Background

The Minoan Solar Proto-Deity may be a Minoan deity that represented the sun. This figure has been referenced by scholars as the Sun Goddess, Solar Goddess, Solar Deity, and other solar-related epithets. However, the deity has a proto classification, which means that it is not formally recognized among scholars, among other reasons.^[1] The figure may be referred to in various forms of Minoan material culture: ring seals, frescoes, and proto-myths in Linear A or Cretan Hieroglyphs.

Scholarly consensus over whether there is indeed a Minoan solar deity has been isolated to a small handful of influential scholars: Nanno O. Marinatos, Sir Arthur J. Evans, and Martin P. Nilsson. Each scholar has provided their input into this debate since the early 1900s.

Nanno O. Marinatos (in favor of Minoan Solar Deity)

Marinatos has, perhaps, been the most staunch supporter of the existence of a Minoan Solar (Sun) Goddess. Her main work concerning the topic was a 2010 book titled Minoan Kingship and the Solar Goddess, wherein made a case for the existence of a sole 'Solar Goddess' on the basis of recent evidence. In general, her argument relies on the interpretation of motifs found in Minoan material culture: ring seals, frescoes, and palace inscriptions. Marinatos' 2010 book was predicated on a 2009 journal article she wrote in favor supporting Evan's view that the Solar Goddess (Minoan Solar Proto-Deity) was an established figure inherited from Egyptian culture and its affinity for solar religion.^[2]

In a seminar given in 2018, Marinatos cited new artifact evidence which explained the relevance of the Solar Goddess in Minoan culture.^[3] Her main reference point was an artifact called the Divine Couple Ring of Poros,^[4] first published by Giorgos Rethemiotakis in 2017.^[5]

Sir Arthur J. Evans (in favor of Minoan Solar Deity)

Sir Arthur J. Evans, a scholar who may be said to have established the study of Minoan culture and its religious practices, argued in favor of a tight connection between Egypt and Crete during the Bronze Age.^[6]

Martin P. Nilsson (against Minoan Solar Deity)

Martin P. Nilsson was another noted scholar who published extensive works on Minoan religion as well as its material culture. In Nilsson's handbook to Minoan culture, he argued against female deities in general.^[7]

Other scholars' opinions

Several other scholars have contributed to the discussion of whether there is a Minoan Solar Deity.

• Ridderstad (physicist). Marianna P. Ridderstad has argued in one publication concerning Minoan astronomy that its material culture represents motifs related to celestial bodies; and, that these artifacts reflected rituals done during festivals in tandem to seasonal shift.^[8] Ridderstad also argued that The Phaistos Disk (Inventory No. AE 1358),^[9] a Minoan artifact with an inscription, is also related to celestial worship by the Minoans.^[10]
  
  
• Revesz (computer scientist). Through algorithmic means, Peter Z. Revesz provided a decipherment of The Phaistos Disk's inscription.^[11] As a result, his work suggested that the artifact contained a poem dedicated to a sun deity. In 2022, Revesz published further evidence to indicate that the artifact ought to be read left-to-right. ^[12]

Together these scholars provide varied data which suggest the likelihood of some Minoan figure existing that was related to the sun, and possibly a pattern of cult worhsip.

Proto-myths including the Minoan Solar Proto-Deity

In various forms, translators have attempted to decipher Minoan artifacts in order to provide evidence for a solar deity in Minoan culture.

The Phaistos Disk

An artifact named The Phaistos Disk / AE 1345 at the Heraklion Museum in Crete, Greece, thus seems to be an important piece of evidence in support of a Minoan Solar Deity. This artifact was first discovered in 1908 and was subsequently treated in Sir Arthur J. Evans' 1909 publication titled The Palace of Minos / Vol. I. The artifact has been agreed upon by scholars as being authentic. Notwithstanding, the scholar Jerome M. Eisenberg has argued that the artifact itself is a forgery and academic hoax.^[13]