anastasi-
adou, (b, c) Corpus der minoischen und
mykenischen Siegel, Heidelberg
18. Driessen and Langohr 2007,
pp. 185, 189.
19. See Wolf 2020, pp. 58–60.
20. See, e.g., CMS II.8.1, no. 202;
CMS VI.2, no. 301; CMS XI, no. 336.
21. It seems to constitute a boar-
man although some features, especially
its posture, recall Minoan genii.
The Sissi Geni us Lentoid 355
c
wild goats on the seal is at present unique in Aegean glyptic; the similarities
of the horns on the Sissi Genius Lentoid support Blakolmer’s theory. In
effect, adding the horns of the endemic agrimi to the Minoan genius, the
origin of which was almost certainly lost by LM II–III, would have actively
Minoanized the hybrid. This agrees with Final Palatial evidence from seals
and other iconographic media, such as pottery and wall paintings, but also
from architecture that display a tendency of reemploying and reinterpreting
Minoan Neopalatial idioms—possibly all part of a legitimation strategy of
the ruling group at Knossos.18
Thus, the quadrupeds on the seal are recognizable as agrimia due to
their conventional long, curved, and notched horns. The caprids only con-
sist of their foreparts, from the head to a front leg, and seemingly extend
outward from the genius’s waist. Although they are physically separate, this
composition is strongly reminiscent of the group of tri-somatic human-
animal hybrids that can be dated to LM II–IIIA1.19 Hybrids like these
usually comprise the lower body of a human with the upper bodies of two
quadrupeds of the same or different species (for example, see Fig. 15:f, g,
below). Typical combinations include bulls, wild goats, and lions.20 They
are usually rendered in close axial symmetry as are the agrimi foreparts on
the Sissi Genius Lentoid.
Nevertheless, and despite its similarities to the tri-somatic composi-
tions, the Sissi image is better seen as a case of conjoined animals and not
a hybrid “double-agrimi-genius” (Fig. 3:a). Conjoined animals appear on
a considerable number of Minoan seals, including a lapis lacedaemonius
lentoid said to come from Sybrita that dates to the same period (Fig. 3:b).
This seal depicts a combination of quadruped foreparts connected by a
slim junction of the abdomens. The resulting axial symmetry lent itself
to the construction of a Master of Animals scene as on the Sissi Genius
Lentoid. A hematite seal reportedly found in Cyprus and stylistically
dated to Late Bronze (LB) II–IIIA1 (Fig. 3:c) offers another parallel for
the Sissi specimen; the central hybrid is also represented in the left profile
holding its arm in the gesture typically performed by Minoan genii.21 A
pair of conjoined dog foreparts, which stretch outward from the hybrid’s
waist, flanks this central figure. While the Sissi agrimia hold their heads
in a different direction, the construction of the two scenes follows the
same concept.
The composition of the Sissi Genius and the hematite seal report-
edly from Cyprus link hybrid creatures to conjoined animals. Two other
356 Diana Wol f

Figure 4. Drawings of LM II–IIIA

a b
Mistress of Animals lentoid seals
with seemingly conjoined animals:
(a) CMS X, no. 242, unknown prov-
enance; (b) CMS XI, no. 112, from
Menidi. Not to scale. Courtesy Corpus
der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel,
Heidelberg

Aegean seals, however, demonstrate that this was not restricted to hybrid
figures. An unprovenanced agate lentoid,22 stylistically dated to LB I–II,
depicts a central female figure of the potnia theron (Mistress of Animals)
type (Fig. 4:a). She wears a flounced skirt, has a bare bosom, and her head
is capped by a snake-frame. A pair of conjoined lions extends at the level
of her hips but is clearly not connected to her body. An agate lentoid from
the Menidi tholos (stylistically dated to Late Helladic [LH] II–IIIA1)
shows a similar scene but in a different style (Fig. 4:b). Again, the conjoined
quadrupeds do not grow out of the body of the central female figure but
extend from behind her.
The conjoined animals on the Sissi Genius Lentoid and the scenes
on the other seals can perhaps be viewed as abbreviations of the flanking
creatures that occur in the well-known Master of Animals scene type,23
which are usually depicted in their entirety. The ambiguity of their somatic
connection,24 provoked by the body of the central figure in the foreground,
was possibly deliberate and played on the conventions of fused bodies,
hybrids, and Master of Animals scenes. If this holds true, the genius on
the Sissi seal could be seen as a type of potnios in analogy to the seals just
discussed depicting the Mistress of (conjoined) Animals. This is further
supported by seals showing genii that substitute human potnioi in scenes
of animal mastery.25
Fused and hybrid bodies can be classified as counter-intuitive repre-
sentations,26 as they depart from phenomena that can be experienced in
the natural world. On an iconological level, they create a setting beyond
the tangible world. The same can be said of Master of Animals scenes that
involve a central figure that is not a mere human, but a personification out of
the ordinary, such as a god/dess, hero/ine, or the like. The common ground
of Master of Animals scenes, hybrids, and fused animals is their separateness
from the mundane (that is, the empirically observable)—while at the same
time they are expressed by a visual vocabulary that is based on empirical

22. Chapouthier (1947, p. 23) saw
this seal at an Athenian antiquarian
and was told that it had come from the
islands.
23. E.g., CMS I, no. 161; CMS II.3,
no. 193; CMS III.2, no. 361.
24. Ambiguous intentionality
on behalf of the Minoans has been
put forward recently by Rutter
2006; McGowan 2012; Koehl 2016.
Ambiguous hybrid images are only
one manifestation of ambiguous and
multivalent images; see Koehl 2016,
pp. 470–471.
25. See, e.g., CMS I, nos. 161, 172.
26. The concept of counter-intuitive
representations derives from the studies
of Sperber (1975, 1985, 1996).
 The Sissi Geni us Lentoid 357

observation of the natural world.27 The goats on the Sissi Genius Lentoid,
as well as the dogs and lions on the examples given, likely drew on the
discourses relating to these iconographic formulas, creating a deliberately
ambiguous representational idiom that extended from the iconographical
to the cognitive level.
In the following discussion, the Late Bronze Age lapis lacedaemonius
seals from the Aegean will be considered from a technological, iconographi-
cal, and contextual vantage point. This will help to determine the place of
the Sissi Genius Lentoid within its material group and define its role in
the context of Final Palatial Sissi.

L A P I S L AC EDA EM O N I U S I N T H E A E G E A N

Lapis lacedaemonius is an altered porphyritic basaltic rock with a dark

green microcrystalline structure that encloses light green to yellow angular
macrocrystals.28 This structure is the one most often encountered in seals,
and it is considered the holotype for lapis lacedaemonius (Fig.  5:a–c).
Further variants exist, and colors could also change by heating (possibly
practiced in the Late Bronze Age) or result from weathering effects
(Figs. 5:d, 6).29 There is only one known deposit of this material, which is
located near Krokeai in southern Laconia.30 From there, the stone must
have been imported to Crete as raw material,31 possibly via the site of
Ayios Stephanos.32
Spartan basalt is a comparatively rare material in Aegean Bronze
Age crafts. The earliest evidence for the use of this imported stone for the
manufacture of objects is from the MM  III/LM  I transition when the
first sealstones,33 including four seals in the Talismanic Style, as well as a
small number of vases, are attested on Crete.34 In LM II, the stone became
more common for cutting seals and was also sporadically used to produce
stone vessels. The latter are, however, better attested on the mainland from
LH III onward, even if possibly of Minoan origin.35 Of the seals with secure
provenance, five come from Crete and eight from the mainland.
While the stone is of mainland origin the seals are most often assumed
to have been produced on Crete, although secure contexts are sporadic.
Krzyszkowska suggested that the mainland seals are likely (re)imports from
Crete, but workshop evidence for the manufacture of lapis lacedaemonius

27. See Sperber 1996, p. 147; Wen-
grow 2011, p. 133.
28. Koutsovitis et al. 2016, p. 1905.
See also Zezza and Lazzarini 2002,
pp. 259–260; Müller 2011, p. 422.
29. Regarding the petrological and
geochemical properties of the mineral,
see Paraskevopoulos 1965; Warren
1992, pp. 285–287; Zezza and Laz-
zarini 2002, pp. 262–263; Müller 2011,
pp. 421–422; Koutsovitis et al. 2016.
30. Zezza and Lazzarini (2002,
p. 261, fig. 7) present the location of
the main quarry area. According to
them (2002, pp. 259, 262), the stone
“was not quarried, but found in blocks
. . . in the ground.”
31. See Warren 1992, p. 285;
Krzyszkowska 2005, p. 123.
32. See Bintliff 2008, pp. 547–548.
33. See Warren 1992, p. 287; Zezza
and Lazzarini 2002, p. 259; Müller
2011, pp. 428–429, table 1.
34. The seals include a cush-
ion seal from Moni Odigitria with
fish protomes (CMS V, Suppl. 1A,
no. 333); a lentoid of unknown Cretan
provenance depicting a jug (CMS VII,
no. 46); a lentoid of unknown
provenance displaying flying fish
(CMS XI, no. 279); and a Talismanic
seal of unknown provenance (Herak-
leion, Archaeological Museum 3080;
Warren 1969, p. 287, n. 12). On the
vases, see Warren 1969, p. 133; 1992,
pp. 289–293.
35. See Warren 1992, pp. 289–293;
Zezza and Lazzarini 2002, p. 260.
358 Diana Wol f

a b Figure 5. Engraved lapis lacedae-

c d
monius seals showing variations
in pattern: (a) CMS V, Suppl. 3.1,
no. 33, from Malia; (b) CMS III.2,
no. 362, reportedly from Knossos;
(c) CMS VII, no. 123, reportedly from
Crete; (d) CMS V, Suppl. 1B, no. 153,
from Voudeni. Color changes observ-
able on (d) are likely due to weather-
ing and chemical disintegration.
Observed differences in color on (a–c)
result from different lighting condi-
tions and photographic settings. Not to
scale. Courtesy Corpus der minoischen und
mykenischen Siegel, Heidelberg

seals is missing.36 Nevertheless, lapis lacedaemonius seals were created

in the context of Cretan and mainland cultural and economic exchange
relationships. The growing preference for Spartan basalt seals during the
later phases of the Aegean Bronze Age could relate to the reciprocal
connections with and soon-to-increase influence of the Greek mainland
on the Aegean cultural scene. When contact between the mainland and
Crete intensified, more lapis lacedaemonius raw material found its way to
the island. The possibility cannot be excluded that mainlanders, alongside
probable Cretan craftspeople on the mainland, could have become actively
involved in seal production in LB II,37 leading to more intensive exploita-
36. Krzyszkowska 2005, pp. 235–
tion of their own sources. 237.
The appearance of the material and its unique source could mean that 37. Krzyszkowska 2005, pp. 235–
it was perceived as exotic and precious by both mainlanders and Cretans. 236.
It is probably no coincidence that a large stack of over 1.6 tons of raw-cut 38. The volume of the material sug-
lapis lacedaemonius was found in the Knossos Lapidary’s Workshop, dated gests that it was not solely intended for
the production of seals, but perhaps also
to early LM IIIA2 (Fig. 6).38 The stone’s wider use in the Final Palatial vases or even architectural elements.
period attests to Minoan demand and indicates the access and direct control However, no LM IIIA lapis lacedae-
of the Knossos palace over this material, and what is more, likely also the monius vases have been uncovered in
circulation of prestige items manufactured from it.39 It has been suggested Crete, nor is any architectural use thus
that Knossos in the Final Palatial period actively acquired foreign and exotic far attested for this period; see Warren
1992, pp. 290, 292.
materials that were then processed by specialized craftspeople attached to
39. On the economic control of
the palace. This practice would have served to establish and maintain close prestige items, see Voutsaki 2001.
ties with members of the elite, who would have had access to the materials, 40. Driessen and Langohr 2007,
including lapis lacedaemonius, directly, via the palace.40 pp. 184–185, 188.

Figure 6. Blocks of raw-cut lapis
lacedaemonius in the Lapidary’s
Workshop at Knossos. Color changes
are due to weathering and chemical
disintegration. Photo J. Driessen
41. For the Talismanic group, see
Onassoglou 1985; for the Cut Style
group, see Pini 2000. For Neopalatial
naturalistic motifs, see Krzyszkowska
2005, pp. 137–150. The number of
naturalistic and stylized-naturalistic
seals is not quantified here due to the
regular intermingling of both styles.
42. Krzyszkowska (2005, p. 203,
n. 37) uses the term “naturalistic”
in inverted commas for the group,
acknowledging, however, the unsatis-
factory nature of the term.
43. E.g., CMS I, no. 106, from
Mycenae, dated stylistically to LB II.
44. Two seals (CMS XIII, nos. 83,
84) have not been stylistically dated
by the CMS editors; the latter belongs
to the LM III group of tri-somatic
hybrids, the first likely dates earlier.
The Sissi Geni us Lentoid 359
L A P I S L AC EDA EM O N I U S S E A L S
Fifty-five examples of lapis lacedaemonius seals have been dated to the
MM  III/LM  I to LM  III periods. They belong to different stylistic
groups: four form part of the Talismanic Style group and one is of the
so-called Cut Style group; the remainder have Neopalatial naturalistic
motifs or belong to the stylized-naturalistic group, which broadly dates
to LM  II–III.41 The term “stylized-naturalistic” is adopted here due
to the abundant use of rotary tools as a stylistic device that impedes a
more natural appearance of the engraved designs.42 As the Sissi Genius
Lentoid belongs to this group, this study will only focus on lapis lacedae-
monius seals that belong to or are related to this assemblage. Neopalatial
seals with naturalistic motifs are taken into consideration because the
LM II–III conventions developed from them. Moreover, the difference
between Neopalatial and Final Palatial motifs is not always clear as they
occasionally share stylistic traits.43
Late Minoan I and I–II seals that belong to the other clearly identifi-
able non-naturalistic style groups, such as the Talismanic or Cut Style, are
excluded. The use of lapis lacedaemonius for such seals seems haphazard
and unsystematic compared to its use for Neopalatial naturalistic and
especially LM II–III stylized-naturalistic seals, where this stone appears
often enough to suggest that the material had been deliberately chosen as
part of a more general ideological program.
This leaves us with 50 lapis lacedaemonius seals. Of these, four have
been dated by the editors of the Corpus der minoischen und mykenischen
Siegel (CMS) to LM I–II or LM II, 21 to LM IIIA, and 21 more broadly
to LM II–III.44 The Final Palatial instances constitute a significant group
because they are encountered only during this period, are cut in a rather
rare stone, and display similar motifs engraved in a recognizable manner.
360 Diana Wol f

Unfortunately, only a handful of these seals derive from securely dated

contexts. To these belong three seals from Mycenae found in LH IIIA,45
LH IIIA–B,46 and LH II–III late contexts;47 two from LH II–IIIA1 Den-
dra;48 one from a LH IIA–B context at Anthia;49 one from a LH IIIA1 con-
text in Voudeni;50 and one from Medeon in a LH III context.51 Five Cretan
lapis lacedaemonius seals come from secure contexts: a seal from Gournes
found in a LM IIIB1 context, one from Armenoi from a LM IIIB1–2
context,52 another from Malia Quartier Nu recovered in a LM IIIA2–B
context,53 the Sissi Genius Lentoid found near a building that was in use
in LM IIIB, and a final lentoid engraved on both sides recovered from the
Final Palatial cemetery of Maroulas.54
The mainland seals tend to display a greater connection with the
LH IIIA phase and the Cretan ones with LM IIIB. It may, therefore, be
suggested that the Anthia seal from the LH IIA–B context, which should
date earlier than the rest on stylistic grounds (LB I–II), foreshadows the
development and flourishing of this group on the mainland during LH II–
IIIA. As for the Cretan seals, it may be possible, following the generally
accepted opinion that the production of hard stone seals had ended before
LM IIIB,55 that the above mentioned were produced in LM IIIA. How-
ever, all five Cretan seals are from contexts reaching into LM IIIB, and
it is therefore not possible to categorically exclude (early?) LM IIIB as a
possible date of manufacture.
The fact that the seals in Crete were recovered in contexts that date
later than those on the mainland could suggest that lapis lacedaemonius
seals of this type were first popular on the mainland and only later on
Crete. Seals of the broader stylized-naturalistic group of Final Palatial hard
stone glyptic, to which the lapis lacedaemonius seals in this study belong,
are also encountered in contexts that date from LM II–IIIB. All the above
evidence does is allow for a broad dating of the lapis lacedaemonius seals
to LM II–III, following the current line of seal research.
All lapis lacedaemonius seals discussed here are lentoid in shape,
including the one with two engraved seal faces from Maroulas.56 The only
exception is a single three-sided prism with convex, nearly circular seal
faces, which would have left a similar impression in clay as the lentoid
seals.57 The average diameter of the seals is 1.8 cm, though several exceed
2.0 cm, and a few even 2.5 cm. Conical-backed lentoid seals, such as the
Sissi Genius Lentoid, are popular in the Final Palatial period, but with five
examples dated LB II–III and another four LB III, they never dominate
the stone’s repertoire.

45. Tsountas 1888, p. 176 (= CMS I,
no. 48).
46. Warren 1992, p. 287 (= CMS I,
no. 106).
47. Warren 1992, p. 287 (= CMS I,
no. 115).
48. Persson 1931, p. 33 (= CMS I,
nos. 182, 188).
49. Liangouras 1993 (= CMS V,
Suppl. 1B, no. 142).
50. Kolonas 1993, pp. 161–162
(= CMS V, Suppl. 1B, no. 153).
51. École française d’Athènes 1967
(= CMS V, Suppl. 3.2, no. 384).
52. Tzedakis 1971, p. 515
(= CMS V.1, no. 246).
53. Driessen and Farnoux 1994a,
p. 472; 1994b, p. 61; 2004 (= CMS V,
Suppl. 3.1, no. 33).
54. Papadopoulou 2011, pp. 622–
623, 625, fig. 28. The Maroulas seals
still await final publication by Krzysz-
kowska. At present, the exact context
of the seal has not been published, but
it has been stated to be of a later date
than the seal; see Papadopoulou 2017,
pp. 138–139.
55. Krzyszkowska 2005, pp. 195,
199.
56. See Papadopoulou 2011,
pp. 622–623. Face a shows a man grap-
pling a bull; face b shows two diametri-
cally arranged bulls with an impaled
triangle between them. Only face a has
been published.
57. CMS III.2, no. 509.

a b
a b
Figure 7 (above). Impressions show-
ing technological characteristics of
the LM II–III hard stone stylized-
naturalistic group: (a) CMS II.4,
no. 202, from the Dictaean Cave;
(b) CMS V.1, no. 201, reportedly
from Pyrgos Psilonero; (c) CMS V.1,
no. 246, from Armenoi. Not to scale.
Courtesy Corpus der minoischen und
mykenischen Siegel, Heidelberg
Figure 8 (below). Impressions
showing technological characteris-
tics of the Neopalatial naturalistic
motifs group: (a) CMS VII, no. 65a,
unknown provenance; (b) CMS II.3,
no. 198, from Vathia; (c) CMS XI,
no. 208, from Kakovatos. Not to scale.
Courtesy Corpus der minoischen und
mykenischen Siegel, Heidelberg
58. Soft stones (Mohs 1–3.5), such
as steatite, can easily be cut with hand-
held tools, while hard stones (Mohs 5+)
require the use of fast-rotating tools
The Sissi Geni us Lentoid 361
c
c
Tec h nol o g ic al Asp ec ts
The iconography of a seal can only be fully understood in light of its
production technique. Depending on the material properties of the stone,
different tools and methods were necessary.58 Lapis lacedaemonius is at a
6–7 on the Mohs scale for mineral hardness, and it belongs to the group of
hard stones that require mechanical rotation for engraving (using cutting
wheels, solid drills, and tubular drills).59 Drills were used extensively for
LM II–III stylized-naturalistic motifs, and their marks can be observed
on the Sissi Genius Lentoid for the heads and facial features, joints, and
feet of the genius and goats as well as on the jug (Fig. 2:b). Undisguised
toolmarks such as these can be seen on most Final Palatial lapis lace-
daemonius seals (Fig. 7), and they are part of an innovative convention
for depicting anatomical features that supersede the style of Neopalatial
naturalistic motifs, which were more closely oriented toward natural forms
(Fig. 8).60 The solid and hollow drills were frequently combined to create
so-called spectacle-eyes,61 and the cutting wheel was used to draw contour
lines around the bodies.
The conspicuous toolmarks in place of carefully modeled joints and
features, as well as the even surfaces instead of internal articulation, result
operated on the horizontal spindle with 60. See Younger 1986, 2000;
the help of abrasives such as sand or Krzyszkowska 2005, pp. 201, 203;
emery; see Müller 2000. Anastasiadou 2015, p. 260.
59. Müller 2007, p. 16. 61. Younger 2000, p. 347.
362 Diana Wol f

a b c

d e f
Figure 9. Drawings of symbolic
motifs often associated with
from a distinct convention based on a novel treatment of the tools and dif- LM II–III lapis lacedaemonius seals:
ferent finishing processes. This resulted in new stylistic effects. Compared (a) figure-of-eight shield, CMS XII,
to the preceding Neopalatial period, where human and animal bodies were no. 238, unknown provenance;
rendered with fine details (Fig. 8), the Final Palatial stylized-naturalistic (b) impaled triangle, CMS VIII,
group gives an overall less natural and more graphic impression of organic no. 107, unknown provenance;
forms. The LM I–II and LM II lapis lacedaemonius seals, on the other (c) three-leaved plant, CMS VI.2,
hand, do not display the same traits in a coherent manner.62 no. 340, reportedly from Gythion;
(d) tree, CMS I Suppl., no. 71,
reportedly from Melos; (e) double-
Imag e ry axe, CMS II.3, no. 310, report-
edly from Siteia; (f ) star, CMS IX,
Overall, LB II–III seals show fewer human figures in contrast to animals no. 128, unknown provenance. Not
and hybrid human-animals. Among the animals represented on hard stone to scale. Drawings of symbols D. Wolf,
seals, bovines, caprids, and felines are common, while human figures are drawings of seal faces courtesy Corpus
der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel,
mostly restricted to Master of Animals or bull-leaping (taurokathapsia) Heidelberg
scenes. In lapis lacedaemonius, these are always men, an observation that
has been made for the LM IIIA1 “spectacle-eyes group” in general.63 Figural
motifs are often stiff and accompanied by devices such as figure-of-eight
shields and impaled triangles (Fig.  9:a, b). Symmetrical configurations
such as heraldic animals and scenes of animal mastery, mirror images, and

62. E.g., the lions on a lentoid from
a LH IIIA–B context in Mycenae
(CMS I, no. 106) have more carefully
modeled body parts including muscles,
bones, and fur, which have led the
editors of the CMS to date the piece
stylistically earlier than its context, to
LB II. Cf. also the Anthia seal (CMS V,
Suppl. 1B, no. 142) from a LB II con-
text, which displays similar features.
63. Younger 2000, p. 347. Women
are featured on other Final Palatial hard
stone seals (e.g., CMS II.3, no. 63) but
not on the extant lapis lacedaemonius
seals.
 The Sissi Geni us Lentoid 363

tête-bêche (head-to-tail) compositions are especially recurrent in the period’s

hard stone glyptic and are all attested on lapis lacedaemonius seals.64
The 50 seals under discussion can be divided into six broad icono-
graphical groups according to their imagery: single quadrupeds, quadruped
compositions, heraldic scenes, taurokathapsia (bull-leaping) scenes, a single
seal showing duelers, and hybrids (including Minoan genii).

Si ng l e Q uadrupeds
This group comprises 11 seals, of which two have secure contexts in the
Medeon and Dendra tholoi, dated to LH II–IIIA1 (Fig. 10).65 Two main
types can be differentiated, both displaying strongly contorted animal bod-
ies, most often bulls. Examples of the first group characteristically have
their chest and head twisted inversely to the rest of the body as if folded
down (Fig. 10:a–f ). In the second group, the quadruped’s chest and head
are folded inward (Fig. 10:g–i). Two seals fit in neither group as the animal
heads do not share this feature (Fig. 10:j, k). The single quadrupeds appear
either alone or accompanied by fillers, mostly floral devices such as trefoils,
fir branches, or tree ornaments (Fig. 9:c, d).

Q uadruped Com p osit ion s

This group comprises pairs or groups of animals that are not arranged
heraldically (Fig. 11). The species depicted are those most popular in the
Late Bronze Age corpus: bulls, goats, and lions. The group includes animal-
attack scenes: a lion biting a goat in the neck; bulls under attack by lions;
and a human hunter with his dog, attacked by a lion (Fig. 11:a–d). The
second group is a heterogenic cluster of varying quadruped pairs: two rams,
a lion, and a goat; two bulls arranged tête-bêche; and a lioness suckling her
cub (Fig. 11:e, f ). Figure-of-eight shields often accompany the quadruped
depictions.

Heral dic Sc en e s
Two groups of heraldic scenes can be distinguished: antithetical quadrupeds
flanking a central device and Master of Animals (potnios theron) scenes
with a central male figure (potnios) accompanied by two animals (Fig. 12).
The group of antithetical quadrupeds includes three very similar seals with
rearing animals whose bodies face each other while their heads are turned
back (Fig. 12:a–c).66 Two additional seals, reportedly from Axos and Vasilika
Anogia, have more varied compositions (Fig. 12:d, e).67
Five potnios theron compositions are known to date (Fig. 12:f–i).68 Each
shows a central male figure that can dominate either fish, lions, agrimia, or
fantastic creatures. Most potnioi have rather simple, often geometrical, body

64. Krzyszkowska 2005, pp. 209–
211.
65. For Medeon, see Daux 1967,
p. 868; École française d’Athènes 1967;
Aravantinos 2004. For Dendra, see
Persson 1931, p. 33; Sakellariou 1964.
66. The group possibly comes from a
common source.
67. One additional instance, on
face b of the Maroulas seal, has not
been published and therefore cannot be
discussed in detail here. It is described
as depicting two diametrically arranged
bulls with an impaled triangle between
them; see Papadopoulou 2011, p. 623.
68. In addition to four previously
known potnios theron images in lapis
lacedaemonius (Fig. 12:f–i), CMS XI,
no. 257 can be added following a recent
study at the Antikensammlung of the
Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (October
2021). It was previously not identified as
a lapis lacedaemonius seal due to its very
abraded surface and change of color
(the matrix is now a medium brown, the
macrocrystals beige).
364 Diana Wol f

a b c

d e f

g h i
Figure 10. Drawings of lapis lacedae-
monius seals with single quadrupeds:
(a) CMS V, Suppl. 3.2, no. 384, from
Medeon; (b) CMS III.2, no. 509c,
reportedly from Vasilika Anoiga;
(c) CMS IX, no. 125, unknown prov-
enance; (d) CMS IX, no. 118, unknown
provenance; (e) CMS I Suppl., no. 71,
reportedly from Melos; (f ) CMS VII,
no. 124, unknown provenance;
(g) CMS IX, no. 193, unknown prov-
enance; (h) CMS XIII, no. 83, reportedly
j k from central Crete; (i) CMS II.3, no. 216,
reportedly from Malia; (j) CMS VIII,
no. 107, unknown provenance;
(k) CMS I, no. 188, from Dendra. Not
to scale. Courtesy Corpus der minoischen und
mykenischen Siegel, Heidelberg
 The Sissi Geni us Lentoid 365

a b c

d e f
Figure 11. Drawings of lapis lacedae-
monius seals featuring quadruped
compositions: (a) CMS I, no. 182,
from Dendra; (b) CMS II.4, no. 202,
from the Dictaean Cave; (c) CMS IX,
no. 194, unknown provenance;
(d) CMS V.1, no. 246, from Armenoi;
(e) CMS I, no. 48, from Mycenae;
(f ) CMS I, no. 115, from Mycenae;
(g) CMS II.3, no. 310, reportedly
from Siteia; (h) CMS I, no. 106, from
Mycenae. Not to scale. Courtesy Corpus
der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel, g h
Heidelberg

shapes with incongruent proportions. One seal, reportedly from Pyrgos Psi-
lonero,69 stands out for its more detailed execution of the male figure who does
not control animals, but rather a goat-griffin and a Minoan genius (Fig. 12:i).
This image teems with symbols that elevate the scene to an extra-ordinary,
supranatural level and characterize the central figure as more-than-human.

Taur okat h apsia

69. See Pini 1981, pp. 142–145.
70. See Younger 1976, pp. 132–134.
Seals with taurokathapsia, or bull-leaping, scenes—which all date to
LM IIIA1–2—show acrobatic men leaping over bulls (Fig. 13). Despite
some variation, seals with taurokathapsia scenes have more similarities
than differences, and they possibly derived from a common prototype.
The seals can be divided into two subgroups according to the position
of the leaper. Those of the first group (Fig.  13:a–c) comprise “floating
leapers,” following the classification of Younger.70 The toreadors in the
366 Diana Wol f

a b c

d e f

Figure 12. Drawings of lapis lacedae-

monius seals with heraldic and potnios
theron scenes: (a) CMS XI, no. 261,
from Argos; (b) CMS XI, no. 176,
g h unknown provenance; (c) CMS II.3,
no. 306, reportedly from Chandras;
(d) CMS II.3, no. 5, reportedly
from Axos; (e) CMS III.2, no. 509a,
reportedly from Vasilika Anoiga;
(f ) CMS V.1, no. 181, unknown
provenance; (g) CMS XI, no. 177,
unknown provenance; (h) CMS IV,
no. 38D, reportedly from Vrondisi;
(i) CMS V.1, no. 201, reportedly from
Pyrgos Psilonero; (j) CMS XI, no. 257,
unknown provenance. Not to scale.
Drawing (j) D. Wolf; courtesy (a–i) Corpus
der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel,
i j Heidelberg
 The Sissi Geni us Lentoid 367

a b c

d e f
Figure 13. Drawings of lapis lacedae-
monius seals featuring bull-leaping
(taurokathapsia) scenes. “Float-
ing” leapers: (a) CMS II.4, no. 157,
from Gournes; (b) CMS VI.2,
no. 337, unknown provenance;
(c) CMS VI.2, no. 338, unknown
provenance; “diving” leapers:
(d) CMS III.2, no. 362, reportedly
from Knossos; (e) CMS V, Suppl. 3.1,
no. 33, from Malia; (f ) CMS VI.2,
no. 340, reportedly from Gythion;
(g) CMS VI.2, no. 341, unknown g h
provenance; (h) Maroulas seal. Not to
scale. Drawing (h) D. Wolf after Papado-
poulou 2011, p. 625; courtesy (a–g) Corpus
der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel, second group (Fig. 13:d–g) are classified as “diving leapers.”71 Despite de-
Heidelberg picting a dynamic human-animal interaction, these images lack much of
the momentum experienced in the act of bull-leaping.72 A related theme
can be seen on the seal from Maroulas that shows a man grappling a bull
by the horns (Fig. 13:h).73

71. See Younger 1976, pp. 128–131.
72. The static depictions may
indicate that bull-leaping was no longer
practiced (see Younger 1976, p. 137).
On CMS VI.2, no. 340, a dog attacks
the bull. Blakolmer (2016, p. 118)
explains the motif through the close
relationship between hunters and dogs.
On CMS VI.2, no. 341, the bull’s head
is lowered as if grazing while it appears
to be suckling two calves. In contrast,
Kenna (1960, p. 119, no. 208) identified
these as attacking dogs.
73. Papadopoulou 2011, pp. 622–
623, 625, fig. 28.
368 Diana Wol f

D uel ers
A lapis lacedaemonius seal of unknown provenance shows two men dueling
(Fig. 14). Clad in belted breechcloths, each wields a sword in one hand
while grabbing his opponent’s head with the other. The right man turns
his face away from his adversary’s grasping fingers while about to stab him.
The left man, in turn, faces him, thrusting his sword toward his adversary’s
thigh. The bodies are engraved with little detail, focusing mainly on the
modeling of the legs while neglecting the rest.74 The scene is unique, and
its origins should be sought in preceding phases, when combat scenes ap-
pear more frequently, as is impressively illustrated by the LH IIA so-called Figure 14. Drawing of lapis lace-
Combat Agate from Pylos.75 daemonius lentoid CMS XI, no. 34,
reportedly from Athens, with a pair
H y br id s of duelers. Not to scale. Courtesy Corpus
Hybrids comprise at least two animate components that do not occur der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel,
Heidelberg
together in nature. Combined, these add up to a fantastic creature that,
although often anatomically convincing, does not exist in the natural world.
Three types of hybrids appear on lapis lacedaemonius seals: human-animal
hybrids, conjoined animals, and Minoan genii.
Bi- and tri-somatic hybrids composed of the lower part of a male
human body and the foreparts and head of a quadruped, mostly bulls,
goats, and lions, appear as an innovation of LM II–III glyptic (Fig. 15).76
The first are fusions of the foreparts of a quadruped with a human lower
body (Fig. 15:a–e); the latter join two animal foreparts to the human half
(Fig. 15:f, g).77 Seven such hybrids were created in lapis lacedaemonius:
two bull-men, two bull-goat-men, and one each of a deer-, dog-, and
goat-man.
Three instances of conjoined animals were rendered in lapis lacedae-
monius (Fig. 16), to which the combined agrimia on the Sissi Genius
Lentoid can be added. They consist of the merged foreparts of two quad-
rupeds of either the same or different species. Apart from their conjoined
nature, creatures in this group vary considerably. The lentoid from Anthia
depicts a portly bull-lion (Fig. 16:a) without spectacle-eyes, quite unlike
the creature on the seal from Sybrita (Fig. 16:b), on which the foreparts
of two unspecified quadrupeds are connected through a thin, funnel-like
midsection. The final example features the foreparts of two bulls that
are connected at the waist and turned at 180° against each other with
two mirrored upper bodies of a man behind them (Fig. 16:c).78 Despite
iconographic differences, the compositions with conjoined animals—also
on the Sissi Genius Lentoid—are very balanced and highly symmetrical,
which gives them an emblematic quality that is reinforced by the devices
on some of the seals.

74. The heads are schematic and
consist mainly of a large, irregularly
shaped eye with a central dot as well as
an indicated nose and open mouth. A
solid drill was employed on the levels
of the eyes, chin, knees, and feet. Three
further drill holes are in the field.
75. See Stocker and Davis 2017.
76. These hybrids often appear close
to major centers. For a comprehensive
list of hybrid human-animals and their
provenance, see Wolf 2019, pp. 150–151.
77. While hybrids consisting of
human and animal parts already existed
in the late Protopalatial period, i.e.,
bird-women or sphinxes, this specific
type only occurs for a short time in
Final Palatial hard stone glyptic; see
Wolf 2020, pp. 57–60.
78. Such an arrangement can
also be seen on other seals, i.e., a lion
on CMS II.3, no. 221, or a goat on
CMS IV, no. 166a.
 The Sissi Geni us Lentoid 369

a b c

d e f
Figure 15. Drawings of lapis lacedae-
monius seals with hybrid human-
animals: (a) CMS VI.2, no. 298,
reportedly from the Dictaean Cave;
(b) CMS XI, no. 251, unknown
provenance; (c) CMS VII, no. 138,
unknown provenance; (d) CMS XII,
no. 238, unknown provenance;
(e) CMS IX, no. 128, unknown
provenance; (f ) CMS VII, no. 123,
reportedly from Crete; (g) CMS XIII,
no. 84, reportedly from Knossos. Not
to scale. Courtesy Corpus der minoischen
und mykenischen Siegel, Heidelberg g

Minoan Genii
A final hybrid type encountered on lapis lacedaemonius seals is the Minoan
genius,79 a creature that stands apart from most other hybrids. Often featur-
ing in “emblematic narrative” scenes,80 the Minoan genius plays important

79. Sambin 1989; Weingarten 1991; Blakolmer 2015a.

Rehak 1995; Blakolmer 2015a; 2015b;
2016, pp. 134–138; Boloti 2016. For a
more extensive bibliography, see Bla-
kolmer 2016, pp. 134–135, n. 274. For
the typological study followed here, see
80. Koehl (2016, p. 471) has coined
the term referring to Minoan images
that present a narrative without con-
structing a spatio-temporal sequence.
370 Diana Wol f

a b c
Figure 16. Drawings of lapis lace-
roles in ritual activities, assists humans, can be dominated by figures of
81 82 daemonius seals featuring conjoined
animals: (a) CMS V, Suppl. 1B,
power, but may also assume a role of power.83
no. 142, from Anthia; (b) CMS VI.2,
The earliest genius on a lapis lacedaemonius seal is dated to LB I–II;84
no. 430, reportedly from Sybrita;
the remaining examples date to LB II–IIIA1. The genius on the earliest (c) CMS III.2, no. 509b, reportedly
seal is leading a bull, likely a sacrificial animal, by the horns (Fig. 17:a).85 from Vasilika Anoiga. Not to scale.
On two later lapis lacedaemonius seals, the genius carries a limp quadru- Courtesy Corpus der minoischen und
ped over its shoulder (Fig. 17:b, c), an act likewise connected to sacrifice. mykenischen Siegel, Heidelberg
A controversial lentoid from Voudeni shows a genius carrying the body
of a man who is unconscious or dead (Figs. 5:d, 17:d),86 possibly another
sacrificial victim.87
After the Neopalatial period, Minoan genii become rarer and are
more often shown in antithetical compositions or leading a quadruped.88
The creature’s importance then seems to increase in LB IIIA–B when it is
reproduced not only on seals but in various prestigious media,89 especially
at major mainland centers such as Mycenae, Pylos, Thebes, and Tiryns.
On Crete, seals with Minoan genii occur at all major sites, most notably
Knossos from the Neopalatial through the Final Palatial period.90 These
circumstances may indicate that high-ranking sociopolitical units adopted
the Minoan genius as an emblematic icon that could represent the status,
roles, and privileges of their members.

81. E.g., carrying a sacrificial animal
on CMS IX, no. 129.
82. In dangerous encounters as on
CMS XI, no. 208, where it assists a lion
hunter.
83. The Minoan genius is dominated
by a male figure in a potnios theron
composition on CMS XI, no. 290, but
it masters the lions on CMS I, no. 172,
and even humans on CMS VII, no. 95.
84. CMS VI.2, no. 305 (dated on
stylistic grounds). The provenance of
the seal was wrongly attributed to the
Taygetos area in the past (cf. Furtwän-
gler 1900, p. 12, no. 33, pl. 2; Kenna
1960, pp. 132–133).
85. There is a close parallel to this
seal in an agate lentoid: CMS VI.2,
no. 304. See also Evans 1935, p. 443.
86. This stone differs in color from
others (cf. Fig. 5). Its microcrystal-
line structure is light gray to violet
with the macrocrystals gray-green. A
change of color could be achieved by
heating (Zezza and Lazzarini 2002,
pp. 259–260) or through weathering
or decomposition processes in the soil
(Rosenfeld 1965, p. 67; Müller 2007,
p. 16). This can be seen on some blocks
of the lapis lacedaemonius stock from
the Lapidary’s Workshop at Knossos
(Fig. 6).
87. Kolonas (1993, p. 169) and
Rehak (1995, pp. 220–221) believe that
the human is alive. Blakolmer assumes
that the man is dead, suggesting that
the genius is carrying a human sacrifice
and replacing a person in the image to
avoid a possible social transgression of
depicting a human actor; see Blakol-
mer 2015a, p. 205; 2015b, p. 32; 2016,
p. 137.
88. See Wolf 2019, pp. 74–75.
89. E.g., in frescoes, ivories, and
ornamental glass plaques that were
probably intended as burial offerings;
see Rehak 1995, pp. 229–230.
90. Apart from the seal, several seal-
ings found at Knossos were impressed
by different seals bearing Minoan
genii. Further seals have been found at
Kastelli, Chania, the Dictaean Cave,
Palaikastro, and Kalyvia.
 The Sissi Geni us Lentoid 371

a b

Figure 17. Drawings of lapis lacedae-

monius lentoid seals with Minoan
genii: (a) CMS VI.2, no. 305,
unknown provenance; (b) CMS XI,
no. 39, unknown provenance;
(c) CMS XI, no. 38, unknown
provenance; (d) CMS V, Suppl. 1B,
no. 153, from Voudeni. Not to scale.
Courtesy Corpus der minoischen und
mykenischen Siegel, Heidelberg c d

ST YLIZED-NAT URALIST IC LAP IS

LACEDAEMONI US SEALS IN LM II–III GLYP T IC

The group of stylized-naturalistic seals, to which LM II–III lapis lacedaemo-

nius seals belong, evolved from LM I naturalistic motifs.91 Stylized-naturalistic
and the Cut Style are the two main stylistic seal groups that can be recognized
among LM II–III hard stone glyptic.92 During this period until the end of
LM IIIA, there is a notable increase of seals cut in hard stones, mainly agate,
carnelian, and hematite.93 Accordingly, apart from lapis lacedaemonius, the
group of stylized-naturalistic seals also comprises seals cut from these stones.
Stylized-naturalistic seals occur most often on Crete in LM II–III and
to a lesser degree on the mainland. The motifs and stylistic conventions are
those encountered on lapis lacedaemonius seals and described above: hu-
man figures in the potnios/potnia theron94 and bull-leaping95 scenes; hybrid

91. See Niemeier 1997, p. 303; p. 196.

Krzyszkowska 2005, pp. 201–204.
92. On the Cut Style, see Pini 2000.
There is one lapis lacedaemonius Cut
Style seal: CMS V.2, no. 604, from a
LH IIIC settlement context on Naxos.
93. Anastasiadou 2015, pp. 272, 275.
On the mainland, this is the rule from
LH I–IIIA1; see Krzyszkowska 2005,
94. E.g., CMS I Suppl., no. 27
(agate, Prosymna); CMS XI, no. 177
(lapis lacedaemonius, unknown prov-
enance).
95. E.g., CMS V, Suppl. 3.1, no. 33
(lapis lacedaemonius, Malia); CMS VII,
no. 108 (hematite, unknown prov-
enance).
372 Diana Wol f

human-animals;96 and a variety of quadrupeds,97 often in contorted poses.

Symmetrical arrangements, such as heraldic and tête-bêche compositions
appear frequently.98 When compared to earlier glyptic phases, animals and
humans display reduced internal modeling of muscles, joints, and tendons.99
Their bodies consist of even and unmodeled surfaces with linear extremities
that end in prominent dots.100
Of significance is the fact that the group’s imagery can further be
subdivided into seals with quadrupeds that reflect creatures and scenes
from the natural world and those with extra-ordinary images. The expres-
sion “extra-ordinary” is here employed not as a qualitative appreciation of
the design or a quantitative assessment of the prevalence of the motifs,
but as a judgment of the temporal and spatial deviation from everyday
acts and scenes. To these, we may count not only creatures born out of
the imagination, namely the Minoan genius, hybrid human-animals, and
possibly conjoined animals. Furthermore, Master of Animal scenes with a
central figure that is more-than-human, as on the lentoid reportedly from
Pyrgos Psilonero, as well as bull-leaping scenes that, despite the likely
existence of this practice in the Neopalatial period, seem to have entered
the realms of myth and collective memory by the Final Palatial period.101
From a technological standpoint, both iconographical subclasses belong
to a common style assemblage.
In short, the group of Final Palatial glyptic to which the lapis lacedae-
monius seals belong is characterized by the following stylistic and represen-
tational commonalities: the new engraving convention with unconcealed
toolmarks and less internal detail, a preference for symmetrical arrangements,
and the depiction of extra-ordinary images with high emblematic quality.
On Crete and the mainland alike, high-quality seals made from semi-
precious stones frequently appear in LM/LH IIIA–B burial contexts that
date later than the seals. Past scholarship therefore often considered these
seals as heirlooms that were handed down through families. This assump-
tion, which cannot be proven with the present archaeological evidence,
limits the epistemological approach to this material corpus and restricts,
and potentially obfuscates, our understanding of the function of these
seals, which should better be referred to as “antiques,” as demonstrated
by Krzyszkowska.102
With the end of hard stone seal production, likely at the close of
LM IIIA2, seals made from semiprecious materials may conceivably have
increased in value as they were still required in the LH IIIB Mycenean
palace administration.103 In Final Palatial Knossian administration, almost
all contemporary LM IIIA1 seals had been made of semiprecious stones.

96. E.g., CMS IX, no. 128 (lapis
lacedaemonius, unknown provenance);
CMS X, no. 145 (carnelian, unknown
provenance).
97. E.g., CMS VII, no. 124 (lapis
lacedaemonius, unknown provenance);
CMS XI, no. 210 (agate, unknown
provenance).
98. E.g., CMS I, no. 53 (agate,
Mycenae); CMS II.3, no 310 (lapis
lacedaemonius, reportedly from Siteia).
99. Cf. the bull on the LM I
carnelian lentoid CMS VII, no. 65a,
against its LM II–III conspecific on
the lapis lacedaemonius lentoid CMS V,
Suppl. 3.2, no. 384.
100. Younger 2000, p. 347; Krzysz-
kowska 2005, p. 203.
101. On the assumed end of bull
leaping, see Younger 1976, p. 137.
102. Krzyszkowska 2019, p. 487.
103. The majority of LH IIIB
sealings from Pylos were impressed by
antique hard stone and metal seals and
not by the contemporary Mainland
Popular group comprised of soft stones;
see Pini 1997, pp. 83–84. On the Main-
land Popular group, see Younger 1987,
pp. 65–71; Dickers 2001; Krzyszkow-
ska 2005, p. 214.

104. Krzyszkowska 2019, p. 492.
105. Krzyszkowska (2019, p. 492)
describes these as “very ordinary LM I
seals of soft stone, undistinguished in
terms of motif, or quality of engraving.”
106. This number does not take the
seal from the cemetery of Maroulas
into account, the context of which is
awaiting publication, and it will add
a further Minoan burial context; see
Papadopoulou 2011, pp. 622–625.
107. See Persson 1931, p. 33; Sakel-
lariou 1964.
108. Kolonas 1993, pp. 161–162.
109. See Daux 1967, pp. 866–868.
110. See Tzedakis 1971, p. 515;
CMS V.1, p. 185; Warren 1992, p. 287.
111. See Kanta 1980, p. 47; Pini and
Platon 1985; Warren 1992, p. 287.
112. See Voutsaki 2001, p. 195.
The Sissi Geni us Lentoid 373
Krzyszkowska has estimated that some 35% of the seals used to impress
sealings in the Knossian Linear B administration were antiques.104 Unlike
at Pylos, where hard stone and metal seals were used quite exclusively, those
from Knossos also included seals made from soft, local stones,105 which high-
lights a traditionally different practice of seal use on the island and indicates
a dissimilar appreciation of the seals when seen against mainland practices.
This observation urges caution as regards a general, uniform interpretation
of the seals in LM/LH IIIA–B Minoan and mainland contexts. Therefore,
the following section will briefly relate the associated contexts of the lapis
lacedaemonius seals and then attempt to position the Sissi Genius Lentoid
within the sociopolitical framework of Final Palatial Sissi.
T H E S I S S I G EN I U S LEN TO I D A N D I T S
M I S E - EN - S C ÈN E
Unfortunately, detailed information regarding find contexts is only available
for 12 roughly contemporary lapis lacedaemonius seals, including the Sissi
Genius Lentoid.106 Nine of these came from burials and were found along-
side other prestigious artifacts such as gold, glass, and ivory objects. Three
lapis lacedaemonius seals come from tombs in the cemetery of the lower
town of Mycenae: two from LH IIIA–B and the other from a LH II–III
context. Two seals from Dendra were recovered in the LH II–IIIA1 tholos
that also had gold jewelry, a necklace of semiprecious stones and faience,
bronze swords and spearheads, metal rings, and vessels as well as ostrich
eggs and obsidian blades.107 At Voudeni, the lapis lacedaemonius seal was
found in the LH IIIA1 context of grave 4 together with kylikes and am-
phoras, glass pendants, and beads of carnelian, steatite, glass, and gold.108
The seal from Medeon was found in the entrance of the tholos dromos,
and it appears to be directly related to the LH III inhumations containing
decorated pottery as well as metal and bone objects.109
The information on Crete is similar: in the cemetery at Armenoi, the
lapis lacedaemonius seal was found in a context dating to LM IIIB1–2
in a larnax with several stirrup jars, two pyxides, four bronze rings, and a
bracelet, as well as another seal and a large number of beads.110 At Gournes,
although the LM IIIB1 grave was looted, the seal there was left inside a
larnax together with a rock crystal lentoid. Several beads and a Protopalatial
silver discoid seal were also discovered within the grave.111
Despite regional differences in burial types and associated finds, the
overall picture of the contexts containing lapis lacedaemonius seals is that
of wealthy, elite burials containing prestigious objects of high quality. These
appear as the possessions of privileged social representatives who could access
exclusive goods, the distribution of which may have been controlled by the
palatial system.112 Moreover, many lapis lacedaemonius seals with a known
provenance come from sites of importance, such as Mycenae and Dendra on
the mainland (Fig. 18) and Knossos and Malia on Crete (Fig. 19). While
instances of single seals are reported from various obscure Cretan places,
such as from Pyrgos Psilonero on the northwest coast or Chandras in the
east, a clear concentration exists in north-central Crete, especially along
the line of coastal settlements from Knossos over to Gournes, Malia, and
374 Diana Wol f

Medeon

Voudeni

Mycenae

Dendra

Medeon
Anthia

Voudeni

Gythion

Mycenae

secure provenance
reported provenance Dendra

secure provenance
reported provenance
Anthia
Pyrgos
Psilonero

Maroulas Gournes
Sissi
Armenoi
Axos Knossos
Gythion Malia
Sybarita

Dikte Siteia
Vrondisi
Chandras

secure provenance
reported provenance

Figure 18 (above). Distribution of

lapis lacedaemonius seals discovered
Sissi. Six of the 16 Cretan seals with known or reported findspots come on the Greek mainland. The reported
from this area. provenance at Gythion possibly con-
While most of the lapis lacedaemonius seals with a known provenance fuses the origin of the seal with the
derive from burial contexts, only two have thus far come from settlements origin of the material. D. Wolf
with stratigraphical information. In several cases, the provenance is known, Figure 19 (below). Distribution of
but not the context, which makes it difficult to quantify the distribution of lapis lacedaemonius seals discovered
the seals in graves versus settlements and to identify primary contexts. This on the island of Crete. D. Wolf
accounts for the seals from Knossos, the Siteia region, and other Cretan
 The Sissi Geni us Lentoid 375

findspots.113 The two seals with a secure settlement context are the Sissi
Genius Lentoid and the taurokathapsia lentoid from neighboring Malia.
The Malia seal was found in Quartier Nu and shows a diving bull-leaper
(Figs. 5:a, 13:e). Although the seal was recovered from a LM IIIA2–B
context,114 it is dated stylistically earlier to LM IIIA1. Quartier Nu was
already occupied in LM II–IIIA1, and the seal may be a leftover of this
phase, or it may have been kept as an antique.115 The character of the later
LM IIIB occupation of Quartier Nu is under discussion but its size and
architectural complexity suggest some sociopolitical elaboration that is
also hinted at by the presence of inscribed Linear B jars and a pebble
mosaic.116 The archaeological evidence of Quartier Nu has led the excava-
tors to suggest that the complex participated in a larger scale “economic
redistributive system,” and was involved “in a similar economic process as
reflected by the Linear B tablets of Knossos.”117 A link between Malia and
Knossos can be tentatively suggested for the seal from Quartier Nu, which
is stylistically and iconographically so close to the seal in the Giamalakis
collection (Figs. 5:b, 13:d), reportedly from Knossos, that it may have been
produced by the same workshop.118
The seal at Sissi was found in the east wing of the Court-Centered
Building, close to an area that was partly reoccupied in LM IIIB.119 How it
ended up here remains to be seen. Like the taurokathapsia lentoid of Malia
Quartier Nu, the Sissi Genius Lentoid should belong to an earlier phase
than the reoccupation attested in the area. As mentioned, the presence of
seals from earlier phases in later contexts is common in the Final Palatial
period and the rule in the Postpalatial period. Since hard stone seals were
probably no longer produced by the end of LM  IIIA2, seals made of
semiprecious materials found in LM IIIB contexts, as in the case of the
lapis lacedaemonius seal recovered at Malia and, if the association with the
LM IIIB reoccupation is correct, also at Sissi, would have invariably been
produced in earlier phases.120 It is noteworthy that, at both sites, significant
LM II–IIIA1/2 deposits have been found.121 These deposits may represent
the original contexts from where the two lapis lacedaemonius seals derived.
Both the Malia seal and the Sissi Genius Lentoid suggest that individuals
or groups active in these two settlements had access to valuable imported
material (lapis lacedaemonius) and state-of-the-art technology (hard stone
engraving tools and techniques). The respective owners of the seals must
have therefore participated in economic and redistributive processes that

113. This includes another lapis
lacedaemonius seal from Malia, two
from the Dictaean Cave, and one each
from Axos, Vrondisi, Sybrita, and
Anogia.
114. Driessen and Farnoux 1994a,
p. 472; 1994b, p. 61; 2004.
115. See Farnoux 1997, pp. 138–
140, 146–147.
116. For a detailed assessment of
Quartier Nu in LM III, see Driessen et
al. 2008; Driessen and Fiasse 2011. In
short, the authors suggest that Quartier
Nu was perhaps the residence of an
extended family-based network, such
as a clan, that shared the complex while
subdividing its different wings among
its members.
117. Driessen and Farnoux 1994b,
p. 64.
118. Driessen and Farnoux (1994b,
p. 61) were the first to demonstrate
the strong similarity of the seal with
the lentoid CMS III.2, no. 362, and to
assume a common LM III workshop
for the production of both stones.
119. See Jusseret 2011, pp. 163–170,
176; 2012, pp. 135–142, 152; Langohr
2012, pp. 166–167.
120. See Krzyszkowska 2019,
pp. 492–493.
121. For Malia, see Langohr 2009,
pp. 74–75, with references; 2022,
p. 253. For Sissi, see Langohr 2011,
pp. 193–195; 2021, pp. 501, 520–522.
376 Diana Wol f

were controlled by a Final Palatial large-scale administrative system. This

was likely instigated by Knossos, where administrative and political power
was arguably most concentrated in LM II–IIIA1.122
The glyptic evidence both at Malia Quartier Nu and Sissi links these
sites with Knossos in the Final Palatial period: not only was the large stock
of lapis lacedaemonius found there (Fig. 6), but Knossos has the most
reported stylized-naturalistic seals, including the close parallel probably
stemming from the same workshop as the Malia taurokathapsia lentoid
(Fig.  5:a, b). However, the connection of the sites to Knossos reaches
beyond the seals, as Driessen has suggested: the strong influence of the
palace is evidenced at both Malia and Sissi from LM II–IIIA2 Early.
This is seen not only through the prevalence of Knossian-style pottery,123
but it is also evident through significant new architectural complexes, the
remains of which have been found beneath Quartier Nu at Malia and, in
tests below the LM IIIB floor levels of room 3.11,124 at Building CDE
at Sissi directly northeast of the Court-Centered Building. During their
later, LM IIIA2 rebuilding, the cores of Quartier Nu and Building CDE
consist of axial bi-columnar halls, a novel architectural form that may
have found its origin already during the Final Palatial period at sites such
as Ayia Triada, Plati, and Gournia.125 Driessen has suggested that these
are “political” buildings, designed “by the Greek-speaking administration
at Knossos to impose its rule over the island,” establishing island-wide
strategic bridgeheads.126
The ceramic perspective gives further evidence for the relation of Sissi,
Malia, and Knossos in the Final Palatial period.127 Neopalatial Malia was
the administrative center of a regional territory to which Sissi likely related
as a (dependent/competing?) center combining domestic and ceremonial
functions.128 Despite its significant public structures in this period, Sissi
lacks evidence for “an economic function . . . since neither storage, produc-
tion, or administration are attested.”129
After the destruction of the palace of Malia in LM IB, the occupa-
tion continued in the residential areas but changed in character.130 This
encompassed not only a reorganization of urban space but is also reflected
in ceramic development, which from LM II until LM IIIA2 Early was sty-
listically influenced by Knossos.131 At Sissi, the introduction of entirely new
shapes, decorative trends, and manufacturing techniques at the beginning
of the Final Palatial period is also noteworthy and indicates much Knossian
influence.132 Langohr has even noted that the “significant transformation
of the ceramic repertoire . . . suggests a rapid and widespread adoption of
these new trends and possibly indicated the arrival of new groups,”133 both
at Sissi and Malia, who aimed to consolidate Knossian power toward the
east of the island.

122. See Driessen and Langohr
2007, pp. 188–189.
123. Langohr 2021, pp. 522–523;
2022, pp. 253–255; Driessen and
Mouthuy 2022, p. 72.
124. See Langohr 2017b, pp. 193,
195; Driessen 2018b, p. 35.
125. See Driessen 2021a, p. 714;
Driessen and Mouthuy 2022, pp. 72,
75.
126. Driessen 2021a, p. 714.
127. See Langohr 2022, pp. 261–
262.
128. See Driessen 2021b, pp. 695,
700–701.
129. Driessen 2018b, p. 42.
130. See Driessen and Farnoux
1997, pp. 67–68; Langohr 2017b,
p. 193, with references; 2022, p. 253.
131. See Farnoux 1997, pp. 136,
146–147; Langohr 2022, p. 253.
132. See Langohr 2022, pp. 253–
255.
133. Langohr 2022, p. 261.
 The Sissi Geni us Lentoid 377

In particular, as part of a petrographic study of Final Palatial and

Postpalatial pottery, Liard has identified fine and coarse clay fabrics at both
Final Palatial Malia and Sissi that come from the area of Knossos and its
immediate hinterlands, which appear to have supplied considerable amounts
of ceramics at both sites.134 The study identified fine fabrics in an array of
decorated storage and drinking vessels that can be connected to consump-
tion practices of higher-ranking social groups.135 From LM IIIA2, possibly
somewhat earlier, regional ceramic styles developed, and after the end of
the Knossian administration, the pottery at Malia shows characteristics
of older pottery traditions from Protopalatial times, which was likely a
symptom of the political fragmentation of the landscape.136
The above suggests that the settlement of Quartier Nu at Malia and
that on the Kephali at Sissi were significant on a larger regional scale al-
ready during the Final Palatial period. One possible reason for this is their
topographical position at the transition from (then Knossian-dominated)
north-central Crete and the (then likely less dependent) east of the island to
which Malia and Sissi were connected by both coastal and inland routes.137
Their prominent geostrategic positions enabled their residents to maintain
direct contact and exchanges with Knossos, Amnisos, and Chersonesos, as
well as with the Lasithi plateau and, via the Selinari gorge, with Gournia,
Palaikastro, and Zakros in East Crete. This is likely one of the reasons for
their continuing significance after the destruction of their palatial centers
as well as after the collapse of the palace of Knossos in LM IIIA2.138 Sissi
also had two natural harbor facilities on both sides of the Kephali hill and
the advantage of an elevated defensive position that overlooked and enabled
its residents to control the east–west coastal route from Milatos to Malia
and the land route to East Crete via the Selinari gorge.139
It seems likely that in the Final Palatial period both Malia and Sissi
were frequented by individuals or groups who, likely through Knossos,
participated in a pan-Aegean network that encompassed prestige items
and craft, imports, and a common visual language that involved and pre-
supposed shared sociocultural traits and narratives.140 Their engagement
would not only have been of economic significance but perhaps even more
importantly, could have involved an ideological and symbolic aspect.141
Accordingly, the lapis lacedaemonius seals at Sissi and Malia may have
served as instruments of the palatial power that was exerted at these sites
when they were functioning as important satellites of Knossos during the
Final Palatial period. Alongside other elements of material culture, like
fine-ware pottery and related consumption practices, the seals possibly
presented a means for Knossos to systematically secure its political, but
also ideological, supremacy by homogenizing items of material culture and
thus advocating a collective identity among regional elites. Likely controlled

134. Liard 2019, pp. 198–199, 206.
135. Liard 2019, p. 198.
136. See Preston 2004, p. 323;
Langohr 2017a, pp. 19–20; 2017b,
pp. 235–236; 2019, pp. 36–37.
LM IIIB Sissi and Malia, however,
continue to prosper after the final
destruction of Knossos; see Langohr
2009, p. 220.
137. See Langohr 2019, pp. 37–56;
2022, on eastern Cretan patterns in
LM II–IIIB.
138. Driessen and Farnoux 1997,
p. 68.
139. See Driessen 2009, p. 20;
2021b, p. 687; Liard 2019, pp. 170, 173.
140. This observation not only
applies to seals but also to other
elements of material culture in the
Late Bronze Age Aegean; see van
Wijngaarden 2016, pp. 353–356, with
references; Langohr 2019, pp. 34–35.
141. See Wright 1995, p. 68.
378 Diana Wol f

through a high-ranking administrator or chief sent from the palace,142 this

system was part of a connection that lasted until late LM IIIA2. These ties
disintegrated in the advanced phase, or shortly after, breaking the nodes of
the network into small, mostly self-contained units.143
This political disintegration may possibly explain why the lapis lacedae-
monius lentoid seals at Sissi and Malia, both in close reach of the former
Knossian center, went out of use in the wake of this disruption. If we accept
the suggestion that these seals represented tokens of political authority, then
the loss of the integrative political center of Knossos could have resulted in
a loss of the seals’ authoritative function and significance at these suggested
satellite sites. Whether these specific local circumstances at Sissi and Malia
contributed to the seals not ending up as prestige burial goods,144 unlike
most of their conspecifics of the LM II–IIIA stylized-naturalistic group, or
whether they were left behind for other, perhaps urgent, reasons, remains
an open question for the moment.
The study of the Sissi Genius Lentoid in the context of LM II–III lapis
lacedaemonius seals, then, and the extant contextual evidence for these,
appears to repeatedly allocate the material group to high-ranking mem-
bers of (Cretan as well as mainland) society. Some of the seals should date
earlier than their find contexts and may therefore possibly have been in use
for many years. Nevertheless, many, if not all, are in a very good state of
preservation, which indicates that they were treated with care and perhaps
only used occasionally. Some of the seals—among them the Sissi Genius
Lentoid—are in a good condition, and they therefore may not have been
worn at all or only rarely used for sphragistic purposes, while a smaller
number shows more obvious signs of wear, possibly due to repeated use
over a span of time.145 The general picture seems to suggest that these seals
were not mere sphragistic tools. They must have been, following Voutsaki’s
definition of prestige items, “socially exclusive, politically loaded, and ideo-
logically significant,”146 but also imbued with personal value. These symbolic
qualities and values rendered the seals not only a medium of elite display
but also personal tokens and, in many cases, suitable grave goods.
142. Driessen and Langohr 2007,
pp. 178, 185; Driessen and Mouthuy
2022, p. 79. Regarding the chiefdom
CO N C LU S I O N S : S I S S I A N D T H E G EN I U S
concept, see Wright 1995.
143. See Preston 2004, p. 323;
This study has established that the Sissi Genius Lentoid constituted an item Langohr 2019, p. 35; Driessen 2021a,
of elite material culture: on the one hand, its rare material and high-quality p. 719.
artisanship would have made it socially exclusive and, on the other, the 144. It should be noted that an
extra-ordinary emblematic imagery of the lentoid, which is typical for the original deposition in a grave and
subsequent looting of the seal cannot
material group to which it belongs, would have arguably had ideological, be ruled out entirely ( J. Driessen, pers.
religious, and political implications. Moreover, the contextualization of the comm., June 2021).
group of lapis lacedaemonius seals and the imagery of the Minoan genius 145. See, e.g., CMS I, no. 115;
has an intimate connection with elites, often with a focus on powerful CMS II.3, no. 306; CMS VII, nos. 124,
centers. This suggests that the Sissi Genius Lentoid was charged with an 138.
146. Voutsaki 2001, p. 195.
ideological meaning that extended beyond its economic and craft-related
147. Anastasiadou 2018, p. 322.
aspects. These considerations provide a new perspective on the seals found Anastasiadou (2022, pp. 609–612)
earlier at Sissi, which were initially thought to display “a rather ‘provincial’ presents an update on this preliminary
character.”147 evaluation.
The Sissi Geni us Lentoid 379

As argued in this article, the seal probably belonged to a privileged,

high-ranking member of Final Palatial Minoan society and constituted a
socially restricted prestige item. The Sissi Genius Lentoid demonstrates the
connection of the individual or group active at LM II–IIIA1/2 Sissi with
social representatives throughout north Cretan sites and on the mainland.
These had several shared characteristics: access to a network dealing with
precious materials, command over advanced technologies, and a common
visual vocabulary that expressed shared ideas attached to the supernatural
world. The distribution of sites that have yielded lapis lacedaemonius seals
demonstrates the spatial extension of shared semiotics (expressed in the
common visual vocabulary) and artistic conventions (amounting to a style)
that resulted from Final Palatial political geographies. Knossos appears as
the likely center of this network on the island of Crete—commanding vast
amounts of the raw material but also being the most frequently reported
provenance for the stylized-naturalistic subgroup of extra-ordinary im-
ages, to which the Sissi Genius Lentoid belongs. Sites that have yielded
only one or two lapis lacedaemonius seals, such as Sissi and Malia, could
have formed nodes within this network, possibly as Knossian bridgeheads
that circulated materials, goods, and craft expertise while controlling the
hinterlands of Final Palatial Knossos at the same time. The authorities at
Sissi had to demonstrate a social standing that enabled the admission to this
wealth economy, and this was possibly only feasible through their political
and economic affiliation with the palace of Knossos. Accordingly, the Sissi
Genius Lentoid could have been an instrument of this palatial power that
consequently lost its significance after the final destruction of Knossos and
the resulting political fragmentation of the landscape.
In conclusion, this glyptic approach suggests that a high-ranking so-
ciopolitical entity was active at Sissi in the Final Palatial period. Its mem-
bers had access to the socially restricted economic network that circulated
prestigious materials and state-of-the-art technology. While this network
was probably not controlled by the entities at Sissi, these nevertheless seem
to have participated in pan-Aegean elite discourses on the scale of peer
interaction between other subordinate nodes within the same network
that controlled the circulation of prestigious goods.148 What is more, the
Sissi Genius Lentoid testifies to its bearer’s embeddedness within these
discourses: the seal’s iconography does not simply copy recurrent motifs but
draws on the established iconography of LM II–III stylized-naturalistic
hard stone seals, combining multiple elements of extra-ordinary, emblem-
atic imagery. The result is a highly condensed medley of established motifs
brought together in a single piece of Final Palatial artisanship, a prestige
item that offers further evidence for a more prominent role of the Minoan
settlement on the Sissi Kephali than hitherto accounted for.

148. This does not imply a homo- sociocultural commonalities that can be
geneity of the participants within these traced throughout the material records
discourses but emphasizes the set of at different Cretan and mainland sites.
380
R EF ER EN C E S
Anastasiadou, M. 2012a. “The Exca-
vation of Zone 3: A Note on the
Seals,” in Driessen et al. 2012,
pp. 76–77.
———. 2012b. “The Excavation of
Zone 4: A Note on the Seals,” in
Driessen et al. 2012, pp. 113–115.
———. 2012c. “A Sealstone from
Compartment 9.4,” in Driessen
et al. 2012, pp. 50–51.
———. 2015. “The Seals,” in Kalocho-
rafitis: Two Chamber Tombs from the
LM IIIA2–B Cemetery. A Contribu-
tion to Postpalatial Funerary Practice
in the Mesara, ed. A. Karetsou and
L. Girella, Padua, pp. 257–276.
———. 2018. “The Seals, ‘Sealing,’ and
Some Enigmatic Clay Objects,” in
Driessen et al. 2018, pp. 317–329.
———. 2022. “The Seals, Sealings,
and Other Clay Objects from the
2017–2019 Campaigns at Sissi,” in
Excavations at Sissi V: Preliminary
Report on the 2017–2019 Cam-
paigns 2 (Aegis 21), ed. J. Driessen,
Louvain-la-Neuve, pp. 599–618.
Aravantinos, V. 2004. “Medeon (das
antike), Phokis,” in CMS V, Suppl.
3.2, p. 547.
Bintliff, J. L. 2008. “The Regional
Geology and Early Settlement of
the Helos Plain,” in Ayios Stephanos:
Excavations at a Bronze Age and
Medieval Settlement in Southern
Laconia (BSA Suppl. 44), ed. W. D.
Taylour and R. Janko, London,
pp. 527–550.
Blakolmer, F. 2015a. “The Many-Faced
‘Minoan Genius’ and His Icono-
graphical Prototype Taweret: On
the Character of Near Eastern
Religious Motifs in Neopalatial
Crete,” in There and Back Again:
The Crossroads II. Proceedings of an
International Conference Held in
Prague, September 15–18, 2014,
ed. J. Mynářová, P. Onderka, and
P. Pavúk, Prague, pp. 199–219.
———. 2015b. “Was the ‘Minoan
Genius’ a God? An Essay on Near
Eastern Deities and Demons in
Aegean Bronze Age Iconography,”
Journal of Ancient Egyptian Intercon-
nections 7.3, pp. 29–40.
———. 2016. “Il buono, il brutto, il
cattivo? Character, Symbolism,
and Hierarchy of Animals and
Diana Wol f
Supernatural Creatures in Minoan
and Mycenaean Iconography,” Cret­
Ant 17 [2018], pp. 97–183.
Boloti, T. 2016. “A ‘Knot’-Bearing(?)
Minoan Genius from Pylos: Con-
tribution to the Cloth/Clothing
Offering Imagery of the Aegean
Late Bronze Age,” in Metaphysis:
Ritual, Myth, and Symbolism in the
Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the
15th International Aegean Confer-
ence, Vienna, Institute for Oriental
and European Archaeology, Aegean
and Anatolia Department, Austrian
Academy of Sciences and Institute of
Classical Archaeology, University of
Vienna, 22–25 April 2014 (Aegaeum
39), ed. E. Alram-Stern, F. Bla-
kolmer, S. Deger-Jalkotzy, R. Laf-
fineur, and J. Weilhartner, Leuven,
pp. 505–510.
Chapouthier, F. 1947. “Sur une intaille
minoenne inédite,” RÉA 49,
pp. 22–24.
CMS = Corpus der minoischen und
mykenischen Siegel, 1964–
I = A. Sakellariou, ed., Die
minoischen und mykenischen Siegel des
Nationalmuseums in Athen, Berlin
1964.
I, Suppl. = J. A. Sakellarakis, ed.,
Athen Nationalmuseum, Berlin 1982.
II.3 = N. Platon and I. Pini, eds.,
Iraklion Archäologisches Museum:
Die Siegel der Neupalastzeit, Mainz
1984.
II.4 = N. Platon and I. Pini, eds.,
Iraklion Archäologisches Museum.
A: Die Siegel der Nachpalastzeit.
B: Undatierbare spätminoische Siegel,
Mainz 1985.
II.8 = M. A. V. Gill, W. Müller,
and I. Pini, eds., Iraklion Archäo-
logisches Museum: Die Siegelabdrücke
von Knossos. Unter Einbeziehung von
Funden aus anderen Museen, 2 vols.,
Mainz 2002.
III = W. Müller and I. Pini, eds.,
Iraklion Archäologisches Museum:
Sammlung Giamalakis, 2 vols.,
Mainz 2007.
IV = J. A. Sakellarakis and
V. E. G. Kenna, eds., Iraklion:
Sammlung Metaxas, Mainz 1969.
V = I. Pini, ed., Kleinere grie-
chische Sammlungen, 2 vols., Berlin
1975.

V, Suppl. 1A = I. Pini, ed., Klei-
nere griechische Sammlungen: Ägina–
Korinth, Berlin 1992.
V, Suppl. 1B = I. Pini, ed.,
Kleinere griechische Sammlungen:
Lamia–Zakynthos und weitere Län-
der des Ostmittelmeerraums, Berlin
1993.
V, Suppl. 3 = I. Pini, ed., Kleinere
griechische Sammlungen: Neufunde
aus Griechenland und der westlichen
Türkei, 2 vols., Berlin 2004.
VI = H. Hughes-Brock and
J. Boardman, eds., Oxford: The
Ashmolean Museum, 2 vols., Mainz
2009.
VII = V. E. G. Kenna, ed., Die
englischen Museen II, Mainz 1967.
VIII = V. E. G. Kenna, ed., Die
englischen Privatsammlungen, Mainz
1966.
IX = H. van Effenterre and
M. van Effenterre, eds., Paris: Cabi-
net des Médailles, Mainz 1972.
X = J. H. Betts, ed., Die schweizer
Sammlungen, Mainz 1980.
XI = I. Pini, ed., Kleinere europäi-
sche Sammlungen, Berlin 1988.
XII = V. E. G. Kenna, ed., Nor-
damerika I: New York, The Metropoli-
tan Museum of Art, Mainz 1972.
XIII = V. E. G. Kenna and
E. Thomas, eds., Nordamerika II:
Kleinere Sammlungen, Mainz 1974.
Daux, G. 1967. “Chronique des fouilles
et découvertes archéologiques en
Grèce en 1966,” BCH 91, pp. 623–
889.
Dickers, A. 2001. Die spätmykenischen
Siegel aus weichem Stein: Unter-
suchungen zur spätbronzezeitlichen
Glyptik auf dem griechischen Festland
und in der Ägäis (Internationale
Archäologie 33), Rahden.
Driessen, J. 2009. “Excavations on the
Kephali at Sissi: Introduction,” in
Excavations at Sissi: Preliminary
Report on the 2007–2008 Cam-
paigns (Aegis 1), J. Driessen,
I. Schoep, F. Carpentier, I. Creve-
coeur, M. Devolder, F. Gaignerot-
Driessen, P. Hacıgüzeller, S. Jusseret,
C. Langohr, Q. Letesson, and
A. Schmitt, Louvain, pp. 19–36.
———. 2016. “A New Ceremonial
Centre at Sissi (Nomos Lassi-
thiou),” in Πεπραγμένα ΙB′ Διεθνοῦς
Κρητολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου, Ηράκλειο
από 21–25 Σεπτεμβρίου 2016,
The Sissi Geni us Lentoid
https://12iccs.proceedings.gr/en
/proceedings/category/38/32/159.
———. 2018a. “Continued Excava-
tion of the Court-Centred Building
at Sissi,” in Driessen et al. 2018,
pp. 151–153.
———. 2018b. “Excavations at Sissi,
2015–2016,” in Driessen et al. 2018,
pp. 31–42.
———. 2021a. “Coping with a
Changed Mediterranean in the
13th c. b.c. Cretan Countryside:
Evidence from Sissi,” in Η περι-
φέρεια του μυκηναϊκού κόσμου:
Πρόσφατα ευρήματα και πορίσματα
της έρευνας: 3rd International
Interdisciplinary Colloquium, 18–21
May, Lamia 2018, ed. E. Karantzali,
Athens, pp. 711–722.
———. 2021b. “Revisiting the Minoan
Palaces: Ritual Commensality at
Sissi,” Antiquity 95, pp. 686–704.
Driessen, J., M. Anastasiadou, I. Caloi,
T. Claeys, S. Déderix, M. Devolder,
S. Jusseret, C. Langohr, Q. Letesson,
I. Mathioudaki, O. Mouthuy, and
A. Schmitt, eds., 2018. Excavations
at Sissi IV: Preliminary Report on the
2015–2016 Campaigns (Aegis 13),
Louvain-la-Neuve.
Driessen, J., and A. Farnoux. 1994a.
“Malia,” BCH 118, pp. 471–477.
———. 1994b. “Mycenaeans at Malia?”
Aegean Archaeology 1, pp. 54–64.
———. 1997. “Malia et la Crète de
l’âge du bronze: Malia à l’époque
mycénienne,” Dossiers d’Archéologie
222, pp. 66–70.
———. 2004. “Mállia, Quartier Nu,” in
CMS III.1, p. 96.
Driessen, J., and H. Fiasse. 2011.
“‘Burning down the House’: Defin-
ing the Household of Quartier Nu
at Malia Using GIS,” in Στέγα: The
Archaeology of Houses and House-
holds in Ancient Crete (Hesperia
Suppl. 44), ed. K. T. Glowacki and
N. Vogeikoff-Brogan, Princeton,
pp. 285–296.
Driessen, J., H. Fiasse, M. Devolder,
P. Hacıgüzeller, and Q. Letesson.
2008. “Recherches spatiales au
Quartier Nu à Malia (MR III),”
CretAnt 9, pp. 93–110.
Driessen, J., and C. Langohr. 2007.
“Rallying ‘Round a Minoan’ Past:
The Legitimation of Power at
Knossos during the Late Bronze
Age,” in Rethinking Mycenaean
381
Palaces II, ed. M. L. Galaty and
W. A. Parkinson, Los Angeles,
pp. 178–189.
Driessen, J., and O. Mouthuy. 2022.
“The Late Minoan II–IIIA2
Kingdom of Knossos as Reflected
by Its Linear B Archives,” in One
State, Many Worlds: Crete in the
Late Minoan II–IIIA2 Early Period.
Proceedings of an International Con-
ference, Khania, Μεγάλο Αρσενάλι,
21st–23rd November 2019 (SMEA
n.s.), ed. A. L. D’Agata, L. Girella,
E. Papadopoulou, and D. G. Aquini,
Rome, pp. 71–84.
Driessen, J., I. Schoep, M. Anas-
tasiadou, F. Carpentier, I. Creve-
coeur, S. Déderix, M. Devolder,
F. Gaignerot-Driessen, S. Jusseret,
C. Langohr, Q. Letesson, F. Liard,
A. Schmitt, C. Tsoraki, and R. Vero-
poulidou, eds. 2012. Excavations at
Sissi III: Preliminary Report on the
2011 Campaign (Aegis 6), Louvain-
la-Neuve.
École française d’Athènes. 1967.
“Médéon,” ArchDelt 22, B′1 [1968],
p. 257.
Evans, A. 1935. The Palace of Minos at
Knossos: A Comparative Account of the
Successive Stages of the Early Cretan
Civilization as Illustrated by the
Discoveries at Knossos IV.2: Camp-
Stool Fresco, Long-Robed Priests, and
Beneficent Genii; Chryselephantine
Boy-God and Ritual Hair-Offering;
Intaglio Types, MM III–LM II,
Late Hoards of Sealings, Deposits
of Inscribed Tablets, and the Pal-
ace Stores; Linear Script B and Its
Mainland Extension, Closing Palatial
Phase; Room of Throne and Final
Catastrophe, London.
Farnoux, A. 1997. “Malia au Minoen
Récent II–IIIA1,” in La Crète
mycénienne: Actes de la table ronde
internationale organisée par l’École
française d’Athènes (BCH Suppl. 30),
ed. J. Driessen and A. Farnoux,
Athens, pp. 135–147.
Furtwängler, A. 1900. Die antiken Gem-
men: Geschichte der Steinschneidekunst
im Klassischen Altertum, Leipzig.
Jusseret, S. 2011. “The Excavation of
Zones 6 and 7,” in Excavations at
Sissi II: Preliminary Report on the
2009–2010 Campaigns (Aegis 4), ed.
J. Driessen, I. Schoep, F. Carpentier,
I. Crevecoeur, M. Devolder,
382
F. Gaignerot-Driessen,
P. Hacıgüzeller, V. Isaakidou,
S. Jusseret, C. Langohr, Q. Letesson,
and A. Schmitt, Louvain-la-Neuve,
pp. 163–178.
———. 2012. “The Excavation of
Zone 6,” in Driessen et al. 2012,
pp. 135–154.
Kanta, A. 1980. The Late Minoan III
Period in Crete: A Survey of Sites,
Pottery, and Their Distribution
(SIMA 58), Gothenburg.
Kenna, V. E. G. 1960. Cretan Seals,
Oxford.
Koehl, R. B. 2016. “The Ambiguity of
the Minoan Mind,” in Metaphysis:
Ritual, Myth, and Symbolism in the
Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the
15th International Aegean Confer-
ence, Vienna, Institute for Oriental
and European Archaeology, Aegean
and Anatolia Department, Austrian
Academy of Sciences and Institute of
Classical Archaeology, University of
Vienna, 22–25 April 2014 (Aegaeum
39), ed. E. Alram-Stern, F. Blakol-
mer, S. Deger-Jalkotzy, R. Laf-
fineur, and J. Weilhartner, Leuven,
pp. 469–478.
Kolonas, L. 1993. “Patras, Voundeni,”
in CMS V, Suppl. 1B, pp. 161–163,
167–175.
Koutsovitis, P., C. Kanellopoulos,
S. Passa, K. Foni, E. Tsapara,
G. Oikonomou, N. Xirokostas,
K. Vallianatou, and E. Mouxiou.
2016. “Mineralogical, Petrologi-
cal, and Geochemical Features of
the Unique Lapis Lacedaemonius
(Krokeatis Lithos) from Laconia,
Greece: Approach on Petroge-
netic Processes within the Triassic
Volcanic Context,” in Proceedings of
the 14th International Congress, Thes-
saloniki, May 2016 (Bulletin of the
Geological Society of Greece 50),
ed. Geological Society of Greece,
pp. 1903–1912, http://dx.doi
.org/10.12681/bgsg.14235.
Krzyszkowska, O. 2005. Aegean Seals:
An Introduction, London.
———. 2019. “Changing Percep-
tions of the Past: The Role of
Antique Seals in Minoan Crete,”
in ΜNHMH / MNEME: Past and
Memory in the Aegean Bronze Age.
Proceedings of the 17th International
Diana Wol f
Aegean Conference, University of
Udine, Department of Humanities
and Cultural Heritage, Ca’ Foscari
University of Venice, Department
of Humanities, 17–21 April 2018
(Aegaeum 43), ed. E. Borgna,
I. Caloi, F. M. Carinci, and R. Laf-
fineur, Leuven, pp. 487–496.
Langohr, C. 2009. Περιφέρεια: Étude
régionale de la Crète aux Minoen
Récent II–IIIB (1450–1200 av.
J.-C.). 1: La Crète centrale et occiden-
tale (Aegis 3), Louvain-la-Neuve.
———. 2011. “La céramique
MM IIIB–MR IIIB de Sissi:
Quelques dépôts et ensembles
notoires,” in Excavations at Sissi II:
Preliminary Report on the 2009–2010
Campaigns (Aegis 4), ed. J. Driessen,
I. Schoep, F. Carpentier, I. Creve-
coeur, M. Devolder, F. Gaignerot-
Driessen, P. Hacıgüzeller, V. Isaak­
idou, S. Jusseret, C. Langohr,
Q. Letesson, and A. Schmitt,
Louvain-la-Neuve, pp. 179–196.
———. 2012. “Observations on Some
Late Minoan Pottery from Sissi,” in
Driessen et al. 2012, pp. 155–168.
———. 2017a. “The Late Minoan IIIB
Phase on Crete: The State of Play
and Future Perspectives,” in How
Long Is a Century? Late Minoan IIIB
Pottery: Relative Chronology and
Regional Differences (Aegis 12), ed.
C. Langohr, Louvain-la-Neuve,
pp. 11–35.
———. 2017b. “Late Minoan IIIB
Pottery at Sissi and Malia: Assess-
ing Local Ceramic Sequences,
Regional Traditions, and Inter-
regional Interaction,” in How Long
Is a Century? Late Minoan IIIB
Pottery: Relative Chronology and
Regional Differences (Aegis 12), ed.
C. Langohr, Louvain-la-Neuve,
pp. 193–242.
———. 2019. “Living Apart Together:
A Ceramic Analysis of Eastern
Crete during the Advanced Late
Bronze Age,” Journal of Greek
Archaeology 4, pp. 31–66.
———. 2021. “Neopalatial and Final
Palatial Ceramic Assemblages at
Sissi (Crete): New Evidence and
Current Issues,” in Excavations at
Sissi V: Preliminary Report on the
2017–2019 Campaigns 2 (Aegis 21),

ed. J. Driessen, Louvain-la-Neuve,
pp. 499–523.
———. 2022. “Cultural Transforma-
tion and Continuity in East Crete
during LM II–IIIA2 Early: A
Ceramic Perspective,” in One State,
Many Worlds: Crete in the Late
Minoan II–IIIA2 Early Period. Pro-
ceedings of an International Confer-
ence, Khania, Μεγάλο Αρσενάλι,
21st–23rd November 2019 (SMEA
n.s.), ed. A. L. D’Agata, L. Girella,
E. Papadopoulou, and D. G. Aquini,
pp. 251–271.
Liangouras, A. 1993. “Anthia, Flur
Ellinika,” in CMS V, Suppl. 1B,
p. 137.
Liard. F. 2019. “Pottery Traditions in
Northeastern Crete after the Fall
of the Minoan Palatial Systems: A
Petrographic Approach at Malia
and Sissi,” AJA 123, pp. 169–212.
McGowan, E. 2012. Ambiguity and
Minoan Neopalatial Seal Imagery
(SIMA-PB 176), Uppsala.
Müller, W. 2000. “Experimentelle Ver-
suche mit zwei vom Fiedelbogen
angetriebenen Geräten zur Bearbei-
tung von Siegelsteinen,” in Minoisch-
Mykenische Glyptik: Stil, Ikono-
graphie, Funktion. V. Internationales
Siegel-Symposium, Marburg, 23.–25.
September 1999 (CMS Beiheft 6), ed.
I. Pini, Berlin, pp. 195–202.
———. 2007. “Zur Bestimmung des
Materials der Siegel,” in CMS III.1,
pp. 11–22.
———. 2011. “Seals Made of Lapis
Lacedaemonius: Methodological
Considerations on Style, Technique,
and Provenance,” in Πεπραγμένα
Ι΄ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνε-
δρίου, Χανιά, 1–8 Οκτωβρίου 2006,
A′1, ed. M. Andreadaki-Vlazaki
and E. Papadopoulou, Chania,
pp. 421–435.
Niemeier, W. -D. 1997. “Cretan Glyptic
Arts in LM I–III: Continuity and
Changes,” in La Crète mycénienne:
Actes de la table ronde internatio-
nale organisée par l’École française
d’Athènes (BCH Suppl. 30), ed.
J. Driessen and A. Farnoux, Athens,
pp. 297–311.
Onassoglou, A. 1985. Die “talismani-
schen” Siegel (CMS Beiheft 2),
Berlin.
The Sissi Geni us Lentoid
Papadopoulou, E. 2011. “Νέα δεδομένα
από το υστερομινωικό νεκροταφείο
στο Μαρουλά Ρεθύμνης,” in
Πεπραγμένα Ι΄ Διεθνούς Κρητολο-
γικού Συνεδρίου, Χανιά, 1–8 Οκτω-
βρίου 2006 A′2, ed. M. Andreadaki-
Vlazaki and E. Papadopoulou,
Chania, pp. 609–633.
———. 2017. “LM III Mortuary
Practices in West Crete: The Cem-
eteries of Maroulas and Armenoi
near Rethymnon,” SMEA n.s. 3,
pp. 131–157.
Paraskevopoulos, G. M. 1965. “Über
die Entstehungsbedingungen des
Andesits ‘Porfido Verde Antico’ im
südöstlichen Zentral-Peloponnes,”
Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie,
Abhandlungen 103, pp. 293–304.
Persson, A. W. 1931. The Royal Tombs at
Dendra near Midea, Lund.
Pini, I. 1981. “Echt oder Falsch? Einige
Fälle,” in Studien zur minoischen und
helladischen Glyptik: Beiträge zum
2. Marburger Siegel-Symposium, 26.–
30. September 1978 (CMS Beiheft 1),
ed. I. Pini, Berlin, pp. 135–157.
———. 1997. Die Tonplomben aus dem
Nestorpalast von Pylos, Mainz.
———. 2000. “Der Cut-Style in der
spätbronzezeitlichen ägäischen
Glyptik,” in Munus: Festschrift für
Hans Wiegartz, ed. T. Mattern and
D. Kroll, Münster, pp. 209–220.
Pini, I., and N. Platon. 1985. “Gournes,”
in CMS II.4, p. 201.
Preston, L. 2004. “A Mortuary Perspec-
tive on Political Changes in Late
Minoan II–IIIB Crete,” AJA 108,
pp. 321–348.
Rehak, P. 1995. “The ‘Genius’ in Late
Bronze Age Glyptic: The Later
Evolution of an Aegean Cult Fig-
ure,” in Sceaux minoens et mycéniens:
IV e symposium international, 10–12
septembre 1992, Clermont-Ferrand
(CMS Beiheft 5), ed. I. Pini and
J.-C. Poursat, Berlin, pp. 215–231.
Rosenfeld, A. 1965. The Inorganic Raw
Materials of Antiquity, London.
Rutter, J. 2006. “Multivalent Symbol-
ism on a Late Minoan II Beaked
Jug from Kommos,” in Πεπραγμένα
Θ΄ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνε-
δρίου, Ελούντα, 1–6 Οκτωβρίου 2001
A′3, ed. E. Tambakaki and A. Kalou-
sakis, Heraklion, pp. 131–146.
383
Sakellariou, A. 1964. “Midea, Kuppel-
grab,” in CMS I, p. 206.
Sambin, C. 1989. “Génie minoen et
génie égyptien, un emprunt rai-
sonné,” BCH 113, pp. 77–96.
Sperber, D. 1975. “Pourquoi les
animaux parfaits, les hybrides et
les monstres sont-ils bons à penser
symboliquement?” Homme 15.2,
pp. 5–34.
———. 1985. “Anthropology and
Psychology: Towards an Epidemiol-
ogy of Representations,” Man n.s.,
20, pp. 73–89.
———. 1996. “Why are Perfect Ani-
mals, Hybrids, and Monsters Food
for Symbolic Thought?” Method and
Theory in the Study of Religion 8,
pp. 143–169.
Stocker, S. R., and J. L. Davis. 2017.
“The Combat Agate from the Grave
of the Griffin Warrior at Pylos,”
Hesperia 86, pp. 583–605.
Tsountas, C. 1888. “Ανασκαφαί τάφων
εν Μυκήναις,” ArchEph 6 [1889],
pp. 119–180.
Tzedakis, G. 1971. “Αρχαιότητες και
μνημεία Κρήτης,” ArchDelt 26, B′2
[1975], pp. 508–517.
van Wijngaarden, G. J. 2016. “Foreign
Affairs: Diplomacy, Trade, War, and
Migration in the Mycenaean Medi-
terranean (1400–1100 b.c.),” in Ra-
pi-ne-u: Studies on the Mycenaean
World Offered to Robert Laffineur
for His 70th Birthday (Aegis 10),
ed. J. Driessen, Louvain-la-Neuve,
pp. 349–363.
Voutsaki, S. 2001. “Economic Control,
Power, and Prestige in the Myce-
naean World: The Archaeological
Evidence,” in Economy and Politics in
the Mycenaean Palace States: Proceed-
ings of a Conference Held on 1–3 July
1999 in the Faculty of Classics, Cam-
bridge, ed. S. Voutsaki and J. Killen,
Cambridge, pp. 195–213.
Warren, P. 1969. Minoan Stone Vases,
Cambridge.
———. 1992. “Lapis Lacedaemonius,”
in Φιλολακων: Laconian Stud-
ies in Honour of Hector Catling, ed.
J. M. Sanders, London, pp. 285–
296.
———. 2010. “The Absolute Chro-
nology of the Aegean circa
2000 b.c.–1400 b.c.: A Summary,”
384
in Die Bedeutung der minoischen
und mykenischen Glyptik: VI. Inter-
nationales Siegel-Symposium aus
Anlass des 50-jährigen Bestehens des
CMS Marburg, 9.–12. Oktober 2008
(CMS Beiheft 8), ed. W. Müller,
Mainz, pp. 383–394.
Weingarten, J. 1991. The Transformation
of Egyptian Taweret into the Minoan
Genius (SIMA 88), Partille.
Wengrow, D. 2011. “Cognition, Mate-
riality, and Monsters: The Cultural
Transmission of Counter-Intuitive
Forms in Bronze Age Societies,”
Journal of Material Culture 16,
pp. 131–149.
Wolf, D. 2019. Monsters and the Mind:
Composite Creatures and Social Cog-
nition in Aegean Bronze Age Glyptic
(Daidalos 9), Heidelberg.
———. 2020. “Embodying Change?
Homosomatic Hybridity as Trans-
formational Response in LM II/III
Crete,” Fontes Archaeologici Posna-
nienses 56, pp. 57–66.
Wright, J. C. 1995. “From Chief to
King in Mycenaean Society,” in The
Role of the Ruler in the Prehistoric
Aegean (Aegaeum 11), ed. P. Rehak,
Liège, pp. 63–80.
Younger, J. G. 1976. “Bronze Age
Representations of Aegean Bull-
Leaping,” AJA 80, pp. 125–137.
Diana Wolf
Univ ersit é c at hol iq ue de Lo uvain
inst itut de s c iv il isat ions, art s e t l e t t r e s
pl ac e bl aise pasc al 1, bt e l3.03.01
1348 l o uvain-l a-neuv e
bel g i um
diana.wolf@uclouvain.be
Diana Wol f
———. 1986. “Aegean Seals of the
Late Bronze Age: Stylistic Groups
V. Minoan Groups Contempo-
rary with LM IIIA1,” Kadmos 25,
pp. 119–140.
———. 1987. “Aegean Seals of
the Late Bronze Age: Stylistic
Groups VI. Fourteenth-Century
Mainland and Later Fourteenth-
Century Cretan Workshops,”
Kadmos 26, pp. 44–73.
———. 2000. “The Spectacle-Eyes
Group: Continuity and Innovation
for the First Mycenaean Admin-
istration at Knossos,” in Minoisch-
Mykenische Glyptik: Stil, Ikono-
graphie, Funktion. V. Internationales
Siegel-Symposium, Marburg, 23.–25.
September 1999 (CMS Beiheft 6), ed.
I. Pini, Berlin, pp. 347–360.
Zezza, U., and L. Lazzarini. 2002.
“Krokeatis Lithos (Lapis Lace-
daemonius): Source, History of
Use, Scientific Characterization,”
in Interdisciplinary Studies on
Ancient Stone: Proceedings of the
Sixth International Conference of the
Association for the Study of Marble
and Other Stones in Antiquity, Venice,
June 15–18 2000 (ASMOSIA VI),
ed. L. Lazzarini, Padua, pp. 259–
264.