at Satricum, countering the “viewpoint that Oriental or n. 194 for further discussion of ducks in amber.) Such objects Orientalising figurative amulets had only a very generic support the hypothesis that amber was traded with the south apotropaic function in Italy … and [that] they would not have in both finished and unfinished forms. H. Hughes-Brock, been understood by the native population. Related to this “Mycenaean Beads: Gender and Social Contexts,” Oxford viewpoint is an explicit reluctance against any interpretation Journal of Archaeology 18, no. 3 (August 1999): 293, suggests, which takes nonmaterial, sc. religious, aspects into account. “Some imports probably arrived with the specialist processes Even the symbol of the nude female is frequently denied a already completed nearer the source, e.g., preliminary removal specific meaning.” D’Ercole 1995, p. 268, n. 19, suggests that of the crust of Baltic amber.” Why not finished objects? beliefs surrounding amber, other than fashion or taste, might 13. S. Eitrem, Opferritus und Voropfer der Griechen und Röme (1915; explain the long-continuing repetition of subjects among repr., Hildesheim and New York, 1977), p. 194, discusses the certain groups of figured ambers. Mastrocinque 1991, p. 78, n. amuletic virtues of amber in Rome. 247, notes the supranormal aspects of figured amber, drawing attention to the relationship of the subject and the animating, 14. K. Benzel, in Beyond Babylon 2008, p. 25, with reference to pp. electrical properties of amber. The amuletic, magical, or 350–52 in the same catalogue. Benzel cites J. Spacy, “Emblems apotropaic properties of pre-Roman amber objects are noted in Rituals in the Old Babylonian Period,” in Ritual and Sacrifice in by S. Bianco, A. Mastrocinque, A. Russo, and M. Tagliente in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the International Conference Magie d’ambra 2005, passim; Haynes 2000, pp. 45, 100 ; A. Organized by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 17–20 April 1991, Russo in Treasures 1998, p. 22 ; Bottini 1993, p. 65; Negroni Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 55, ed. J. Quaegebeur (Leuven, Catacchio 1989, p. 659 (and elsewhere); Fuscagni 1982, p. 110; 1993), pp. 411–20; Z. Bahrani, “The Babylonian Visual Image,” Hölbl 1979, vol. 1, pp. 229ff., who (as quoted by Waarsenburg in The Babylonian World, ed. G. Leick (New York and London, 1995) sees “all amulets [as having] had a similar, not exactly 2003), pp. 155–70; and Z. Bahrani, The Graven Image: defined magic power; possibly they served against natural Representation in Babylonia and Assyria (Philadelphia, 2003), p. dangers such as animal bites, or against supranatural dangers 127. See also H. Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12: A Commentary, trans. such as the evil eye”; La Genière 1961; Richter 1940, pp. 86, 88; T. H. Trapp (1991; repr., Minneapolis, 2002). andRE, vol. 3, part 1, esp. cols. 301–3, s.v. “Bernstein” (by Blümner). For the Mycenaean period, see Bouzek 1993, p, 141, 15. Amber itself, and most of the subjects of figured amber, have “who rightly insists first on the quasimagical properties of fertility aspects. Modern Westerners tend to discuss the fertility amber (not just the prestige),” as A. Sherratt notes in “Electric and fecundity beliefs and rites of earlier peoples in the context Gold: Reopening the Amber Route,” Archaeology 69 (1995): of an increase of humans, hunt animals, edible botanics, 200–203, his review of Beck and Bouzek 1993. Compare, agricultural products, and domesticated crops, which limits our however, the more cautious opinion of Hughes-Brock 1985, p. understanding of fertility imagery, both its making and its use. 259: “Most amber is in ordinary bead form; since it is That fertility magic was used to control reproduction (via, e.g., consistently found alongside standard beads of other birth spacing) as well as spur procreation was first brought to materials, we cannot prove that the Mycenaeans thought of it my attention by R. White (public lecture 1999). See White 2003 as having any special amuletic value.” (in n. 2, above), p. 58, where he cites G. H. Luquet, L’art néo- calédonien: Documents recueillis par Marius Archambault (Paris, 10. Eichholz 1962 is the edition used throughout this text. 1926), and P. Ucko and A. Rosenfeld, Paleolithic Cave Art 11. J. Evans, Magical Jewels of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, (London, 1967). Luquet was among the first to raise doubts Particularly in England (Oxford, 1922), p. 13. about the idea that Paleolithic peoples were motivated to increase human fecundity through magical acts. Ucko and 12. The subjects and forms of many pre-Roman figured ambers Rosenfeld were among the first to write that hunters and have precedents thousands of years older. The earliest gatherers are generally more interested in limiting population surviving animal and human subjects in amber from northern growth than in increasing it. Compare the discussion by J. Europe are dated to the eighth millennium; see, for example, Assante, “From Whores to Hierodules,” in Ancient Art and Its M. Iršenas, “Stone Age Figurines from the Baltic Area,” in Historiography, ed. A. A. Donohue and M. D. Fullerton Proceedings of the International Interdisciplinary Conference: (Cambridge, 2003), p. 26, where she contrasts “Yahweh’s Baltic Amber in the Natural Sciences, Archaeology and Applied Art, command to be fruitful and multiply, and the Bible’s emphasis ed. A. Butrimas (Vilnius, 2001), pp. 77–86; M. Ots, “Stone Age on progeny in general,” with the Mesopotamian “gods of Amber Finds in Estonia,” in Beck et al. 2003, pp. 96–107; M. prebiblical flood myths who did not destroy mankind because Irinas, “Elk Figurines in the Stone Age Art of the Baltic Area,” in they sinned but because they overpopulated and made too Prehistoric Art in the Baltic Region, ed. A. Butrimas (Vilnius, much noise.” Assante cites A. Kilmer, “The Mesopotamian 2000), pp. 93–105; and I. Loze, “Prehistoric Amber Ornaments Concept of Overpopulation and Its Solution as Reflected in the in the Baltic Region,” in Baltica 2000, pp. 18–19. An amber duck Mythology,” Orientalia, n.s., 41 (1972): 160–77. found in a Danish Paleolithic context of 6800–4000 B.C. is the 16. D. Frankfurter, Bryn Mawr Classical Review 1995.04.12 (review of earliest example of a pendant type popular in Greece and Italy Kotansky 1994). in the seventh century B.C. and first known in the eighth. (See Amber Magic? 11