THIRD CIVILIZATION—COPPER. 47 
Astoret, this goddess was fundamentally connected with the cult of the ancient 
Semitic religions of Arabia, Elam,* Chaldea, Assyria, and Asia Minor. These figures 
occur throughout these countries, and among Phenician colonies on the Mediter- 
ranean. She was worshiped also in Armenia and among the Hittites, whose racial 
affinities are still undetermined, and in II and III cities of Troy. Similar votives 
are found in the remains of neolithic and transitional cultures of southern Europe. 
Whether they all point back to a common Semitic origin or not, they are doubtless 
the expression of a very primitive idea of the All-mother, the giver of life and the 
nourisher, into whose care the dead are given. The expression of this fundamental 
character is common to the figurines wherever found; it is always shown in the 
realistically accentuated representation of the breasts, the navel, and the organs 
of generation. Beyond having these attributes in common, the treatment varies 
with different peoples. The next characteristic that is common to the greatest 
number of localities is that in which both hands are holding the breasts, as if to 
emphasize the nourishing function, or rest on the body below the breasts. Among 
the Phenicians the goddess, besides the characteristics just mentioned, is frequently 
accompanied by doves, or holds the lunar disk as an attribute of the Semitic 
moon-goddess, as in Chaldea she favors the crescent-shaped horn of the cow or bull. 
And these figurines are frequently accompanied by figures of the cow or bull, 
recalling the cow sacred to Hera. These representations are often reduced to the 
simplest form, as in Troy, where frequently only the eyes and nose with mere 
indications of the breasts and hands occur, made in the most rudimentary manner 
on vases. Again, in many of the neolithic sites of the Mediterranean a more 
or less developed steatopygous character is given, often comparable to the form 
of the ‘‘Hottentot Venus.’ Lastly, it is not unusual to find figures on which 
the arms are represented only as stumps, even associated with others in which 
the hands hold the breasts. This last-mentioned character attaches to our 
figurines of the South Kurgan. While the realistic treatment leaves no possible 
doubt of their cult affinities, the arms were not bent towards the breasts, but were 
merely indicated by stumps, which either projected outward or hung down. 
While we can not speak positively in comparing or contrasting these figures 
with those found in different regions, we can say in general terms that in their 
general character, and especially in the delicate modeling of the one shown in plate 
46, figs. 10a and 10b, they stand somewhat apart from those represented from other 
known localities. They seem distinct from the Chaldean and Phenician, and they 
are not accompanied by the “‘face-vases’’ of the II and III cities of Troy, on which 
the same cult idea is expressed. In looking for their derivation we must take into 
consideration the fact that they occur in the South Kurgan in intimate connec- 
tion with the custom of burial of children under the house-floor. For this reason 
I think we must imagine this cult to have come from a point far enough to the 

) 
*In De Morgan’s Susianan collection in the Louvre, a case marked “Epoque archaique,” contains 
figurines of this goddess, from Tepé Moussian, some of which resemble those from the South Kurgan at 
Anau. Also in De Morgan, Délégation en Perse, Mémoires, t. vil, p.11, M. Jequier gives a drawing of a 
very primitive form of Beltis found in the lower strata of Susa, apparently before the occurrence of copper 
and 25 feet or more below the first traces of writing. 
