Within the depth-psychology corpus, the ram occupies a richly overdetermined symbolic position, functioning simultaneously as sacrificial victim, theriomorphic deity, psychic emblem of force, and typological prefiguration. The most concentrated attention falls on two axes. First, the ram as divine epiphany and ritual carrier: Kerényi’s study of Hermes identifies the kriophoros — the ram-bearer — as a fundamental hierophanic form, linking the shepherd god’s circumambulation rite at Tanagra to apotropaic, Cabeirian, and psychopomp functions. Walter Otto corroborates this, arguing against reductive miasma-expulsion explanations in favour of the ram as genuinely borne creature destined for sacred delivery. Second, the typological axis: Jung, in Aion, cites patristic authorities who read Isaac’s substitute ram as a figuration of Christ, situating the animal at the intersection of Aion’s great precession symbolism, sacrificial theology, and the Lamb-Aries motif of the Apocalypse. Campbell extends this in The Mythic Image, identifying the ram fixed to its tree at the Beth Alpha mosaic as axis-mundi symbol directly beneath the sun-door. Burkert supplies the anthropological ground, noting ram-sacrifice at Babylonian New Year rites and the ‘ram’s skin of Zeus’ at Eleusis. Jung’s essay in Civilization in Transition uniquely addresses the ram’s horn as shofar — a case study in the difference between dead sign and living symbol. The I Ching commentators (Huang, Wang Bi) contribute an Eastern valence in which the ram embodies yang strength pressing against obstruction. The term thus unites sacrificial anthropology, astral symbolism, psychopomp mythology, and the phenomenology of the symbol itself.