Mnhmh / Mneme: Past and Memory in the Aegean Bronze Age: Proceedings of the 17th International Aegean Conference, University of Udine, Department of ... of Humanities, 17-21 April 2018 (Aegaeum) 9789042939035, 9789042939042, 9042939036

Citation preview

AEGAEUM 43 Annales liégeoises et PASPiennes d’archéologie égéenne

MNHMH / MNEME





PAST AND MEMORY IN THE AEGEAN BRONZE AGE Proceedings of the 17th International Aegean Conference, University of Udine, Department of Humanities and Cultural Heritage, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Department of Humanities, 17-21 April 2018

Edited by Elisabetta BORGNA, Ilaria CALOI, Filippo Maria CARINCI and Robert LAFFINEUR

PEETERS LEUVEN - LIÈGE 2019

Illustrations on cover pages: Venice, Ca’ Foscari University on the front page (photo Andrea Avezzù, © Università Ca' Foscari Venezia), and Udine, il Castello on the back page (photo R. Laffineur). Frontispiece: ‘Minoan Venice’, variation on the ‘Ring of Minos’ (drawing Fritz Blakolmer).





















A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. D/2019/0602/22 Impression et dépositaire : PEETERS nv Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven (Belgique) © A.s.b.l. Aegaeum, Aux Piédroux 120, B-4032 Liège (Belgique) et Program in Aegean Scrips and Prehistory (PASP), The University of Texas at Austin, 2019 ISBN 978-90-429-3903-5 eISBN 978-90-429-3904-2 Reproduction et traduction, même partielles, interdites sans l’autorisation de l’éditeur, pour tous pays.

CONTENTS Preface

xi

KEYNOTE LECTURE James C. WRIGHT Mnemonics for Archaeologists

3

A. MINOAN PALACES, REGIONAL LANDSCAPES AND BUILT ENVIRONMENTS Simona TODARO Living with the Past: Settlement Mobility and Social Memory in Early Bronze Age Mesara

17

Filippo M. CARINCI Phaistos and Ayia Triadha, from the Final Neolithic to the Early Iron Age: Two Places of Memory

25

Jeffrey S. SOLES The Creation of Social Memory in Minoan Mochlos

35

Maud DEVOLDER The Dungeon. Recalling the West Façade of the Protopalatial Palace at Malia

41

D. Matthew BUELL and John C. McENROE Architecture and Memory at Gournia: Meaningful Places

49

Thomas M. BROGAN Rejecting the Past? LM II-IIIB Settlements in the Mirabello

59

Florence GAIGNEROT-DRIESSEN From Peak Sanctuaries to Hilltop Settlements: Reshaping a Landscape of Memory in Late Minoan IIIC Crete

65

B. MINOAN FUNERARY LANDSCAPES Sevasti TRIANTAPHYLLOU, Sotiria KIORPE and Metaxia TSIPOPOULOU Manipulating Bodies, Constructing Social Memory: Ways of Negotiating, Re-inventing and Legitimizing the Past at the Petras Cemetery, Siteia, Crete

73

Metaxia TSIPOPOULOU and David RUPP The Pre- and Proto-palatial Cemetery at Petras-Kephala : a Persistent Locale as an Arena for Competing Cultural Memories

81

Katerina KOPAKA Neighbours in Perpetuity. A “lone” Prehistoric Pithos Burial at Gavdos – A Link with long Living Collective Memory

95

C. RITUAL AND SOCIAL PRACTICES Iphiyenia TOURNAVITOU Ritual Breakage in Minoan Peak Sanctuaries. The Disposal and Manipulation of Collective Memory. Reality and Myth

107

Ilaria CALOI Visible and Commemorative structured Deposits. Keeping the Memory of Communal Social Practices at Minoan Palaces

115

Philip P. BETANCOURT, Leanna KOLONAUSKI and Sydney R. SARASIN Minoan Memories in the Shrine of Eileithyia at Inatos, Crete

121

iv

CONTENTS

Charlotte LANGOHR In vino veritas? In Search of the Evidence for past Minoan Wine Rituals before the Krater

125

D. MEMORIAL PRACTICES IN THE CYCLADES Marisa MARTHARI Raos and Akrotiri: Memory and Identity in LC I/LM I Thera as Reflected in Settlement Patterns and Ceramic Production

135

Jason EARLE A Memorable Feast at Late Bronze Age Phylakopi

145

E. MEMORIES OF MYCENAEAN PALACES AND SETTLEMENTS Ken A. and Diana WARDLE The Citadel of Mycenae: a Landscape of Myth and Memory

153

Christofilis MAGGIDIS The Palace Throne at Mycenae: Constructing Collective Historical Memory and Power Ideology

165

Heleni PALAIOLOGOU Facing the Mycenaean Past at Mycenae

173

Vasileios L. ARAVANTINOS Old Memories versus New Trends in Postpalatial Thebes

187

Lena PAPAZOGLOU-MANIOUDAKI, Constantinos PASCHALIDIS and Olivia A. JONES Community and Memory in the Periphery of the Mycenaean World: Incidents in the Life of the Mygdalia Settlement Near Patras, Achaea

199

Joanne M.A. MURPHY Power Plays at Pylos: the Past and Memory in the Tombs and at the Palace

209

F. THE PAST IN MAINLAND FUNERARY BEHAVIOUR AND THE USE OF MYCENAEAN TOMBS Anna PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS Death in the Early Middle Helladic Period (MH I-II): Diversity in the Construction of Mnemonic Landscapes

221

Michaela ZAVADIL Remembering Old Graves? Jar Burials in the Mycenaean Period

233

Nikolas PAPADIMITRIOU From Hiatus to Visual Memory. Changing Mnemonic Processes in Early Mycenaean Greece

243

Robert LAFFINEUR Monumentalizing Memory at Mycenae: The Acropolis “Grave Circle A”

253

Rodney D. FITZSIMONS Constructing a Legendary Past: Possible Archaising Elements in the Funerary Landscape of Late Bronze Age Mycenae

261

Bryan E. BURNS and Brendan BURKE Memorializing the First Mycenaeans at Eleon

269

Aleydis VAN DE MOORTEL, Salvatore VITALE, Bartłomiej LIS and Giuliana BIANCO Honoring the Dead or Hero Cult? The long Afterlife of a Prepalatial Elite Tomb at Mitrou

277

CONTENTS

v

Kim SHELTON and Lynne KVAPIL Among the Ancestors at Aidonia

293

Robert Angus K. SMITH and Sevasti TRIANTAPHYLLOU Remembering the Dead: Memory and Mortuary Ritual at the Mycenaean Cemetery of Ayia Sotira, Nemea

301

Thanasis J. PAPADOPOULOS Honouring the Ancestors and the Particular Role of Social Memory in Western Mycenaean Greece. The Evidence of Tombs and Burial Customs

305

Konstantina AKTYPI, Olivia A. JONES and Michalis GAZIS Use and Reuse of the Past: Case Studies from Mycenaean Achaea

319

Elisabetta BORGNA, Gaspare DE ANGELI, Agata LICCIARDELLO, Assunta MERCOGLIANO and Andreas G. VORDOS Natural and Human Components shaping a Landscape of Memory during the Long-term Occupation of the Trapeza, Aigion, Achaea

329

Ann-Louise SCHALLIN Constructing Links with the Past. Later Activity in Late Bronze Age Tombs at Dendra

339

Naya SGOURITSA Politics of Mortuary Veneration in Mycenaean Attica

343

G. MODES OF TRANSMISSION, CONSTRUCTION OF MEMORY AND THE MAKING OF TRADITIONS Joseph MARAN Between Remembering and Forgetting: Monuments of the Past and the “Invention of Tradition”

353

Diamantis PANAGIOTOPOULOS From ‘Tradition’ to ‘Cultural Memory’. Towards a Paradigm Shift in Aegean Archaeology

363

Lyvia MORGAN Art, Culture and Memory: A Case Study

371

Thomas F. STRASSER, Sarah C. MURRAY and Christina KOLB The Asphendou Cave Petroglyphs: Reading and Recording an Eye-Witness to the Stone Age

377

Helene WHITTAKER Memory and Figured Worlds in the Minoan Bronze Age

383

Lefteris PLATON The Uncertainties Inherent in Interpreting the Pictorial Memory and the Blend of Ideas and Actualities drawn from a Glorious Past: the Case of Postpalatial Minoan Religious Iconography

389

Constance VON RÜDEN The Fish in the Bathtub. Evocating Memory through Post-Palatial Burial Practices

395

Angelos PAPADOPOULOS Mneme and Propaganda in the Early Late Bronze Age Aegean: the Case of the ‘Siege Rhyton’

405

Assaf YASUR LANDAU The Memory Machine: How 12th-Century BCE Iconography Created Memories of the Philistines (and Other Sea People)

413

vi

CONTENTS H. HEIRLOOMS AND ANTIQUES

Fritz BLAKOLMER The Glory that was Knossos! Heirlooms, Reception and the Significance of Development in the Arts of the Aegean Late Bronze Age

425

Brent DAVIS, Emilia BANOU, Louise A. HITCHCOCK and Anne P. CHAPIN Curation in the Bronze Age Aegean: Objects as Material Memories

435

Andreas G. VLACHOPOULOS Mneme and Techne in the Cyclades. The Case of Akrotiri, Thera

443

Irini NIKOLAKOPOULOU Objects of Memory or Objects of Status? The Case of Cycladic Bichrome Ware Vases in Aegean Contexts

455

Leonidas VOKOTOPOULOS Remembering and Honouring the Past at Choiromandres, Zakros

463

Nicola CUCUZZA and Orazio PALIO Between Memory and Reuse in Late Minoan III Mesara: the Stone Vessels at Kannià

473

Alice CROWE Old Things, New Contexts: Bronze Age Objects in Early Iron Age Burials at Knossos

481

Olga KRZYSZKOWSKA Changing Perceptions of the Past: The Role of Antique Seals in Minoan Crete

487

Jörg WEILHARTNER The Use of ‘Heirlooms’ in Mycenaean Sealing Practices

497

Mary K. DABNEY Heirlooms for the Living, Heirlooms for the Dead

507

I. TRANSMISSION AND PERCEPTION OF IDENTITIES THROUGH SPACE AND TIME Alberto CAZZELLA and Giulia RECCHIA Memories and Legacies of Cultural Encounters and Contacts with the Aegean in the Central Mediterranean (2500-1700 BC)

513

Luca GIRELLA, Peter PAVÚK and Magda PIENIĄŻEK Past and Present: Defining Identities and Memory along the East Aegean and Western Anatolian Interface

523

Eleni SALAVOURA Prehistoric Arkadia as a Landscape of Memory for the Ancient Greeks

533

Louise A. HITCHCOCK, Aren M. MAEIR and Madaline HARRIS-SCHOBER Tomorrow never Dies: Post-Palatial Memories of the Aegean Late Bronze Age in the Mediterranean

543

Evangelia STEFANI and Nikolas MEROUSIS Space and Mneme in Late Bronze Age Macedonia

551

Mercourios GEORGIADIS Memory and the Past in the Mycenaean and Post-Mycenaean South-Eastern Aegean

559

Salvatore VITALE and Calla MCNAMEE Ideological and Narrative Memory on Late Bronze Age Kos: from Theory to Case Study

569

CONTENTS

vii

J. ARCHIVAL MEMORY Artemis KARNAVA Minoan Archives: a Case for the Preservation of Institutional Memory

579

Thomas G. PALAIMA The Importance of Memory, Memory Triggers and Memory Agents in Mycenaean and Later Greek Culture: Some Linear B, Epic and Classical Evidence

591

K. THE AEGEAN LEGACY IN THE GREEK WORLD John G. YOUNGER Minoan Religion: State Myth, Private Memory

603

Karen Polinger FOSTER The New Aegean Memories and Metaphors: Athena as a Swallow, Herakles as a Lion

609

Santo PRIVITERA “Words are Stones”. Of Tombs, Walls and the Memory of the Mythical Kings on the Athenian Acropolis

619

L. THE RECEPTION OF THE AEGEAN PAST Nicoletta MOMIGLIANO Memory and Modern Reception of the Aegean Bronze Age

629

J. Alexander MACGILLIVRAY The Artifice of Archaeology and the Making of Minoan Memories

639

Pietro MILITELLO Phaistos: a Memory for the Future. How to tell an Archaeological Site

645

M. POSTERS Natalie ABELL and Evi GOROGIANNI The Past in Practice: Craft Producers and Material Culture Change at Ayia Irini, Kea

655

Maria Emanuela ALBERTI Survival or Recycling? Early Helladic Balance Weights in Mycenaean Contexts

659

Sofia ANTONELLO The Minoan Double Vase: Echoes of a Ritual Artifact

663

Georgia BALDACCI Toasting in Protopalatial Ruins: a LM I Intentional Deposition in the MM IIB Building of the Acropoli Mediana at Phaistos

667

Ioannis BITIS and Fragoula GEORMA Architecture and Wall Paintings at Akrotiri in Thera. Components and Formulation of Collective Memory

671

Claire CAMBERLEIN Choosing an Adequate Methodological Approach and Methodology for Antique Objects in Archaeology

677

Vasiliki CHRYSOVITSANOU From Repulsion to Fascination to ‘Cycladomania’: Changes in the Archaeological Analysis of Cycladic Figurines and their Relation to History of Art and Public Imagery

681

viii

CONTENTS

Paola CONTURSI Heroes, Ancestors or merely Dead? (Ab)uses of the Mycenaean Past in the Historical Period

687

Janusz CZEBRESZUK A Story about the Consequences of one Journey. Possible Effects of Long-term Amber Jewelry Usage by the Mycenaeans

693

Chiara DE GREGORIO The Deposito delle Camerette at Ayia Triadha

697

Jacob E. HEYWOOD and Brent DAVIS Painted Larnakes of the Late Minoan III Period: Funerary Iconography and the Stimulation of Memory

703

Tobias KRAPF Searching for Neo-Minoan Architecture

709

Angélique LABRUDE Late Minoan IIIA-B Larnakes as Part of the Rites of Passage? Funerary Times and the Construction of Memory

713

Anastasia LERIOU Ritualising Memory: A View from 11th Century Cyprus

719

Christina MITSOPOULOU and Olga POLYCHRONOPOULOU The Archive and Atelier of the Gilliéron Artists: Three Generations, a Century (1870s-1980s)

725

Sarah C. MURRAY Tradition and Memory at Postpalatial Perati in East Attica

731

Niki PAPAKONSTANTINOU, Sevasti TRIANTAPHYLLOU and Maria STATHI Acts of Memorialization of the Dead Body in the Mycenaean Cemetery at Kolikrepi-Spata, Attica

737

Alessandro SANAVIA Painted Parading Lions on an MM IB Ceremonial Basin: a Case of Symbolic Transference and Remembrance of an Emblem in Early Protopalatial Phaistos

743

Caroline J. TULLY and Sam CROOKS The Self Possessed: Framing Identity in Late Minoan Glyptic

749

Agata ULANOWSKA and Małgorzata SIENNICKA Transmission of Practice, Transmission of Knowledge: Dynamics of Textile Production in the Bronze Age Aegean

753

Ioannis VOSKOS Homeric Ithaca and Mycenaean Cephalonia: Diachronic Trends of Identity/Memory Construction and Modern Perceptions of the Past

759

ENDNOTE Jan DRIESSEN Claiming the Bones, Naming the Stones? Appropriating a Minoan Past

765

TO CONCLUDE … Thomas G. PALAIMA Linear B VE Vd 2018 a Memorial sēma: Remembering Life, Work, Love and Death in Venice

777

Blakolmer egrapsen

PREFACE The MNEME Conference was organised by the University of Udine, Department of Humanities and Cultural Heritage, and the Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Department of Humanities, starting from the many suggestions given by several studies which have been recently devoted to the perception of and confrontation with the past in ancient societies as well as to the manifold practices of memory including memorializing and memory keeping. Scholars have focused on the important function of social memory for the construction of collective identities including ethnicity. Construction, re-use and manipulation of the past have been identified in several contexts as ideological strategies favouring cultural continuity. On the one hand, well-defined chronological limits have been reconsidered following the evidence of long-term dynamics based on the reproduction of relevant social practices through space and time. On the other hand, phenomena of cultural discontinuity and innovation have also resulted in being profoundly connected to the approach that ancient communities had towards their past, which they variously expressed in monumental architecture, funerary layout, iconographic and stylistic traditions and social practices in both ceremonial and domestic contexts. Furthermore, fragmentation, sacrifice or storage of material culture and economic resources - phenomena relevant to different systems of political economy - are in turn strongly connected to the practice of memory, with an impact on the cultural landscape including settlement as well as funerary domains. Based on many inspiring agendas coming from the vivid scientific debate occurring in particular among Aegean scholars, the 17th International Aegean Conference / Rencontre égéenne internationale has intended to provide a forum for exchanging ideas about the use/s and appropriation of the past and the role of social memory in the Aegean Bronze Age, addressing attention to some broad headings, consisting of: (1) uses of the past, with particular reference to strategies of legitimation and promotion of memories, approaches and confrontation with the past; (2) the past present, including modes and dynamics of transmission of the past; (3) preservation of the past, in both past and present domains. The insightful survey by Jim Wright in the keynote, Mnemonics for archaeologists, opens our volume, which, according to the received proposals of contribution, has been then articulated in 13 sections, each-one ordered according to geographical and chronological units. The first (Minoan palaces, regional landscapes and built environments) and the second (Minoan funerary landscapes) sections present case-studies of promotion/rejection of memories respectively in the palaces/settlements/landscapes, and in the funerary sites of Minoan Crete; the third section (Ritual and social practices) tackles commemorative practices in Minoan palaces and cult places. The fourth section comprises two papers on the Memorial practices in the Cyclades, while the fifth and sixth ones are two long sections dedicated to the mainland Mycenaean world and entitled Memories of Mycenaean palaces and settlements and The past in mainland funerary behaviour and the use of Mycenaean tombs. Moving from different kinds of archaeological data, the seventh and eighth sections separately deal with Modes of transmissions, construction of memories and the making of traditions and Heirlooms and antiques all over the Aegean from the Final Neolithic to the early Iron Age. The ninth section is dedicated to the Transmission and perception of identities though space and time, while the tenth one includes two papers devoted to the Archival memory. The eveventh and twelfth sections discuss respectively the Aegean legacy in the Greek world and the Reception of the Aegean past. Finally, the thirteenth section contains 21 posters tackling various aspects of Mneme in the Aegean world. The appealing endnote by Jan Driessen is followed by the last, intriguing contribution written by Tom Palaima to remember our 17th Aegean conference in Udine and Venice. When the conference was over, we felt to have acquired a fair amount of new knowledge about the multifarious expressions of Mneme in the early Aegean all the more so as we definitely recognized by means of both impressive case studies and discrete theoretical approaches how much important it is, in

xii

PREFACE

our scientific work, to cope with the past of past societies in order to understand their present, a past either known or unknown, pretended or contested. We are therefore grateful to all participants in the conference and in particular to our key-speakers, who accepted to open and close the debate tracing general guidelines and dealing with aspects of memory works within trans-cultural perspectives. We feel now proud to belong to a wide ethic community founded on the values of memory, which offers instruments to contrast social forgetting and cultural oblivion. The conference could not take place without the substantial support of the Institute for Aegean Prehistory (INSTAP, Philadelphia). The University of Udine and its Rector, Alberto Felice De Toni, the Ca’ Foscari University of Venice with its rector Michele Bugliesi and the Department of Humanities, the Postgraduate School of Archaeology (Universities of Trieste, Udine, Venezia) and the PhD School in Scienze dell’Antichità (Universities of Venezia, Udine, Trieste) supported financially the organisation. The Civici Musei of Udine gave at our disposal the beautiful venue of the Udine castle. For the organization we could count on the precious collaboration of some younger colleagues, Giulio Simeoni, responsible for the Mneme website, Alessandro Sanavia and Giorgia Baldacci; several graduate and post-graduate students substantially helped during the conference: to Valentina Annaccarato, Sofia Antonello, Sofia Carroccia, Chiara De Gregorio, Tiziano Fantuzzi, Kristina Lazri, Ester Messina, Laura Perotti, Martina Roverso, Lisa Semoli, Valeria Taglieri goes our gratitude. Elisabetta BORGNA Ilaria CALOI Filippo Maria CARINCI Robert LAFFINEUR

Nils Hellner, variation on Piet de Jong’s reconstruction of 13th cent. Grave circle A at Mycenae

KEYNOTE LECTURE

MNEMONICS FOR ARCHAEOLOGISTS There seems no better place to hold a conference on memory in the Aegean Bronze Age than Venice because it is a veritable cauldron of memory. For the Hellene this is especially true thanks to the collecting of Francesco Morosini but also to the printer Aldus Manutius, who along with Marcus Musurus, Ioannis Grigoropoulos, Demetrius Chalcocondyles, and Zacharias Kalliergis among others edited and printed manuscripts of the Greek classical authors in the decade on either side of 1500.1 These are housed in the Marciana Library in the upper floor of Sansovino’s masterpiece loggia that encloses the piazza San Marco. We are reminded that Venice was an important western trading outpost of the Byzantine empire taking over from Aquileia in the early Medieval period and that the Venetians conspired with the Fourth Crusaders to sack Constantinople in 1204, thus crippling the near thousand year empire that had successfully carried both Antiquity and Christianity through the dark hours of the later Roman empire up to the threshold of the Renaissance. Here is contained the entire Western Tradition beginning with early impressions of Homer, Herodotus, Thucydides, Sophocles, among others. Books are mechanisms of memory and the art of memory, as Frances Yates informs us,2 begins with an inventor of the alphabet and a poet: Simonides of Keos. He was hired to ply his art at a banquet during which the roof fell in and catastrophically so maimed the attendees that they were not recognizable one from another. Simonides escaped and, because of his mnemonic system of placing, was able to identify the dead because he had memorized their order at their tables. So credited, his system was advanced, it is said, by Cicero. Yates has her doubts but the system worked and was revived during Medieval times. A friend of mine is a magician, expert at tricks with cards. I asked him about this and he averred to having read Yates and to himself practicing remembering the “house of cards” by placing each in its particular room. If Simonides was a famous poet, then he was a bard in the tradition of his predecessors Hesiod and Homer. As students of the Classical past, we start with them, as every schoolboy did in the gymnasium in ancient Athens. The bards had a system for organizing the collective memory of those who called themselves Hellenes. In their telling was all the knowledge that was necessary to know creation, the gods, the heroes, their feats, and the ancestry of the Hellenes. Bards were singers and often accompanied by lyre and flute. Would that then not also be true of the marble Cycladic lyre and flute players from Naxos and Keros (NM 3908, 3910) in the National Museum in Athens? These singers of songs and tellers of tales are universal. Found in every time and place, we can use the West African term of griot to identify them.3 Their role in societies is so important that they have the rank of kings as they are the keepers of a society’s knowledge.4 We have them today. Why else was Bob Dylan given the Nobel Prize for literature? Why else did Nikos Xylouris sing Digenes Akritas? We find bards throughout the remains of Aegean prehistory. For example the singer on the Harvester Rhyton from Ayia Triadha which depicts the field hands led out to harvest by a heavily robed priest and accompanied by a musician beating time with his sistrum. Or in the megaron at Pylos where a robed bard sits on a rock plucking his lyre and signing a song that is carried by a crested bird winging its epiphanic way to the priest or wanax seated on the throne. The megaron at Pylos was a place where memory acts were formalized. So too in the Early Bronze Age where places like Kavos where the Keros hoard was deposited after festivals of islanders convened to remember and recommit to their bonds as kinsmen and associates involved in inter-island communalities.5 1 2 3

4 5

K.S. STAIKOS, The Greek Editions of Aldus Manutius and his Greek Collaborators (2015) 60-68. F.A. YATES, The Art of Memory (1992) 195-274. J. ASSMANN, Cultural Memory and Early Civilization: Writing, Remembrance, and Political Imagination (e-book, 2011) 39-40. Ibidem. C. RENFREW, O. PHILANIOTOU, N. BRODIE, G. GAVALAS, and M.J. BOYD (eds), Kavos and the Special Deposits. The Sanctuary on Keros and the Origins of Aegean Ritual Practice: the Excavations of 2006-2008, 2

4

James C. WRIGHT

On Crete at Juktas and Petsofas and elsewhere on peaks across the island, high places were topoi of procession and holders of memory that connected people and their landscapes, gods, and the ancestors into regional and wider unities. From the palace at Zakro the peak sanctuary rhyton reminds us of the act of memory that is focused on altars, at tripartite shrines, and at rocky enclosed temene where bundled firewood is prepared for a sacrifice, and sacred birds and wild agrimi await the procession to the peak that unites earth and sky and reaffirms the cosmic order. Societies with palace centers, like poleis and ethne, require places for the bards to celebrate, and so in classical times the theater is a place for the appearance of the deity, the recitation of collective tales, and the renewing of vows to the community. When the Dionysia takes place the gods and the citizens are assembled – not to be entertained but to be inculcated. Widows and orphans are paraded across the stage to memorialize those who gave their all for the polis and those who suffer as a consequence.6 Competitions by playwrights draw from the bard’s tragic lessons inherent in the conflict between personal honor, family honor, duty to parents, duty to state, duty to gods; and comedy brings the gods closer to oneself, while politicians are reminded that, though we are political animals, we are at base animals of nature where lust and greed contest with nous – with reason and knowledge. Thus places of memory like the theater fix it through action. The gods are celebrated at festivals that are scheduled by calendars. Every third day in the Attic calendar was a festival day.7 The calendar reminds, just as today the church bells toll saints’ days and we remember to celebrate Giorgos and Georgia, Constantine and Eleni and all our other friends’ name-days. So society is ordered through the seasons of the year. Tablet Tn 316 did the same at Pylos – telling us what to offer to Poseidon, how much and where and by whom. These examples inform us that memory is inseparable from community, that what we remember personally is part of a memory culture, as Jan Assmann has termed it8, that uses collective memory to define the community and the place of the individual in it. Here past and present come together to give meaning and direction to the future. The dead are part of this community, for our ancestors produced us. We are their hopes for the future, while we look back to them for guidance and fix our course not only on what they did, right or wrong, but on what they thought and what they believed. Our relation to them is fixed: we cannot remember farther back than we can assert true knowledge. My grandfather was born in 1872. I recall stories he told that take me back to the end of the Civil War in 1864. These stories are my certain history, shared family memories that carry from today 150 years back in time. Before that it’s all conjecture, hearsay, legend and myth. Those things we know because of the traditions of bards like Homer and Hesiod. We archaeologists suspect they exist in the material realm when we ponder the meaning of the Cycladic marble lyre players. Collective memory serves the band and the tribe, and also the state. The Pylos megaron frescoes represent the action of the state in the management of memory. When the state takes over memory from the collective it formalizes it. It institutionalizes memory. The formal process of the reproduction of memory for the state creates civilization (German Kultur, French civilisation, Greek πολιτισμός). That reproduction is handed over from the griot to a formal office managed by priests and administrators, pharaohs, kings, and presidents, whose every action is prescribed and monitored by functionaries and the public, who watch to see that each shibboleth is properly carried out. After all, what is at stake is the cosmos. The rituals of the those in power have to be carried out according to the protocols laid down for the protection and well-being of the civilization.9 Assmann has organized the production and maintenance of memory into two forms: Communicative Memory and Cultural Memory as outlined in Table below.10

6 7 8 9

10

(2015) 557-560. S. GOLDHILL, “The Great Dionysia and Civic Ideology,” JHS 107 (1987) 63. L. ZAIDMAN and P. PANTEL, Religion in the Ancient Greek City (1992) 104, see also 30-34, 36-39. ASSMANN (supra n. 3) 16. J. BAINES and N. YOFFEE, “Order, Legitimacy, and Wealth in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia,” in G.M. FEINMAN and J. MARCUS (eds), Archaic States (1998) 199-260. ASSMANN (supra n. 3) 41.

MNEMONICS FOR ARCHAEOLOGISTS

Content Forms Media

Time structure Carriers

Communicative Memory Historical experiences in the framework of individual biographies Informal, without much form, natural growth, arising from interaction, everyday Living, organic memories, experiences, hearsay

80-100 years, with a progressive present spanning three-four generations Nonspecific, contemporary witnesses within a memory community

5

Cultural Memory Mythical history of origins, events in an absolute past Organized, extremely formal, ceremonial communication, festival Fixed objectifications, traditional symbolic classification and staging through words, pictures, dance, and so forth Absolute past of a mythical, primeval age Specialized tradition bearers

What I have described in the foregoing corresponds to the differences between the organic processes of memory management for collective memory on the one hand and for formal institutionalized cultural memory on the other. These describe the differences between the fluidity and relative impermanence of small-scale societies as opposed to the institutionalization and quest for permanence of larger scale ones. Before proceeding deeper into these differences, let us consider briefly how memory works, since it is in this process that we may seek archaeological correlates to memory. I want to consider five aspects of mnemonics. For this discussion I draw in particular from Paul Connerton’s two studies, How Societies Remember and How Modernity Forgets.11 The aspects I will consider are (1) Place, (2) Movement, (3) Labor, (4) Power, and (5) the Ethics of memory. 1. Place The first place is the human body and its five senses of sight, hearing, sensation, smell, and taste.12 These begin with dawning consciousness at birth. We may recall as mnemonic and instructional devices Neolithic figurines of females giving birth or of the kourotrophos from Sesklo and the focused use of the senses of an infant whose only thought is for suckling at the breast. Smell, vision, touch and hearing are driven by biological needs, but they combine in the brain to create memory, which is manifested in the bonding between mother and child. With growth and increased mobility, the senses expand to a wider world of biological and increasingly social needs. I like to think of the Arcahic terracotta child’s toilet from the excavations of the Athenian Agora, because it reminds of the necessity to train a child to remember to control bodily functions. With maturity a youth joins a community and its expectations. The steatite conical rhyton from Ayia Triadha comes to mind with its illustration of training in the arts of combat, and the Chieftain’s Vase may represent the memory of initiation,13 while any of the gold signet rings showing armed warriors in combat memorialize the expectations for valor and courage in combat.14 Finally there must have been in ancient Crete some food item, perhaps one of the cakes offered at a peak sanctuary as on the stone relief vessel from Gypsadhes,15 which would bring to mind the Bronze Age equivalent of Proust’s madeleines and the memories of growing up at Knossos, as Proust remembered his youth at Combray. From the individual we can move to the family. Here the house and shelter are strong loci of memory, as Bachelard has described.16 Beginning in the Neolithic if not before, the house is illustrated, as on a conical stemmed carinated MN bowl from Franchthi or a house model from Sesklo, or the family 11 12 13 14

15 16

P. CONNERTON, How Societies Remember (1989); IDEM, How Modernity Forgets (2009). Y-F. TUAN, Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience (1977). R. KOEHL, “The Chieftain Cup and a Minoan Rite of Passage,” JHS 106 (1986) 99-110. I. KILIAN-DIRLMEIER, “Remarks on the Non-military Functions of Swords in the Mycenaean Argolid,” in R. HÄGG and G.C. NORDQUIST (eds), Celebrations of Death and Divinity in the Bronze Age Argolid. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 11-13 June, 1988 (1990) 157-161. B. KAISER, Untersuchungen zum minoischen Relief (1976) “Knossos 10” 17, 135, 170, 201, fig. 10a. G. BACHELARD, The Poetics of Space (1994).

James C. WRIGHT

6

nested in the two rooms of a house in the LN model from Larissa.17 The figurines within it bring to mind the family and kin. Laurie Talalay has interpreted a split MN figurine as a mnemonic totem of a bond between two social groups.18 These figurines are grooved between the legs so that they can be broken apart. Perhaps, she suggests, each party takes one part of the figurine as a symbol of an alliance, made for example through marriage. Social solidarity requires acts of memory and these are often accomplished at places for feasts, for example the massive feasting and drinking that went on at LN Makrigialos,19 where folks from a wide territory feasted on all the animals they could slaughter for some event now long forgotten until recovered by archaeologists. Until Michael Lindblom investigated the remains, we did not even know about feasting and drinking that took place over the two LH I shaft graves at Lerna, when their deposition constituted the final closure of a settlement that had endured for over a thousand years.20 Of course Grave Circle A is Exhibit A in the memorialization of the dead – here as ancestors who founded a dynasty, as Laffineur and Wardle argue in their presentations at this conference.21 Feasting and solidarity with the dead were carried out par excellence in Crete where EM and MM elide in the memorialization of the ancestors and the maintenance of social relations, as in the tholos tombs at Kamilari where not only the collective burial and ossuary vaults connect the living and the dead but clay models of dancers and women preparing the feast bring the memories to life.22 These topoi were ancient and they had continually to be tied to the land they demarcated. 2. Movement We are highly mobile today, so it is with effort that we must try to imagine what it meant for ancient peoples to stay in place for hundreds and even thousands of years. We get a good picture of this by looking at the changing landscape from the Middle Palaeolithic through the end of the last Ice Ages into the Neolithic. The reconstruction of the advance of the rising seas at Franchthi shows how over 30,000 years over six kilometers of coastal territory disappeared under the water, driving the inhabitants to adjust while retaining memories of what was lost.23 Little wonder they took to sea in boats to fish and to exploit obsidian on Melos, as the memory of Aegean geography was a product of the rising waters. In Crete, as Jeffrey Soles so convincingly argued a quarter century ago, 24 the 8,000 years of habitation since the initial establishment of a settlement at Knossos by Anatolian immigrants, created a primacy that led it to be remembered as the axis mundi of the Minoan world. This deep memory drove not only Minoan culture but also the Greek-speaking mainlanders, who coveted it and preserved it once they owned and controlled it. The memory of Knossos reverberates today in Strauss’ Ariadne auf Naxos, in Mozart’s Idomeneo, and 17 18

19

20

21 22

23

24

K. GALLIS, “A Late Neolithic Offering from Thessaly,” Antiquity 59 (1985) 20-24. L.E. TALALAY, “Rethinking the Function of Clay Figurine Legs from Neolithic Greece: An Argument by Analogy,” AJA 91 (1987) 161-169. M. PAPPA, P. HALSTEAD, K. KOTSAKIS, and D. UREM-KOTSOU, “Evidence for Large-scale Feasting at Late Neolithic Makriyalos, Northern Greece,” in P. HALSTEAD and J.C. BARRETT (eds), Food, Cuisine and Society in Prehistoric Greece (2004) 16-44. M. LINDBLOM, “Early Mycenaean Mortuary Meals at Lerna VI with Special Emphasis on their Aeginetan Components,” in F. FELTON, W. GAUSS and R. SMETANA (eds), Middle Helladic Pottery and Synchronisms. Proceedings of the International Workshop Held at Salzburg, October 31st - November 2nd, 2004 (2007) 115-135. R. LAFFINEUR, this volume; K.A and D. WARDLE, this volume. L. GIRELLA, “Exhuming an Excavation: Preliminary Notes on the Use of the Kamilari Tholos Tomb in Middle Minoan III,” in C.F. MACDONALD and C. KNAPPETT (eds), Intermezzo: Intermediacy and Regeneration in Middle Minoan III Palatial Crete (2013) 149-159. Tj.H. VAN ANDEL and J. HANSEN, “Evolution of the Franchthi Landscape,” in Tj.H. VAN ANDEL and S.B. SUTTON (eds), Landscape and People of the Franchthi Region, Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece 2 (1987) 55-62. J. SOLES, “The Functions of a Cosmological Center: Knossos in Palatial Crete,” in R. LAFFINEUR and W.-D. NIEMEIER (eds), POLITEIA. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age (1995) 405-414.

MNEMONICS FOR ARCHAEOLOGISTS

7

memories of the Labyrinth and Daedalus. Staying in place was a by-word in the prehistoric world and the landscapes of place were deeply implanted in intergenerational memory. Among the islands, as Broodbank has demonstrated,25 staying in place meant changing places, as inter-island intercourse made the Aegean Sea a highly mobile, familiar seascape of interdependent communities reaching far back before the EBA. How is this sea-scape memorialized in the incised and impressed imagery of the rays of the sun and the spirals of sea waves on our poorly named “frying pans”? The longboats that carry them also carry in their representation memories of voyages. Networks, like fishing nets, gather the members of these communities together, and even in times of trouble, such as the transition from EC to MC, the social bonds hold, are remembered, if tenuously, to be reconnected in different forms from fortified ports like Kolonna, Ayia Irini and Phylakopi. These troubles bring to mind displacement, which strongly affects memories as people flee from one place to another, as happened at Smyrna in 1922 and today is happening daily on Samos and Lesbos and on other islands as new refugees seek safety and their former abodes are abandoned and remembered with pain and nostalgia. How often did refugees ply the waters of the Aegean in the Bronze Age? What was remembered when hamlets and villages were attacked, destroyed, and the inhabitants fled? Did this happen at Mochlos and Palaikastro in the face of impending attacks at the end of LM IB? There is a hermeneutic in prehistory and we should seek to claim it. Staying in place and fleeing are the bookends of movement. To consider speed and its role in memory we must begin early – the Palaeolithic or Mesolithic would be a place to start. Hunters and foragers are driven by the cycle of the seasons. Following prey or gathering wild fruits are seasonal activities. Slow and repetitive but steady and predictable are the modes of speed for all foragers, hunters, and agriculturalists. These natural, organic rhythms were brilliantly mapped out in David Clarke’s diagram of the agricultural year for the Iron Age settlement of Glastonbury.26 He described the cycles of activity from infield to outfield movement as gardens were cultivated; grains planted and harvested; animals grazed, fattened, and slaughtered; and resources gathered in for winter. Paul Halstead has used his forty years of interviews to understand the rhythms of non-mechanized agro-pastoralism in Greece and his account reinforces the importance of the seasons as the base for collective memory.27 Another form of collective memory increases the speed but still is slow, driven by muscle power, constrained by the seasons. Here we take to sea again in a longboat. As noted, seafaring is social and, as any sailor knows, it requires good judgment, a crew that follows commands, and a captain who earns his reputation. When copper and silver are the goals of a voyage, the craftsman comes on board. Voyages are purposeful: exchange and profit drive the craft and quicken the sailor’s heart. In Micronesia all await the kula boat and its arrival is greeted with festivity.28 News, gifts, and commodities are exchanged. Stories are told. Social networks are renewed. In a term familiar in ancient Greek the proxenos advances standing relations among distant peoples. Intergenerational ties are memorialized. Knowledge is exchanged. There are opportunities for commercial and social advancement. These take on more meaning when the sail is introduced around 2000 BCE. Cyprus replaces Siphnos in the search for copper. New horizons are ventured and new routes are memorized. More is at stake, hence states come into being to manage affairs, as the West House ship frescoes from Akrotiri remember. Imagine the memories attendant upon the departure and the arrival of the fleet! Youths run to the headland to be the first to espy the sailing craft. Like the kula and its ceremonies, these scheduled voyages take on a cosmic form as they are anticipated and fulfilled year in and year out. And even as they take place within age-old communities among the Aegean islands, the sails bring foreigners too, as we infer from the Canaanite jar from Akrotiri and the proto-white-slip pottery from Cyprus at Phylakopi.29 25 26

27 28 29

C. BROODBANK, An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades (2000). D. CLARKE, “A Provisional Model of an Iron Age Society and its Settlement System,” in D. CLARKE (ed.), Models in Archaeology (1972) 801-869. P. HALSTEAD, Two Oxen Ahead: Pre-mechanized Farming in the Mediterranean (2014). S. MALINOWSKI, Argonauts of the Western Pacific (1922). S. MARINATOS, Excavations at Thera VII (1976) 29, Pl. 49b; C. EDGAR, “The Pottery,” in T. ATKINSON, R. BOSANQUET, C. EDGAR, A. EVANS, D. HOGARTH, D. MACKENZIE, C.

James C. WRIGHT

8

Not so much later the role of foreigners is more apparent as the speed of movement increases during the Late Bronze Age. The shipwreck at Ulu Burun tells us that mariners wrote memos of their voyages, recorded cargo and exchanges, mixed passengers from throughout the Eastern Mediterranean and probably even the Black Sea.30 Wenamun later remembers what these voyages were about during times of danger.31 We lack a contemporary account for the Ulu Burun crew but we can imagine through the Ahhiyawa texts the memories of engagement with Hittites, Lukka, Alasiya, and others.32 Another way to grasp the change in speed is to consider the road network that was constructed by the overlords at Mycenae to give quick access to its territories. Lavery and Jansen have mapped these routes and from the work of the Berbati-Limnes survey we can grasp not only how they permitted ox carts to bring produce to Mycenae but also how the overlords might arrive on chariots for inspections, perhaps even wearing suits of armor as we know from Dendra.33 The modern equivalent to this, I suppose, is driving a Ferrari or being chauffeured in a Rolls Royce. However one arrives, the trip is impressive and memorable! Today we are accustomed to rapid increases in speed through superhighways, airplanes and their connecting hubs, and the fast-changing channels of communication occasioned by the internet. Greater speed increases social anxiety. One tries to keep up. One is not certain what is the latest fashion or gadget. Would it have been much different for those who were competing for prestige during the Shaft Grave period or for administrators during the Mycenaean Palace period when threatened by the increasing social and economic instability of the last decades of the 13th c. BCE? Speed in this sense is subversive of memory. As Connerton points out, it contributes to forgetting.34 The erasure of memory occasioned by speed is part and parcel of the manipulation of memory. Increased speed is alienating. Instead of walking familiar paths, one travels from point to point, forgetting everything in between. Instead of reciting the Iliad and the Odyssey, one looks up the needed line on Wikipedia. Following Assmann, we should consider the tension between a community’s traditional Communicative Memory and a civilization’s desire to fix cultural memory to support larger-scale socio-political and economic structures, such as the palace cultures of Crete and Mycenae.35 3. Labor Labor is inextricably tied up with memory. One cannot work without remembering the task to be accomplished. The way to do it, especially the proper way to do it not only is remembered – it is also taught. Hence the origin of craft. Craft precedes modern humans. Early hominins discovered how to make tools. The craft of tool production was learned, repeated, and taught. An interesting study by Reti has demonstrated that hominin tool-makers adjusted the process, the chaîne opératoire, of tool-making according to the type of rock that was selected for the tool.36 There are three essential elements of memory in tool production: 1. muscle memory, 2. material property memory, and 3. demonstrative memory. When we consider these together we recognize how an apprentice, through repetition, trains his or her muscles to precise actions to produce intended results. A virtuoso craftsperson exercises this expertise by inventing variations. The craftsperson knows that different properties of different materials require different approaches to manufacture for the intended result. And a virtuoso thinks on the basis of

30

31 32 33

34 35 36

SMITH and F. WELCH, Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos (1904) 158, fig. 4. C. PULAK, “Discovering a Royal Ship from the Age of King Tut: Uluburun, Turkey,” in G.F. BASS (ed.), Beneath the Seven Seas (2005) 34–47. H. GOEDICKE, The Report of Wenamun (1975). G.M. BECKMAN, T.R. BRYCE, and E. CLINE, The Ahhiyawa Texts (2011). J. LAVERY, “Some ‘New' Mycenaean Roads at Mycenae: Evriayuia Mikini,” BICS 40 (1995) 264-267; A. JANSEN, A Study of the Remains of Mycenaean Roads and Stations of Bronze-Age Greece (2002). CONNERTON (supra n. 11, 2009) 108-117, passim. ASSMANN (supra n 3) 48-50, passim. J.S. RETI, “Quantifying Oldowan Stone Tool Production at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania,” PLoS ONE 11,1 (2016) e0147352. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147352.

MNEMONICS FOR ARCHAEOLOGISTS

9

experience and expertise how different materials can be utilized for different results. Thus he or she may end up inventing new forms to suit new purposes. The memory of technique and the memory of resource acquisition are ingredients in invention. Knowledge is spread through demonstration. An apprentice learns to improvise and from time to time improves on the master’s lessons. And necessity in such hands is then the mother of invention. Such necessity might be occasioned by changing climate and change in habitat, as we have seen in the case of Franchthi. Invention might also be the consequence of changing social circumstances. As Costin has argued, craft production is scaled according to the complexity of the productive and consumptive circumstances.37 As societies scale up to larger entities with larger populations and more complex systems of control, the needs for production shift. They will be formalized for the production of cultural memory, for example to deliver specialized products that meet new needs. Such products can be managed. The craftsperson is then captured by the system. High status individuals commission specific products to achieve specific ends. Often these ends are about control and they require material objects – tools as it were – that are formalized and symbolic in order to demonstrate power, legitimacy, and authority. The knowledge of these objects (of their production and their use) is restricted to those who are skilled in the craft and those who command those skills. The reproduction of material culture by the elites and their craft groups creates and sustains civilization, as Baines and Yoffee have argued.38 The demands of complex scale societies – micro-states, territorial states, and empires – have to serve different needs at different scales. Because all of these entail larger populations, mass production is developed. Connerton argues that the difference between craft labor and mass labor entails a process of forgetting.39 In Marxian terms labor is alienated. The means of production is anonymous labor. The link between producer and consumer is weakened, even severed. Products are distributed, consumed, and discarded. The seas fill with anonymous unremembered garbage – perhaps the greatest monument of our current civilization. Anonymous labor is recognizable in the archaeological record. Conical cups are one example. Unpainted kylikes are another. Cyclopean walls yet another, while ashlar masonry with so-called mason’s marks may represent something in between, where craft groups or production processes leave symbolic traces. Anonymous production and the consumption of anonymous products entail a kind of forgetting, often for the purpose of remembering. What is forgotten is the laborer – the individual, even the craftsperson–in the interest of the product and what it symbolizes: the annual festival, the fortified palace center. The meaning of these mass-produced items is yoked to the process of imposing a standardized, controlled, and purposely formed memory over the more fluid, dynamic, and less controlled memory of the intergenerational, organic social group. Today we are flooded with such products of mass production and their use and disposal clogs our waste systems and the natural environment making them unsettling reminders of the fragility of our ecosystems and our disregard of each other and of the earth. 4. Power40 Consideration of the negative impact of alienated labor on memory raises the issue of constraint, which brings together place, movement, and labor in a consideration of power. When these three are constrained together they clarify the powerful role that mobility plays in human societies. Those under constraints – slaves, serfs, peasants, indentured servants, the poor and the heavily indebted – are people without history, as Eric Wolf termed them, yet were fully implicated in processes that became recorded history.41 Archaeologists and historians struggle to recover these unwritten histories. These groups were not originally without collective memories and indeed in the collective memories of the bards such as 37

38 39 40 41

C. COSTIN, “Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Documenting, and Explaining the Organization of Production,” in M.B. SCHIFFER (ed.), Archaeological Method and Theory III (1991) 1-56. BAINES and YOFFEE (supra n. 9) 235. CONNERTON (supra n 11, 2009) 40, 43, passim. ASSMANN (supra n. 3) 53-56. E. WOLF, Europe and the People Without History (1997) esp. 3-23.

10

James C. WRIGHT

Homer they play a role, as the shepherd Eumaeus reminds us. Yet even his story is framed from the standpoint of Odysseus – a position that Nakassis informs us is embedded in the Linear B tablets, where shepherds (poimen) are linguistically encapsulated by a highly-ranked personage who is in charge of them.42 It has taken a long time in the arc of human history to acknowledge the concepts of equality and universal rights and to have them embraced by global institutions like the United Nations. The unearthing and reclaiming of memory is one of the great projects of pluralism and multiculturalism today, and necessarily fraught with difficulty as these memories clash with the master narratives of majorities and also of the state. I will say more about this below. What I have been describing are thoughts derived from Assmann’s analysis of memory cultures and the conflicts between communicative memory and cultural memory. These conflicts are subsumed under the term of contested memory. The institutionalization of memory often incites resistance as other memories struggle to take their place on the stage. For those of you, who like me, are members of the class of 1968 this struggle is well-remembered, whether you participated or not in resistance in Paris, Berlin, Prague, Rome, Birmingham, or Chicago to the way governments were responding to public crises and were trying to efface local memories in favor of authoritative state ones. These actions inspired massive resistance, much of which challenged the underlying assumptions of state versions of cultural memory. For example in the United States a principal memory had been built around the institution of slavery, its abolition during the Civil War, and the lack of reconciliation thereafter. Also contested was the notion that Communism was a threat that had to be confronted in Vietnam. The resistance they spawned had deep roots in the past and they continue today to be part of the contested ground over which my nation struggles for some resolution. In large part these struggles are about incorporation of the traditions, memories, histories, and present realities of the diverse populations that make up the United States, including illegally resident immigrants and refugees. How might such a situation be recognized in Aegean prehistory? If we take the example of Crete and the rise of its palatial culture, there surely must be in such things as the remains of ritual action at the peak sanctuaries evidence of inclusion and exclusion that relate to this process. Perhaps the tension was sharpened after the assumption of power by the Greek-speaking overlords from LM II onwards. Knossos and across Eastern Crete and the Mesara are natural places to explore these tensions, places where ageold habits were disrupted by different economic mechanisms of control and extraction. Preston’s analyses of tensions in mortuary activities and mortuary forms during these periods suggests a fruitful direction of study.43 The long legacy of local worship in Eastern Crete and the changing use and display of terracotta female figures with up-raised arms (MGUAs) is another.44 On the mainland the frescoes representing scenes of combat are notable for the different costumes of the participants, especially the difference between state warriors with boar’s tusk helmets and less well-outfitted opponents wearing skins45 – an iconographic device known earlier in the sea-coast battle of the miniature frescoes of the West House at Akrotiri, Thera. Also the images from Pylos that show combat on other sides of a river may depict territorial contest along border areas. What evidence is there of the narratives of the opponents of the Mycenaean state? This question is intrinsic to our investigation of the collapse of the palace system at the end of the 13th c. BCE. It’s very hard for us to identify these opponents, though one avenue of inquiry involves trying to understand the role of “Mycenaeans” in the broadest senses in the multi-cultural milieu of the Sea Peoples and of the

42 43

44

45

D. NAKASSIS, Individuals and Society in Mycenaean Pylos (2013) 115-116. L. PRESTON, “A Mortuary Perspective on Political Changes in Late Minoan II-IIIB Crete,” AJA 108 (2004) 321-348. F. GAIGNEROT-DRIESSEN, “Goddesses Refusing to Appear? Reconsidering the Late Minoan III Figures with Upraised Arms,” AJA 118 (2014) 489-520. M. LANG, The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia II, The Frescoes (1966) frescoes 25H64, 31Hnws, 73, 75-76, 214; J. BENNET and J.L. DAVIS, “Making Mycenaeans: Warfare, Territorial Expansion, and Representations of the other in the Pylian Kingdom,” in R. LAFFINEUR (ed.), POLEMOS. Le contexte guerrier en Égée à l’âge du Bronze (1999) 105-120.

MNEMONICS FOR ARCHAEOLOGISTS

11

Ahhiyawa and their interactions with the Hittites. 46 It is easier, though still requiring some large assumptions, to investigate the post-palatial era through memory study. Maran has provided a fruitful approach in his analysis and interpretation of the Tiryns hoard.47 His suggestion that the hoard assembles material items that signal claims about the group that deposited the hoard to the deep past of Neopalatial Crete, to a cosmic order represented by the heirloom pieces of amber entwined in the gold of the “four quarters”, and to a contemporary world with ties to Cyprus and to Central Europe is complemented by the restatement of public authority claimed by the Warrior Vase from Mycenae, and also re-states in somewhat diminished form the ancestral and probably dynastic claims of the reconstructed Grave Circle inside the Lion Gate at Mycenae, brilliantly re-examined in this conference by Wardle and by Laffineur.48 These memories bring us close to the end of our period. We find ourselves on the brink of the socalled Dark Age. Assmann has explored this kind of period as a problem in memory studies and come up with the evocative term “floating memory”.49 Classical studies has long struggled to make sense of the relationship between the archaeologically established Mycenaean world and the age of heroes immortalized by Homer. Assmann usefully points out that floating memories exist in periods that are opaque, where factual historical uncertainty reigns. He notes they often contain selected narratives that are mixed of different stories, sometimes truncated and grafted one onto the other. He further notes that these conditions are part of a chronologically collapsed framework. These perspectives seem to me a rich opportunity to rethink how we envision the multi-century transition through the Early Iron Age that encompasses a mixed and chronologically fragmented landscape that includes former core areas such as the Argolid and Crete, while also incorporating peripheries and newcomers, whether Thessaly or Cyprus. A warning is necessary here and it calls attention to our unfortunate tendency to default to a monolithic view, e.g. “Greece”, without taking advantage of the shifting centers that we today focus on as dynamic during the post-palatial era, e.g. Lokris, Euboea, Achaia, Argolis, Eastern Crete, Rhodes, and Cyprus. What this all might mean for our understanding of the relation between the Bronze Age and the epic tradition represented by Homer has much to do with memory. If Maran’s interpretation of the Tiryns Treasure is probable, then we need understand how local reconstructions of the past were told and represented at these centers and, especially, how they evolved from the 11th through the 10th and 9th centuries, and finally began to be collated during the 8th century as polis and ethnos centers emerged. This of course is when the invention of writing fixed memories in an increasingly uniform cultural remembrance of what was a shifting intersection of multiple pasts across a very broad geography extending from the Tyrhenian Sea across the Aegean to Anatolia and the Eastern Mediterranean. 5. Ethics I would be remiss to conclude without turning attention to a related problem that is central to our discipline and its relationship to its founders. We often give priority to Schliemann, who, through his force of will, defied the communis opinio that Homer told nothing about the prehistoric past, and instead used him as a guide to the discovery of the ruins of the prehistoric Aegean and to its interpretation. In this project he was followed and much improved upon methodologically by Sir Arthur Evans, whose attention to comparative stratigraphy enabled him to develop an interpretive strategy that linked the Cretans to the ancient Near East and Egypt, even as their ruins were being uncovered. Notably among these founders is the work of Christos Tsountas, whose attention to systematic excavation and publication extended the map of prehistory into the islands and up to Central Greece and also reached deep into the Neolithic. His work, along with that of the great British expedition to Phylakopi opened the way for a stratigraphic and 46

47

48 49

E.H. CLINE and D. O’CONNOR, “The Sea Peoples,” in E.H. CLINE and D. O’CONNOR (eds), Ramesses III (2012) 180-208; BECKMAN et alii (supra n. 32). J. MARAN, “Coming to terms with the past: ideology and power in Late Helladic IIIC,” in S. DEGERJALKOTZY and I.S. LEMOS (eds), Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer (2006) 123150. R. LAFFINEUR, this volume and K.A. and D. WARDLE, this volume. ASSMANN (supra n. 3) 34-35, 54.

12

James C. WRIGHT

strictly archaeological approach to the prehistory of the Aegean. The construction of a narrative guided by epics and classical written sources is opposed to a more strictly archaeological construction. This is similar to the tension between fixed cultural memory and the more fluid and evanescent communicative memory. A strict archaeological approach is best suited to probing the latter and we practitioners need be aware of this and make it an explicit part of our methodology and interpretive goals. How to do this, however, requires a self-consciousness of the framework – of the cultures and traditions that bias our thinking, our interpretations, and our speaking and writing. Fortunately a number of our Greek colleagues have been leading the way in exposing these biases. I cite here briefly three studies that have opened our minds to this problem in Hellenic studies. What I am arguing here is the responsibility of archaeologists to recognize their ethical responsibilities in their work. We are major contributors to the fashioning of new collective memories about the Greek or Hellenic or Aegean past. As Hamilakis in his The Nation and its Ruins and Damaskos and Plantzos in their Singular Antiquity point out, the relationship between Greek national identity and the material culture uncovered through archaeology is fundamental to the way we view the past.50 This was apparent to the worl in the opening ceremony of the 2004 Olympic Games with its parade of a panoply of the past from the Early Bronze Age through the Byzantine era. These scholars have emphasized how ethically incumbent upon us it is to understand how our discoveries and our research are received, and therefore to couch our descriptions and interpretations in ways that do not contribute to narratives of memory that are not founded on a sober, methodologically sound, and factually accurate basis. Although we cannot probably control how our finds are understood, we do control their initial publication and dissemination. We must consider that what we say conditions how the past is received and how it is deployed. Hamilakis demonstrates this clearly in his illuminating chapter entitled “The Archaeologist as Shaman: The Sensory National Archaeology of Manolis Andronikos” and continues by examining archaeology under the dictatorship of Metaxas before exploring in the next chapter the material reproduction of the past at the concentration camp at Makronissos after the Civil War. Finally he ends with an essay about the modern dispute over the Elgin Marbles. In all of these the archaeologist plays a central role in shaping the narrative of cultural memory and the ethical implications are abundantly clear. What we say about the past plays directly into political and cultural action. In her ground-breaking book, Topographies of Hellenism, Artemis Leontis takes a figurative and literally topographical approach to the cultural landscape of the Hellenic nation by examining how artists, poets, novelists, and intellectuals mapped the monuments of antiquity into the emerging landscape of the nation from its inception to the present.51 She frames her analysis by three concepts: Entopia, Nostos, and Cosmos. Under the term entopia, Leontis shows how the monuments of antiquity were used to claim the national boundaries through a process of irredentism that grew those boundaries far beyond the initial territory of Central and Southern Greece that Capodistrias initially administered. The following phase nostos involved for artists like Seferis the nation in cycles of crisis, such as the Asia Minor catastrophe, that delay the national homecoming that is the realization of an authentic national form. We may quote from Seferis’ Mythistorima to make the point: Our country is closed in. The two black Symplegades close it in. When we go down to the harbours on Sunday to breathe freely we see, lit in the sunset, the broken planks from voyages that never ended, bodies that no longer know how to love.52

Finally, cosmos represents the attempt by modernists, such as Elytis, who rejected the westernimposed version of Hellenism in favor of an indigenous national one. The aim of these artists was to 50

51 52

Y. HAMILAKIS, The Nation and Its Ruins: Antiquity, Archaeology, and National Imagination in Greece (2007); D. DAMASKOS and D. PLANTZOS (eds), A Singluar Antiquity: Archaeology and Hellenic Identity in twentiethCentury Greece (2008). A. LEONTIS, Topographies of Hellenism: Mapping the Homeland (1995). Translation by Edmund Keeley: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/51457/mythistorema; see also LEONTIS (supra n. 51) 137, n. 11.

MNEMONICS FOR ARCHAEOLOGISTS

13

resolve the age-old quest for autonomy and authenticity, not by rejecting the past, but rather by owning it and tying it to the self-realization of the people, the λαός, of modern Greece. I find this best represented by a quote from Το ταξἰδι μου by Giannis Psycharis that Leontis provides: “Homer didn’t write, because he didn’t know how to write. . . . A single Homer did not exist. Homer was many people. Hellas thus proved itself to be a very rich topos – one poet was not enough; it produced many poets at once, all of whom wandered here and there throughout Greece, each telling his own tale. . . Poetry and imagination were not the possession of a single person, but of the entire λαός.” 53

Thus we come to the questions: Whose memories? Whose myths? What is truth? We discover how deeply we archaeologists are implicated as discoverers and arbiters of a nation of which we are either citizens or philhellene participants in the national quest for identity and meaning. We are sobered by our responsibilities and may seek some resolution in the Varronian meaning of antiquitates, as described by A. Momigliano in his examination of the Renaissance humanist project of writing history: the idea of a civilization recovered by systematic collection of all the relics of the past.54 But this is not enough even as systematic recovery drives us into science and the microarchaeology of the cellular, the atomic, and the sub-atomic world of discovery.55 Because the primary tenet of our method, context, cries out for our attention. As we all know, context is relative, but despite the subjectivism of the viewer, to achieve a full accounting, context requires inclusiveness and acknowledgement of the interdependence of different viewpoints, different methodologies, different kinds of evidence – from isotopes to texts. Hence reconstructing context is like picking up broken pieces of memories that were materialized in the organic and inorganic residue of the past. But more than that. Context requires we pay attention to the biases we bring and the cultural milieu in which we participate. Multiplicity and political-cultural agendas are the challenges. Our struggle as scientists of the past is entangled in ambiguity. And ambiguity demands fluidity, uncertainty, dialogue, and multi-perspectival understanding. In his advocacy for a multi-pronged approach to memory studies, Assmann writes powerfully about the pernicious misuse of memory, in particular when it is made one-dimensional.56 He points, as did the ancients, to the singleness of purpose that tyrants bring to their projects and shows how tyranny succeeds when memory is reduced to one totalitarian perspective. Book burning is a signal of this, whether in 1933 by Nazis or in 2016 by Daesh’s destruction of the library of the University of Mosul. One-dimensionality is not merely a contemporary Orwellian fear of totalitarian control but one that is pervasive in our daily lives through the routinization of culture created by the sameness of the neoliberal commodification of everything. 57 The spread of fast-food, the alienation of travel, whether on superhighways or through the commodification of airports-as-malls, or the take-over of the public sphere by private entities that control water, power, and natural resources, are all part of a corrosion of collective memory, a suppression of the varieties of cultures and their authentic, multi-layered and pluralistic memories. We are guardians of the past and our role is to offer up variety, to embrace ambiguity, and to resist the narratives that would be imposed upon us. A proper archaeology would constantly be providing the stuff of different memories of the past by dipping into the inexhaustible well of the forgotten material world and, through examination of its context, offering explanations about others that offer a resistance to the homogeneity of the past that is depicted through the media and by politicians and by the institutions of capital and of religion. How often do we chaff against inaccurate portrayals in cinema of Troy or Alexander the Great, or decry the romanticizing of archaeology by cheap readings of ancient texts instead of current work in isotope sourcing? The reduction of memory to a single dimension is not merely the aim 53 54

55 56 57

LEONTIS (supra n. 51) 192-193. A. MOMIGLIANO, “Ancient History and the Antiquarian,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institute (1950) 289. S. WEINER, Microarchaeology: Beyond the Visible Archaeological Record (2010). ASSMANN (supra n. 3) 68-69. W. BROWN, Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’s Stealth Revolution (2015).

14

James C. WRIGHT

of tyrants who seek power over populations but also of those persons who seek to monopolize control over resources, wealth, and knowledge. As I hope I have demonstrated in this essay, memory is a powerful concept for archaeology with significant implications for its practice and for the ethics of that practice. The application of the concept of memory to how we view and interpret the spatial-temporal sphere of archaeological research opens many doors in the mansion of the mind. We need be mindful as we carry out our research that aside from systematizing our finds and bringing order to the past, we are also its custodians and interpreters. As Simonides knew, memory permits us to re-people the past, to put them again around the banquet table and to recall the songs that were sung and the conviviality of the occasion before the danger that lurked in the night struck in a moment when we were unaware.58 James C. WRIGHT

58

I am alluding to Walter Benjamin’s Thesis VI in his On the Concept of History: “To articulate the past historically does not mean to recognize it ‘the way it really was’ (Ranke). It means to seize hold of a memory as it flashes up at a moment of danger. Historical materialism wishes to retain that image of the past which unexpectedly appears to man singled out by history at a moment of danger. The danger affects both the content of the tradition and its receivers. The same threat hangs over both: that of becoming a tool of the ruling classes. In every era the attempt must be made anew to wrest tradition away from a conformism that is about to overpower it. The Messiah comes not only as the redeemer, he comes as the subduer of Antichrist. Only that historian will have the gift of fanning the spark of hope in the past who is firmly convinced that even the dead will not be safe from the enemy if he wins. And this enemy has not ceased to be victorious.” From H. ARENDT, Illuminations (1973) 255.

A. MINOAN PALACES, REGIONAL LANDSCAPES AND BUILT ENVIRONMENTS

LIVING WITH THE PAST: SETTLEMENT MOBILITY AND SOCIAL MEMORY IN EARLY BRONZE AGE MESARA* The plain of Mesara and the changing landscape of the Geropotamos river between the end of the Neolithic and the beginning of the EBA: how the West was won The plain of Mesara, located in south-central Crete between the mountainous massifs of the Psiloritis and the Asterousia, is the largest and most fertile plain of the island, and is drained along its centre by the Geropotamos, a typical Mediterranean torrential river, and its numerous tributaries (Pl. Ia). Despite the fertility of the soil and the favorable orographic and climatic conditions, on present evidence the earlier sites date to the end of the Late Neolithic period and show that people avoided the lowland and established themselves on low hills located in the centre of the plain, in the territory of Gortyn.1 The hills near the delta of the Geropotamos, which form the Phaistos ridge, were instead occupied only in the final phases of the period, i.e. in the IV and III millennium BC. In fact, the palace hill at Phaistos was occupied before the end of the V millennium BC and later on was periodically frequented also by non-residents in the context of large-scale ceremonies that involved the conspicuous consumption of meat based meals and the ritual use of red ochre and triton shells.2 It should be however taken into consideration that the site, although traditionally considered to be an inland foundation that flourished thanks to its favourable position for the control of the plain, was actually founded as a coastal site. According to the results of recent geo-morphological research,3 in the V millennium BC the Phaistos hill was a promontory in the delta of the Geropotamos river, and remained on the coast until the end of the IV millennium BC, when the rather sudden infilling of the Timbaki gulf determined the progression of the coastline from Phaistos to Ayia Triadha (Pl. Ib). This discovery indicates that Ayia Triadha was founded, at the end of the IV millennium BC, when Phaistos lost its access to the sea, and that it was oriented towards the sea rather than towards the plain, * 1

2

3

To the memory of Enzo La Rosa, for the unconditioned support which he offered to my research over more than 25 years. L. VAGNETTI, “Tracce di due insediamenti neolitici nel territorio dell’antica Gortina,” in Antichità Cretesi. Studi in Onore di Doro Levi, Volume I (1973) 1-9; S. TODARO, The Phaistos Hills before the Palace: a Contextual Reappraisal (2013) 270-271. Recently P. Tomkins has argued that earlier sites must have been present in the plain, but have so far escaped identification because they are buried by a level of alluvium: P. TOMKINS, “Palimpsests and proxies. A Reconsideration of Neolithic Settlement in the Mesara before Phaistos,” in G. BALDACCI and I. CALOI (eds), Radhamanthys. Studi dedicati a Filippo Carinci (2018) 129136. While not excluding that future discoveries might confirm this hypothesis, it should be however noted that at least the territory of Gortyn, which was largely and extensively investigated by Italian and Greek archaeologists with thousands of tests pits, has the bedrock located at less than 2m below the modern ground level. S. TODARO and S. DI TONTO, “The Neolithic Settlement of Phaistos revisited: Evidence for Ceremonial Activity on the Eve of the Bronze Age,” in V. ISAAKIDOU and P. TOMKINS (eds), Escaping the Labyrinth: The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield, 21-23/01/2006) (2008) 177-190; S. TODARO, “The Final Neolithic–Early Minoan I Transition in South-Central Crete: A Preliminary Account from Phaistos,” in S. DIETZ, F. MAVRIDIS, Ž. TANKOSIĆ and T. TAKAOĞLU (eds), Communities in Transition: The Circum-Aegean Area in the 5th and 4th Millennia BC (2018) 428-442. The research was in large part conducted in the 80s, as part of N. Fytroulakis’ PhD. The results and the implications for Phaistos and Ayia Triadha were published in 2005, when the reconstruction proposed by Fytroulakis received further chronological support thanks to the bore-hole of a well excavated in the plain near the church of Ayios Onouphrios: N. FYTROLAKIS, A. PETEREK and B. SCHRODER, “Initial Geoarchaeological Investigations on the Holocene Coastal Configuration near Phaistos/Agia Triadha (Mesara plain, central Crete, Greece),” in E. FOUACHE and K. PAVLOPOULOS (eds), Sea-Level Changes in Eastern Mediterranean during the Holocene (2005) 111-123.

18

Simona TODARO

the westernmost part of which did not in fact exist at the time of its foundation. It also explains why the western Mesara was only colonized at the end of the IV millennium BC, and why throughout the EBA it was characterised by the same residential mobility that has been noted in the Asterousia.4 As a marshy and unstable wetland, this part of the plain was good for herding, especially cattle, but not for permanent settlement and must have appeared to early farming communities to be as marginal to their way of life as were the uplands of the Asterousia.5 From this perspective it becomes easier to understand why uplands and lowlands in south-central Crete were characterized by the same settlement strategies, based on isolated farmsteads that were abandoned after a short period of use. In both areas settlements were small and usually occupied for just a single ceramic phase and in fact not even a site like Ayia Triadha, which provided deposits and structures dating to every phase of the EM period, can be defined as a long-lived settlement. On the contrary, on account of the wide distribution of the various evidence across the site (Pl. IIa), it appears more as a composite patchwork, i.e. a palimpsest of activities performed by groups who over several hundred years happened to have settled intermittently at the site for some time.6 That this might have been the case is further suggested by the two houses of the so-called Quartiere Prepalaziale at Ayia Triadha, located to the east of the cemetery and also known as Case Laviosa from the archaeologist C. Laviosa who excavated them in the early 70s.7 The two structures, dubbed casa est and casa ovest, are usually considered to be part of a hamlet, because they both provided pottery attributable to a relatively late phase of EM IIA (Pl. IIb-c). However, a closer examination of their architecture reveals that they represent two distinct sequential episodes of occupation, which were circumscribed in time and space. More specifically, the small dimensions of the buildings, coupled with the scarce amount of pottery accumulated on their floors, with the lack of middens in their vicinity and with the negative results of the test-pits conducted in 2008 on the other side of the road, indicate that the extent and intensity of human activity in the area was very limited and probably attributable to two nuclear families of the type described by T. Whitelaw in his landmark 1983 article on Minoan society.8 In the absence of detailed analytical studies on faunal or human remains it is impossible to ascertain whether the abandonment occurred (for environmental or social reasons)9 during the lifetime of the first occupants, or after their death, as one would expect with a nuclear family. The data provided by tholos A are not helpful because the tomb was built in EM IIB, one or two generations after the abandonment of Case Laviosa, and was itself abandoned soon afterwards, to be re-used many generations later by people who in all probability did not even descend from the founders.10 4

5

6 7 8

9

10

T. WHITELAW, “Settlement Instability and Landscape Degradation in the Southern Aegean in the Third Millennium BC,” in P. HALSTEAD and C. FREDERICK (eds), Landscape and Land use in Postglacial Greece (2000) 135-161; TODARO (supra n. 1). New studies on wetland sites of the Neolithic Swifterbant culture, which was spread in the north European plain (between Antwerp in Belgium and Hamburg in Germany) in the Vth millennium BC, suggests that agriculture can be in fact practiced at a low risk in a wetland environment but only on a small scale, R.T.J. CAPPERS and D.C.M. RAEMAEKERS, “Cereal Cultivation at Swifterbant?: Neolithic Wetland Farming on the North European Plain,” Current Anthropology 49,3 (2008) 385-402. Wetlands, however, are more suitable for cattle herding than for cereal cultivation and this might explain the large concentration of cattle found in the earliest phases of occupation of the Phaistos hill: TODARO and DI TONTO (supra n. 2). S. TODARO, “Haghia Triada nel Periodo Antico Minoico,” CretAnt 4 (2003) 62-85. C. LAVIOSA, “L’abitato prepalaziale di Hagia Triada,” ASAtene 50/51 (1972/1973) 503-513. T. WHITELAW, “The Settlement at Fournou Korifi Myrtos and Aspects of Early Minoan Social Organization,” in O. KRZYSZKOWSKA and L. NIXON (eds), Minoan Society. Proceedings of the Cambridge Colloquium 1981) (1983) 323-345. S. TODARO, “Residential Mobility and Ritual Stability: Rebuilding Houses at Phaistos,” in J. DRIESSEN and M. RELAKI, OIKOS. Archaeological Approaches to House Societies in the Ancient Aegean (Louvainla-Neuve, 6th-7th December 2018), forthcoming. TODARO (supra n. 6); M. CULTRARO, “La grande Tholos di Haghia Triada: nuovi dati per un vecchio complesso,” CretAnt 4 (2003) 301-328; F. CARINCI, “Haghia Triada nel periodo Medio

SETTLEMENT MOBILITY AND SOCIAL MEMORY IN EARLY BRONZE AGE MESARA

19

Overall, the houses and the tomb from Ayia Triadha, although belonging to different phases of the EM II period, testify to the same discontinuity of use that has been documented in the Asterousia, at sites such as Kali Selia, Trypiti, Lebena and Ayia Kyriaki,11 and suggests that the regional population in the III millennium BC moved between uplands and lowlands, in ways that recall the wandering farmsteads model well documented in the Dutch River area.12 Mobility studies, however, should not limit themselves to explaining how people moved and where they went; they should also try to highlight the mechanism(s) that allowed mobility by clarifying how people move and more specifically: how did they know where to go? How did they overcome problems of land ownership and residence? In the case of south-central Crete, considering that it was only properly occupied in the III millennium BC one could argue that land-ownership issues only arose late in the Prepalatial period and were solved by using man-made elements of the landscape, such as the circular communal tombs. Differently from the farmsteads that were used for very short periods of time, the circular tombs were maintained, albeit intermittently, for long periods because they served as territorial foci to legitimate control over land and productive resources.13 In situations of extreme residential mobility, however, earlier tombs could also act as practical device that guided “people on the move”, indicating where to settle and providing the possibility of claiming ancestral right to land ownership and residence. Assuming however that the very presence of a tomb could reassure potential settlers about the viability of an area for settlement, can we assess how that particular location was identified and chosen in the first place as a locale that was good for settlement? Research conducted in recent years in these cemeteries has demonstrated that the vast majority of tholos tombs were founded in areas that had been already frequented. At Ayia Kyriaki or Lebena II, for example, a tomb was constructed in a mature phase of EM I in areas frequented between the end of FN period and the beginning of EM IA;14 at Ayia Triadha, tholos A was constructed in EM IIB, in an area that had been frequented in EM I, and that in EM IIA was provided with a small rectangular building (room alpha) that might have been part of a larger EM IIA complex disturbed by later structures.15 In contrast to Lebena and Ayia Kyriaki, where the pottery accumulated during the pre-tomb frequentation is so fragmentary that any functional assessment would be speculative, Ayia Triadha includes several chalices, jugs, pyxides and double-vases and suggests that the area was frequented for acts of ceremonial consumption of drink. Can we therefore argue that pre-tomb frequentation represented “exploratory expeditions” that were part of a specific settlement strategy based on mobility, and that the treatment reserved for the debris formed during this activity was intentional, i.e. was functional in creating a specific collective memory that could be used by later visitors of the area?

11 12

13

14

15

Minoico,” CretAnt 4 (2003) 97-143; IDEM, “Priests in Action: considerazioni sulla fine dell’età Prepalaziale ad Haghia Triada,” CretAnt 5 (2004) 25-41. WHITELAW (supra n. 4). S. ARNOLDUSSEN, A Living Landscape. Bronze Age Settlement Sites in the Dutch River Area 2000-800 BC (2008); L.P. LOUWE KOOIJMANS, “Wetland Exploitation and Upland Relations of Prehistoric Communities in the Netherlands,” in J. GARDINER (ed.), Flatlands and Wetlands: Current Themes in East Anglian Archaeology (1993) 71-116. J. MURPHY, “Ideology, Rites and Rituals: A View of Prepalatial Minoan Tombs,” in K. BRANIGAN (ed.), Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age (1999) 27-40; WHITELAW (supra n. 4) 151; S. DEDERIX, “A Matter of Scale. Assessing the Visibility of Circular Tombs in the Landscape of Bronze Age Crete,” Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 4 (2015) 525-534; EADEM, “Communication Networks, Interactions, and Social Negotiation in Prepalatial South-Central Crete,” AJA 121.1 (2017) 5-37. Most of the pottery belonging to the pre-tombs frequentation, although traditionally described as SubNeolithic or Final Neolithic, in fact shows close comparisons with the pottery found in the third phases of occupation at Phaistos and should therefore be attributed to a very early stage of EM IA early: TODARO (supra n. 2). V. LA ROSA, “I saggi di scavo nell’area della necropoli 1997-1999,” CretAnt 14 (2013) 133-312.

20

Simona TODARO

Ritual practices and social memory in EBA Mesara: the EM I tumulus at Ayia Triadha While acknowledging that rubbish management strategies are in general far more informative about settlement strategies than architecture,16 one should also recognize that the nature and scope of past human activities can be best investigated by paying attention to the treatment reserved for their debris, rather than to the objects used, whose functional destination remains at times obscure to us due to a lack of information about their context of use. This is especially true in the case of ritual practices, because it is well known that various items have been described as “ritual” simply because their morphological and typological features did not make their function and use obvious to us. In the case of Early Bronze Age Mesara scholars have long assumed that any form of ritual activity was confined to the cemeteries of tholos tombs, which since EM II were provided with courts where people could gather to honour and commemorate their dead, but also to establish social relationships and negotiate social identities.17 Aside from the physical space where these ceremonies could have been performed, however, cemeteries provide very little evidence in terms of ritual practices because the pottery used was found either stored in the annexes or in secondary deposition contexts. Recent research conducted in sites such as Phaistos and Ayia Triadha has instead revealed that at least these two sites were actively involved in ritual activity and provide much more detailed information on the actual practices performed because their debris was discarded in situ. In the case of Phaistos the evidence consists of large assemblages of pottery and animal bones that, once interpreted as the debris of large-scale episodes of consumption of food and drink, demonstrated that the palace hill had functioned as a regional ceremonial centre from its very first phases of occupation. It was, in other words, the necessary focal and reference point for the population of the western Mesara, who lived in isolated farmsteads moving between the uplands and the marshy wetland, but periodically gathered on the Phaistos hill for episodes of consumption of food and drink that served to construct a communal identity.18 In contrast to the acts of consumption that occurred daily at a household level, these large-scale episodes took place in the open-air, involved large quantities of meat, and were concluded with the in situ discard of their debris, composed of highly specialized vessels and large amounts of animal bones. This behaviour determined the creation of long sequences of hearths and floors, all in the same spot at a progressively higher level, and led to the formation of a tell that was in its own right a “monument” to the longevity of the ritual activity that was performed on the hill. A series of changes occurred in EM IIA, when the open air-locations were paved and the debris stopped being discarded in situ; in EM III, when a large part of the debris was used in construction fills associated with large-scale building projects; and at the beginning of MM IB when a portion was retained and dedicated as foundation deposits underneath the floors or within benches of the building known as the First Palace.19 The stratigraphies of the west and central courts of the first palace at Phaistos therefore on the one hand show that the ritual destination of the two areas was established in the Neolithic period, when the first open-air cooking installations were laid down almost directly on the bedrock; on the other they indicate that the extraordinary consistency in the location of the ceremonial areas was probably 16

17

18 19

S. EEDHAM and T. SPENCE, “Refuse and the Formation of Middens,” Antiquity 71 (1997) 77-90; J. EERKENS, “Residential Mobility and Pottery Use in the Western Great Basin,” CurrAnthropol 44 (2003) 728-738; on the importance of architecture M.W. DIEHL, “Architecture as a Material Correlate of Mobility Strategies: Some Implications for Archaeological Interpretation,” Cross-cultural Research 26 (1992) 1-35. K. BRANIGAN, Dancing with Death: Life and Death in Southern Crete c. 3000-2000 BC (1993); K. BRANIGAN (ed.), Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age (1999); M. RELAKI, “Constructing a Region: the Contested Landscapes of Prepalatial Mesara,” in J. BARRETT and P. HALSTEAD, The Emergence of Civilization Revisited (2004) 170-188. TODARO (supra n. 1) 217-231. S. TODARO, “The Latest Prepalatial Period and the Foundation of the First Palace at Phaistos: a Stratigraphic and Chronological Re-assessment,” CretAnt 10/I (2009) 105-145.

SETTLEMENT MOBILITY AND SOCIAL MEMORY IN EARLY BRONZE AGE MESARA

21

determined by the treatment reserved to the debris of the earlier ceremonies, which being disposed of in situ determined a rapid and visible increase in the surface level. A rather different case is documented by Ayia Triadha, where continuity in the ritual destination of a specific area appears less obvious in the context of the site’s overall notable discontinuity of occupation. The area, known as Piazzale dei Sacelli after the open air shrine that was founded in LM IIIC, remained free from structures, despite its centrality within the site, and had in fact been frequented only in EM I, during one or more consecutive episodes of consumption of food and drink that took place on the occasion of the foundation of the site, clearly alluded to by the presence of several house-models (Pl. IIIab).20 In contrast to the comparably large-scale gatherings that occurred at Phaistos, the vessels from the Piazzale dei Sacelli (which comprise ring footed bowls and chalices in dark grey pattern burnished ware, jugs and jars richly decorated in dark-on-light, and cooking pots) were ritually killed and sealed by river pebbles, before being retained in situ by a circular wall with a diameter of 20m and a preserved height of 0.60m to form a tumulus (Pl. IIIb). In fact, while specific elements of this ceremony find good comparisons in Crete and beyond, the specific treatment of its debris currently appears to be unique. For example, the connection between food consumption and house-models in the context of a foundation ceremony finds a good parallel at Kissonerga-Mosphilia (Cyprus), where at the end of the 4th millennium a house model was buried in a pit during a feast that had apparently been organised by a restricted group of people in order to promote their shifting into a previously unoccupied area of the site.21 The association between river pebbles and the ritual killing of pottery finds a good comparison in the ceremonial pit of the Early Bronze Age cemetery at Tsepi, where river pebbles were used to seal episodes of depositions of the ceramic assemblages used in the ceremonies that accompanied the burial activity, but also to seal some burials and to seal the top of a small earthen mound (cairn 66)22 found in proximity to the ceremonial pit. The use of a retaining wall to keep the debris of large numbers of vessels in situ is only attested at Phaistos and Ayia Triadha in the late Prepalatial period and in connection with clearance operations that were performed in function of new building activity, which at Phaistos coincided with the construction of the court-complex that is traditionally referred to as the First Palace, and at Ayia Triadha coincided with the construction of tholos B. None of the two cases are however comparable with the situation encountered in the Piazzale dei Sacelli, where the retaining wall had a diameter of 20m and led to the creation of a ritual tumulus of the type attested in the EH II period in mainland Greece, and more specifically at Thebes, Lerna and Olympia.23 The EM I tumulus from Ayia Triadha, therefore, if considered in all its components, appears to be a hybrid between a foundation deposit created with the debris of the ceremony that inaugurated the foundation of the site,24 and a ritual tumulus, which, although created with the debris of that event, also 20

21

22 23

24

S. TODARO, “Il deposito AM I dal Piazzale dei Sacelli di H. Triada: I modellini architettonici,” ASAtene 81 (2003) 11-36; EADEM, “A Non-funerary Context for Communal Feasting in EM I Ayia Triada (Crete),” in Y. HAMILAKIS and M. VLASAKI (eds), Feasting and Ritual Depositions in Prehistoric and Geometric Crete (Chania 5 ottobre 2006) (2011) 59-72. E. PELTENBURG, “A Ceremonial Model: Context for a Prehistoric Building Model from Kissonerga, Cyprus,” in B. MULLER (ed.), Maquettes architecturales de l’Antiquité, Actes du colloque de Strasbourg (3-5 décembre 1998) (2001) 123-141. M. PANTELIDOU GOFA, Tsepi Marathonos. To Protoelladikò Nekrotafeio (2005) 279-281. In these sites, non-funerary tumuli were erected with the destruction rubble of special buildings in the area where they stood so as to preserve the memory of the tragic events that ended their life, by turning that area into abata; S. MÜLLER CELKA, “Burial Mounds and “Ritual tumuli” of the Aegean Early Bronze Age,” in E. BORGNA and S. MÜLLER CELKA (eds), Ancestral Landscapes. Burial Mounds in the Copper and Bronze Ages (Central and Eastern Europe –Balkans – Adriatic –Aegean, 4th-2nd millennium BC). Proceedings of the International conference held in Udine, May 15th-18th 2008) (2011) 415-428. J. MORRIS WEINSTEIN, Foundation Deposits in Ancient Egypt: a Dissertation in Oriental Studies, Unpublished Thesis 1973; R.S. ELLIS, Foundation Deposits in Ancient Mesopotamia (1968); G.R. HUNT, Foundation Rituals and the Culture of Building in Ancient Greece (Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapell Hill, 2006); for Crete see C. BOULOTIS, “Μινωικοὶ ἀποθέτες θεμελίωσης,” in Πεπραγμένα του

Simona TODARO

22

performed the function of sema, preventing the area from being occupied by later structures. The dearth of precise comparisons prevents assessment of whether the choice of creating a mound, which usually marks the end of an occupation phase rather than the beginning, has something to do with the fact that the foundation ceremony of the site was not accompanied by actual occupation of the site, which in fact took place several hundred years later. Assuming that the ceremony in fact took place in the course of one of the many “exploratory expeditions” that apparently preceded the permanent occupation of a site by several generations, then the decision to create a tumulus appears entirely logical. Foundation deposits such as those dedicated at Phaistos when the First palace was built25 or when some of its rooms were restructured,26 or like the one dedicated at Kissonerga-Amenospilia when the settlement was substantially re-organised,27 are effective as a mnemonic strategy only in the case of continuity of occupation because as a rule they are hidden and therefore any knowledge about their existence relies on oral tradition, i.e. on a story told about it by someone who was present during the ceremony. A tumulus, on the other hand, remains visible in the landscape and is always there to pose questions about its formation, thus preventing people from forgetting, and providing later users with a past that could be reinvented and manipulated according to their needs. From this perspective, it seems highly unlikely that the LM I inhabitants of the site were aware that it was originally linked to the foundation of the site: they respected the area because of the mound and through time surrounded it with buildings that had a marked ritual function, underlining that it had retained a sacred value. This special value continued during the Mycenaean phase of the site, when a megaron was constructed near the tumulus, and justified the construction in the area of an open air shrine that was frequented by the regional population for several hundred years, and of a medieval church. Only in the 14th and 15th centuries AD was the tumulus disrupted by a few Venetian tombs belonging to the church of San Giorgio Galata: it nevertheless continued to influence the history of the site. The cutting of the tombs brought to light Early Minoan pottery painted in the style of Ayios Onouphrios that was promptly imitated by the Venetians, creating a style that the Italians have labelled “Haghios Onouphrios Veneziano”, thus writing the last unexpected chapter in the history of the tumulus. Concluding remarks Recent geo-morphological research has clarified that the westernmost part of the plain of Mesara in the IV and III millennium BC was largely submerged by the water of the Geropotamos, whose delta created a marshy and unstable wetland that only started to stabilize at the end of the III millennium, i.e. several centuries after the infilling of the Tymbaki gulf and the progression of the coastline from Phaistos to Ayia Triadha was completed. It is therefore little surprise that such an unstable landscape was only occupied at the end of the IV millennium BC by small groups, who lived in isolated farmsteads moving between uplands and wetlands, but who could periodically gather at a site like Phaistos to participate in communal ceremonies that allowed the survival of the dispersed settlement system typical of the region. Settlement mobility, however, although justified by the unstable nature of this environment, requires specific strategies to be sustainable, not only from a socio-economic perspective, but also in practical terms: it entails taking certain risks and also raises issues of land ownership. The available data has shown that people living in the Mesara overcame both problems through a systematic use of mnemonic devices aimed at constructing a social memory: as they shifted about in the region, moving between uplands and marshy lowlands, they mapped themselves in the landscape by leaving behind

25 26

27

Ε´ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου (Άγιος Νικόλαος, 25 Σεπτεμβρίου - 1 Οκτωβρίου 1981) Α´ (1985) 248-257; I. CALOI, “Preserving Memory in Minoan Crete. Filled-in Bench and the Platform Deposits from the First Palace of Phaistos,” Journal of Greek Archaeology 2 (2017) 33-52. TODARO (supra n. 19). V. LA ROSA, “Liturgie domestiche o depositi di fondazione? Vecchi e nuovi dati da Festòs e Haghia Triada,” CretAnt 3 (2002) 13-50. PELTENBURG (supra n. 21).

SETTLEMENT MOBILITY AND SOCIAL MEMORY IN EARLY BRONZE AGE MESARA

23

scatters of pottery or monuments, which could have been dwellings, tombs or ritual tumuli. Although, on present evidence, the only certain tumulus is that found at Ayia Triadha, a circular platform discovered at Phaistos beneath the west court of the First Palace,28 and the frequent mention of circular enclosure walls in the reports of surveys conducted in the region, suggest the possibility that other tumuli might have existed but still await definitive identification. Simona TODARO

28

D. LEVI, Festòs e la Civiltà Minoica (1976) 334-335.

24

Simona TODARO LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Pl. Ia

The Western Mesara Plain (adapted after L.V. WATROUS, D. HADZI-VALLIANOU and H. BLITZER, The plain of Phaistos. Cycles of Social Complexity in the Mesara Region of Crete [2004]). Pl. Ib The alluvial plain of Mesara during the Neolithic (A) and the Minoan periods (B), with hatched line denoting the relevant coastlines (drawn by V. Amato). Pl. IIa Ayia Triadha. Plan of the site showing the spread distribution of EM deposits and structures across settlement and necropolis (adapted after TODARO [supra n. 6]). Pl. IIb Ayia Triadha. Quartiere Prepalaziale excavated to the NE of the necropolis; Casa est, Casa ovest. Pl. IIc EM IIA late materials (adapted after LAVIOSA [supra n. 7]). Pl. IIIa Ayia Triadha. Piazzale dei Sacelli, with EM I tumulus and tombs of Venetian period (adapted after TODARO [supra n. 6]). Pl. IIIb Ayia Triadha. Drinking vessels and house model from EM I tumulus (adapted after TODARO [supra n. 20]).



a

b

I

II

a

b

c

III

a

b

PHAISTOS AND AYIA TRIADHA, FROM THE FINAL NEOLITHIC TO THE EARLY IRON AGE: TWO PLACES OF MEMORY A few years ago, Nicola Cucuzza1 wrote an interesting essay which is especially relevant to the topic dealt with in this paper. In a few, dense, pages, Cucuzza first tackled the problem of perception, then that of the memory of the Minoan monumental complexes, which, in established customary terminology are called “Palaces”. Although the paper dealt with all the Palaces in Crete, the Phaistos Palace along with the monumental remains of Ayia Triadha rightly held a prominent position, also due to the fact that both sites represent, in the regional context, places where the relationship with the past plays an evidently significant role. The few examples proposed in this paper could be useful in highlighting the strong presence of a memory of the past in many of the archaeological contexts of both these sites. They can help us to craft a network of memories indicating different features, within processes in which the value of the past interacts with the present and provides for the future. This relationship with the past is certainly linked to the perception of the Palace of Phaistos, the focus of the Mesara region spanning several centuries in the Bronze Age, to what it meant for those who built it, used it, or those who simply saw it. This perception remains etched in individual and collective memory and can be decisive for choices that occur over time, inevitably influenced by events of a different nature (natural disasters, economic, political and social upheavals). In our case, as confirmed by the studies of Todaro and Di Tonto2 on the Final Neolithic phases, the area subsequently occupied by the palatial building (Pl. IVa) was already a place of aggregation and, to a certain extent, of memory, as indicated by the presence of human remains in a secondary burial. The area was a place in which ceremonies were performed by the living,3 perhaps a reminder to the groups of the physical presence of previous generations, along with the conspicuous remains of meat consumption by groups that can be referred to a regional context, in which Phaistos already represents a definite focal point. Aside from the architectural realization, which, however, with the central court assumes an unquestionably unifying, if not standardised, form – the result perhaps even of emulation – what matters most is the value of the site as a place of local memory (ceremonial, religious, and social), which tends to persist over time. I should now like to go into some detail here, seeking to highlight the forms and modes of the relationship with the past in the context of the Phaistian area during the Bronze Age, in a review that will be limited, of course, to several case studies I consider more significant than others.

1

2

3

N. CUCUZZA, “Percezione e memoria dei palazzi minoici: qualche osservazione,” in R. GIGLI (ed.), Megalai Nesoi, Studi in onore di G. Rizza (2005) 51-63. S. TODARO and S. DI TONTO, “The Neolithic Settlement of Phaistos Revisited: Evidence for Ceremonial Activity on the Eve of the Bronze Age,” in V. ISAAKIDOU and P. TOMKINS (eds), Escaping the Labyrinth. New Perspectives on the Neolithic of Crete (2008) 180-193; S. TODARO, “Craft Production and Social Practices at Prepalatial Phaistos,” in I. SCHOEP, P. TOMKINS and J. DRIESSEN (eds), Back to the Beginning. Reassessing Social and Politiacl Complexity on Crete during the Early and Middle Bronze Age (2012) 195-235; S. DI TONTO, “Il Neolitico Finale a Festòs: per una riconsiderazione funzionale dei dati dagli scavi Levi,” CretAnt 10/I (2009) 57-95; S. DI TONTO, “Per una storia del Neolitico a Festòs: alcune considerazioni,” in G. BALDACCI and I. CALOI (eds), Rhadamanthys. Studi di archeologia minoica in onore di F. Carinci per il suo 70° compleanno (2018) 1-16. S. TODARO, “Human Remains at FN Phaistos: Identifying and Interpreting Practices of Disposal and Manipulation of the Dead from an Archaeological Perspective,” CretAnt 13 (2012) 13-39; S. TODARO, The Phaistos Hills before the Palace: a Contextual Reappraisal (2013) 106-107; S. TODARO and L. GIRELLA, “Secondary Burials and the Construction of Group Identities in Crete between the Second Half of the 4th and 2nd Millennia BC,” in M. MINA, S. TRIANDAPHYLLOU and Y. PAPADATOS (eds), An Archaeology of Prehistoric Bodies and Embodied Identities in the Eastern Mediterranean (2016) 171-179.

26

Filippo M. CARINCI

The history of the Phaistos Palace and of the relationship between Phaistos and Ayia Triadha has been the subject of extensive research by Vincenzo La Rosa,4 who first offered a “historical” interpretation of archaeological data, considering the exchange of roles of the two sites in a system of power that was transformed more than once over time, a system in which the memory of the past appears to have played different roles and, on rare occasions, even to have been deliberately ignored, if not cancelled. My reconsiderations of Levi’s 3rd Protopalatial phase5 suggested for the first time the possibility of identifying traces of an attempt at a reconstruction of the building complex undertaken in MM IIIA and probably uncompleted, between the ruins of the First Palace and those of the Second. As Cucuzza has already observed,6 what I would describe as “intermediate Palace” is certainly the result of a living memory of the complex that had preceded it, and in parts still visible after the catastrophe that had completely destroyed its southwest wing. In the traces of this “intermediate Palace” (Pl. IVb), later reexamined in detail together with Vincenzo La Rosa,7 there is of course the memory of the previous building, but also the reception of the danger of new seismic catastrophes and therefore the memory of the traumatic experience of the devastation of the southwest wing, sealed with astraki layers and never rebuilt. We can therefore envisage a combination of material memory (architecture of the Palace) and event memory (earthquake). These are decisive factors for the setting up of a new project that envisages keeping the area in use, but to withdraw, prudently, the front line towards the East, perhaps by tracing (also a fact deriving from some form of memory?) the old original facade of the First Palace on the middle terrace (Piazzale I), identifiable, according to La Rosa, in some MM IB remains in the levels below Room XIX.8 It was also deemed necessary to move northwards, at some distance from the southern limit of the middle terrace (Piazzale I), the access (Corridor 7) to the Central Court,9 the latter being a space that had remained almost intact. The precise memory of the previous building’s features, but also of its weak points, determined the new project, with the introduction of some important alterations. I believe it is important to observe how these changes were implemented at a later date, even in the planning of the Second Palace, which is superimposed on the remains of the First, but retains the memory of the transformations introduced in MM IIIA. The Phaistos Second Palace is particularly linked to the memory of the site, and represents a moment of recovery by local elite groups, according to a date that appears confirmed at LM IB. These groups returned to build in a significant place in the history of the region that had been in ruins for many years, focussing primarily on ritual and ceremonial aspects, with the implementation of four lustral basins arranged in different architectonic units and hierarchically distinct within the complex.10 Determining what happened at Phaistos in the interval between the failure of the MM IIIA attempt at reconstruction and the success of the new LM IB building is complex, but also in this case some significant occurrences may be observed, indicative of the fact that the place had not completely fallen into oblivion. However, the conditions for immediate recovery disappeared, especially those of a political nature, which suggests that building was suspended until the advent of more favourable conditions, which 4

5

6 7

8

9 10

For a summary of recent research on the site, V. LA ROSA, “Phaistos,” in E.H. CLINE (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (2010) 582-595. F. CARINCI, “The III Fase Protopalaziale at Phaistos. Some Observations,” in R. LAFFINEUR (ed.), TRANSITION. Le monde égéen du Bronze moyen au Bronze récent (1989) 73-80. CUCUZZA (supra n. 1) 55. F. CARINCI and V. LA ROSA, “Revisioni festie II, Parte seconda. Osservazioni sul MM IIIA,” CretAnt 10/1 (2009) 223-288; F. CARINCI and V. LA ROSA, “A New Middle Minoan IIIA Ceremonial Building and the so-called ‘New Era’ at Phaistos,” in C.F. MACDONALD and C. KNAPPET (eds), Intermezzo: Intermediacy and Regeneration in MM III Palatial Crete (2013) 107-121. V. LA ROSA, “I saggi della campagna 2004 a Festòs,” ASAtene 72, 2 (2004) 611-612; CARINCI (supra n. 5) 77; F. CARINCI and V. LA ROSA, “Revisioni festie,” CretAnt 8 (2007) 42-46. CARINCI and LA ROSA (supra n. 8) 88-98; CARINCI and LA ROSA (supra n. 7) 247-248. F. CARINCI, “Distribuzione degli spazi e ‘unità cerimoniali’ nel secondo Palazzo di Festòs,” in N. BONACASA, F. BUSCEMI and V. LA ROSA (eds), Architetture del Mediterraneo. Studi in onore di F. Tomasello (2016) 163-186; E. ADAMS, Cultural Identity in Minoan Crete: Social Dynamics in the Neopalatial Period (2017) 216223.

PHAISTOS AND AYIA TRIADHA: TWO PLACES OF MEMORY

27

would probably occur after the eruption of the Volcano of Thera. Archaeological records provide data that suggest attention, albeit indirect, focused on the area of the Palace. I refer in particular to the complex of buildings located in the area to the northeast (Pl. IVb), on the edge of the area occupied by the Palace (Buildings 103 and 104): a banquet hall, with service rooms (kitchen), dating between MM IIIB and LM I,11 significantly connected with a long staircase, leading to the top of the hill towards the Eastern Court (90), but indirectly in connection with the Central Court, which would subsequently remain a constant reference point, in the wake of a centuries-old tradition. The set of elements that can be identified as evidence of forms of memory, constituting to some extent “focal points of memory”, allows us to establish a classification of situations related to this aspect, even if still in a provisional manner. The space-time dimension defines the memory of places: these are well-identified areas, which crystallize in the perception of the community that occupies them, as intended for the performance of important ceremonies. As already mentioned, the clearest example is represented by the Central Court of the Phaistian Palace, a space that was originally more accessible, destined for collective celebrations, between the Final Neolithic and the Prepalatial. Incorporated as an integral part of the palatial architecture, this same space had been enclosed within masonry structures and equipped with controlled entrances, thus excluding immediate visual access, presumably invested with more conspicuous and defined sacral value that was established over time. What has been observed so far suggests that from that moment on this sacredness remained linked to the site, even following catastrophic events and in the absence of an authority, at critical moments in its history. We can therefore observe the progressive definition over the course of time of a process of accumulation and transformation of the complex heritage of memory linked to a place, to its monumental structures, to the symbolic and ideological values that accompany them. In the specific case this accumulation of memory is based on a collective idea: the suitability of the now-monumentalized space for the performance of ceremonial practices, with more or less marked religious connotations. An idea that lasted for many centuries, even under dramatically changed conditions. Another representative part of the palatial architecture is constituted by the western courts. In relatively recent years, together with La Rosa I had the opportunity to review the documentation relating to this extensive sector, which at Phaistos, due to the nature of the land, is organized on three different terraces. The middle terrace (Piazzale I) is certainly the most significant in the construction of a ceremonial landscape,12 which marks the foundation, growth and definitive affirmation of the Old Palace. Even this space – originally used for collective ceremonies as in other parts of the hill – was delimited when the First Palace was built, but enjoyed greater visibility from the outside and then a different degree of accessibility. In the history of the subsequent phases of the site, Piazzale I (Pl. Va) represents a focal point, even though many of the structures that marked the Protopalatial ceremonial scenario (Kouloures, water basin, Fossa dei sacrifizi, causeways, theatre), had disappeared, or had lost their importance. Thus, if in both cases the Prepalatial period marks the selection of physical space and determines its importance for the later stages, it is the foundation of the First Palace which ultimately determines their roles, with a distinction of the grade of accessibility and probably a diversification of ceremonial activities, taking advantage of the memory of places combined with the memory of events. Therefore, these basic areas that constitute one of the starting points for the development of the architectural idea of the palaces are combined with the realization of a building project. The different 11

12

L. PERNIER, Il palazzo minoico di Festòs I (1935) 360-375; L. PERNIER and L. BANTI, Il palazzo minoico di Festòs II (1951) 394-405; CARINCI and LA ROSA (supra n. 7) 272; L. GIRELLA, Depositi ceramici del Medio Minoico III da Festos e Haghia Triada (2010) 53-54, 63-65; M. BALDI, The north-Eastern Complex of Phaistos: an architectural and planimetric analysis, Tesi di Laurea Magistrale, Catania-Varsavia, A.A. 20112012; M. BALDI, “L’Edificio XL/101 del Complesso N-E di Festòs. Per un’analisi planimetrica e tipologica,” in P. MILITELLO and M. CAMERA (eds), L’attività del corso internazionalizzato CataniaVarsavia-Konya 2009-2012 (2012) 305-311. CARINCI and LA ROSA (supra n. 8) 46-87; F. CARINCI, “Élites e spazi del culto nel Primo Palazzo di Festòs,” in R. CRESCI (ed.), Spazio sacro e potere politico in Grecia e nel Vicino Oriente, Genova, 17-18 aprile 2013 (2014) 1-47.

28

Filippo M. CARINCI

parts of the complex, each with their own functions, in turn contributed to the creation of a new situation, associated with the memory of the previous use of the spaces. From this moment on a more precise “memory of the monuments” is manifested, as we have seen, in the subsequent reconstruction of the palatial building, the basic installation being maintained, but reworked, which in turn is the result of experience gained at local level and even in the inevitable relations with Knossos. Several examples may be provided in this context, indicative of the “memory of the monuments”, related to specific buildings. Without citing the topics already dealt with Piazzale I, it is clear that even in this area, strongly affected by MM IIB destructions, the memory of at least some essential elements is retained, particularly at the North-West Building, which is improperly referred to as the “Western Bastion” (Pls Ib and Va).13 Following restoration work during the MM II period, this building (which had been destroyed at the end of MM IIB) was flanked by a new one, with similar functions in MM IIIA (Building CIV). This was subsequently replaced – after its destruction at the end of this period – presumably in LM IA or even prior to the reconstruction of the Palace, by a third building, this time superimposed on the remains of the “Western Bastion”. This undertaking cannot be taken as a coincidence and appears indicative of the persistence of a memory of the structure, intending to keep its ceremonial role, albeit in a more limited form, in the absence of the palatial building and in relation to an area like that of the middle terrace (Piazzale I), used for public rituals from ancient times.14 At this critical moment (MM IIIB – early LMIA), the memory of the past appeared to be supported by two focal points, that of the Northeast Building (Rooms 101-104, Pl. IVb), which maintained a relationship with the top of the hill and seems to have had a more elitist character, and that of the western court (with its “Western Bastion”), a space which would be more accessible to a larger audience. In contrast, after the catastrophe of the final MM IIB period, the lower terrace (LXX), covered by thick layers of astraki, fell out of use (with the exception of a limited recovery of the Ramp in the MM IIIA period)15 together with the remains of the southwest wing of the First Palace, until the beginning of the Early Iron Age. Remains of LM I houses (also LM IA) on the slopes of the hill of Phaistos, some apparently prestigious,16 suggest an attachment to the place of some members of the local elites, probably belonging to the same groups that would promote the reconstruction of the building at a time when the general conditions would have allowed it.17 In the architecture of the Second Palace, aside from the general layout of the plan, which conforms to some of the criteria already present in the MM IIIA project, other elements can also be traced back, even in detail, to the memory of a use in the previous structure. One interesting case is that of Rooms 811,18 which I refer to as the “sanctuary of access” or “sanctuary of reception”. The main feature of this small complex is to be placed in all respects in the west wing of the body of the Palace, South of Corridor 7 Pl. VIa), but accessible only from the outside. This was rather similar to the group of rooms that were accessible from the entrance area in the First Palace, that is to say Rooms XXII, XXIII, XXV, XXVI.19 They were arranged in a similar manner, with double access to the side of the passage to Corridor III, 13

14 15

16

17

18 19

F. CARINCI and V. LA ROSA, “Revisioni festie II, Parte prima. Il c.d. Bastione Ovest,” CretAnt 10/1 (2009) 147-201; see also CARINCI and LA ROSA (supra n. 7, 2013). TODARO (supra n. 3, 2013) 260-268. V. LA ROSA, “Nuovi dati sulla via di ascesa alla collina del palazzo festio dall’età minoica alla geometrica,” CretAnt 6 (2005), 265-266; F.M. CARINCI, “L’attività dell’Università Ca’Foscari Venezia nell’anno 2013. Indagini nell’area a S e a SW del Palazzo: aree e vani K, L, M, N, I, R/1, R/2, S, S/1,” ASAtene 92, 2 serie III, 15, (2015), 247. O. PALIO, La casa Tardo Minoico I di Chalara a Festòs (2001) 243-422; CARINCI (supra n. 10) 165. Other interesting elements regarding the presence of prestigious dwellings at the southern edge of the palace area are offered by the discovery of the remains of wall paintings in the trials conducted by P. Militello in 2017 in the area south west of the so-called Hellenic temple, previously explored by Pernier. O. PALIO, “Costruzione e distruzione del Secondo Palazzo di Festòs nel corso del TM IB,” in BALDACCI and CALOI eds (supra n. 2) 89-96; CARINCI (supra n. 10) 164-165. PERNIER and BANTI (supra n. 11) 104-118; CARINCI (supra n. 10) 167, 174-175. PERNIER (supra n. 11) 295-311; F. CARINCI, “Per una rilettura funzionale dei Vani IL e XXVIIXXVIII,” CretAnt 12 (2011) 109-111.

PHAISTOS AND AYIA TRIADHA: TWO PLACES OF MEMORY

29

predecessor of Corridor 7, which moved, as we have already said, further north in the new project. Without going into further detail, I believe that even these rooms, in a less evident way than the Neopalatial ones, may have played a similar role, that of an “access sanctuary”. They, in turn, belong to a rearrangement that I consider assignable to the last period of use of the First Palace and could have replaced an even older “access sanctuary”, located a little further south, on the southern edge of the middle terrace, in the area of Room IL first floor.20 Similarly, in this case we witness the preservation of the prerogatives of space, of which a memory remains over time. Moreover, in the Phaistian contexts, there is further evidence of a relationship with the past, which appears to have been formulated in a different way, even though relying on memory. In recent years, some research21 has been devoted to the filling of benches of various kinds, containing a series of furnishings that convey a clear signal: the intention to preserve the physical testimony of an event. A similar phenomenon is conceptually inherent in the foundation deposits,22 which may certainly have had propitiatory content, but left the physical traces of a ritual, a sort of “time capsule” intended for the future in relation to a present – that of the event or of the ritual – which, in turn, would immediately become past. A particularly striking case, as indicated by the highly interesting research undertaken by S. Todaro23 on the foundation of a new community, is the extremely rich deposit of Ayia Triadha’s Piazzale dei Sacelli, which can be dated to EM I. The intentional deposition of this mass of materials in a defined area is a sign of the will to maintain the physical existence of the objects used in a communal ritual, accumulated and probably no longer visible, but anyway present in an area bounded by a circular wall, which would never be occupied by buildings until the establishment of a Venetian cemetery. In the same area, a few meters away, there is a surprising continuity of the presence of structures linked to the cult (Pl. VIb). To the west stands Shrine H, built above earlier remains, which was affected by cult activities.24 To the North, the complex of the Piazzale dei Sacelli has yielded evidence of prolonged attendance over time, albeit with some discontinuity.25 20 21

22

23

24

25

D. LEVI, Festòs e la civiltà minoica I (1976) 191-204; CARINCI (supra n. 19) 100-110. I. CALOI, “Memory of a Feasting Event in the First Palace of Phaistos: Preliminary Observations on the Bench Deposit of Room IL,” CretAnt 13 (2012) 41-59; EADEM, “Preserving Memory in Minoan Crete. Filled-in Bench and Platform Deposits from the First Palace of Phaistos,” Journal of Greek Archaeology 2 (2017) 33-52; see also I. CALOI, this volume; G. BALDACCI, “Banchine protopalaziali a Festòs. Il caso delle banchine con riempimento di vasi,” in F. CARINCI, N. CUCUZZA, P. MILITELLO and O. PALIO (eds), Krites Minoidou. Studi in onore di V. La Rosa (2011) 313-328; see also G. BALDACCI, this volume. V. LA ROSA, “Liturgie domestiche e/o depositi di fondazione? Vecchi e nuovi dati da Festòs e Haghia Triada,” CretAnt 3 (2002) 13-50. S. TODARO, “Il deposito AM I dal Piazzale dei Sacelli di H. Triada: I modellini architettonici,” ASAtene 81, S. III, 3, II (2003) 11-36; EADEM, “A Non-funerary Context for Communal Feasting in EM I Ayia Triadha,” in Πεπραγμένα Ι΄ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου (Χανιά, 1-8 Οκτωβρίου 2006), Στρογγυλή Τραπέζα “Τελετουργικά δείπνα και τελετουργικές αποθέσεις στην Κρήτη των Προϊστορικών χρόνων,” Τόμος Α, Τμήμα Α΄ (2011) 59-71; see also S. TODARO, this volume. On this building, see V. LA ROSA, “Haghia Triada II. Relazione preliminare sui saggi del 1978 e del 1979,” ASAtene 57-58 (1979-80), 74; N. CUCUZZA, “Religion and Architecture: Early LM IIIA2 Buildings in the Southern Area of Haghia Triada,” in R. LAFFINEUR and R. HÄGG (eds), POTNIA. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference, Göteborg University, 12-15 April 2000 (2001) 169-174; IDEM, “Il volo del grifo: osservazioni sulla Haghia Triada ‘micenea’,” CretAnt 4 (2003) 55-107; IDEM, “Acqua e vani di culto a Creta nel TM III,” in CARINCI, CUCUZZA, MILITELLO and PALIO (supra n. 21) 373-382; S. PRIVITERA, “Of Snake Tubes, Shrines and Houses, the Case of Haghia Triada,” in Πεπραγμένα Ι΄ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου (Χανιά, 1-8 Οκτωβρίου 2006) A Προϊστορικοί Χρόνοι 3 (2011) 781-796. For previous MM rituals, see G. BALDACCI, “Pottery and Ritual Activity at Protopalatial Haghia Triada. A Foundation Deposit and a Set of Broken Rhyta,” CretAnt 15 (2014) 47-61. V. LA ROSA, “Spigolature vecchie e nuove da Haghia Triada,” in EIΛΑΠΙΝΗ. Τόμος τιμητικός για τον Καθηγητή Νικόλαο Πλάτωνα (1987) 383-387; N. CUCUZZA, “Religion and Architecture: Early LM IIIA2

30

Filippo M. CARINCI

Thus, again at Ayia Triadha at the very beginning of the Protopalatial period the oldest materials of the so-called “Camerette” (small rooms) south of Tholos A (Pl. VII)26 were not dispersed or destroyed on the occasion of a renovation of furnishings destined for ritual practices in memory of the deceased ancestors from EM III to MM IA and intentionally accumulated in a pit. We are in the presence of two different operations, which both involve the intentional conservation of objects after their use: the first can be compared, with an obvious quantity gap, to foundation deposits, often consisting of a few vessels, and sometimes of a single vase; the second, although not votive material, was associated with the ritual use of objects, their sacredness, in an action that implies respect for the past. The construction of the so-called Villa Reale of Ayia Triadha is certainly a break with the past: this site, which during the Protopalatial period had been an outpost of Phaistos towards the coastline, within a system linked to the activities of the port of Kommos,27 at the beginning of the Neopalatial period became unquestionably an administrative centre, with implications of various kinds, also religious, and a cultural imprint that bears the marks of a Knossian presence that is not reducible to a simple influence. This new centre of power, however, was not established ex novo: a site was chosen that in previous periods had been a place of aggregation of communities and élite groups, as indicated by the “foundation deposit” itself and offerings and activities in the cemetery area.28 The construction of the Villa, in this case also an element of innovation, determined the formation of a new landmark. In turn, the Villa area itself became a place of memory, when a regional power centre was reconstituted after the destructions of the LM IB period. It is no coincidence that, as a form of “memory of the place” on the ruins of the Villa a singular type of Megaron (ABCD) was built in LM IIIA2, together with Stoa (FG) and Shrine H, of which Cucuzza has been able to provide a clear insight.29 Here the most significant factor is the value of the place as the site of the previous building, of which the new complex was possibly conceived as an ideological ‘heir’, in a relationship that primarily privileges the religious and ceremonial aspects, without excluding political aspects.30 On the contrary, the nature of this complex, so far from the Minoan tradition, brings with it a “memory” of continental architectural formulas infrequent in Crete,31 the heritage of different features, which, in the phase of Knossian control, blended Minoan and Mycenaean culture. For the periods immediately following the LM IB destruction, which partly preceded this new situation (LM II/IIIA1), other indications were gathered by La Rosa, concerning various types of altars or shrines, explicable in activities of elite groups and aimed at “perpetuating the memory of ceremonies or liturgies practiced in the past in the same areas”.32 Rather

26

27

28

29

30 31 32

Buildings in the Southern Area of Haghia Triada,” in LAFFINEUR and HÄGG (supra n. 24) 169-174; A.L. D’AGATA, “Cult Activity in Crete in the Early Dark Age: Changes, Continuities and the Development of a ‘Greek’ Cult System,” in S. DEGER-JALKOTZY and I. LEMOS (eds), Ancient Greece. From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer (2006) 397-414; N. CUCUZZA, Edifici Tardo Minoico III nel settore meridionale di Haghia Triada (forthcoming). V. LA ROSA, “Minoan Baetyls: between Funerary Rituals and Epiphanies,” in LAFFINEUR and HÄGG (supra n. 24) 221-227; F. CARINCI, “Priests in action: considerazioni sulla fine dell’età prepalaziale ad H. Triada,” CretAnt 5 (2004) 25-41. J. SHAW (ed.), A great Minoan triangle in South-Central Crete: Kommos, Hagia Triadha, Phaistos (1985); F. CARINCI, “Haghia Triada nel periodo Medio Minoico,” CretAnt 4 (2003) 97-143; for a summary of recent research on the site, see V. LA ROSA, “Ayia Triada,” in E.H. CLINE (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (2010) 495-508; D. PUGLISI, “Il problema degli inizi del TM I nella Messarà alla luce dei nuovi dati da Haghia Triada,” CretAnt 2 (2001) 91-104; IDEM, “Haghia Triada nel periodo Tardo Minoico I,” CretAnt 4 (2003) 145-197; CUCUZZA (supra n. 24). V. LA ROSA, “La c.d. Tomba degli ori e il nuovo settore nord-est dell’insediamento di Haghia Triada,” ASAtene 70-71 (1992-93), 121-172. N. CUCUZZA, “Il 'Megaron' di Haghia Triada: valenze cultuali ed ideologiche di un edificio anomalo,” in R. CRESCI (ed.), Spazio sacro e potere politico in Grecia e nel Vicino Oriente, Genova, 17-18 aprile 2013 (2014) 75-92; CUCUZZA (supra n. 25, forthcoming). CUCUZZA (supra n. 24). J.W. SHAW and M.C. SHAW (eds), Kommos V. The Monumental Minoan Buildings at Kommos (2006) 874. V. LA ROSA, “Altari e sacelli fra il TM II e il TM IIIA1 ad H. Triada. Un culto identitario delle

PHAISTOS AND AYIA TRIADHA: TWO PLACES OF MEMORY

31

than a “cult of ruins”, these operations seem to represent a recovery of the sites in the perspective of a radical reconstruction, which invariably took place on the site in monumental forms by an exclusive elite, in a context that has been clarified in more detail in recent analysis that also includes an adjustment of the chronology.33 For the more advanced phases of the Bronze Age (LM IIIA2/B) the settlement of Phaistos, with its cemetery areas34 joined Ayia Triadha and with alternating vicissitudes35 maintained a relationship with the area of the Palace through elements clearly linked to the cult, even if this was in ruins. The Central Court and the area of Piazzale I36 are once again affected by cult activities, as indicated by some significant findings. The possible involvement in food and beverage distribution activities of the LM III house located to the west of Piazzale I, and directly superimposed on the so-called Western Bastion complex,37 could be a confirmation of the permanence of a memory of the functions of this site, codified in the Palatial Age. On the other hand, in about the same period a different case needs to be mentioned, in which a cancellation of memory, a damnatio memoriae, has been hypothesised, as shown in the suggestive interpretation offered by La Rosa for the tomb of the painted sarcophagus.38 Other data reveal both at Ayia Triadha and Phaistos the permanence of a memory of past times39 as late as the beginning of the Iron Age. They occur in forms that include continuity and disruption, once again brought to light by Cucuzza who provides refined readings of these phenomena. The central court, as well as the western court (middle and upper terraces) in Phaistos, the area of the Piazzale dei Sacelli in Ayia Triadha, but also other contexts of this site, notably the cemetery area,40 preserve important testimonies of the fascination that the Minoan antiquities exercised here, with different motivations, on the choices of successive generations as on other Cretan sites.41 In this new situation a partial change in perspective can be detected: for many centuries throughout the Bronze Age, the memory of the past had been articulated within a system with well-defined purposes in order to reinforce its cultural heritage in the present and for the future (reconstruction of buildings, maintenance of symbolic values related to the power structure, creating “memorial deposits”). These actions, determined by the memory of events, monuments, and most likely of people, are placed in a sequence that acquires and modifies the past through generations, to translate it into concrete actions. These material manifestations are in turn destined for an “accumulation” of memory, constantly interacting with many aspects of a social and economic reality, which is organized in centralized power structures. With the definitive failing of the political-administrative system that we

33 34

35 36 37

38

39

40 41

rovine?,” CretAnt 13 (2012) 159-189. S. PRIVITERA, Haghia Triada III. The Late Minoan III Buildings in the Villaggio (2015) 143-146. N. CUCUZZA, “Libagioni del TM IIIA nella necropoli di Haghia Triada,” in R. GIGLI PATANÉ (ed.), Cibo per gli uomini, cibo per gli dei: archeologia del pasto rituale. Atti della Riunione Scientifica (Piazza Armerina 2005) (2012) 121-129. E. BORGNA, Il complesso di ceramica Tardominoico III dell’Acropoli Mediana di Festòs (2003) 37-41, 51-52. CUCUZZA (supra n. 34) 127. E. BORGNA, “Social Meanings of Drink and Food Consumption at LM III Phaistos,” in P. HALSTEAD and J.C. BARRETT (eds), Food, Cuisine and Society in Prehistoric Greece, Sheffield 19-21 January 2001 (2004) 174-195. V. LA ROSA, “Nuovi dati sulla tomba del sarcofago dipinto di Haghia Triada,” in V. LA ROSA, D. PALERMO and L. VAGNETTI (eds), Epi ponton plazomenoi. Simposio italiano di studi egei in onore di L. Bernabò Brea e G. Pugliese Carratelli (1999) 177-188; S. PRIVITERA, “A Painted Town: Wall Paintings and the Built Environment at LM III Ayia Triada,” in J. DAVIS, S. STOCKER and CH. VREKOULAKI (eds), Mycenaean Wall Paintings in Context (2014) 63-87. N. CUCUZZA, “Minoan Ruins in Archaic Crete,” in W.-D. NIEMEIER, O. PILZ and I. KAISER (eds), Kreta in der geometrischen und archaischen Zeit, Akten des interantionalen Kolloquiums am Deutschen Archälogischen Institut, Abeteilung Athen, 27.-29. Januar 2006 (2013) 31-42. CUCUZZA (supra n. 34). M. PRENT, “Glories of the Past in the Past: Ritual Activities at Palatial Ruins in Early Iron Age Crete,” in R.M. VAN DYKE and S.E. ALCOCK (eds), Archaeologies of Memory (2003), 81-103; N. CUCUZZA, “Festòs post-minoica: note di topografia e di storia,” CretAnt 6 (2005) 285-335; D’AGATA (supra n. 25); CUCUZZA (supra n. 34).

32

Filippo M. CARINCI

indicate as palatial, in the mature phases of the LM IIIB period, the memory of the past assumes different connotations, most likely because it is no longer “ruled” by a central power. However, the changed conditions of the population and political and social structures were unable to hinder the tenacious survival of an ancestral system of cults, albeit free of palatialcontrol, capable of transformation and adaptation to new situations.42 All these factors, in conditions that compared to previous centuries had altered, over time determined increasing divergence modifying a vision of the past that up to that time had been closely linked to types of palatial control. Nevertheless, in an intermediate phase, religious aspects played a prominent role, with expressions that contained clear elements of innovation, located in places of ancient tradition. Thus, a sign of the persistence of a collective memory relating to the heritage of cults, which made these places irreplaceable landmarks in the territory. Equally significant features can be observed in funerary settings, in the recovery of some architectural typologies and in the reuse of some older tombs43. Only later, from the PG period onwards, can a “cult of ruins” be brought into focus, a reuse of the ruins in a “nostalgic” key, in a vision that, I believe, differs substantially from that which has been observed with various nuances throughout the long history of Minoan Civilization. Starting from the final stages of the Bronze Age, the gradual shift occurs from a memory used to renew the past in ideas and actions of the present, to forms of memory that transform the past into a mythical dimension. The ruins were no longer the remains of buildings to be rebuilt with a precise memory of functions and values, but places of regret and nostalgia of a past whose contours became increasingly blurred and uncertain. In this sense the cult of ruins was established. Even where the strength of tradition was more tenacious, as in the religious sphere, some sharp differences can still be perceived. The area once occupied by the Palace is, in Phaistos, a place where evidence of cult activities is preserved even in the most advanced stages of the Bronze Age and in the early Iron Age. Of the ancient Minoan tradition, only the memory of the fact that religious rituals took place there remains, excluding other numerous functions of the palatial complex, now without a precise connection with the reality of the present. Thus the rural sanctuary on the Piazzale dei Sacelli at Ayia Triadha, although preserving religious symbols that belonged to a long tradition, acquires substantially different characteristics compared to the ceremonies that were performed previously in the same area. In addition, at Ayia Triadha, with different but significant features, a form of veneration that began in the PG period and continued until the 7th cent. was highlighted in the immediate vicinity of Tholos A (Pl. VII), which was completely destroyed at the time. The remains of the tomb were then intended as representative of a glorious past as well as a burial place for distant ancestors.44 The presence of geometric materials in the centuries-old complex of the great Tholos of Kamilari is a further indicator of this new attitude.45 At this stage we can observe a gradual transition from a “dynamic” memory aimed at confirming and renewing the past with operational continuity, towards a “nostalgic” memory, aimed at legitimizing the present by developing mythical situations, with increasing attention just to the funerary areas, which with their human remains constitute a focal point of more effective attraction, also on an emotional level. Filippo M. CARINCI

42 43

44

45

CUCUZZA (supra n. 39) 35-38. D. LEFÈVRE NOVARO. “Les offrandes d’époque géometrique/orientalisante dans les tombes crétoises de l’âge du Bronze : problèmes et hypothèses,” CretAnt 5 (2004) 181-197; N. CUCUZZA, “Tombe e costumi funerari nella Festòs della Dark Age: qualche considerazione,” in G. RIZZA (ed.), Identità culturale, etnicità, processi di trasformazione a Creta fra Dark Age e arcaismo. Per i cento anni dello scavo di Prinias, 1906-2006 (Convegno di studi, Atene 9-12 novembre 2006) (2011), 359-371; S. ALUIA, “The Re-Use of Tholos B at the Ayia Triadha Cemetery,” Rivista di Archeologia 35 (2011) 139-145. LA ROSA (supra n. 26) 225-226; D. PALERMO, “Haghia Triada fra il XII e il VII sec. a.C.,” CretAnt 4 (2003) 278-279; CUCUZZA (supra n. 39) 32. LEFÈVRE NOVARO (supra n. 43); L. GIRELLA, “The Kamilari Project Publication,” RdA 35 (2011) 134.

PHAISTOS AND AYIA TRIADHA: TWO PLACES OF MEMORY

33

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Pl. IVa Pl. IVb Pl. Va Pl. Vb Pl. VIa Pl. VIb Pl. VII

Phaistos. Schematic plan of the Final Neolithic settlement (from TODARO [supra n. 2] fig. 7, 4). Phaistos. Plan of the MM III remains in the Palace Area (from CretAnt 10/1, Pl. E). Phaistos. The issues for the creation of a ceremonial landscape in MM IIA-B (author’s elaboration, from CARINCI [supra n. 12] Fig. 4). Phaistos. The area of the so-called Western Bastion and the sequence of builings from MM II to LM III (adapted from LEVI [supra n. 20] tav. X). Phaistos. The “entrance sanctuaries” in MM II and LM IB (adapted from PERNIER [supra n. 11] Pl. II). Ayia Triadha, General plan of the excavations (from CretAnt 4 [2003]). Ayia Triadha. Area of Tholos A, with indication of the different phases (SAIA Archives).

IV

a

b

V

a

b

VI

a

b

VII

THE CREATION OF SOCIAL MEMORY IN MINOAN MOCHLOS Archaeology is ideally suited for the study of human memory, i.e., “the awareness and construction of the past in the past,”1 since it is simply a deeper dimension of the past that it is already examining. It has the potential to explore two aspects of memory in particular. One is the explicit memory of individuals which might be recorded in writing or monuments erected in their honor or reconstructed from objects left behind in their tombs. The other is collective or social memory that larger groups use to perpetuate themselves through the centuries. In the Mycenaean world, as in ancient Egypt or Rome,2 it is possible to study both. Memories may or may not be recorded in writing here, but even if they are not and the individuals remain unknown, their memories can sometimes be recovered from the contents of individual graves. So, for example, in Tomb 10 in the LM III Limenaria Cemetery at Mochlos where a man and a woman were buried, the man first and the woman some years later, there are two objects that suggest an event that the deceased couple wished to remember.3 An image of the Egyptian god Anubis is painted on one side of the interior of the tubshaped sarcophagus that they used for their burials and the image of an ordinary man on the opposite side. A gold bead painted with rose gold was also found with a faience necklace in a bronze bowl that was used as a pyxis associated with the later of the two burials. It is likely an Egyptian bead since it is only here that the use of rose gold, including the technology for its application, is known beginning at the end of the 18th Dynasty.4 As a result of these two finds, it is possible to deduce with just a little imagination that one of the individuals, probably the man, traveled to Egypt at some point in his life where he learned about the god Anubis and upon his return ordered an image of the god and one of himself to be painted on the sarcophagus. He may have acquired the bead on the same trip and brought it back as a gift to the woman. In this case the finds preserve the memory of the trip to Egypt and the affection of the man for the woman with whom he shared his life and his tomb. The explicit memories of individuals are more difficult to reconstruct in the Minoan world where burials were collective and individuals were merged with their ancestors in death and rendered anonymous. Individual memories were lost, but collective or social memories, which promoted community identity and sometimes authority within the community, survived and can be accessed in a number of ways. Van Dyke and Alcock describe five categories of “materially accessible media through which social memories are commonly constructed and observed: ritual behaviors, narratives, objects and representations, and places.” 5 The Minoans at Mochlos used four of these: ritual performance, the construction of sacred places, the display of objects from the past that evoked certain memories, and the artistic representation of past events. It is not known if they also used narratives since their Linear A script is undeciphered, but they used another, perhaps the most powerful of all, namely the preservation and display of ancestral remains. Most of the evidence dates to the LM IB 1

2

3

4

5

R.M. VAN DYKE and S.E. ALCOCK (eds), Archaeologies of Memory (2003) 1-13; K.T. LILLIOS and V. TSAMIS (eds), Material Mnemonics, Everyday Memory in Prehistoric Europe (2010). L.M. MESKELL, Private Life in New Kingdom Egypt (2002); S.E. ALCOCK, “The Reconfiguration of Memory in the Eastern Roman Empire,” in S.E. ALCOCK, T.N. D’ALTROY, K.D. MORRISON and C.M. SINOPOLI (eds), Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and History (2001). J.S. SOLES and S. TRIANTAPHYLLOU, “The Late Minoan III Cemetery at Limenaria,” in J.S. SOLES and C. DAVARAS (eds), Mochlos IIA, Period IV. The Mycenaean Settlement and Cemetery, the Sites (2008) 144-148, fig. 90, Pl. 60; J.S. SOLES, G. RETHEMIOTAKIS and A.M. NICGORSKI, “Burial Containers: Sarcophagi, Pithoi and Jars,” in J.S. SOLES and C. DAVARAS (eds), Mochlos IIC, Period IV. The Mycenaean Settlement and Cemetery. The Human Remains and Other Finds (2011) 27-28, fig. 5, Pl. 5. J.S. SOLES and A. GIUMLIA-MAIR, “Egyptian Faience and Rose Gold at Mochlos Crete,” Surface Engineering 29 (2013) 114-120. R.M. VAN DYKE and S.E. ALCOCK, “Archaeologies of Memory: An Introduction,” in VAN DYKE and ALCOCK (supra n. 1) 1-14.

36

Jeffrey S. SOLES

period, but some evidence dates to the Prepalatial period and suggests that the Minoans always understood the importance of social memory in promoting a cohesive society. The different means they used to remember the past are associated with different contexts and were designed to serve specific purposes, some restricted to certain social groups, and others open to the community as a whole, but all share a common theme, namely the commemoration of ancestors or ancestral events. The preservation and display of artifacts from the past was the simplest of these techniques since it involved objects that were preexisting, portable, and concrete. Kopytoff notes that they often have “life-histories” of their own and many might be described as “heirlooms” in the sense that they were curated and handed down from one generation to another.6 Three different sets of antiques have been found in the Greek-American excavation that began in 1989, one of which might be described as an heirloom that stayed in the same family or related group for centuries, an EM III-MM I stone alabastron (IC.173), which was found in situ on a bench in a building in the Artisans’ Quarter.7 The Artisans’ Quarter was functioning only in the LM IB period and is believed to have accommodated family artisans, some of whom were producing stone vases. The alabastron was 500 years old when it was placed on the bench in the Artisans’ Quarter, but its context in a stone-vase making workshop of family artisans suggests that it was an heirloom passed down for generations by family members and not an ordinary antique. It was a constant reminder of ancestral skills and the debt that its owners, also stone vase makers, owed to those who had gone before. It suggests that the knowledge of how to make stone vases was passed down from one generation to the next. The other two antiques were chance finds that the Minoans rediscovered during the rebuilding of the site after the LM IA earthquake destruction. There is no indication that they were family heirlooms. Both date to the EM II period. One was a collection of four Vasilike vases found lying against an LM IB wall on the LM IB floor of a room in the House of the Lady with the Ivory Pyxis, Room 2.2 (Pl. VIIIa-b).8 The vases, which were complete or intact (P 9915, P 9944, P 9945, P 9951), lay with their spouts toward the north wall of the room and appear to have been carefully placed there in a row (Pl. IXa). They belonged to a Prepalatial house that lay immediately beneath the LM IB floor and were nearly 700 years old when they were uncovered, probably by accident when the Lady’s house was rebuilt. The Lady who lived in the house was a priestess, and when the vases were retrieved, she realized their potential to link her to the community’s ancestors. She put them on display, and the vases reinforced her social position as a high priestess who could access the community’s ancestors in her prayers. The vases legitimized her ritual authority. The Early Cycladic palette (S 555), which belonged to the Keros-Syros culture and was approximately the same date as the Vasilike vases, was found with LM IB pottery in the ‘Theatral Area.’ It may have been uncovered when a deep trench was excavated to bedrock in order to construct the Theatral Area in front of the town’s main ceremonial building and the remains of an EM II building, which survived to the north and east, were encountered and removed in the process. It was located on the floor of a small storeroom off the open space of the Theatral Area where it was probably used in a ritual performance.

6

7

8

I. KOPYTOFF, “The Cultural Biography of Things: Commoditization as Process,” in A. APPADURAI (ed.), The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective (1986) 65-91; K. LILLIOS, “Objects of Memory: The Ethnography and Archaeology of Heirlooms,” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 6 (1999) 235-262. J.S. SOLES, Mochlos IA, Period III. Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast: The Artisans’ Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri. The Sites (2003) 56, figs 32, 35 (S 186); J.S. SOLES, A.M. NICGORSKI, T. CARTER and M.E. SOLES, “Stone Objects,” in J.S. SOLES and C. DAVARAS (eds), Mochlos IC, Period III. Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast: The Artisans’ Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri. The Small Finds (2004) 37, fig. 14, Pl. 9. J.S. SOLES, “Hero, Goddess, Priestess: New Evidence for Minoan Religion and Social Organization,” in E. ALRAM-STERN, F. BLAKOLMER, S. DEGER-JALKOTZY, R. LAFFINEUR and J. WEILHARTNER (eds), METAPHYSIS. Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age (2016) 247-253.

THE CREATION OF SOCIAL MEMORY IN MINOAN MOCHLOS

37

There were several different loci for ritual performance at Mochlos, not all of them designed to connect the present with the past, but the Theatral Area was one that certainly did. It was the most complicated since it involved an esoteric ceremony that required the building of a new structure to accommodate it. When the large ceremonial building, B.2, was built at the beginning of the LM IB period, a broad terrace was constructed along its south side to lead to the Theatral Area (Pl. IXb). The terrace itself was designed to encase and preserve earlier MM IIIA, IIIB and LM IA structures that lay beneath; it surrounded them with walls on the east and south and capped them with paving stones, some marked with kernoi for small offerings.9 It created a processional passage that was entered from Avenue 2 at its east, remained open on the south where it overlooked the isthmus that connected Mochlos to Crete, was closed by the monumental ashlar wall of Building B.2 that rose up on the north, and descended into the ground on the west where earlier structures were cleared away to bedrock to create the Theatral Area itself. The earlier Neopalatial structures belonged to the recent past, and the builders of the terrace were very much aware that they were there. Some were alive when they were in use, and it is significant that the westernmost wall of the MM IIIA construction at the west end of the terrace was preserved and reused as a step that led off the terrace and down three newly constructed steps into the Theatral Area. The builders created a space that was bound up with remembrance and with time, and those who walked across the terrace were conscious of what lay below. The place became sacred space and evoked an emotional response that prepared them for the experience they would encounter in the Theatral Area at its end. The area at the western end of the terrace was also crowded with remains of the more distant past, and EM II walls lay at its northeastern side. To accommodate these, the builders constructed a separate path that flanked the terrace on the south and led to a small court in the indented south façade of Building B.2 that rested directly on the remains of these walls (Pl. IXb). They created an open space here above the early remains and erected a small altar on top of them, but the Theatral Area at the west end of the South Terrace was the main focus of this complex. The main activity in this area involved a libation that was poured into an open jar that was set into a long bench altar that ran along the north wall of the Theatral Area, behind which a human skull was located, and a feasting event in which the living sat side by side on the steps leading into the Theatral Area with the physical remains of the ancestors and shared a meal with them in an act of communion. All the evidence for an ancestor-worshipping society is found in this location – retention of human skeletal remains, offerings to the dead on altars and in other receptacles, and feasting with the remains of the dead – and the Minoans, like the neighboring Egyptians, belonged to an ancestor-worshipping society.10 As a result, it is possible to reconstruct the outlines of the ceremony since ancestor-worshipping ceremonies share similar features wherever or whenever they are held. The Early Cycladic palette and two altars in the area would have served as material vehicles that provided an interface between the living and the dead, where offerings were made and received, and the skeletal remains on the steps, as well as the human skull found in a room adjacent to the Theatral Area,11 embodied the ancestors and made them real. Another ritual performance that served a very different purpose is pictured on the lid of the Mochlos ivory pyxis.12 The scene appears to depict a real event since it was performed on a portable stage, remains of which, namely the stone incurved altars that supported the wooden stage, have been found at Archanes and Malia. 13 The stage was used to perform a processional scene in which four figures approached the Minoan goddess. The precedents for this procession are to be found on certain Near 9

10

11 12 13

J.S. SOLES and C. DAVARAS, “Excavations at Mochlos, 1992-1993,” Hesperia 65 (1996); J.S. SOLES, G. DOUDALIS, L. KAISER and J. MORRISON, “Memories and Realities in Neopalatial Mochlos,” KENTRO. The Newsletter of the INSTAP Study Center for East Crete 20 (2017) 11-16, figs 2-8. M. FORTES, “An Introductory Comment,” in W.H. NEWELL (ed.), Ancestors (1976) 1-16; J.S. SOLES, “The Evidence for Ancestor Worship in Minoan Crete,” in O. KRZYSZKOWSKA (ed.), Cretan Offerings, Studies in Honour of Peter Warren (2010) 331-338; J. DRIESSEN, “The Goddess and the Skull: Some Observations on Group Identity in Prepalatial Crete,” in ibidem, 107-117. SOLES and DAVARAS (supra n. 7) 194, Pl. 54c. SOLES (supra n. 8) 247-253, figs LXXXIb, LXXXII. SOLES (supra n. 8).

38

Jeffrey S. SOLES

Eastern cylinder seals, many of which were circulating in Crete and the Aegean, including Mochlos.14 The prototypes show lesser gods introducing kings to cosmic deities, like one showing Ningishzida, a vegetation god, introducing Gudea to Enlil.15 The upper right corner of the pyxis lid is missing and perhaps destroyed, so the interpretation of the scene is not absolutely secure, but the likeliest possibility would show a very similar scene in which a lesser god, perhaps an ancestor figure who is able to communicate with the deity, introduces a king to the goddess who legitimizes and sanctifies his reign with a gift. In the case of Enlil it is a gift of water, in the case of the Minoan goddess it is a lily that she holds in her left hand (Pl. Xab). The scene is likely to commemorate a coronation ceremony which happened sometime in the past, either recently or in a mythical past. It is a piece of royal propaganda that speaks to the divine sanction of kings. It also suggests that Minoans used pictorial imagery to memorialize certain events, and other representations that possess commemorative functions might be found in other media like frescoes and seals. 1000 years earlier the first settlers at Mochlos used many of the same means to remember the past for similar purposes when the original EM I settlement, which was located to the southeast of the area where the Prepalatial cemetery was to be located, went out of use.16 The main building here was a threeroom structure that served as a workshop producing obsidian blades and copper objects as well as a habitation (Pl. XI). It was provided with a deep cistern along its south side to collect rain water (2 on the plan), which went out of use sometime toward the end of the EM IIA period. A cemetery was built on top of the area later in the EM IIB period. By this time the cistern had filled up with dirt and rubbish and only now did it become a real room when a small shrine was constructed on top of the fill (Pl. XIIa). It was probably hypaethral and consisted of two parts, a bin on one side with a mortar at its base, which was used for grinding grain like a later ‘gourna’, and against the south wall of the original building, a second wall that buttressed the first which was provided with a window in its side and a kernos at its top. At a later time, still in the EM IIB period, a large vat was placed against this wall with a rather anthropomorphiclooking stone pestle. Half a clay boat (C 1098) also lay in this area.17 The shrine was probably used in conjunction with the new cemetery which had a number of cooking/eating locations on terraces that rose up the hill, which may also have been used for feasting with the dead in ancestor-worshipping ceremonies, but the shrine’s placement against the south façade of the original EM I building also marked and commemorated that building, the building of the first settlers which was now destroyed and buried. Sometime before this shrine was erected when the original EM I building was still functioning as a workshop and habitation, it may have served as the model for a new tomb that was constructed on the West Terrace of a new cemetery (Pl. XIIb).18 There can be no doubt, although it has recently been doubted, that this tomb was an elite tomb, if only because of its isolated and spectacular location, its many gold diadems, and its carefully designed entry with an altar in one corner where stone vases were placed as offerings. In addition to their but and ben plans, the only buildings at Mochlos with such plans, there are a couple other similarities between the two, namely, the step up from the outer chamber to the inner, and the extensive use of live rock for the outer wall of the inner chamber. The builder of the tomb constructed a monumental version of the original structure which was nearly twice as large and constructed with large orthostate slabs of different colors. He should be identified as a paramount chief who modeled his tomb after a structure that served as the original residence of the first settlers in order to link himself to these 14

15

16

17

18

C. DAVARAS and J.S. SOLES, “A New Oriental Cylinder Seal from Mochlos. Appendix: Catalogue of the Cylinder Seals Found in the Aegean,” AEphem 134 (1995) 29-66. H. FRANKFORT, Cylinder Seals (1939) 141-143, fig. 37; for the identification of the god as Ningirsu, see P. AMIET, in E. PORADA (ed.), Ancient Art in Seals (1980) 41, fig. II.6. J.S. SOLES and C. DAVARAS, “2010 Greek-American Excavations at Mochlos,” KENTRO. The Newsletter of the INSTAP Study Center for East Crete 13 (2010) 1-3. J.S. SOLES, “Mochlos Boats,” in E. MANTZOURANI and P.P. BETANCOURT (eds), PHILISTOR. Studies in Honor of Costis Davaras (2012) 187-199, fig. 21.15. R.B. SEAGER, Explorations in the Island of Mochlos (1912) 44-56, fig. 15; J.S. SOLES, The Prepalatial Cemeteries at Mochlos and Gournia, and the House Tombs of Bronze Age Crete (1992) 51-62, fig. 20.

THE CREATION OF SOCIAL MEMORY IN MINOAN MOCHLOS

39

settlers and reinforce his position in the town’s social hierarchy, much in the way that the king of Mycenae was to do centuries later when he refurbished the tombs of his ancestors in Grave Circle A. Jeffrey S. SOLES

40

Jeffrey S. SOLES LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Pl. VIIIa Pl. VIIIb Pl. IXa Pl. IXb Pl. Xa-b Pl. XI Pl. XIIa Pl. XIIb

House of the Lady with the Ivory Pyxis, plan (D. Faulmann). House of the Lady with the Ivory Pyxis, Room 2.2, with arrow marking location of Vasilike vases found in situ on LM IB floor. Detailed photograph of Vasilike vases on LM IB floor. Building B.2 with South Terrace and Theatral Area, plan (D. Faulmann). Ivory Pyxis, reconstruction of lid. EM I-IIA house and EM IIB cemetery, plan (D. Faulmann). EM IIB shrine, Room 2 (from south). Mochlos Tomb IV, VI and EM I house (J. Soles and D. Faulmann).

VIII

a

b

IX

a

b

X

a

b

XI

XII

a

b

THE DUNGEON. RECALLING THE WEST FAÇADE OF THE PROTOPALATIAL PALACE AT MALIA* The Dungeon, a structure provided with a sturdy masonry facing the North-West Court of the Palace at Malia, remains enigmatic. Its association with the surrounding walls and the originality of its building components have long suggested that it marked the presence of early standing architectural remains within the Neopalatial edifice. In this paper, I argue that the Dungeon was created by the assembling, during the Neopalatial period, of grey blue limestone blocks obtained from the dismantling of the Protopalatial façade on the West Court. I suggest that it represents a deliberate act of remembrance in the Neopalatial edifice of the earlier, Protopalatial Palace. Historical and chronological framework The Palace at Malia was discovered in 1915 by J. Hazzidakis, who was attracted to a place known as Azymo by the discovery by local shepherds and farmers of clay larnakes, fragments of gold foils, copper alloy cauldrons, and numerous sealstones.1 He started the excavation of a low prominence in the plain, the Zourokephali, and encountered walls almost immediately identified as part of the West Wing of a Minoan Palace. A second excavation campaign was led in 1919, but the French School at Athens was soon invited to take part in the exploration of the site and from 1922 onwards the Palace was excavated under the direction of F. Chapouthier. The monument was unveiled in its entirety by 1936, and sporadic soundings made by F. Chapouthier and P. Demargne up until 1956 aimed at clarifying the chronology of the edifice. Between 1964 and 1992 a systematic program of investigation of the earliest levels of the Palace at Malia was conducted under the direction of O. Pelon. This paper presents some of the results of the new research project started in 2014 under the aegis of the French School at Athens. The project aims at reconsidering the architectural sequence and at publishing the stratigraphy brought to light by O. Pelon’s thorough work in the edifice over several decades. Before this project is successfully completed, a broad chronological outline of the occupation of the Palace can be provided based on previous research (Pl. XIIIa). Scattered Early Minoan (EM) I sherds have been identified in the earliest levels under the Palace, but evidence suggests occupation really started during the EM IIA phase (ca 2650-2450 BCE). 2 Architectural remains under the Hypostyle Hall (Rooms IX 1-2) and Central Court of the Palace indicate the presence of an EM IIA domestic habitat, which is eradicated in EM IIB (ca 2450-2250 BCE) by the laying of a first revetment in the court and the erection of new walls.3 Two structures under and in the Palace can be dated to the EM IIB phase: Building X under the Hypostyle Hall (Rooms IX 1-2) and the mudbrick walls remains of the ‘casemate’ or Room I 1. The size, plan and masonry of Building X have *

1

2 3

The research upon which this paper is based was supported by the French School at Athens, the Gerda Henkel Foundation, the Onassis Foundation, and INSTAP. I want to thank the organisers of the MNEME conference, as well as Matthew Buell, Sylviane Déderix, Jan Driessen, Alexandre Farnoux, John McEnroe and Sylvie Müller-Celka for discussing several of the aspects presented in the oral communication. I also want to thank Colin Macdonald, Joseph Maran, Daniela Novaro, and Diamantis Panagiotopoulos, whose remarks following my communication have been taken into account in the published version of the text, and Hilary Tysoe for correcting my English. Any error or omission is of course mine.
On the history of the excavations in the Palace at Malia, see O. PELON, Le Palais de Malia. V (1980) 13-42 and H. VAN EFFENTERRE, Le Palais de Mallia et la cité minoenne : étude de synthèse (1980) 5-24. Based on the preliminary observations of the ceramic material from O. Pelon’s soundings by I. Caloi. O. PELON, “La Salle à piliers du Palais de Malia et ses antécédents : recherches complémentaires,” BCH 117.2 (1993) 532-534; J. DRIESSEN, “IIb or not IIb: On the Beginnings of Minoan Monument Building,” in J. BRETSCHNEIDER, J. DRIESSEN and K. VAN LERBERGHE (eds), Power and Architecture. Monumental Public Architecture in the Bronze Age Near East and Aegean (2007) 73-92.

42

Maud DEVOLDER

been correctly defined as quite impressive for the period,4 suggesting to some a Prepalatial date for a palatial edifice at Malia.5 Premonitory features and functions of the Minoan palaces appear in the 3rd millennium BCE,6 but as far as the Palace at Malia is concerned, no coherent structure surrounding a court has yet been identified in the Prepalatial period. The construction date of the ‘first’ or Protopalatial (ca 1900-1700 BCE) Palace is debated. O. Pelon has suggested that it may already have been erected at the end of the Prepalatial period during the Middle Minoan (MM) IA phase, i.e. before the Palaces at Knossos and Phaistos were erected in MM IB, the Palace at Petras was built in MM II, and the Palace at Gournia was built after MM IB.7 However, no ceramic and stratigraphic evidence is published to support such an early date, and it is generally accepted that, although the intention to undertake a large-scale building project may have been initiated at the end of the Prepalatial period,8 the Palace at Malia was built in MM IB. This Protopalatial edifice was used, perhaps with architectural and occupational modifications that present evidence has not yet allowed us to identify, until the end of the MM IIB phase, when the Palace was destroyed in a seemingly violent event in ca 1700 BCE.9 The reconstruction of the edifice into a new, Neopalatial (ca 1700-1430 BCE) structure may have started soon after the Protopalatial destruction. This is suggested by the remains of an impressive MM III (ca 1700-1600 BCE) wall discovered under Rooms III 7b, IV 4 and 6 but, considering the present state of evidence, remains of this phase are often described as ‘chimerical’ and it is possible that the MM III rebuilding was never completed.10 It seems the thorough reconstruction as well as the possible extension of the Palace in the Neopalatial period took place at the transition between the MM III and LM IA phases (ca 1600 BCE).11 Most of these changes remain visible now, although they incorporate to some extent the vestiges of earlier periods, and belong to the Neopalatial Palace, the destruction of which is dated by O. Pelon to an advanced stage of the LM IA phase (ca during the late 16th BCE).12 However, P. Darcque and A. Van De Moortel have argued that the Palace was functioning in LM IB (ca 1510-1430 BCE), based on the data provided by the

4 5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

PELON (supra n. 3) 534. I. SCHOEP, “Bridging the Divide between the ‘Prepalatial’ and the ‘Protopalatial’ Periods,” in I. SCHOEP, P. TOMKINS and J. DRIESSEN (eds), Back to the Beginning. Reassessing Social and Political Complexity on Crete during the Early and Middle Bronze Age (2012) 408. S. TODARO, The Phaistos Hills before the Palace: a Contextual Reappraisal (2013) 263-264, 281; S. TODARO, “Craft Production and Social Practices at Prepalatial Phaistos: the Background to the First 'Palace',” in SCHOEP et al. (supra n. 5) 195-235; P. TOMKINS, “Behind the Horizon: The Genesis of the ‘First Palace’ at Knossos (Final Neolithic IV-Middle Minoan IB),” in SCHOEP et al. (supra n. 5) 39-54. For a summary of the evidence brought by O. Pelon on the MM IA date of the Palace at Malia, see M. DEVOLDER, “The Protopalatial State of the Western Magazines of the Palace at Malia (Crete),” OJA 35 (2016) 154. On the construction of the Palaces at Knossos, Phaistos, Petras and Gournia, see C.F. MACDONALD, “Palatial Knossos: the Early Years,” in SCHOEP et al. (supra n. 5) 83; P. MILITELLO, “Emerging Authority: A Functional Analysis of the MM II Settlement of Phaistos,” in SCHOEP et al. (supra n. 5) 239; M. TSIPOPOULOU, “Before, During, After: the Architectural Phases of the Palatial Building at Petras, Siteia,” in P.P. BETANCOURT, V. KARAGEORGHIS, R. LAFFINEUR and W.D. NIEMEIER (eds), Meletemata. Studies in Aegean Archaeology presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters his 65th Year (1999) 848-851; D.M. BUELL and J.C. MCENROE, “Community Building/Building Community at Gournia,” in Q. LETESSON and C. KNAPPETT (eds), Minoan Architecture and Urbanism. New Perspectives on an Ancient Built Environment (2017) 210-212. M. DEVOLDER, “Essai de synthèse,” in M. DEVOLDER and I. CALOI, Le Bâtiment Dessenne et les abords sud-ouest du palais de Malia au Pré- et au Protopalatial (forthcoming). O. PELON, “Les deux destructions du palais de Malia,” in I. BRADFER-BURDET, B. DETOURNAY and R. LAFFINEUR (eds), Kris Technitis. L’artisan crétois. Recueil d'articles en l’honneur de Jean-Claude Poursat, publié à l’occasion des 40 ans de la découverte du Quartier Mu (2005) 186-190. J. DRIESSEN, “Malia,” in E.H. CLINE (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (ca 3000-1000 BC) (2010) 563. O. PELON, “Le Palais,” BCH 108 (1984) 884; IDEM, “Un dépôt de fondation au palais de Malia,” BCH 110 (1986) 3-19. PELON (supra n. 9) 191-196.

RECALLING THE WEST FAÇADE OF THE PROTOPALATIAL PALACE AT MALIA

43

excavations of the Abords Nord-Est. The existence of a main access to the building in this area indeed suggests that at least the north-eastern part of the Palace was still in use during the LM IB phase.13 The Palace at Malia underwent significant architectural transformations after its Protopalatial destruction. The first excavators and O. Pelon pointed at the Protopalatial date of the north-western area of the Palace, which remained abandoned after 1700 BCE, and they also shed light on the presence of Protopalatial architectural remains erased, reused or emulated by the Neopalatial edifice (Quartier d’apparat; Eastern Magazines; Hypostyle Hall). Additionally, the ongoing architectural study has revealed the presence of a series of parallel layered-rubble walls which delimited a series of narrow elongated rooms in the West Wing of the Protopalatial Palace and were incorporated in the Neopalatial edifice to form what is generally identified in the literature as the Western Magazines (Rooms I 1-7, II 1a, 2-3, III 5, 6 and 8, VI 11-12, VII 7-9, 13 and 14, and VIII 1-3).14 I have argued elsewhere that these elongated rooms were bordered to the West with a façade equipped with a levelling course made of regular blocks of non-local grey black crystalline and grey sandy limestone, most of which were reused in the form of thresholds, column bases, steps, or lintels scattered over the Neopalatial Palace. 15 Even though their original, Protopalatial shape was altered for the sake of their Neopalatial reuse, it was still obvious that their front, upper, and side faces were carefully shaped for the blocks to fit neatly next to each other. This levelling course provided a strong parallel with the Protopalatial West façades of the Palaces at Knossos and Phaistos, where a limestone levelling course supported orthostate blocks of gypsum and limestone, respectively.16 At Malia it was suggested that orthostate blocks reused in the Neopalatial Palace (two specimens) and in the possibly early Neopalatial walls of the Chrysolakkos building (ca 30 specimens) may have initially formed the first course of the elevation of the Protopalatial West façade of the Palace.17 However, the varying heights of the orthostate blocks reused in the Chrysolakkos building make it difficult to associate them with the proposed levelling course, since they would not have provided a regular level for the setting of a horizontal wooden element. I suggest that the elevation of the Protopalatial West façade of the Palace at Malia was not made of carefully cut orthostates but of massive and roughly shaped blocks of grey blue limestone. The grey blue limestone walls of the Dungeon When they discovered the walls delimiting Area V to the south of the North-West Court of the Palace in 1922, the French excavators were struck by their impressive, sturdy appearance. They could not help but notice the large dimensions of the blocks composing these walls, their uneven shape, the irregularity of their layout, and most of all the way these elements contrasted with the carefully cut pink sandstone blocks of the surrounding walls (Pl. XIIIb).18 These walls were erected using massive blocks of a hard limestone ranging in colour from light grey to dark grey-blue and known locally as sidheropetra or ‘ironstone’. This grey blue limestone forms the core of the geological substrate of the settlement, and it is

13

14 15

16

17

18

P. DARCQUE and A. VAN DE MOORTEL, “Conclusions,” in P. DARCQUE, A. VAN DE MOORTEL and M. SCHMID, Fouilles exécutées à Malia. Les abords Nord-Est du palais I. Les recherches et l’histoire du secteur (2014) 178-182. M. DEVOLDER (supra n. 7) 141-159. M. DEVOLDER, “L’assise de nivellement en calcaire de la façade Ouest protopalatiale du palais de Malia,” BCH 141 (2017) 447-484. L. PERNIER, Il palazzo minoico di Festòs: scavi e studi della missione archeologica italiana a Creta dal 1900 al 1950 1, Gli strati più antichi e il primo palazzo (1935) 184-185, figs 76-78; A. EVANS, The Palace of Minos at Knossos 1 (1921) 129, 209, figs 95-96. S. MÜLLER-CELKA, “The Chrysolakkos Building at Malia (Crete): An Update,” communication to the AIA Annual Meeting held in Toronto, 5-8 January 2017; J.W. SHAW, “The Chrysolakkos Facades,” in Πεπραγμένα του Γ´ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου (Ρέθυμνο, 18-23 Σεπτεμβρίου 1971) (1973) 319-331. F. CHAPOUTHIER and J. CHARBONNEAUX, Fouilles exécutées à Mallia. Premier rapport (1922-1924) (1928) 18, fig. XII 2; “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques dans l’Orient hellénique (nov. 1921-nov. 1922),” BCH 46 (1922) 524.

44

Maud DEVOLDER

procured by pry-levying irregular stones from the natural bedrock.19 It is the decomposition of this hard limestone that produces the iron-rich soil or terra rossa so emblematic of the Malia plain. The use of this material first suggested to the French excavators the name of ‘Iron Gate’, which was quickly changed into ‘Dungeon’, because of the tower-like projection of Area V against the surrounding façades. Its grey blue limestone walls were then interpreted as standing remains of the Protopalatial Palace,20 but O. Pelon and his collaborators, based on a new study of the ceramic material discovered in early soundings in the Dungeon, suggested that these walls were Neopalatial.21 In fact, it seems that neither of these views is entirely wrong. I argue here that the grey blue limestone walls of the Dungeon are the product of the deliberate reuse in the Neopalatial Palace at Malia of building components procured from the Protopalatial façade on the West Court. The architectural study focusing on the relation between the Dungeon’s façades and the surrounding walls indicates that the grey blue limestone walls belong to the Neopalatial reconstruction program of the Palace. Their setting against the sandstone eastern façade on the North-West Court indicates that they were part of a later phase in the construction sequence, but structural connexions with the surrounding walls demonstrates that the Dungeon is an integral element of the master plan of the Neopalatial Palace. The Neopalatial date is further confirmed by the reuse in the walls of the Dungeon of several of the grey black crystalline and grey sandy limestone blocks which originally formed the levelling course of the West façade of the Protopalatial edifice (marked with an asterisk on Pl. XIVa). The detailed observation of the grey blue ironstone blocks of the Dungeon indicates that all of them were roughly worked on several faces with the use of lithic tools. Percussion marks are visible which testify the impact of the stone tools with which the hard limestone was struck, and it is possible that the blocks were also polished with the help of an abrasive.22 In several instances the worked faces of the grey blue limestone blocks are literally hidden in the masonry, thus indicating that these blocks were reused. It is especially obvious in the case of three blocks set in header (one) and stretchers (two) in the first and second courses of the north wall of room V 1 of the Dungeon, whose most regular surfaces now form the lower or upper face of the block (Blocks A, B and C in Pl. XIVa).23 In the case of six other grey blue limestone blocks set in the north and east walls of room V 1, reuse is probable but cannot be fully demonstrated by the concealing of the most carefully worked faces in the Neopalatial masonry (Blocks A’, B’, C’, D’, E’ and F’ in Pl. XIVa).24 The conjoint reuse of grey blue limestone blocks with blocks coming from the levelling course of the Protopalatial West façade is a feature which is not only characteristic of the walls of the Dungeon, but also appears elsewhere in the Neopalatial Palace at Malia. In the Quartier d’apparat, a grey sandy limestone block of the Protopalatial levelling course is set next to a reused grey blue limestone block to support a cut sandstone block of the Neopalatial North Portico (Pl. XIVb).25 The grey blue limestone block is set on what was initially its back face, and its original front, side, top and bottom faces were worked with a stone percussive tool. The former top face unveiled during one of O. Pelon’s soundings shows a mortise hole 19

20 21 22 23

24

25

E. DIMOU, A. SCHMITT and O. PELON, “Recherches sur les matériaux lithiques utilisés dans la construction du palais de Malia : étude géologique,” BCH 124 (2000) 438-439, 448-449. “Chronique des fouilles …” (supra n. 18) 524. DIMOU et al. (supra n. 19) 448. J. W. SHAW, Minoan Architecture: Materials and Techniques (2009) 46, 49. Block A is 1.11 m long, 0.49m wide and 0.94m high (initial front surface is now the top face of the block); Block B is 1.01/1.14m long, 0.45m wide and 0.94m high (initial front surface is now the bottom face of the block); Block C is 1.02m long and 0.69 by 0.76m (initial front face is now the top or front face of the block). Block A’ is 1.54m long and 0.88m high; Block B’ is 1.08m long and 0.86m high; Block C’ is 1.07m long, 0.51m wide and 0.94m high; Block D’ is 1.04m long, 0.65m wide and 0.63m high; Block E’ is 0.85m long, 0.54m wide and 0.70m high; Block F’ is 1.29m long and 0.77m high. VAN EFFENTERRE (supra n. 1, 293-294 and fig. 397) suggested this block was set as a support for the North Portico after a remodeling of the northern access to the Dungeon. See, however, the questioning by O. Pelon of such remodeling the Dungeon, O. PELON, “Palais et palais à Malia (Crète),” Revue des archéologues et historiens de l’art de Louvain 15 (1982) 67-68.

RECALLING THE WEST FAÇADE OF THE PROTOPALATIAL PALACE AT MALIA

45

drilled in the hard limestone (Pl. XIVb, right), a feature not found on any similar blocks in the Palace.26 Indeed, other examples abound in the Neopalatial edifice, although it is not always easy to demonstrate the reuse of the hard, grey blue limestone blocks. In 13 cases such reuse is made indisputable by the fact that the best worked surface is hidden in the masonry of the Neopalatial walls, but in 21 others evidence for reuse is less unequivocal (Pls XIIIa and XVa). Again, in the southern façade of the Neopalatial Palace, the possibly or definitely reused grey blue limestone blocks are often associated with reused blocks of the Protopalatial levelling course. Based on such evidence, I propose that the elevation of the West façade of the Protopalatial Palace at Malia was partly made of large grey blue limestone blocks shaped with lithic tools, the height of which varied from 0.63 to 0.94m (Pl. XVb).27 The limited number of reused blocks of the elevation of the Protopalatial West façade may be explained by the fact that only the lower part of this elevation was made of roughly worked ironstone blocks, while the superstructure was composed of smaller elements. The use of mudbricks cannot be entirely rejected, but the absence of indication of a wooden system topping the grey blue limestone blocks rather supports the view that the elevation continued with smaller stone elements, such as rubble or small blocks. One may not exclude the possibility that some of the grey blue limestone blocks of the Palace were reused in other Neopalatial structures at Malia, as suggested by similar blocks set in a secondary position in the walls forming the northern and western façade of House ΔβI.28 The use at Malia of these large, only roughly regular blocks is markedly different from the carefully cut orthostate blocks of gypsum and limestone forming the Protopalatial West façades of the Palaces at Knossos and Phaistos. Indeed, the side faces of the hard limestone blocks at Malia are almost never regular enough for each block to be set in full contact with the neighbouring ones. Rather a large joint, perhaps filled with mortar, must have remained (Pl. XVb). This difference is very likely due to the nature of locally available materials at Malia, and the privileged use of the easily procured but hard-to-work local limestone. In their initial use the grey blue limestone blocks were set to show their largest and best worked face, so that they were similar in appearance to the visual effect of orthostates. In other terms, despite local idiosyncrasies, strongly similar West façades were erected in the Palaces at Knossos, Phaistos and Malia during the Protopalatial period. The Dungeon as a mnemonic device If the present study offers original and hopefully convincing data for the reconstruction of the Protopalatial façade on the West Court, the topic explored in the present volume enjoins me to address the following question: ‘Does the reuse of grey blue limestone blocks in the exterior walls of the Dungeon reflect a deliberate and meaningful act of remembrance of the Protopalatial West façade in the Neopalatial edifice, or is it simply the indication that the builders of the Neopalatial Palace at Malia wanted to save time and energy by reusing available building materials?’ Several aspects highlight the deliberate mnemonic role of the Dungeon in the Neopalatial edifice. Firstly, in no other area of the Neopalatial Palace is there such a concentration of reused grey blue limestone blocks (Pl. XIIIa-b). Many of these blocks are definitely or possibly reused in the southern façade 26

27

28

A detailed view of the northern part of the eastern face of the same block provided by H. van Effenterre (supra n. 1, fig. 397) suggests a second mortise hole there, but it might just represent a natural regular depression in the block. See supra notes 23 and 24 for the heights of the blocks. Note that recurring heights make it possible that blocks of similar heights were used in stretches of the façades. I. Bradfer-Burdet and M. Pomadère indeed stress the similarity between these blocks and those of the Dungeon (I. BRADFER-BURDET and M. POMADÈRE, “Δβ at Malia: Two Houses or One Large Complex?,” in K.T. GLOWACKI and N. VOGEIKOFF-BROGAN [eds], ΣΤΕΓΑ. The Archaeology of Houses and Households in Ancient Crete [2011] 102, figs 9.3 and 9.4). Further observation by the author of the grey blue limestone blocks in ΔβI indicates that in several instances their carefully worked faces are hidden in the masonry, thus suggesting their reuse. The initial use of the ΔβI blocks remains to be determined, but the West façade of the Protopalatial Palace constitutes an interesting possible candidate.

46

Maud DEVOLDER

of the edifice, but its masonry is less regular and several smaller blocks are sometimes combined in order to form one course. Perhaps more importantly, the excavators stressed that the Neopalatial south façade of the Palace was coated with plaster, so that its reused grey blue limestone blocks were not even visible.29 No such coating was found on the walls of the Dungeon,30 where the concentration of grey blue blocks is made more prominent by their use in several superimposed courses. It is also striking that the base of the Dungeon façade walls shows a levelling course, or rather a protruding foundation course, that echoes the levelling course on the Protopalatial West façade, although one must admit it is quite irregular here (Pls XIIIb and XIVa). Secondly, the location of the Dungeon at the southern limit of the North-West Court, i.e. along the passage leading from the north entrance of the Palace to the Quartier d’apparat, emphasises its role as a mnemonic device in the Neopalatial edifice (Pl. XIIIa). Any individual wanting to reach the Minoan Hall and elaborate surrounding rooms would have to pass in front of the walls of the Dungeon, immediately visible once he or she stepped from the vestibule of the northern entrance towards the Quartier d’apparat. Thirdly, the architectural setting of the Dungeon is made to emphasise the effect of the large, grey blue ironstone blocks reused from the Protopalatial Palace (Pl. XIIIb). The walls around the Dungeon are made of pinkish beige ashlar blocks of sandstone. It is very likely that these sandstone walls were once coated with a layer of plaster, but be it white or pinkish, this light-coloured background surely enhanced the visual impact of the dark grey blue blocks. These features support the assertion that the grey blue limestone walls of the Dungeon are not the result of the meaningless reuse of Protopalatial spolia in the Neopalatial Palace but reflect the deliberate incorporation of elements of the Protopalatial façade on the West Court. The walls of the Dungeon really anchor the Neopalatial building into the long-term occupation of the Malia Palace and settlement. They bridge the gap caused by the destruction of the first Palace at the end of the Protopalatial period and its thorough reconstruction during the Neopalatial, stressing the need for the builders and users of the Palace to maintain a semblance of continuity between the two edifices. Cases of a similar, obviously deliberate incorporation of early elements into later palatial structures proves to be more recurrent than generally outlined in research on Minoan architecture. Amongst the most prominent examples highlighted by recent architectural studies, one may cite the new phasing proposed by J. McEnroe and D.M. Buell at the Palace at Gournia, where Protopalatial walls are left standing and incorporated into the Neopalatial edifice, as well as the EM III walls in the North-West Terrace of the Palace at Knossos, ostensibly left visible when incorporated into the Protopalatial Palace.31 What is especially striking in the case of the Palace at Malia is that the Protopalatial West façade was thoroughly dismantled and erected again, in a similar fashion, to create the Dungeon. It is perhaps important to stress here the versatility of the Dungeon’s anchorage in the biography of the Palace. Although grey blue limestone is still used consistently in the Neopalatial building, in the form of unworked stones of various but generally small dimensions, worked blocks are then made of sandstone, a material procured by the channel-extraction technique from local quarries along the shore. Cut sandstone is already attested in the settlement of Malia during the Protopalatial period, but its consistent use and the quality of its fashioning in the Palace is a Neopalatial feature. The ashlar sandstone blocks bear marks related to the individuals or teams who quarried, shaped and set them into place, and I have argued elsewhere that the use of sandstone ashlar masonry in the Neopalatial Palace of Malia may have required 29 30

31

PELON (supra n. 1) 67. J. Charbonneaux, while describing this masonry mentions a plaster coating on the back face of the walls only, to hide the rubble masonry filling the irregularities between the blocks (J. CHARBONNEAUX, “L’architecture et la céramique du palais de Mallia,” BCH 52 [1928] 350). No plaster coating is mentioned in the excavators’ archives, preliminary report (“Chronique … [supra n. 18] 524) or publication of the excavations (CHAPOUTHIER and CHARBONNEAUX [supra n. 18] 18). O. Pelon recognises that there is no trace on the Dungeon’s façades of a plaster coating, but suggests there must have been one initially, based on the fact it was common practice in the palace and the suggestion that the face of the grey blue limestone blocks was worked to increase the adherence of the coating (PELON [supra n. 1] 87, n. 4). D.M. BUELL and J. MCENROE, this volume; MACDONALD (supra n. 7) 87.

RECALLING THE WEST FAÇADE OF THE PROTOPALATIAL PALACE AT MALIA

47

the participation of Knossian builders.32 Indeed, masons’ marks appear in the Palace at Knossos from the Protopalatial period onwards, and it is striking to notice that only the most common signs used at Knossos are carved on blocks of the Neopalatial Palace at Malia. If the contribution of Knossian workers to the reconstruction of the Palace at Malia in the Neopalatial period proves to be a correct hypothesis, the Dungeon not only served as a mnemonic device of the Protopalatial grandeur of the Malia Palace, but it also reminded the Neopalatial users what was to build as a Maliot during the Protopalatial period. Maud DEVOLDER

32

M. DEVOLDER, “The Functions of Masons’ Marks in the Bronze Age Palace at Malia (Crete),” AJA 122 (2018) 343-365.

48

Maud DEVOLDER LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Pl. XIIIa

Pl. XIIIb Pl. XIVa Pl. XIVb

Pl. XVa

Pl. XVb

Schematic plan of the Palace at Malia (modified from PELON [supra n. 1] plan 28, Pl. XXXII ©EFA). Roman numerals refer to room clusters (“Areas”). Arabic numbers and occasionally lowercase letters refer to specific rooms within areas. The locations of the reused blocks from the Protopalatial façade on the West Court are marked with inscribed circles. View of the façade walls of the Dungeon, looking south-west (K. Papachrysanthou ©EFA). Drawing of the façade walls of the Dungeon (M. Devolder based on orthophotographs by G. Cantoro ©EFA): a. north wall; b. west wall. Grey blue limestone block reused as a support for a sandstone pillar base of the North Portico of the Quartier d’apparat: a. Current view, looking south-west (M. Devolder); b. View of the block during soundings in 1983, looking west, with a mortise hole on the left part of the block’s eastern face (O. Pelon ©EFA). Grey blue limestone blocks of sure or possible reuse from the Protopalatial West façade of the Palace at Malia (M. Devolder ©EFA): a. south-east Entrance of the Palace; b. south wall of Room XII 3; c. south wall of Room XVII 1; d. north wall of Room E. Proposition of restitution of the masonry of the Protopalatial West façade of the Palace at Malia, based on the 0.94m-high grey blue limestone blocks reused in the Neopalatial walls of the edifice (M. Devolder ©EFA).

XIII

a

b

XIV

a

b

XV

a

b

ARCHITECTURE AND MEMORY AT GOURNIA: MEANINGFUL PLACES* Gournia was originally excavated by Harriet Boyd Hawes over three seasons between 1901 and 1904.1 With its narrow winding streets, small houses, modest palace, and town square, it remains our most complete example of a small Minoan town. Gournia, however, was more than a set of buildings made of stone, clay, and wood. It was also a social community engaged in human interactions that formed the shared memories that held the community together. In this paper we briefly look at several significant places in and around Gournia where social interactions left physical traces (Pl. XVI). These range in scale from public areas of recurrent communal interaction, including both courtyards and cemeteries, to the broader landscape. These places helped to shape the community’s memories, and those memories made the places meaningful. The West Court Gournia’s courtyards were integral parts of the town’s urban ligature. On a daily basis, they provided for the flow of people, things, and ideas. On special occasions they became arenas for more patterned ceremonies where the community engaged with the palace. The palace at Gournia was first built in the Protopalatial period.2 In its earliest form it was a vast structure covering about 1,200 m2 at the crest of the hill (Pl. XVIIa). Its outer walls, which are still prominent on the north and the east facades, were built of monumental hard white crystalline metalimestone boulders quarried from the spine of bedrock that runs north-south through the center of the site. Even today, standing on the modern highway east of the ancient town one can picture how imposing this massive, fortress-like structure would have appeared from a distance. Along with much of the town, the Protopalatial palace was severely damaged at the end of Middle Minoan II, but it was not forgotten. The north and east facades remained standing, and soon the destruction debris was cleared away and a series of rebuilding projects began in Middle Minoan IIIA when the palace was extended to the south. A second major disruption near the end of Late Minoan IA was soon followed by an early Late Minoan IB rebuilding program that involved the introduction of ashlar masonry in Room 21 inside the palace and in long stretches of the south and west facades.

*

1

2

We would like to thank Elisabetta Borgna, Ilaria Caloi, Filippo Carinci and Robert Laffineur for organizing this conference and for their generous hospitality. We would also like to acknowledge the following for their editorial assistance, help with images, comments on earlier drafts, and sharing of information: Sabine Beckmann, Rafal Bieńkowski, Jorge Botero, Ilaria Caloi, Maud Devolder, Scott Gallimore, Kevin Glowacki, Kapua Iao, Angus Smith, Janet Spiller, and L. Vance Watrous. Any error or omission is our responsibility. H. BOYD HAWES, B. WILLIAMS, R. SEAGER and E. HALL, Gournia, Vasiliki and Other Prehistoric Sites on the Isthmus of Hierapetra Crete. Excavations of the Wells-Houston-Cramp Expeditions 1901, 1903, 1904 (1908). D.M. BUELL and J. MCENROE, “Community Building/Building Community at Gournia,” in Q. LETESSON and C. KNAPPETT (eds), Minoan Architecture and Urbanism: New Perspectives on an Ancient Built Environment (2017) 204-227; D.M. BUELL and J. MCENROE, “Architectural Investigations at Gournia: 2010-Present,” Kentro. The INSTAP-SCEC Newsletter 20 (2017) 5-10; D.M. BUELL, J. MCENROE, J. BOTERO and R. BIEŃKOWSKI, “Recent Architectural Studies at Gournia in East Crete, 2011-2015,” in P. SAPIRSTEIN and D. SCAHILL (eds) New Approaches and Paradigms in the Study of Greek Architecture (forthcoming); M. BUELL and J. MCENROE, “Addressing Disruption: A Contextual Study of the Ashlar Masonry at Gournia,” in M. DEVOLDER, I. KREIMERMAN and J. DRIESSEN (eds), Ashlar. Exploring the Materiality of Cut Stone Masonry in the Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age. International Workshop, 8-9 March, 2018 (forthcoming).

D. Matthew BUELL and John C. McENROE

50

The new ashlar facade provided an elegant stage-set for groups of townspeople to interact in ceremonial activities conducted in the West Court. Graham first identified the 3.64m wide recess in the ashlar wall in this area as marking the position of a “window of appearances” on the upper story.3 There are similar recesses on the West Court facades at Knossos, Phaistos, and Malia. Graham proposed that on special occasions the “windows of appearances” provided an opportunity for people in the palace to view the ceremonies below, and for the people in the West Court to see the people in the palace. The formality and the occasional nature of these ceremonies separated them from the daily traffic that flowed through the West Court. Similarly, the ashlar masonry distinguished these places from the more mundane areas of the town.4 Another potentially significant architectural marker has received little attention. When Late Minoan IB builders renovated the West Facade of the palace with carefully cut ashlar walls, they allowed the original Protopalatial ones to remain visible on the north and east.5 The two masonry fabrics meet abruptly where the street widens to become the West Court. The contrast between craggy white metalimestone and the carefully dressed calcarenite ashlars is dramatic. Was this jarring contrast the simple result of a practical decision to reuse as much of the early façade as possible? Or was it like the North Wall of the Athenian Acropolis, for example, a conscious, meaningful gesture - an attempt to remind viewers of their connection with the ancient past? For Rous, the mark of intentionality is that the reuse be so conspicuous that it prompts viewers’ simultaneous awareness of the prior life of the repurposed component and its transfigured significance within its new architectural context.6 The decision to ostentatiously juxtapose the ancient façade with the new ashlar in a place where West Ridge Road widens to form the ceremonial area of the West Court is surely not accidental. At Knossos, Phaistos, Malia, the West Courts were among the most important ceremonial centers in their respective towns. This area would have held prominence because of the special activities repeatedly conducted within it.7 Here, visitors will have had a heightened awareness of their surroundings and of the role that the past continued to play in the present. The Southwest Court Just a few meters to the south of the West Court, the Southwest Court constituted another significant node in the town’s street system. Hawes was silent about the rough upright slab that stands in this court next to the palace, but years later Hood identified it as a sacred stone, a “baetyl,” on the basis of comparison with images in Minoan iconography.8 Whatever ritualistic role the baetyl may have played during performative ceremonies, this fixed upright slab also served as an architectural monument permanently marking this place as special (Pl. XVIIb). Room 13, adjacent to the Southwest Court provides us with a fascinating snapshot of two important moments in the history of the palace. In this tiny space we found two massive superimposed 3

4

5 6

7 8

J.W. GRAHAM, “The Cretan Palace: sixty-seven Years of Exploration,” in J.W. GRAHAM, T.L. SHEAR, E. VERMEULE, S. DOW and P. LEHMANN (eds), A Land Called Crete. A Symposium in Honor of Harriet Boyd Hawes, 1871-1945 (1968) 17-44. On the concept of “heterotopia”, see Y. HAMILAKIS, “Eating the Dead: Mortuary Feasting and the Politics of Memory in Aegean Bronze Age Societies,” in K. BRANIGAN (ed.), Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age (1998) 115-132. See also M. DEVOLDER, this volume. P. NORA, “Between memory and history,” Representations 26 (1989) 7-24; S. ROUS, Ancient Upcycling: Social Memory and the reuse of Marble in Athens, Ph.d. Diss. Harvard University (2016) 5-6. Cf. K. LYNCH, The Image of the City (1960) 50-51. S. HOOD, “A Baetyl at Gournia?,” Ariadne 5 (1989) 17-21; J. SOLES, “The Gournia Palace,” AJA 95 (1991) 36-37; S. CROOKS, What are these Queer Stones? Baetyls. Epistemology of a Minoan Fetish (2013) 23-26, 62, figs 17-21; S. CROOKS, C. TULLY, and L. HITCHCOCK, “Numinous Tree and Stone: ReAnimating the Minoan Landscape,” in E. ALRAM-STERN, F. BLAKOMER, S. DEGER-JALOTZY, R. LAFFINNEUR and J. WEILHARTNER (eds), METAPHYSIS. Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age (2017) 157-164.

ARCHITECTURE AND MEMORY AT GOURNIA: MEANINGFUL PLACES

51

deposits that are currently being studied by R. Angus Smith.9 The earlier deposit consisted of more than 300 Middle Minoan IIIA cups (bell-shaped, straight-sided, and conical) and bowls (ledge-rimmed), along with the burned organic remains of a feast, perhaps held in celebration of the completion of the southern extension of the palace by corvée labor (Pl. XVIIc). Feasts are, of course, ephemeral events. Here, however, the remains of that fleeting moment were carefully collected and placed in the small room as an important symbolic act. Through this act, the feast literally became part of the very fabric of the building. Similar single-event deposits associated with important building projects have been found at various sites throughout Crete and range in date from the Prepalatial through Neopalatial periods. They are usually described as “foundation deposits or, more broadly as “building deposits”.10 Their size and contents can vary. Some include only a few vessels occasionally along with some other objects. These are generally interpreted as simple dedications. Others, such as the deposit in Room 13, however, contain hundreds of vessels and organic material that represent the carefully collected and deposited remains of a feast consecrating the building and commemorating the communal event. That act of commemoration worked. Two centuries later, in early Late Minoan IB, a second communal feast was held in association with a repair to the palace’s façade, which included ashlar remodeling, following a Late Minoan IA destruction. In this upper deposit, we also found the remains of food, ash, and some 300 more drinking vessels directly over the earlier deposit. In other words, the earlier feast was re-enacted in the same space nearly eight generations later. The present was now connected to the past at a critical point in the history of the building. The inclusion of scores of carefully placed Theran pumice within the deposit may also be a recollection of the Theran eruption, which affected the town, and perhaps even played a role in a Late Minoan IA disruption of the palace. The Public Court To the east, the palace opens onto the broad tarazza-paved plateia that Hawes called the “Public Court.” This is the largest open area in the town. Like the West Court and the Southwest court, it would have been used, from time to time for various ceremonial activities. Because of its size, proportions, orientation, and relation with the palace, the Public Court at Gournia has often been linked with the Central Courts of the palaces at Knossos, Phaistos, Malia, Zakros, and Galatas, even though it is adjacent to rather than in the center of the palace. In those other palaces the Central Court is the defining feature of palatial architecture serving not only as the architectural center of the building, but also as the ceremonial center. Recently, several scholars have proposed that communal ceremonial activities in the

9

10

L. WATROUS, D.M. BUELL, J. MCENROE, J. YOUNGER, L.A. TURNER, B. KUNKEL, K. GLOWACKI, S. GALLIMORE, R.A.K. SMITH, P. PANTOU, A. CHAPIN and E. MARGARITIS, “Excavations at Gournia, 2010-2012,” Hesperia 84 (2015) 429-433; R.A.K. SMITH, “The Minoan Feast: Two Deposits from the Early Neopalatial Palace at Gournia,” in S. ALLEN, M. LEE, R. SCHON and R.A.K. SMITH (eds), Power and Place. A Symposium to Honor James C. Wright (forthcoming). C. BOULOTIS, “Ein Gründungsdepositum im minoischen Palast von Kato Zakros: minoischmykenische Bauopfer”, Archäologisches Korrespondernzblatt (1982) 153-166; J.A. MACGILLIVRAY, H. SACKETT and J. DRIESSEN, “Aspro Pato. A Lasting Liquid Toast from the Master-Builders of Palaikastro to their Patron,” in P. BETANCOURT, V. KARAGEORGHIS, W.-D. NIEMEIER and R. LAFFINEUR (eds), Meletemata. Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters his 65th Year (1999) 465-468; V. LA ROSA, “Liturgie domestiche e/o depositi di fondazione? Vecchi e nuovi dati da Festòs e Haghia Triada,” CretAnt 3 (2002) 13-50; V.-P. HERVA, “The Life of Buildings: Minoan Building Deposits in an Ecological Perspective,” OJA 24.3 (2005) 215-227; L. GIRELLA, “Forms of Commensal Politics in Neopalatial Crete,” CretAnt 8 (2007) 135-168; L. GIRELLA, Depositi Ceramici del Medio Minoico III da Festos e Haghia Triada (2010); I. CALOI, “Memory of a Feasting Event in the First Palace of Phaistos: Preliminary Observations on the Bench Deposit of Room IL,” CretAnt 13 (2012) 41-59; EADEM, “Preserving Memory in Minoan Crete. Filled-in Bench and Platform Deposits from the First Palace of Phaistos,” Journal of Greek Archaeology 2 (2017) 33-52; see also I. CALOI, this volume.

D. Matthew BUELL and John C. McENROE

52

area of the Central Courts predated most, if not all of the actual palace buildings that were literally and metaphorically shaped around the ancient ceremonies.11 At Gournia, the social arena was not enclosed within the body of the palace. Instead, its Public Court formed a liminal zone between town and palace (Pl. XVIIIa). An elegant L-shaped set of risers monumentalized the point of transition. Hawes described the risers as a “Theatral Area,” like those at Knossos and Phaistos.12 This set of risers at Gournia seems to have had several purposes. First, it marked the transition from the public arena to a more restricted palatial zone. Second, the size of the risers embodies not just the path of an individual, but the choreographed movement of a group.13 Finally, the set of risers may also have provided a place for a select group of (probably standing) spectators to view the activities conducted within the Public Court, just as they were being viewed by the people in the court. Little physical evidence of those activities remains, but the framework of the Public Court and the Theatral Area steps remains as a footprint of those long-ago events. Hollinshead describes the process eloquently, stating “Whether by directing access to places and structures or by framing special locations, steps articulate secular and sacred practices. Broad, monumental steps accommodate throngs of people and convey an image of large-scale participation even when empty [emphasis added]”.14 The North Cemetery The ancient townspeople’s concern for social memory did not stop at the borders of the town. The surrounding landscape is filled with social memories that formed a conceptual cultural and historical geography, which was passed down from generation to generation. The landscape held two cemeteries where the living members of the community communicated with one another and with their ancestors. In the cemeteries the present was linked with both the past and the future. The North Cemetery is located at the northeastern edge of the town and it is marked on its north by a conspicuous spike of white bedrock, which projects more than 6m above the level of the tombs below (Pl. XVIIIb).15 This cemetery was separated from the main body of the town by a no-man’s land that in 11

12 13 14 15

D. WILSON, “Knossos before the Palaces: an Overview of the Early Bronze Age (EM I–III),” in D. EVELY, H. HUGHES-BROCK and N. MOMIGLIANO (eds), Knossos: A Labyrinth of History. 1994, Papers Presented in Honour of Sinclair Hood (1994) 23-44; C. PALYVOU, “Central Courts: the Supremacy of the Void,” in J. DRIESSEN, I. SCHOEP and R. LAFFINEUR (eds), Monuments of Minos: Rethinking the Minoan Palaces, 14-15 December, 2001 (2002) 167-177; J. DRIESSEN, “The Central Court of the Palace at Knossos,” in G. CADOGAN, E. HATZAKI and A. VASILAKIS (eds), Knossos: Palace, City, State (2004) 75-82; S. TODARO and S. DI TONTO, “The Neolithic Settlement at Phaistos Revisited: Evidence for Ceremonial Activity on the Eve of the Bronze Age,” in V. ISAAKIDOU and P. TOMKINS (eds), Escaping the Labyrinth. The Cretan Neolithic in Context (2004) 177-90; P. TOMKINS, “Behind the Horizon: Reconsidering the Genesis and the Function of the ‘First Palace at Knossos (Final Neolithic IV- Middle Minoan IB),” in I. SCHOEP, P. TOMKINS and J. DRIESSEN (eds), Back to the Beginning. Reassessing Social and Political Complexity during the Early and Middle Bronze Age (2011) 32-80; Y. HAMILAKIS, Archaeology and the Senses. Human Experience, Memory, and Affect (2013) 161-190. BOYD HAWES, WILLIAMS, SEAGER and HALL (supra n. 1) 24. M. HOLLINSHEAD, Shaping Ceremony: Monumental Steps and Greek Architecture (2015) 3. HOLLINSHEAD (supra n. 13) 3. J. SOLES, “The Early Gournia Town,” AJA 83 (1979) 149-167; IDEM, The Prepalatial Cemeteries at Mochlos and Gournia and the House Tombs of Bronze Age Crete (1992) 1-40; G. VAVOURANAKIS, “Burials and Landscape of Gournia, Crete, in the Bronze Age,” in E. ROBERTSON, J. SOEBERT, D. FERNANDEZ and M. ZENDER (eds), Space and Spatial Analysis in Archaeology (2006) 233-242; IDEM, Funerary Landscapes East of Lasithi, Crete in the Bronze Age (2007) 26-33; B. LEGARRA HERRERO, Mortuary Behavior and Social Trajectories in Preand Protopalatial Crete (2014) 97-111; K. SOAR, “Cultural Performances at the Beginning of the Bronze Age: Early Minoan I and II Cemeteries as Stages for Performance,” in S. CAPPEL, U. GÜNKEL-MASCHEK and D. PANAGIOTOPOULOS (eds), Minoan Archaeology: Perspectives for the 21st Century” (2015) 283-293; I. SCHOEP, “The House Tomb in Context: Assessing Mortuary Behavior in Northeast Crete,” in M. RELAKI and Y. PAPADATOS (eds), From the Foundations to the Legacy of Minoan Society. Sheffield Roundtable in Honour of Professor Keith Branigan (2018).

ARCHITECTURE AND MEMORY AT GOURNIA: MEANINGFUL PLACES

53

Early Minoan III and Late Minoan IA was used for massive dumps during periods of town rebuilding. The cemetery was comprised of two small rock shelters that were used for burials in Early Minoan II, and six House Tombs similar to the richer tombs at nearby Mochlos. The small number of house tombs suggests that they were used for sub-groups within the larger community, perhaps only a few elite families rather than by the community as a whole. The bodies of other people were buried in the North Cemetery and in neighboring Sphoungaras in a variety of different ways, including direct inhumations, and burials within cists, larnakes, and rock shelters, and narrow chambers.16 By the time of the excavations in 1901, 1904 and in the 1970’s, the North Cemetery had been disturbed and eroded. Most of the bones were found in tangled piles but comparison with other House Tomb cemeteries allow us to envision the funerary performances that took place there. The tombs were built for both primary and, especially, secondary burials. The family brought the body to the cemetery and placed it in a small chamber along with personal items and occasionally costly exotic objects, including the remarkable silver kantharos with Anatolian connections found in House Tomb I, along with two Kamares ware imitations.17 The celebrants then closed the tomb. When the time came for the next internment, they curated the fleshless remains of the bodies already in the tomb, collecting the long bones and skulls and placing them with others in the adjoining ossuary. Sixteen skulls, for example, were found in the Early Minoan IIA Tomb III. Participants then pushed smaller remains aside and placed the new body in the tomb along with the appropriate grave goods. For much of the Prepalatial period the funeral group shared food and drink graveside. By the Middle Minoan I, period most of the communal celebrations appear to have shifted to an open area between Tombs I and II, which was marked by an altar with a stone (Pl. XIX). Otherwise, the basic pattern of communal House Tombs with primary and secondary burials, curation of the corpses, the inclusion of special grave goods, and communal commemorative ceremonies remained essentially the same for nearly a millennium – some 40 generations – from Early Minoan IIA into Middle Minoan II. Sphoungaras The second cemetery within Gournia’s landscape is remarkably different. Following a transformational disruption at the end of Middle Minoan II, the entire town of Gournia was rebuilt. The centuries old North Cemetery was abandoned and its area was avoided for the rest of the history of the town. From Middle Minoan III into Late Minoan IA, the even more ancient cemetery at Sphoungaras once again became the main cemetery for the entire town. Not only was the cemetery moved further away from the town, but the form of the tombs also changed. Pithos burials which had been rare in earlier periods became the uniform standard for burying the deceased regardless of age, gender, or social status.18 This is unlike the House Tombs, which were used for generations by a few elite families. By itself, the adoption of pithos burials would not be particularly unusual. Across much of the island, the Middle Minoan III period seems to have been a time for experimenting with various burial types, including pithos burials.19 On the other hand, large cemeteries with hundreds of pithos burials seem to be a

16 17

18

19

E. HALL, Excavations in Eastern Crete (1912) 73. J. WEINGARTEN, “The Silver Kantharos from Gournia Revisited,” in R. KOEHL (ed.), A New York Aegean Bronze Age Colloquium in Memory of Ellen N. Davis (2016) 1-10. HALL (supra n. 16); J. SOLES (supra n. 15, 1992) 156; F. PETIT, “Les jarres funéraires de Minoen Ancien III au Minoen Récent I,” Aegaeum 6 (1990) 29-57; G. VAVOURANAKIS, “Funerary Pithoi in Bronze Age Crete: Their Introduction and Significance at the Threshold of Minoan Palatial Society,” AJA 118 (2014) 197-222; B. LEGARRA HERRERO, “Bodies in a Pickle: Burial Jars, Individualism and Group Identities in Middle Minoan Crete,” in M. MINA, S. TRIANTAPHYLLOU and Y. PAPADATOS (eds), An Archaeology of prehistoric Bodies and Embodied Identities in the Eastern Mediterranean (2016) 182-184. L. GIRELLA, “La morte ineguale. Per una lettura delle evidenze funerarie nel Medio Minoico III a Creta,” ASAtene 81 (2003) 251-300; M. DEVOLDER, “Étude des coutumes funéraires en Crète néopalatiale,” BCH 134 (2010) 31-70; L. PRESTON, “The Middle Minoan III Funerary Landscape at Knossos,” in C. MACDONALD and C. KNAPPETT (eds), Intermezzo. Intermediacy and Regenerations in Middle Minoan III Crete

54

D. Matthew BUELL and John C. McENROE

regional phenomenon, perhaps even being local to Sphoungaras and neighboring Pacheia Ammos.20 Of the 450 burial pithoi in Legarra Herro’s database, 250 were from Pacheia Ammos and 150 from Sphoungaras. This constitutes 81% of his sample, and the number would be even higher if the total sample were limited to Middle Minoan III-Late Minoan I pithoi.21 In addition, Hall suspected that she had excavated only a fraction of the total number of pithoi at Sphoungaras. Scholars have tried to explain the shift from the House Tombs to pithos burials in several ways. Employing cultural evolutionary models, Branigan and others have associated the introduction of the pithos burial with a presumed shift from Prepalatial communal societies toward the increasing individualism of the emerging palatial states.22 Hamilakis, however, points out that the lines between individual and community identity are more complex than this binary contrast suggests.23 Furthermore, the apparently local nature of the Sphoungaras and Pacheia Ammos cemeteries makes it difficult to interpret them as representing a specific evolutionary stage in island-wide socio-economic patterns. It is perhaps more useful to examine how the funerary activities associated with the pithos cemetery differed from those carried out at the House Tombs. Those shared interactions were key to the sense of community. Social memory is not a fixed body of thought: it is an experiential process. Pithos burials involved a set of funerary actions that were different from those associated with the house tombs in the North Cemetery. Almost immediately after death, before rigor mortis set in, the persons conducting the burial trussed the body in a seated position with knees and head up. They then placed a wide-mouthed pithos made specifically for burials over the trussed corpse. They typically did not place any grave goods with the body. The people that had gathered for the burial apparently shared some food or drink in commemoration of the deceased. A flat stone was placed on top of the inverted pithos and the space around and over the vessel was filled with pebbles. Removed from sight, the pithos grave became one of hundreds of nearly identical components of a massive cemetery that now served the entire community, rather than elite sub-groups within the community. The grave was left unmarked and was never subject to later curation or secondary burial. The invisibility of the buried pithos makes a surprising contrast to the conspicuous House Tombs in the North Cemetery. On the other hand, even if the individual pithos was covered over, the cemetery as a whole was not forgotten. It continued to be a familiar part of the town to which families returned again and again to bury their dead. The white cliff that marked its northeastern side was constantly visible from the town as was the white bedrock spike projecting above the abandoned North Cemetery. Both cemeteries became enduring parts of the geographical and cultural landscape, and differences between them remind us that social memory at Gournia was not uniform, and it was not fixed. Memories and forms of commemoration changed over time, and they varied among the town’s various constituencies. The Late Minoan III Settlement Gournia was destroyed by a violent fire at the end of the Late Minoan IB period, and there was an accompanying dramatic decline in regional settlement.24 Near the beginning of the succeeding Late Minoan III period, a monumental corridor building, House He, was constructed at the south end of the site. Two additional buildings were constructed around the western (House Eh) and southern edges

20 21 22 23 24

(2013) 59-70; L. GIRELLA, “When Diversity Matters: Exploring Funerary Evidence in Middle Minoan III Crete,” SMEA NS 1 (2015) 123-125; L. GIRELLA, “Aspects of Ritual and Changes in Funerary Practices between MM II and LM I on Crete,” in ALRAM-STERN et al. (supra n. 3) 201-211. R. SEAGER, The Cemetery of Pachyammos, Crete (1916); GIRELLA (supra n. 10, 2010) 206-207 LEGARRA HERRERO (supra n. 15) fig. 23.3. K. BRANIGAN, Dancing with Death. Life and death in southern Crete c. 3000-2000 BC (1993) 65-66. HAMILAKIS (supra n. 11) 143-156. L.V. WATROUS, “Late Minoan IIIA-IIIB Periods: Depopulation and Mycenaean Occupation,” in L.V. WATROUS, D. HAGGIS, K. NOWICKI, N. VOGEIKOFF-BROGAN and M. SCHULTZ, Archaeological Survey of the Gournia Landscape: A Regional History of the Mirabello Bay, Crete, in Antiquity (2015) 65.

ARCHITECTURE AND MEMORY AT GOURNIA: MEANINGFUL PLACES

55

(House Hf) of the Neopalatial settlement.25 These three buildings are characterized by their neat, regular walls, carefully cut thresholds, and reused ashlars.26 Neopalatial House Ej on the western side of the town also seems to have been reoccupied at this time. Later on in Late Minoan III a bench shrine, containing statuettes of “goddesses”, figurines, and snake tubes, was established on the acropolis, just to the north of the palace over top of the Neopalatial street.27 This isolated shrine stood in a visually prominent location overlooking the ruins of the Neopalatial civic landscape. Here we might once again consider 5th cent. BC Athens. Following the Persian destructions of 480-479 BC, some monuments on the Acropolis were left in ruins, as a memory, perhaps bound in an oath, of past transgressions, while the city itself was rebuilt. Though we do not know the circumstances in which Gournia was destroyed, it is clear that the town and, perhaps, the destruction event itself remained a part of the Late Minoan III community’s collective remembrance. A number of Late Minoan III burials have been identified in and around Gournia. One larnax burial was made in Neopalatial House Ei. Larnax burials were also made within chamber tombs at Sphoungaras and within chamber tombs and rocks shelters at Alatsomouri, while pithos burials have been found in Pacheia Ammos (see above).28 Thus, within Gournia’s Late Minoan III mortuary landscape, places like Sphoungaras remained in use and practices, such as larnax and pithos burials, were still conducted, ensuring the maintenance of memory.29 The Landscape The name “Gournia” means “basin”, a word that aptly describes the land that surrounds the town. The town sits in a bowl that is open to the sea on the north, but enclosed on the other three sides by a continuous line of limestone massifs that strictly limit the viewshed. The basin forms a visually selfcontained world that quickly becomes familiar to anyone who spends much time there (Pl. XIX). The stream west of the town that runs from the springs at Asari to the sea is dry today, but a modern irrigation system provides for olive groves, small vineyards, fields of cereals and legumes, and small gardens. Sheep graze on the higher slopes. There are few built features: some narrow paths provide farmers with access to their fields, and two small churches to Ayia Pelagia just south of the ancient town and the Church of the Nativity of the Virgin to the southwest connect the land with spiritual life. Although much of the topography of Crete is breathtakingly dramatic, the Gournia basin today is a quiet balance between natural landscape and cultural landscape. It is possible to envision this same basin in the Bronze Age because the Minoans also modified the natural setting and left traces for us to find.30 Standing just outside the houses in the town, if we know where to look we can see both cemeteries with their prominent bedrock markers and, like the people of ancient Gournia, we think of the dead and their relationship with the living. Between the town and Sphoungaras Cemetery terraced hillsides are also the result of human interactions. There, generations of family labor provided the community with daily sustenance. To Minoan farmers, walking through the cultivated fields and the gardens provided a sense of place and also marked rhythms of time. Prompting memories of workdays and seasonal changes, the landscape served as a calendar of tasks accomplished and a list of things to do. 25 26 27

28

29 30

BOYD HAWES, WILLIAMS, SEAGER and HALL (supra n. 1) 26, plan. BOYD HAWES, WILLIAMS, SEAGER and HALL (supra n. 1) 21, 23. BOYD HAWES, WILLIAMS, SEAGER and HALL (supra n. 1) 47-48, Pl. XI; G.C. GESELL, Town, Palace, and House Cult in Minoan Crete (1985) 72. H. BOYD HAWES, Gournia. Report of the American Exploration Society’s Excavations at Gournia, Crete, 1901-1903 (1904) 20, f. 14, 45; S. ALEXIOU, “Υστερομιωικός τάφος Παxυάμμου”, CretChron 8 (1954) 399-412; A. KANTA, The Late Minoan III Period in Crete. A Survey of Sites, Pottery, and their Distribution (1980) 139-140, 143; F. GAIGNEROT-DRIESSEN, De l’occupation postpalatiale à la cité-état Grecque : le cas du Mirambello (Crѐte) (2016) 126, 354. S.E. ALCOCK, Archaeologies of Memory (2002) 31. VAVOURANAKIS (supra n. 15).

56

D. Matthew BUELL and John C. McENROE

The cultural landscape also provided connections. While the Gournia basin is largely a small, enclosed place, it is not entirely self-contained. The ancient road along the coast probably more-or-less followed the route of the modern road and, farther to the north, the Shore House and coast remind viewers of sporadic interactions with the outside world. At Gournia, the landscape, like the town, was filled with meaningful places and shared memories. D. Matthew BUELL John C. McENROE

ARCHITECTURE AND MEMORY AT GOURNIA: MEANINGFUL PLACES

57

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Pl. XVI Pl. XVIIa Pl. XVIIb Pl. XVIIc Pl. XVIIIa Pl. XVIIIb Pl. XIX

Plan of Gournia (drawing by authors). West Court at Gournia (image by D.M. Buell, R. Bieńkowski, J. Botero, J.C. McEnroe). Photo of the Southwest Court from the northwest (photo by authors). Middle Minoan III ceramic deposit, Room 13 (photo by Janet Spiller). Photo of the Theatral Area, Stoa, and Public court from south (photo by authors). Photo of House Tomb area from east. Tombs I, II, III are depicted (photo by authors). Aerial view of Gournia and surrounding area (image by D.M. Buell, R. Bieńkowski, J. Botero, J.C. McEnroe).

XVI

XVII

a

b

c

XVIII

a

b

XIX

REJECTING THE PAST? LM II-IIIB SETTLEMENTS IN THE MIRABELLO At this conference dedicated to the study of memory in Aegean Prehistory, a small number of papers are focused on forgetting. On one level, historians and anthropologists have used the concept of forgetting as the absence of memory; however, as David Berliner notes in an essay The Abuses of Memory, “… just as anthropologists tend to entangle memory and cultural reproduction, what’s at stake in forgetting studies is the reproduction and persistence of forgetting… To some degree forgetting, along with memory, looks as if it is on the side of permanence and retention, and serves also, by its nonpresence, to prolong the anthropological project of understanding continuity.” 1 Forgetting is thus a potential corollary of discontinuity, acting as an interruption or reset. Discontinuity itself has drawn attention from Renfrew and Tainter as part of a broader understanding of the patterns, causes, and frequency of collapse, particularly of early states.2 The focus of this paper, however, is somewhat different, as it approaches discontinuity not so much as the end of a process or collapse but rather as its beginning to examine how what followed can be described as a response to what had come before – forgetting or rejecting the past – although perhaps not quite to the extreme of erasing the past – damnatio memoriae. The violent destruction of LM IB habitations across Crete and the subsequent response in LM IIIIIA1 offer an exceptional sample for the study of discontinuity in the Bronze Age.3 For Crete this transition marks one of the most significant breaks in the island’s long history. Much attention has rightly been given to Knossos where various markers suggest profound changes in the Final Palatial period (new forms of iconography, new tomb types, new social practices, new political offices, and new administrative practices and language.) Interpretations of these phenomena have frequently stressed either continuity with the previous palatial system or discontinuity associated with the appearance of new foreign groups from the mainland.4 While we wait for the results of DNA studies to provide definitive answers to the presence and thus potential role of foreigners in these changes, it may be useful to consider LM II-IIIA1 Knossos as a laboratory for the creation of a new form of palatial culture, which would influence the development of Mycenaean palatial tradition on the Mainland.5 From the perspective of memory studies, it is clear that these new agents (whatever their origins) were aware of the past at the site, and Knossos’ role as the political, economic and even cosmological center for the island.6 The LM II-IIIA1 town, 1

2

3

4

5

6

D. BERLIN, “The Abuses of Memory: Reflections on the Memory Boom in Anthropology,” Anthropology Quarterly 78.1 (2005) 197-211. For an equally subtle interpretation of forgetfulness and memory in connection with Messenian response to Spartan domination after independence in 370/60, see S. ALCOTT, Archaeologies of the Greek Past. Landscape, Monuments and Memories (2002) 132-183. C. RENFREW, “Trajectory Discontinuity and Morphogenesis: The Implications of Catastrophe Theory for Archaeology,” American Antiquity 43.2 (1978) 203-22; J.A. TAINTER, The Collapse of Complex Societies (2003). J.S. SOLES, “The Collapse of Minoan Civilization: The evidence of the broken ashlar,” in R. LAFFINEUR (ed.), POLEMOS. Le conteste guerrier en Égée à l’âge du Bronze. Actes de la 7e Recontre égéenne internationale, Université de Liège, 14-17 avril 1998 (1999) 57-95; T.M. BROGAN, R.A.K. SMITH and J.S. SOLES, “Mycenaeans at Mochlos? Exploring Culture and Identity in the Late Minoan IB to IIIA1 Transition,” Aegean Archaeology 6 (2002) 89-118; M.H. WIENER, “The Mycenaean Conquest of Minoan Crete,” in C.F. MACDONALD, E. HATZAKI and S. ANDREIOU (eds), The Great Islands. Studies of Crete and Cyprus presented to Gerald Cadogan (2015) 131-142. Contrast L. PRESTON, “A Mortuary Perspective on political changes in LM II-IIIB Crete,” AJA 108 (2004) 321-47; J. DRIESSEN and C. LANGHOR, “Rallying round a Minoan Past: the Legitimation of Power at Knossos during the Late Bronze Age,” in M.L. GALATY and W.A. PARKINSON (eds), Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces II (2007) 178-189. PRESTON (supra n. 4); DRIESSEN and LANGHOR (supra n. 4); BROGAN et al. (supra n. 3); WIENER (supra n. 3). DRIESSEN and LANGHOR (supra n. 4).

60

Thomas M. BROGAN

moreover, though smaller than its Neopalatial predecessor, remained the largest urban center in the Aegean, and any changes there involved a process of selective curation in the reproduction and the rejection of the past.7 The evidence from many other Cretan settlements suggests a very different process was at work following the LM IB destructions, and this response has received far less attention.8 After displaying long records of continuity, particularly during the MM-LM I periods, life at many Minoan towns was suddenly ruptured by this unexpected wave of violence that left palaces, villas, and countless multi-story houses in ruins.9 The absence of LM II material at many of these sites has even been used to suggest that some settlements were completely abandoned for short periods of time.10 When habitation did resume, it was radically different. Given the theme of the conference one might fairly ask: Was there any memory of the past at these sites? My paper considers this phenomenon in more detail. Was this simply a small- scale survival strategy by a severely diminished population or instead a limited but conscious rejection of the past? Gournia, Pseira, Mochlos, and Papadiokampos, where excavation and survey have revealed a significant pattern of discontinuity at the level of settlement, cemetery and regional center.11 Together this evidence forms an intriguing test case for understanding one view of the past in Bronze Age Crete. I begin with the settlements. All four sites hosted substantial towns with 15 to 65 multi-storied houses constructed of rubble and earth in MM III of which many were rebuilt after the Theran eruption.12 Each house provided 150-250 m² of covered space that was occupied by several generations of families for more than 200 years. Ca 1450 BC all four towns were suddenly and completely destroyed with their contents buried inside (but not the occupants with the exception of Mochlos).13 The large quantities of metal and other valuables recovered at Gournia, Mochlos and Papadiokampos suggest that little effort was made to salvage materials from the destroyed houses.14 7

8 9

10 11

12

13 14

T. WHITELAW, “Urban Communities in Prehistoric Crete,” in Q. LETESSON and C. KNAPPETT (eds), Minoan Architecture and Urbanism. New Perspectives on an Ancient Built Environment (2017) 127, fig. 7.10. BROGAN et al. (supra n. 3). J. DRIESSEN and C.F. MACDONALD, The Troubled Island. Minoan Crete before and after the Santorini eruption (1997); T.M. BROGAN, “Introduction,” in T.M. BROGAN and E. HALLAGER (eds), LM IB Pottery. Relative Chronology and Regional Differences (2011) 39-52; WIENER (supra n. 3). BROGAN et al. (supra n. 3). For Gournia, see L.V. WATROUS, “Late Minoan IIIA-IIIB Periods: Depopulation and Mycenaean Occupation,” in L.V. WATROUS, D. HAGGIS, K. NOWICKI, N. VOGEIKOFF-BROGAN and M. SCHULTZ, An Archaeological Survey of the Gournia Landscape. A Regional History of the Mirabello Bay, Crete, in Antiquity (2012) 65-68; for Pseira, see P.P. BETANCOURT, “Discussion and Conclusions,” in P.P. BETANCOURT, C. DAVARAS, and R.H. SIMPSON (eds), Pseira IX. The Archaeological Sruvey of Pseira Island. Pt. 2. The Intensive Surface Survey (2005) 294-295; for Mochlos and the Mirabello, see T.M. BROGAN and R.A.K. SMITH, “The Mochlos Region in the LM III Period,” in J.S. SOLES and C. DAVARAS (eds), Mochlos IIC Period IV. The Mycenaean Settlement and Cemetery. The Human Remains and Other Finds (2011) 149-162. For Gournia, D.M. BUELL and J.C. McENROE, “Community Building/Building Community at Gournia,” in LETESSON and KNAPPETT (supra n. 7) 204-227; for Pseira, J.C. McENROE, Pseira V. The Architecture of Pseira (2001); for Mochlos, see J.S. SOLES and C. DAVARAS (eds), Mochlos IVA: Period III. The House of the Metal Merchant and Other Buildings in the Neopalatial Town (forthcoming); and for Papadiokampos, see T.M. BROGAN, Ch. SOFIANOU, and J.E. MORRISON, “In Search of the Upper Story of LM I House A.1 at Papadiokampos: An Integrated Architectural and Ceramic Perspective,” in W. GAUSS, M. LINDBLOM, R.A.K. SMITH, and J.C. WRIGHT (eds), Our Cups Are Full. Pottery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age. Papers Presented to Jeremy B. Rutter on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (2011) 31-39. R.B. SEAGER, “Excavations at Mochlos,” AJA 13 (1909) 301-302. H. BOYD HAWES, B.E. WILLIAMS, R.B. SEAGER and E.H. HALL. Gournia, Vasilike and Other Prehistoric Sites on the Isthmus of Hierapetra, Crete (1908) 33-35, Pl. IV; J.S. SOLES, “Metal Hoards at Mochlos from LM IB Mochlos, Crete,” in I. TZACHILI (ed.), Aegean Metallurgy in the Bronze Age, Proceedings of an International Symposium Held at the University of Crete on November 19–21, 2004 (2008) 143-156; Ch. SOFIANOU and T.M. BROGAN,

REJECTING THE PAST? LM II-IIIB SETTLEMENTS IN THE MIRABELLO

61

What followed is a significant point of departure from the pattern seen at Knossos. Excavations in the Mirabello have not revealed a single dwelling dated to LM II. While this may in part be explained by our difficulty recognizing LM II pottery outside North central Crete, imported LM II and LM IIIA1 material has now been recovered from 6 contexts at Mochlos.15 In each case the pottery was found as sherds mixed in fills with LM IIIA1 material, suggesting that a small number of dwellings had been built at some point in LM II with more added in LM IIIA1/A2. LM II material has not been recovered at Gournia, Pseira, and Papadiokampos, but both Gournia and Pseira show a similar pattern of small-scale reoccupation in LM IIIA1-IIIA2.16 No attempt was made to rebuild the houses from the previous period, even though the shells of these dwellings were standing in ruins (some LM IB walls at Mochlos rise over 2m even today).17 In fact, the locus, form, and scale of these houses differed significantly from those built in LM IB. The LM II-IIIA plans are clearest at Mochlos, where with the exception of House Alpha, the dwellings consist of 2-3 rooms (some formed by blocking earlier LM I streets) which include separate cook sheds.18 The break with the past, which lay all around them, could not have been clearer. In the previous Neopalatial period the response to destruction had been to dig down into the earlier foundations (leaving a surprisingly consistent EM IIB destruction horizon intact) and rebuild. Why not again in LM II-IIIA1? Moreover, why not salvage the hundreds of bronze tools and copper and tin ingot fragments buried beneath these houses?19 The response shows a lack of awareness for previous household space and valuable contents. Devolder’s recent study of Neopalatial energetics provides interesting perspective because she suggests that most of the LM I structures could have been built by small numbers of people in a few months using a well-developed local building tradition.20 This appears to have been lost in the next phase. Surveys in the area record a significant drop in population in LM II-IIIA1 in a pattern now traced across Crete by Wiener.21 Nowicki, moreover, has identified a small amount of LM IB material in the refuge site of Katalimata, where settlement is usually associated with periods of flight from coastal areas.22 The Neopalatial funerary record in the Mirabello provides another perspective on local discontinuity. The sites of Sphoungaras, Pacheia Ammos and Mochlos are unusual in providing us with a tradition of burial in pithoi during the Neopalatial period (most to LM IA) with very few grave goods.23 Importantly for this discussion, these finds represent the last burials in cemeteries with long histories of use

15 16

17

18 19 20

21

22 23

“Μινωικός οικισμός Παπαδιοκάμπου Σητείας. Η ανασκαφή της οικίας Β1 κατά το 2008,” in M. ANDRIANAKIS and I. TZACHILI (eds), Αρχαιολογικό Έργο Κρήτης 1. Πρακτικά της 1ης Συνάντησης, Ρέθυμνο, 2830 Νοεμβρίου 2008 (2010) 134-142. BROGAN et al. (supra n. 3). P.A. PANTOU, “(De)constructing Identies through Architecture in LM III Crete,” in S. CAPPEL, U. GÜNKEL-MASCHEK and D. PANAGIOTOPOULOS (eds), Minoan Archaeology. Perspectives for the 21st Century (2015) 135-147; WATROUS (supra n. 11) and BETANCOURT (supra n. 11). J.S. SOLES and T.M. BROGAN, “The LM III Settlement,” in J.S. SOLES and C. DAVARAS (eds), Mochlos IIA. Period IV. The Mycenaean Settlement and Cemetery (2008) 5-128, figs 3, 5, 20, 32, 44, and 55. SOLES and BROGAN (supra n. 17). SOLES (supra n. 14) M. DEVOLDER, “Architectural Energetics and Late Bronze Age Cretan Architecture: Measuring the Scale of Minoan Building Projects,” in LETESSON and KNAPPETT (supra n. 7) 57-79. WATROUS (supra n. 11); BETANCOURT (supra n. 11); D.C. HAGGIS, Kavousi I. The Archaeological Survey of the Kavousi Region (2005) 79-81; B. HAYDEN, Reports on the Vrokastro Area, Eastern Crete II. The Settlement History of the Vrokastro Area and Related Studies (2004) 123-135; M.H. WIENER, “The Population and Depopulation of Crete from the Late Minoan to the Late Geometric Period,” in J.A. MURPHY and J.E. MORRISON (eds), Kleronomia: Legacy and Inheritance. Studies on the Aegean Bronze Age in Honor of Jeffrey S. Soles (forthcoming). K. NOWICKI, Monastiraki Katalimata. Excavation of a Cretan Refuge Site, 1993-2000 (2008) 80-81. E.H. HALL, Excavations in Eastern Crete, Sphoungaras (1912) 58-72, figs 33-39, pl. XI; R.B. SEAGER, The Cemetery of Pacheia Ammos Crete (1916) 14-30, Pls VIII-X, XIII-XIX; R.B. SEAGER, Explorations on the Island of Mochlos (1912) 87-92.

62

Thomas M. BROGAN

going back as early as the Prepalatial period. In the LM III period, the inhabitants at Gournia, Mochlos, and Papadiokampos chose to bury their dead in new locations and new tomb types with a very different set of offerings. New chamber tomb cemeteries have been recorded west and east of Gournia and south and west of Pacheia Ammos.24 Excavations at Mochlos, moreover, have revealed a cemetery with 26 chamber tombs and four pits at Limenaria and 7 pits in the ruins of the LM IB Artisan’s Quarters (a similar burial was also recorded in House B.1 at Papadiokambos).25 The chamber tombs at Limenaria are particularly informative as they contained 10 burials in coffins and 19 pithoi and a wealth of grave goods. The tombs are clustered in a pattern that probably reflect family groups.26 While the need to find the nearest source of soft kouskouras may have played a role in the location of these chamber tombs, it is also be worth considering the possibility that local residents had abandoned any connection with those buried in the earlier Minoan cemeteries at Gournia, Pacheia Ammos and Mochlos. The final set of evidence from the region concerns elite residences. In LM IB Mochlos, House B.2 is 8 times larger than the other dwellings on the island, and Soles has made a convincing case on the basis of its form and contents to identify it as the local ceremonial center.27 In the LM IIIA reoccupation at Mochlos, House Alpha has been identified as a local elite dwelling for similar reasons, but it is striking that the builders chose to position the house in Block D with no apparent reference to house B.2.28 At Gournia recent work by McEnroe and Buell has now produced convincing evidence for the presence of a large elite residence in the center of the town from MM I.29 It is perhaps best known from its final appearance in LM IB when it was given an ashlar façade and a wooden skeleton that Tzakanika and Palyvou note exhibits strong links with the best Neopalatial Knossian architecture. In LM IIIA1, according to Pantou, a new elite structure is built at Gournia, House He.30 This corridor house exhibits strong links with mainland models, and the builders chose not to build it over the ruins of Neopalatial palace but literally facing the palace from the opposite side of the central court. In contrast to House Alpha at Mochlos, House He is conspicuous in its reuse of ashlar blocks from the earlier palace in the walls of both the propylon and vestibule. Such selective reproduction of the past appears unlikely to have been accidental. In conclusion I return to the original question: was there any attempt to harness the memory of the past at these sites and if not, was this unintentional (e.g., Papadiokampos was largely abandoned) or instead a more conscious rejection? On one level the past was all around these small Final Palatial communities; however, three strands of evidence suggest the absence of linkages to it. 1. There was no attempt to salvage the contents of LM IB houses. 2. And no attempt to rebuild LM IB dwellings. 3. And no interest in using previous burial locations. Why? One explanation may have to do with the status of the inhabitants, which can have a profound effect on their attitude to previous occupation. Elites would typically have had a strong interest in the preservation and reproduction of the past as a maintenance strategy for continuity and social control while members of households would have had strong links to particular buildings and their contents. In contrast, poorer or new groups would have had less interest in the survival of objects and practices, particularly those associated with previous elite behavior. Following the LM IB destructions, the 24 25

26

27

28 29 30

BROGAN and SMITH (supra n. 11) J.S. SOLES and S. TRIANTAPHYLLOU, “The Late Minoan III Cemetery at Limenaria,” in J.S. SOLES and C. DAVARAS (eds), Mochlos IIA. Period IV. The Mycenaean Settlement and Cemetery (2008) 129184, figs 7-142. J.S. SOLES, “Conclusions: Life and Death in a Small Late Minoan III Community,” in J.S. SOLES and C. DAVARAS (eds), Mochlos IIA. Period IV. The Mycenaean Settlement and Cemetery (2008) 193-196. J.S. SOLES, “Evidence for Ancestor Worship in Minoan Crete: new finds from Mochlos,” in O. KRZYSZKOWSKA (ed.), Cretan Offerings. Studies in Honour of Peter Warren (2010) 331-338, fig. 32.1. SOLES and BROGAN (supra n. 17) 14-49, figs 3-9. BUELL and McENROE (supra n. 12) 210-213, fig. 9.3. PANTOU (supra n. 16).

REJECTING THE PAST? LM II-IIIB SETTLEMENTS IN THE MIRABELLO

63

survivors or new arrivals in these LM II/IIIA1 settlements avoided rebuilding earlier houses (particularly on the locations of previous elite buildings) and salvaging valuable contents, and they buried their dead in new ways and places.31 In this light the response to the LM IB destructions can be interpreted as a pattern of forgetting involving the conscious rejection of local memory or the past. A pair of recent papers, one by Driessen and another by Buell and McEnroe, in the volume on Minoan Architecture and Urbanism suggest that this process may actually have its roots in LM IB.32 At Gournia, Buell and McEnroe note that only 45 of the 66 LM IA houses were reoccupied in LM IB and that some of these new dwellings were simple, one story structures. In their interpretation “most of the resources were being directed towards rebuilding the LM IB palace … suggesting a broadening gap between palace authorities and the surrounding community.” The same dynamic may also have been at work at Mochlos in LM IB with the appearance of the Building B.2 which is much larger than other houses and simpler one-story LM IB constructions at Chalinomouri and the Artisan’s Quarters. Moreover, these changes in early LM IB occur at the same time burials stop in local cemeteries. However, I believe something different is at work in the construction of LM III House He at Gournia. The location, form and appearance of this house reflects a more nuanced strategy of forgetting (i.e., abandoning the locus and form of the earlier palace for a new corridor plan) and remembering (with the repositioning the ashlar blocks.) Unfortunately, House He was found empty so we can say very little about the occupants. Answers to that question may lie in their tomb whose location, however, remains unknown. Thomas M. BROGAN

31

32

S.A. MANNING, “Changing Pasts and Socio-political Cogntition in Late Bronze Age Cyrpus,” in The Past in the Past. The Reuse of Ancient Monuments (World Archaeology 30.1 [1998]) 39-58. Manning has drawn attention to a significant pattern of discontinuity in burial practice in the Maroni Valley on Cyprus at the end of LC IIB period when burial at tombs in use for centuries suddenly stops and new tombs are built over them. In his words “after centuries of memory, there is a deliberate forgetting (p. 47).” Alternatively, at least in the case Mochlos, there is the possibility that the inhabitants may have been afraid to go back and salvage material buried in the houses where some horrible disaster had taken place (e.g., human remains reported by Seager in the LM IB fire destructions of the settlement, SEAGER, supra n. 13). This hypothesis has been explored by Semple in connection with possible taboos surrounding Anglo-Saxon burial mounds. S. SEMPLE, “A Fear of the Past. The Place of the Prehistoric Burial Mound in the Ideaology of Middle and Later AngloSaxon England,” in The Past in the Past. The Reuse of Ancient Monuments (World Archaeology 30.1 [1998]) 106-126. BUELL and McENROE (supra n. 12) 222-224 and J. DRIESSEN, “Understanding Minoan In-House Relationships on Late Bronze Age Crete,” in LETESSON and KNAPPETT (supra n. 7) 80-106.

FROM PEAK SANCTUARIES TO HILLTOP SETTLEMENTS: RESHAPING A LANDSCAPE OF MEMORY IN LATE MINOAN IIIC CRETE* Various criteria have been proposed to identify what we call “peak sanctuaries” in Minoan Crete. One of them is generally accepted: the visibility and prominence of the mountain and/or actual peak sanctuary site, which represents a regional landmark and observation post.1 As noted by Alan Peatfield, peak sanctuaries should be seen from the region they served and also see that region.2 They were generally located at walking distance from a settlement, but based on the material recovered, some of them clearly attracted people from a larger area and had a regional importance. Peak sanctuaries spread across Crete in the Protopalatial period, and many of them are located in Eastern Crete. Alan Peatfield initially proposed a map of 52 sites based on his own work and on Paul Faure’s and Bogdan Rutkowski’s identifications, while Krzysztof Nowicki recognized 45 sites as peak sanctuaries.3 Most of these peak sanctuaries were deserted during the Neopalatial period, and this has generally been regarded as a shift in religious and ideological orientations. The aim of this paper is not to reconsider the criteria for identifying Minoan peak sanctuaries, nor to discuss their function in Proto- and Neopalatial Crete.4 It rather explores the way in which these peak sanctuaries were remembered in Postpalatial Crete and how this can inform our understanding of the Late Minoan IIIC period. 1. Evaluating cult activity at peak sanctuaries in Late Minoan IIIC Some Postpalatial material has been recovered at a few peak sanctuaries, encouraging some scholars to speak of a small revival during this period.5 The presence of Late Minoan III material was noticed by Peatfield at Atsipades, Drapanokephala, Iouchtas, Karphi, Kastellos, Kophinas, Modi, Pobia, Smari and Vrysinas. 6 If, however, we restrict the list to the indisputably identified peak sanctuaries that show evidence for specifically cultic activity in Late Minoan IIIC, only Iouchtas, *

1

2 3

4 5

6

I would like to warmly thank the organizers of the Mneme Conference for their wonderful hospitality in Venice, as well as K. Nowicki for kindly sharing information and forthcoming publication and commenting on an early draft of this paper. See e.g. A.A.D. PEATFIELD, “The Topography of Minoan Peak Sanctuaries,” BSA 78 (1983) 275; IDEM, “The Topography of Minoan Peak Sanctuaries Revisited,” in A.L. D’AGATA and A. VAN DE MOORTEL (eds), Archaeologies of Cult. Essays on Ritual and Cult in Crete in Honor of Geraldine Gesell (2009) 253; K. NOWICKI, “Some Remarks on the Pre- and Protopalatial Peak Sanctuaries in Crete,” Aegean Archaeology 1 (1994) 34; C. DAVARAS, “One Minoan Peak Sanctuary Less: The Case of Thylakas,” in O. KRZYSKOWSKA (ed.), Cretan Offerings. Studies in Honour of Peter Warren (2010) 73-74; S. SOETENS, A. SARRIS, S. TOPOUZI, “Peak Sanctuaries in the Minoan Cultural Landscape,” in Πεπραγμένα Θ´ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου (Ελούντα, 1-6 Οκτωβρίου 2001) A Προϊστορική Περίοδος, 2 (2006) 313-327. PEATFIELD (supra n. 1, 1983) 275. PEATFIELD (supra n. 1, 1983) 274 fig. 1; P. FAURE, “Cultes de sommet et cultes de cavernes en Crète,” BCH 87 (1963) 493-508; IDEM, “Nouvelles recherches sur trois sortes de sanctuaires crétois,” BCH 91 (1967) 114-150; B. RUTKOWSKI, Cult Places of the Aegean (1972); K. NOWICKI, “Mobility of Deities? The Territorial and Ideological Expansion of Knossos during the Protopalatial Period as Evidenced by the Peak Sanctuaries Distribution, Development and Decline,” in Πεπραγμένα ΙB΄Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου (Ηράκλειο, 21-25 Σεπτεμβρίου 2016) (forthcoming) fig. 1. For such question, see most recently NOWICKI (supra n. 3). PEATFIELD (supra n. 1, 1983) 277-278; J.F. CHERRY, “Generalization and the Archaeology of the State,” in D. GREEN, C. HASELGROVE and M. SPRIGGS (eds), Social Organisation and Settlement (1978) 429. PEATFIELD (supra n. 1, 1983) 278-279.

66

Florence GAIGNEROT-DRIESSEN

Kophinas, and Vrysinas can be kept. These three notable exceptions to the general break in cult activities observed at the end of the Neopalatial period may be connected to the fact that Iouchtas, Kophinas, and Vrysinas were always the most prominent peak sanctuaries, with Iouchtas being linked to Knossos. Moreover, this apparent continuity of cult should be nuanced, as the Late Minoan IIIC material recovered at these three sites is very limited in comparison with the material dating to earlier periods.7 This could be an indication that in Late Minoan IIIC, these sites only attracted local people and had lost their regional importance. Their function would therefore have become somewhat different. 2. Comparing the location of Late Minoan IIIC settlements and peak sanctuaries But the general situation in Late Minoan IIIC is actually more striking than the three exceptional cases mentioned above. What is extremely surprising and counter-intuitive is that although Crete witnessed a major change in its settlement pattern during this period, which actually brought people much closer to the peak sanctuary sites, especially in Eastern Crete,8 the reuse of such peak sanctuary sites for cultic purposes is very limited. Comparing, for instance, maps of settlement distribution in the Mirabello region between Late Minoan IIIA2 and Late Minoan IIIC makes this change in settlement pattern obvious.9 At the end of the Late Minoan IIIB period, in the aftermath of the dissolution of the palatial administration, coastal sites were generally deserted. Many new hamlets and villages were then founded inland at distinctive hilltop locations, forming small clusters of sites overlooking the main axes of communication. Various explanations for this settlement pattern can be suggested, including the defensibility and prominence in the landscape of the new hilltop sites, as well as climatic changes and new political, social, economic, and cultural orientations. But getting closer to an old Minoan peak sanctuary was apparently not a motivation. Many of the newly established Late Minoan IIIC settlements were located at a walking distance from a peak sanctuary site, which was always very distinctive in the landscape, and yet the peak sanctuary was not reused. This is the case for the peak sanctuaries of Petsophas, Pandotinou Koryphi, Vorizi, and Atsipades Korakias, which were located in the area of the Late Minoan IIIC settlements established at Kastri, Elliniki Koryphi, Spili Vorizi, and Atsipades Fonises, respectively (Pl. XXa).10 Furthermore it is simply impossible that the communities living in these Late Minoan IIIC settlements were not aware of the distinctive and visually attractive peaks located in their vicinity and that they never visited them. Any visitor to the peak sanctuary sites would have noticed the presence of characteristic surface remains, which are sometimes still visible today, including sherds, fragments of figurines and sea pebbles. The religious past of these places would therefore have been obvious for the visitors.

7

8

9

10

On Iouchtas, see A. KARETSOU, “Juktas Peak Sanctuary. Notes on 12th Century Material,” AM 118 (2003) 49-65; on Kophinas, see N. PLATON and C. DAVARAS, “Άρχαιότητες καὶ μνημεῖα Κρήτης. Κεντρικὴ καὶ ἀνατoλικὴ Κρήτη,” ArchDelt 17 (1961-1962) 287-288; A. KARETSOU and G. RETHEMIOTAKIS, “Κόφινας. Ιερό κoρυφής,” ArchDelt 45 (1990) 429-430; A. SPILIOTOPOULOU, “Kophinas Peak Sanctuary. Results of the Pottery Study” KretChron 34 (2014) 170; A. KARETSOU, “Kophinas Revisited: The 1990 Excavation and the Cultic Activity” KretChron 34 (2014) 134-135; on Vrysinas, see I. TZACHILI, Βρύσινας ΙI. Η κεραμεική της ανασκαφής 1972-1973. Συμβολή στην Ιστορία του Ιερού Kορυφής (2016) 53-54. On this phenomenon, see K. NOWICKI, Defensible Sites in Crete c. 1200-800 BC (LMIIIB/C through Early Geometric) (2000) 228-241. See F. GAIGNEROT-DRIESSEN, De l’occupation postpalatiale à la cité-état grecque : le cas du Mirambello (Crète) (2016) 56-71, 454-455 Maps 8-9. On these sites, see NOWICKI (supra n. 8) 50-52, 129-130, 200-201, 204-206.

RESHAPING A LANDSCAPE OF MEMORY IN LATE MINOAN IIIC CRETE

67

3. Examining the cases of Karphi and Anavlochos In two further instances – Karphi and Anavlochos11 (Pl. XXa) – Late Minoan IIIC settlements were established not only at walking distance from peaks where sanctuaries had once existed, but immediately below them. Yet even in these cases, no Late Minoan IIIC cultic activity is attested on the peak itself. The case of Karphi At Karphi, which is located in the Lasithi Mountains, a Late Minoan IIIC settlement extended over the slope of the peak, while a Protopalatial peak sanctuary has been identified on the top of the rocky knoll and in the crevices on its eastern side. But despite the presence of sherds, figurines, and pebbles, which were still visible when Nowicki visited the site in the 1980-1990s,12 the peak sanctuary was not reused for cultic activities in Late Minoan IIIC. Instead, the so-called “Temple,” which is a communal bench sanctuary, was built on a small eminence at the northern edge of the settlement. Typical Late Minoan IIIC cultic equipment was recovered from this urban bench sanctuary, including figures with upraised arms, plaques, and kalathoi. Moreover, evidence of domestic shrines was identified in several houses of the settlement.13 The case of Anavlochos Another striking example comes from the Anavlochos ridge, located on the other side of the Selinari gorge, which separates this mountainous range from the Lasithi Mountains. This naturally defensible ridge, mostly occupied between the Late Minoan IIIC and the Proto-archaic period, consists of a five-kilometer-long crest of limestone running northwest to southeast above the village of Vrachasi. The highest peak of Vigla, located at the southeast limit of the ridge, is the easternmost identifiable peak when one enters the Malia region from the west (Pl. XXb). It forms the most distinctive part of the massif and makes it recognizable from all the main ancient settlements of Mirabello Bay. From Vigla one can see the entire Mirabello Bay and identify all the distinctive hill sites of the region up to the Siteia Mountains. In 2014, rescue excavations were carried out on top of the peak of Vigla by the Ephorate of Lasithi.14 Apart from some fragments of animal figurines and sea pebbles, the material recovered consists mainly of ceramics. This pottery includes many fragments of Middle Minoan II vases, mostly drinking vessels resembling the material from the nearby Quartier Mu at Malia. The site location and topography, as well as the material recovered, all clearly indicate that a small short-lived Protopalatial peak sanctuary existed on Vigla. The place was later revisited during Late Geometric and Archaic times and was used as an observation post during the Ottoman period. But no Late Minoan IIIC material was recovered from the top of Vigla. This is even more surprising given the fact that Late Minoan IIIC architectural remains and sherds, illustrating the existence of a settlement, were noticed on the surface all along the ridge and just below the Vigla peak, at a walking distance of about 10 minutes from the sanctuary. In addition, during the survey which was conducted on the Anavlochos massif by the French School at Athens in 2016,15 a Late Minoan IIIC open-air sanctuary was located on the western part of the ridge, on a small rocky peak overlooking the Selinari 11

12 13

14

15

For an overview of Karphi and Anavlochos, see respectively NOWICKI (supra n. 8) 157-164 and GAIGNEROT-DRIESSEN (supra n. 9) 200-216. NOWICKI (supra n. 1) 35-37. For an overview of shrines at Karphi, see M. PRENT, Cretan Sanctuaries and Cults: Continuity and Change from Late Minoan IIIC to the Archaic Period (2005) 137-146. I would like to express my gratitude to Vasiliki Zographaki (Ephorate of Lasithi) for giving me the opportunity to take part in these excavations and to study the pottery. F. GAIGNEROT-DRIESSEN, C. JUDSON and V. VLACHOU, “La prospection de l’Anavlochos II,” BCH 141 (forthcoming).

68

Florence GAIGNEROT-DRIESSEN

gorge, about one hour’s walk west from Vigla. This location, which we labelled Deposit 2 (Pl. XXb), was excavated in August 2017. Votive material was recovered from three rock cavities, on the highest scarps of the vertical south cliff of the peak, in an area of about 20 m² (Pl. XXc). 150 fragments of Late Minoan IIIC zoomorphic figurines and wheel-made figures were collected.16 Bovids, equids, and birds are attested. For its large dimensions and the attention given to its details, a wheel-made bull’s head made in a very fine fabric with traces of painted decoration deserves special mention (Pl. XXIa.1). It echoes the Late Minoan IIIC bull figures from Phaistos and the cave of Hermes Kranaios at Patsos,17 and it was expected to find some of its legs and part of its body among the fragments recovered. But it actually turned out that this head belonged to something rather different, for it was originally inserted in the saddle between two decorated horns of consecration (Pl. XXIa.2). The rest of the material from Deposit 2 includes fragments of several smaller horns of consecration with cylindrical tubes in between (Pl. XXIb) which find clear parallels in the Late Minoan IIIC material from the Piazzale dei Sacelli at Ayia Triadha and also from the cave of Hermes Kranaios at Patsos.18 The material deposited in the small Late Minoan IIIC open-air sanctuary on Anavlochos clearly recalls the symbols attested in palatial peak sanctuaries. In particular, horns of consecration are typically associated with palatial tripartite shrines and peak sanctuaries. As such, they appear on frescoes, seal impressions, models, and as monumental architectural components.19 The meaning and function of the cylindrical tubes observed between the smaller horns of consecration from Deposit 2 remain unclear, but it can nevertheless be noted that on the central panel of the so-called “Grandstand fresco” at Knossos, which depicts a tripartite shrine, two pairs of horns of consecration with columns in between are represented. This could suggest that the horns of consecration with cylindrical tubes which were recovered at Anavlochos, as well as at Ayia Triadha and Patsos, may have been a reference to such a depiction. Another possibility is that these tubes served as stands for an ornament or an offering. The place chosen for this Late Minoan IIIC sanctuary on Anavlochos – some natural cavities on a rocky peak – is also not very different either from what we know of palatial peak sanctuaries. So if in both cases the place and the material are of similar nature, why did the Anavlochos communities deliberately choose to reject the peak sanctuary at Vigla, since they could not have missed it or ignored the religious nature of the place? And why did they decide instead to establish a new sanctuary located more than one hour’s walk to the west? 4. Characterizing the Late Minoan IIIC cult material To answer this question, a reconsideration of the Anavlochos material in the religious context of Late Minoan IIIC Crete may be informative. In a detailed study, Anna Lucia D’Agata observed a change in the typology and use of horns of consecration in Late Minoan IIIC. Painted clay horns of consecration of medium and miniature size, which made their first appearance in Late Minoan IIIA2, are suddenly produced in quantity in potters’ workshops and become a popular votive offering in 16

17

18

19

F. GAIGNEROT-DRIESSEN, “Figures, Figurines, and Plaques from the Anavlochos, Crete,” Les Carnets de l’ACoSt 17 (2018) 1-9. Deposit 2 was excavated by Grace K. Erny (PhD student, Stanford University) with the assistance of Cécile Ménager (PhD student, Lyon II University). N. KOUROU and A. KARETSOU, “Terracotta Wheelmade Bull Figurines from Central Crete: Types, Fabrics, Technique and Tradition,” in R. LAFFINEUR and Ph.P. BETANCOURT (eds), TEXNH. Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age, Proceedings of the 6th International Aegean Conference, Philadelphia, Temple University, 18-21 April 1996 (1997) 107-116; “Το ιερό του Ερμή Κραναίου στην Πατσό Αμαρίου,“ in L. ROCHETTI (ed.), Sybrita. La Valle di Amari fra Bronzo e Ferro (1994) 81-164. A.L. D’AGATA, Haghia Triada II. Statuine minoiche e post-minoiche dai vecchi scavi di Haghia Triada (Creta) (1999) Pl. LVI-LXVII; A. EVANS, “Mycenaean Tree and Pillar Cult and Its Mediterranean Relations,” JHS 21 (1901) 136 fig. 19; KOUROU and KARETSOU (supra n. 17). A.L. D’AGATA, “Late Minoan Crete and Horns of Consecration: A Symbol in Action,” in R. LAFFINEUR and J.L. CROWLEY (eds), ΕΙΚΩΝ. Aegean Bronze Age Iconography: Shaping a Methodology. Proceedings of the 4th International Aegean Conference, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia 6-9 April 1992 (1992) 247-252.

RESHAPING A LANDSCAPE OF MEMORY IN LATE MINOAN IIIC CRETE

69

open-air and cave sanctuaries.20 They are represented in the Patsos cave, as well as at Ayia Triadha, Tylissos, Symi, and Anavlochos (Pl. XXIc). A cylindrical tube, as illustrated by the examples from Anavlochos, Ayia Triadha or Patsos, occasionally with a stylized human head modelled on its front side, is sometimes added. So far, the horns of consecration with an inserted bull’s head from Anavlochos represent a unique combination. Horns of consecration also appear in Late Minoan IIIC as appliques on stands, snake tubes, kalathoi or female figures with upraised arms, as attested at Gazi, Prinias, Kastri Viannou, Karphi, Vrokastro, Chalasmenos, and Vronda (Pl. XXIc), often combined with other religious symbols.21 To sum up, in Late Minoan IIIC horns of consecration represent an ancient Minoan symbol that is reused with new material, on a variety of objects, and in previously unseen combinations. More broadly, as noted by Mieke Prent, the Late Minoan IIIC period witnesses a reuse of ancient Minoan symbols, including horns of consecration, birds, and bulls, as traditional indications of the sacred, their precise original religious meaning having been lost with the end of the palatial system.22 In their Late Minoan IIIC form, these symbols are used as Cretan cultural motifs and no longer as signs of palatial ideology. And regarding the location of cultic activity on Anavlochos in Late Minoan IIIC, the desertion of the Vigla peak sanctuary suggests a similar avoidance of the palatial past. The same natural features are still being favoured for cultic activities in Late Minoan IIIC, but a shift away from a palatial cult place is clearly visible and obviously intended. From this brief study focusing on peak sanctuaries, it appears that Late Minoan IIIC religion is characterized by an obliteration of the palatial mneme. The cult material recovered from the Late Minoan IIIC extra-urban sanctuaries shares many common motifs with the assemblages from palatial peak sanctuaries, such as birds, bulls, and horns of consecration. The same typically Minoan symbols remain in use, but within new kinds of artefacts and combinations and with a new meaning. Natural locations, such as rocky peaks, are still prized, as long as they are not charged with the memory of a palatial past. In other words, the political and ideological components of the palatial religion are abandoned but the cultural ones, and notably the iconography, are maintained, with a different significance. To these traditional motifs, new images are added. The repertoire is also enriched with new combinations and composite creations resulting in the fantastic creatures from Ayia Triadha23 or the association of a bull’s head with horns of consecration, as seen at Anavlochos (Pl. XXIa). The Late Minoan IIIC period therefore appears as a time of Cretan recreation or inventiveness partly based on traditional cultural elements borrowed from a remote Minoan past. And this is also true regarding the landscape. In Late Minoan IIIC, the distinctive hills of Crete are reoccupied and reused for new purposes and in new ways. From Protopalatial peak sanctuaries to Postpalatial hilltop settlements, the landscape of Crete, which was charged with memory, is thus reshaped, as traditional landmarks are reused within a new social, political, and economic order. In this process, memory appears as a creative strength which continuously rephrases the past, silencing some aspects and giving resonance to others. Florence GAIGNEROT-DRIESSEN

20 21 22 23

D’AGATA (supra n. 19) 253-254. D’AGATA (supra n. 19) 254-255 and Pl. LXII.a; PRENT (supra n. 13) 174-209. PRENT (supra n. 13) 191, 207-208. D’AGATA (supra n. 18); EADEM (supra n. 19) 255; EADEM, “Religion, Society and Ethnicity on Crete at the End of the Late Bronze Age: The Contextual Framework of LM IIIC Cult Activities,” in R. LAFFINEUR and R. HÄGG (eds) POTNIA. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference, Göteborg University, 12-15 April 2000 (2001) 351-352; EADEM, “The Shrines on the Piazzale dei Sacelli at Ayia Triadha. The LM IIIC and SM Material: A Summary,” in A. FARNOUX and J. DRIESSEN (eds), La Crète mycénienne. Actes de la Table ronde internationale organisée par l’École française d’Athènes, 26-28 Mars 1991 (1997) 84-99.

70

Florence GAIGNEROT-DRIESSEN LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Pl. XXa Pl. XXb Pl. XXc Pl. XXIa Pl. XXIb Pl. XXIc

Map of Late Minoan IIIC settlements established in the vicinity of a palatial peak sanctuary which was not reused in Late Minoan IIIC (author). Topographical map of the Anavlochos ridge depicting the peak sanctuary at Vigla and Deposit 2 (author). View of Deposit 2 (© EFA/Mission Anavlochos). Bull’s head (1.) and horns of consecration with the inserted bull’s head (2.) from Deposit 2 (© EFA/Mission Anavlochos). Horns of consecration with inserted cylindrical stand from Deposit 2 (© EFA/Mission Anavlochos). Map of sites where Late Minoan IIIC horns of consecration were recovered (author).

XX

a

b

c

XXI

a

b

c

B. MINOAN FUNERARY LANDSCAPES

MANIPULATING BODIES, CONSTRUCTING SOCIAL MEMORY: WAYS OF NEGOTIATING, RE-INVENTING AND LEGITIMIZING THE PAST AT THE PETRAS CEMETERY, SITEIA, CRETE* Memory (ΜΝΕΜΕ in Greek) and the experienced past are major topics of contemporary discourse not only in archaeology but in a wide range of social sciences. The rich body of existing literature and the abundance of interdisciplinary approaches to the definition of memory create a palimpsest of notions that are usually vague and hard to comprehend.1 Memory, either personal or collective, is always determined by space and time. Collective memory is furthermore defined by its relevance to a particular social group and its potential to be reconstructed each time in accordance to the present social framework.2 The mutable character of memory indicates that memory is not a passive and monolithic but rather an ongoing and eclectic process. Often, to enhance that process societies employ the use of certain items, namely objects with symbolic connotations, which are used during rituals. Along with the use of symbolic objects, the participants of a ritual perform a range of prescribed practices, usually in a fixed place, reinforcing thus group memories through what Connerton 3 called habitual memory. According to Peterson4 habitual or cognitive memory correspond to more erratic or embodied versions of remembering a past lesson and/or a repeated performance. Hence, the materiality of memory is not merely manifested in the use of objects but also in the employment of particular movements and the use of written texts and oral traditions.5 An equivalent relationship between matter and memory has been recently pointed out by many researchers and was epitomized in Malafouris6 acknowledgement of the special human capacity to transform the ‘peri-personal space’ by creating material signs which act as mnemonic cues for the recollection of important events and ideas. But do humans only transform their immediate surroundings or is this transformation also applied to the human body, and even further, to the dead human body? And if so, are there sufficient evidence from the prehistoric Aegean? Recent studies focusing in particular on Minoan Crete have demonstrated a close association between the use of human remains and the negotiation and redefinition of social aspects such as social organization and social memory.7 The employment of an osteoarchaeological8 approach to the study of

*

1

2

3 4 5 6

7

We would like to thank the Ephorate of Antiquities of Lasithi and in particular the Director Cryssa Sofianou for helping enormously in practical matters. Also, the INSTAP Study Center for East Crete and especially the Director Tom Brogan and Eleanor Huffman for facilitating our work in every aspect. This work is generously funded by the Institute for Aegean Prehistory. A. ERLL, “Cultural Memory Studies: an Introduction,” in A. ERLL and A. NÜNNING (eds), Cultural Memory Studies, An International and Interdisciplinary Handbook (2010) 1-15; for a critical review of theoretical approaches to memory, see also: D. BORIC, “Introduction: Memory, Archaeology and the Historical Condition,” in D. BORIC (ed.), Archaeology and Memory (2010) 1-34. J. ASSMANN, Η Πολιτισμική Μνήμη. Γραφή, Ανάμνηση και Πολιτισμική Ταυτότητα στους Πρώιμους Ανώτερους Πολιτισμούς (1999) translated by D. PANAGIOTOPOULOS (2017) 39-42. P. CONNERTON, How Societies Remember (1989) 21-22. R. PETERSON, “Social Memory and Ritual Performance,” JSocialArch 13 (2) (2013) 266-283. J. ASSMANN (supra n. 2) 115-120. L. MALAFOURIS, “How did the Myceneans Remember? Death, Matter, and Memory in the Early Mycenaean world,” in C. RENFREW, M. BOYD and I. MORLEY (eds), Death Rituals, Social Order and the Archaeology of Immortality in the Ancient World. Death Shall Have No Dominion (2015) 303-304. For an indicative discussion, see S. TRIANTAPHYLLOU, “Managing with Death in Prepalatial Crete: the Evidence of the Human Remains,” in M. RELAKI and Y. PAPADATOS (eds), From the Foundations to the Legacy of Minoan Society. Sheffield Round Table in Honour of Professor Keith Branigan (2018) 141-166; EADEM, “Staging the Manipulation of the Dead in Pre- and Protopalatial Crete, Greece (3rd- early 2nd mill. BC): From Body Wholes to Fragmented Body Parts,” JArchScience Reports 10 (2016) 769-779; I. SCHOEP, “The House-tomb in Context. Assessing Mortuary Behaviour in Northeast Crete,” in RELAKI and

74

Sevasti TRIANTAPHYLLOU, Sotiria KIORPE and Metaxia TSIPOPOULOU

mortuary practices in the Bronze Age Aegean during the last decade has shed light on the different modes of disposal and the complex and multi-staged character of the mortuary activity.9 Regarding Crete, several excavation projects have adopted a methodology of the on-site observation and detailed recording of the taphonomic picture of the skeletal remains followed by the macroscopic and analytical study of the excavated material10 e.g. the Petras and Sissi house tomb cemeteries on the north coast11 and the Koumasa tholos tombs at the foothills of the Asterousia mountains overviewing the Mesara plain in the south.12 Skeletal as well as material findings13 suggest a continuous and dialectic relationship between the living community and the dead based on evidence of continuous and intentional interference with the human remains. In an attempt to approach and reconstruct the different stages of post-depositional activity in funerary assemblages with a long and complex biography regarding in particular the human skeletal remains, a set of osteological aspects is considered ranging from the degree of articulation and fragmentation to the representation of anatomical units and to evidence of firing and deliberate

8

9

10

11

12 13

PAPADATOS (supra) 167-189; A. SCHMITT, S. DEDERIX and I. CREVECOEUR (eds), Gathered in Death. Archaeological and Ethnological Perspectives on Collective Burial and Social Organisation (2018). The term is often referred by the French school of physical anthropology as archeothanatology and is highly inspired by the exemplary work of H. Duday. Both terms actually address the same approach towards a study of human skeletal remains which includes a detailed observation of their taphonomy during field and lab work aiming in the best possible understanding and interpretation of the attitudes towards death and the treatment of the dead. For a comprehensive discussion of the term see H. DUDAY, “Archaeothanatology or the Archaeology of Death,” in R. GOWLAND and C. KNÜSEL (eds), Social Archaeology of Funerary Remains (2006) 30-56; I. CREVECOEUR, A. SCHMITT and I. SCHOEP, “An Archaeothanatological Approach to the Study of Minoan Funerary Practices: Casestudies from the Early and Middle Minoan Cemetery at Sissi, Crete,” JFieldArch 40 (3) (2015) 283-299. TRIANTAPHYLLOU (supra n. 7); EADEM, “Analysis of the Human Bones,” in A. VASILAKIS and K. BRANIGAN (eds), Moni Odigitria. A Prepalatial Cemetery and Its Environs in the Asterousia, Southern Crete (2010) 229-248; EADEM, “Kephala Petras: the Human Remains and the Burial Practices in the Rock Shelter,” in M. TSIPOPOULOU (ed.), Petras, Siteia. 25 Years of Excavations and Studies. Acts of a Two-Day Conference held at the Danish Institute at Athens, 9-10 October 2010 (2012) 161-170. E. NIKITA, S. TRIANTAPHYLLOU, M. TSIPOPOULOU, D. PANAGIOTOPOULOS and L. PLATON, “Mobility Patterns and Cultural Identities in Pre- and Protopalatial Central and Eastern Crete,” in M. TSIPOPOULOU (ed.), The Pre- and Protopalatial Cemetery in Context. 2nd Petras Symposium, Athens, 14-15 February 2015 (2017) 325-339; S. TRIANTAPHYLLOU, E. NIKITA and T. KADOR, “Exploring Mobility Patterns and Biological Affinities in the Southern Aegean: first Insights from Early Bronze Age Eastern Crete,” BSA 110 (2015) 3-25. SCHOEP (supra n. 7); I. SCHOEP, A. SCHMITT and I. CREVECOEUR, “The Cemetery at Sissi. Report of the 2009 and 2010 Campaigns,” in J. DRIESSEN and I. SCHOEP (eds), Excavations at Sissi. Preliminary Report on the 2009-2010 Campains (2011) 41-67; I. SCHOEP, A. SCHMITT, I. CREVECOEUR and S. DEDERIX, “The Cemetery at Sissi: Report on the 2011 Campaign,” in J. DRIESSEN and I. SCHOEP (eds), Excavations at Sissi. Preliminary Report on the 2001 Campaigns (2012) 27-50; I. CREVECOEUR and A. SCHMITT, “Etude archéo-anthropologique de la nécropole (Zone 1),” in J. DRIESSEN and I. SCHOEP (eds), Excavations at Sissi. Preliminary Report on the 2007-2008 Campaigns (2009) 57-94; CREVECOEUR, SCHMITT and SCHOEP (supra n. 8); S. TRIANTAPHYLLOU, “EM/MM Human Skeletal Remains from East Crete: the Kephala Petras Rock Shelter, Siteia, and the Livari Tholos Tomb, Skiadi,” Kentro. The Newsletter of the INSTAP Study Center for East Crete 12 (2009) 19-23; S. TRIANTAPHYLLOU, M. TSIPOPOULOU and P. BETANCOURT, “Κεφάλα Πετράς Σητείας: ανθρώπινα οστά και ταφικές πρακτικές στην ΠΜ βραχοσκεπή και στο MM νεκροταφείο,” in Πεπραγμένα ΙΑ΄ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου (Ρέθυμνο, 21-27 Οκτωβρίου 2011) A2 (2018) 203-215; TRIANTAPHYLLOU (supra n. 9); TSIPOPOLOU (infra n. 21, 22). D. PANAGIOTOPOULOS, “Ανασκαφή Κουμάσας,” Prakt (2012) 185-216. M. RELAKI and C. TSORAKI, “Variability and Differentiation: A first Look at the Sstone Vase Assemblage in the Petras Cemetery,” in TSIPOPOULOU (supra n. 10) 159-178; G. VAVOURANAKIS and C. BOURBOU, “Breaking up the Past: Patterns of Fragmentation in Early and Middle Bronze Age Tholos Tomb Contexts in Crete,” in K. HARELL and J. DRIESSEN (eds), THRAVSMA. Contextualising the Intentional Destruction of Objects in the Bronze Age Aegean and Cyprus (2015) 167-196.

NEGOTIATING, RE-INVENTING AND LEGITIMIZING THE PAST AT PETRAS

75

‘circulation’ of the bones.14 In addition, the proximity of funerary places to settlements and their frequent and variable use for communal gatherings (open spaces, evidence of feasting etc.) and group performances which enhance collective memory indicates their importance in re-establishing the present status and in formulating group memories and notions of collective identity.15 Despite the existence of a common pattern, the available data favor a rather heterogenous picture where each community displays certain particularities and localized features regarding funerary behavior. Variability in funerary practice not only includes differences in the ways the burial spaces were used and the remains were manipulated but also differentiations regarding the existence, the architecture and the spatial arrangement of ritual areas inside the cemeteries as well as the synthesis and the depositional patterns of the material assemblages.16 In this context the present paper will attempt to comprehend the use of the past in the Minoan community of Petras through the evidence on the manipulation of the dead bodies. In addition, it will examine the link between bodily practices and the creation of personal or collective memories while it will also attempt to illustrate the importance of embodied memory practices to the formation of individual or group identities and the promotion of social memory. Emphasis will also be placed on the material traces of funerary or other type of rituals that were enacted within the cemetery area alongside the role of objects closely associated with the human remains. I. Manipulating bodies, managing the past at the Petras cemetery The Petras cemetery lies on the northeast coast of Crete and is situated at a prominent position on the plateau of a hill that overlooks the Siteia bay. The cemetery was built in proximity to the remains of a FN-EM I settlement which towards the beginning of EM IIA was abandoned probably for establishing a new settlement on the neighboring hill of Petras, known as Hill I.17 The Pre- and Protopalatial cemetery and the settlement on Hill I were in use, maintaining inter-visibility, throughout the entire Bronze Age providing thus, a temporal depth and an uninterrupted sense of space perceived as memorial landmark (toposimo in Greek) to the living community of Petras. The first house tombs were built during the EM IIA period at the south and central part of the plateau, while a burial rock shelter, located at the west slope of the hill, was already in use since the EM IB period.18 New tombs were built during later periods at the central and north part of the hill, whereas the old ones continued either to be used or were completely or partially emptied and sealed (e.g. HT 12; HT 15). This amalgam of previous occupations should have facilitated commemorative appropriation and transformation by creating, on a cognitive level, a landscape of associations. The creation of the cemetery at a distinct hill, separated the funerary sphere from the daily lived space although the asset of visibility and nearness acted as a constant reminder of the past which engaged the community with its own landscape and history. As van Dyke and Alcock19 state, place is a sensual experience in which the body, the social identity and the shifting perceptions of society intersect and weave a network of associations and memories. Those memories can be re-lived by visual or other

14 15

16

17

18 19

TRIANTAPHYLLOU (supra n. 9). M. TSIPOPOULOU, “Ceremonial Area 1: Identity and Dating of a Special Ritual Space in the Petras Cemetery,” in TSIPOPOULOU (supra n. 10) 111-130. E. HATZAKI, “Visible and Invisible Death. Shifting Patterns in the Burial Customs of Bronze Age Crete,” in RELAKI and PAPADATOS (supra n. 7) 10-38; Y. PAPADATOS, “Mortuary Variability, Social Differentiation and Ranking in Prepalatial Crete: The Evidence from the Cemetery of Phourni, Archanes,” ibidem 96-114; M. RELAKI, “Roots and Routes: Technologies of Life, Death, Community and Identity,” ibidem 10-38. TRIANTAPHYLLOU (supra n. 11); M. TSIPOPOULOU, “Documenting Sociopolitical Changes in Preand Protopalatial Petras: The House Tomb Cemetery,” in TSIPOPOULOU (supra n. 10); EADEM, “Introduction: 25 Years of Excavations and Studies at Petras,” in TSIPOPOULOU (supra n. 9) 45-68. TSIPOPOULOU (supra n. 10) 56-59. R.M. VAN DYKE and S.E. ALCOCK, “Archaeologies of Memory: an Iintroduction,” in R.M. VAN DYKE and S.E. ALCOCK (eds), Archaeologies of Memory (2003) 1-13.

76

Sevasti TRIANTAPHYLLOU, Sotiria KIORPE and Metaxia TSIPOPOULOU

ways of remembering the past, such as smell, taste, and touch.20 The study of the skeletal remains provide a useful insight into the bodily ways the Petras community experienced its past. Burials in the Petras house tombs were made immediately on the floor of the tombs, while during the EM III-MM IIB period a few burials were also accommodated inside funerary vessels, such as larnakes (e.g. the case of HT 2)21 or other containers22 (e.g. the case of the disposal of one adult and one non-adult individual placed inside a wine press in HT 3). Due to the continuous and prolonged use of the tombs, the internments are usually mixed and commingled in such a degree that is almost impossible to distinguish the initial placement of the depositions. The human remains are usually found in small piles towards the walls of a room or close to the entrance, whereas there are rooms that are devoid of any bone material. The majority of the human remains corroborates with a commingled state of deposition while also various primary articulated burials were excavated. Due to continuous and intense use of the funerary space throughout cleaning procedures taken place within the house tombs, it is often difficult to distinguish the rooms which were used initially for primary internments. The systematic excavation and the meticulous osteological and taphonomic study of the human remains provide good evidence on the different modes of disposal at the various burial precincts of the Petras cemetery.23 The Petras Rock Shelter produced a considerable number of crania but also long and small bones in a complete state of preservation. Although all major anatomical units are well represented, there is a significantly higher prevalence of the long bones as well as of the scapulae and the ossa coxae (pelvises). To the contrary, cranial elements are less well-represented in spite of their almost complete state of preservation, suggesting a selective retention of crania from a certain segment of the population. Similarly, the relatively high representation of long bones alongside the scapulae and ossa coxae may indicate a preferential selection of these anatomical units too. It seems probable thus that the rock shelter (EM IB-MM IB) was used for the secondary deposition of human remains resulting probably from cleaning procedures from the nearby house tomb cemetery on the top of the hill, for over a thousand years. It is worth pointing out that the remains which were removed into the rock shelter did not involve only defleshed and skeletonized bones but also, less frequently, body parts which retained their anatomical articulations. Four different stages of manipulation have been attested for House Tomb 2 (EM III-MM IIA). The principal mode of disposal was the secondary deposition of dry human remains, whilst a few cases of semiarticulated body parts were also observed. Unique so far is the recovery of four primary, articulated skeletons, from which three were secondarily manipulated in ‘fresh’ or dry condition since some bones have been intentionally relocated or removed.24 Secondary deposition of dry human remains forms also the main disposal pattern observed for the HT5 (EM III-MM IA), where no primary burial was recognized. Three distinct modes of disposal were attested for House Tomb 5,25 as follows: 1) one case of an articulated upper torso in Room 10 which appears to have been either manipulated in situ and thus lost its lower part or transferred from another room while it still preserved some tendons and soft tissues, 2) several cases of semi-articulated body parts in anatomical pairs such as ulna-radius/tibia-fibula or humerus-scapula that were found among commingled remains and were similarly manipulated while in ‘fresh’ condition, and finally, 3) commingled bones that have been continuously mixed and displaced while in dry condition.26 House Tombs 4 and 1027 offer additional evidence on the extent and the form that 20 21 22

23 24

25

26

Y. HAMILAKIS, Archaeology and the Senses, Human Experience, Memory and Affect (2014) 155-186. TSIPOPOULOU (supra n. 17) 79, fig. 31a, b. M. TSIPOPOULOU (supra n. 17) 77, fig. 28; EADEM, “Excavation of the Pre- and Protopalatial Cemetery at Petras, Siteia,” Kentro. The Newsletter of the INSTAP Study Center for East Crete 18 (2015) 7-11. TRIANTAPHYLLOU (supra n. 7, 2016) 772-773. S. TRIANTAPHYLLOU, “Όσο ψηλά και αν ανεβείς λέξη μη πεις μεγάλη ’πο χώμα σε έφτιαξε ο θεός κι εκειά γυρίζεις πάλι,” in TSIPOPOULOU (supra n. 10) 277-280. S. TRIANTAPHYLLOU, S. KIORPE and M. TSIPOPOULOU, “House Tomb 5: a Preliminary Analysis of the Human Skeletal Remains,” in TSIPOPOULOU (supra n. 10) 291-299, fig. 1a, b, c. TRIANTAPHYLLOU et al. (supra n. 25) 291-299; S. KIORPE, Η Διαχείριση των νεκρών στην Κρήτη κατά την 3η και τις αρχές της 2ης χιλιετίας π.Χ. Η περίπτωση του Ταφικού Κτιρίου 5 στο νεκροταφείο της Κεφάλας Πετρά στη

NEGOTIATING, RE-INVENTING AND LEGITIMIZING THE PAST AT PETRAS

77

after-depositional manipulation manifested at Petras. House Tomb 4 was probably used solely for the secondary deposition of dry human remains. The selection and the deposition of human remains appear to be carefully organized since the majority of the remains belong to long bones and skulls deposited in separate piles placed often alongside the walls of the rooms (e.g. Room 1). Again, the majority of the remains, with the exception of a few semi-articulated cases (Pl. XXIIa), was found in clusters of commingled bones, deposited in a dry state and consisted mainly of long bones. The picture obtained by the osteological study of House Tomb 10 does not differ significantly. Bones were found in secondary piles, formed by successive depositions of long bones and skulls located in proximity to the walls of the rooms (Pl. XXIIb). A certain degree of arrangement can be detected in the deposition of the remains as skulls are usually grouped together and long bones are placed parallel, on top or perpendicular to each other (Pl. XXIIIa). The estimation of bone representation index for House Tomb 2 and 5 assemblages favors the hypothesis of the deliberate manipulation of the bodies, the defleshed remnants of which appear to have been intensively removed, mixed and transferred perhaps even within the different rooms of the same house tomb. In particular, the representation of all anatomical elements in both house tombs (HT2 and HT5) is considerably low compared to the expected representation of skeletal elements for a minimum number of 37 and 56 individuals respectively, assuming that the latter would represent once complete skeletons. In House Tomb 5, for example, the high values of the actual number of the bone elements represented by the upper skeleton and the hand bones conflict with the low numbers recorded for the lower skeleton and the foot bones, whereas other bone groups such as the flat bones, the vertebrae and the ribs are underrepresented in the assemblage (Pl. XXIIIb). Of particular interest is the uncommonly high occurrence of loose teeth, that is, detached from the bone alveoli suggesting thus continuous removal and manipulation of the human remains.28 Apart from the observed variety in the modes of disposal and the several ways of manipulation of the human remains, of great interest is the fact that a small percentage of human bones from the Petras house tombs and the rock shelter show evidence of firing. Bone discoloration ranges from black to blue/grey and white with the latter to form the smallest group in the rock shelter and the HT2 skeletal assemblage and the most abundant in the HT 5. Thermal alterations such as cracking, warping and erosion are minimal, although a few bone fragments showed more severe changes in bone texture. The small number of elements affected by fire would indicate that burning was not a common practice at the Petras cemeteries as opposed to recently recognized assemblages of central Crete, e.g. Kamilari tholos A and Koumasa tholos B. Archaeological evidence would further support the aforementioned hypothesis considering that there is no evidence of severe burning within the house tombs and the burial rock shelter (e.g. in the form of blackening of walls, fragments of charcoal, burnt soil or pottery). It is more likely, therefore, that exposure of the human remains to firing conditions took place outside the disposal areas while the bodies or body parts were in different stages of decomposition, as demonstrated by the variability in bone alterations due to exposure to high temperatures.29 Fire was probably used, during a later postfuneral stage, for the deliberate destruction and transformation of the still decomposing human remains and their symbolic introduction to the collective world of the ancestors.30 The intentionality of this practice is also attested by the archaeobotanical evidence. According to the study of the archaeobotanical material provided from the Petras house tombs,31 food offerings were purposefully exposed to controlled charring,

27

28 29 30

31

Σητεία, Unpublished MPhil Thesis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (2016) 101-135. S. KIORPE, Mortuary Practices in Eastern Crete in the 3rd and early 2nd Millennia BC. A Bioarchaeological Analysis of the Human Skeletal Remains from the Kephala Petras Cemetery at Siteia (Unpublished PhD dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, in preparation). TRIANTAPHYLLOU et al. (supra n. 25) 292-293. TRIANTAPHYLLOU (supra n. 7) 774-776; TRIANTAPHYLLOU et al. (supra n. 25) 292. Y. GALANAKIS, “Fire, Fragmentation and the Body in the Late Bronze Age Aegean,” in M. MINA, S. TRIANTAPHYLLOU and Y. PAPADATOS (eds), An Archaeology of Prehistoric Bodies and Embodied Identities in the Eastern Mediterranean (2016)247-255. E. MARGARITIS, “The Plant Remains of the House Tombs at Petras: Acts of Destruction,

78

Sevasti TRIANTAPHYLLOU, Sotiria KIORPE and Metaxia TSIPOPOULOU

since the seeds cannot sustain high temperatures, and probably at a place outside the tombs as in the case of the human remains. The exact timing of this act, namely if it accompanied the initial internment of the dead or was part of a separate ritual, is yet unknown. Alongside the burial containers, used either for primary or secondary burials, various artefacts have been found in close association with the human skeletal remains. Grave goods, personal ornaments and offerings like jewelry, seals, cups, pendants etc. were found often in the Petras house tombs in relation to certain anatomical elements such as skulls (e.g. HT 3), or within secondary and commingled concentrations of skeletal material (HT 10). Of particular interest is the fact that both the material and the human remains were treated in the same mode comprising many times an unrecognizable mass.32 The offering of such items that are closely associated with bodily practices, like drinking, links material culture to personal and collective memories which are further stressed through the biographies of objects.33 The latter are often found deposited in a fragmented state indicating perhaps a deliberate fragmentation which comes in terms with the fragmented human bodies. Object fragmentation has often been seen in relation to the “fractal or dividual self”, which is open to transformation, it shapes, and in its turn, it is shaped by social practices.34 Still, fragmentation may result from the prolonged use and the frequent re-openings of the tombs but, in any case, the intentional coexistence of objects and bodies and their interrelationships should be viewed as a single context. The very fact that the majority of these findings is hard to be correlated with specific individuals would suggest their symbolic and commemorative role for the whole of the Petras community. Regarding the interpretation of objects found in mortuary assemblages, these are often related to after-life beliefs (equipment for passing to or making through after-life), social ranking, agency and social order.35 Despite the multiple readings of their symbolic meaning, some objects like the seals or the cups, would bring more complex connotations along as they were not solely intended for burial use but they were also used in secular contexts as well as in ritual36 activities that used to take place within the cemetery area. This category of material therefore is polysemous37 and its use during rituals illustrates both the depth of mnemonic interconnections between the world of the living and the dead and their strategic employment by the living community of Petras which aimed in a latent but effective webbing of social relationships. By facilitating a growing and continuous engagement of people with the material items used during secular and funerary rituals, the living community was actually shaping social memory. II. Creating a long-term social memory To conclude, how did the Petras people remember and use their own past? According to the aforementioned archaeological data, the cemetery was a powerful place with multiple functions for the living community. A first and rather fundamental way of remembering their past lied in the constant and

32 33

34

35

36 37

Transformation and Preservation,” in TSIPOPOULOU (supra n. 10) 229. Personal observation made during the on-site excavation of human remains at the Petras cemetery. D. BOLGER, “Re-making the Self: Bodies, Identities and Materialities in Chalcolithic Cyprus,” in MINA, TRIANTAPHYLLOU and PAPADATOS (supra n. 30) 74-82; J. WHITLEY, “Burning People, Breaking Things: Material Entanglements, the Bronze Age/Iron Age Transition and the Homeric Individual,” ibidem 279-289. C. FOWLER, “Fractal Bodies in the Past and Present,” in D. BORIC and J. ROBB (eds), Past Bodies: Body-Centred Research in Archaeology (2008) 47-57. For a discussion on notions of fragmentation in archaeology see M. BRITTAIN and O. HARRIS, “Enchaining Arguments and Fragmenting Assumptions: Reconsidering the Fragmentation Debate in Archaeology,” World Archaeology 42 (4) (2010) 581-594. C. NÄSER, “Equipping and Stripping the Dead: a Case Study on the Procurement, Compilation, Arrangement, and Fragmentation of Grave Inventories in New Kingdom Thebes,” in S. TARLOW and L. NILSSON-STUTZ (eds), The Oxford Handbook of The Archaeology of Death and Burial (2013) 643-661. Ritual could be both funerary and secular, see E. KYRIAKIDIS, The Archaeology of Ritual (2007) 289-308. G. VAVOURANAKIS, “Funerary Ritual and Social Structure in the Old Palace Period: A Multivarious Liaison,” in TSIPOPOULOU (supra n. 10) 390.

NEGOTIATING, RE-INVENTING AND LEGITIMIZING THE PAST AT PETRAS

79

persistent use of the same burial space, often referred in relative literature as a mnemonic topos. The funerary landscape, either the natural and/or the parts of it that were subjected to human interference played a significant role in the narrative of rituals and the construction of social memory (embodied experiences). People buried their dead close to their ancestors, while the prolonged use of certain tombs and the preservation of the old and abandoned ones acted as an active reminder of the community’s long and respectful past. Furthermore, on a cognitive level, the location of the cemetery on the top of a prominent hill and the fact that it could be seen from a distance would possibly have acted as a visual sign that affected the process of memory through the experiences that were enacted at and have marked the place. A second and rather indirect way was the employment of rituals. Ritual, according to several scholars38 has a predetermined goal and a desired outcome which is achieved through the repetition of specific acts, narratives and moves. During ritual activities, the community of Petras participated in feasts which seeked for the communal and conspicuous consumption of food and drink.39 These daily, mundane bodily actions were inscribed with a special meaning when performed in a funerary setting and in proximity to the last abode of the ancestors. Moreover, the implementation of specific objects or other, inaccessible to the archaeologist, moves, utterances, songs, smells and tastes which were activated during rituals operated possibly as strong mnemonic devices both for the performers and the viewers. The repeated and most likely determined bodily action and contact with the objects, used as ritual paraphernalia, would have been part of a collective narrative that in this latent way may have passed down from generation to generation. Other ritual acts that were probably related to the veneration of ancestors but also to the cosmological beliefs of the Petras community seem to include the secondary manipulation of skeletal human remains. The continuous manipulation of the human remains over several time intervals suggests a belief system associated with “rites of passage” which transform and progressively change identities. Stating Garwood,40 funerals are themselves “rites of passage” which involve transformations of identities and states of being whether this takes the dead beyond social categorization entirely, creates a new kind of social identity, or reintegrates the dead into society. Funerary rituals, therefore, act as technologies for the construction of “persons” and are prescribed both by cosmological ideas and social claims. The term “person” however, is culturally specific and it can refer either to the physical body and the individual or it could also include the social body which cannot exist outside the community since it is constantly shaped by social acts and relationships. 41 Personal participation in emotionally charged contexts created embodied memories of both individual and collective character. The intentional use of the funerary landscape and the performance of rituals which seek for bodily practices served as agents of recollection for the Petras people. The latter seem to actively select and modify their past and thus, create social memory, in an attempt to stress communality and constantly negotiate social roles and relationships in their living community.

Sevasti TRIANTAPHYLLOU Sotiria KIORPE Metaxia TSIPOPOULOU

38

39 40 41

R.A. RAPPAPORT, Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity (1999) 24-68; KYRIAKIDIS (supra n. 36); M. VERHOEVEN, “The many Dimensions of Ritual,” in T. INSOLL (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of The Archaeology of Ritual and Religion (2011) 115-132. TSIPOPOULOU (supra n. 15) 111-130. P. GARWOOD, “Rites of Passage,” in INSOLL (supra n. 38) 261-284. C. FOWLER, “Personhood and the Body,” in INSOLL (supra n. 38) 133-150; For a discussion on personal and social identities and transformation see in particular C. FOWLER, “Identities in Transformation: Identities, Funerary Rites, and the Mortuary Process,” in TARLOW and NILSSONSTUTZ (supra n. 35) 511-526.

80

Sevasti TRIANTAPHYLLOU, Sotiria KIORPE and Metaxia TSIPOPOULOU LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Pl. XXIIa Pl. XXIIb Pl. XXIIIa Pl. XXIIIb

A case of a semi-articulated ulna and radius (1415-1416) excavated at a secondary deposition of dry long bones at HT4, Room 3, Level 6. Courtesy of Petras Excavations Archive. HT4, Room 1, Level 2. Secondary depositions of remains in piles. Notice the deposition of pottery together with the remains. Courtesy of Petras Excavations Archive. HT10, Room 1, Level 6. Secondary deposition and arrangement of skulls and long bones in clusters along the walls of the room. Courtesy of Petras Excavations Archive. Actual bone representation of the human skeletal remains from the Kephala Petras HT5; the black line indicates the expected number of skeletal elements for a minimum number of individuals (MNI) at 56.

XXII

a

b

XXIII

a

6000 5000

Expected line for MNI 56

4000 3000

Counts

2000 1000

538

476

203

61

210

438 51

0 Cranial

b

Actual Representation

790

Teeth

Upper skeleton

Lower skeleton

Flat bones Foot bones

Hand bones

Vertebrae & ribs

THE PRE- AND PROTO-PALATIAL CEMETERY AT PETRAS-KEPHALA: A PERSISTENT LOCALE AS AN ARENA FOR COMPETING CULTURAL MEMORIES The archaeological sites at Petras, Siteia occupy two neighboring hills, two km to the east of the modern town, and are investigated under the direction of M. Tsipopoulou since 1985 (Pl. XXIV).1 Petras shows a remarkable historical continuity, starting just after the middle of the 4th millennium and lasting almost to the end of the 2nd millennium BC. The topography on Hill I comprises a Minoan “palace,” where a hieroglyphic archive was excavated,2 along with parts of the settlement dated EM II – LM IIIB.3 Two other settlements dated to the FN IV and EM I4 and LM III A-C5 are located Hill II or Kephala. (Pl. XXV). On the same Kephala hill there is an unplundered cemetery of house tombs and a burial rock shelter, dated to the EM IB - MM IIB that are being excavated since 2004 (Pl. XXVI).6 In the present paper are discussed the sequence of episodes of formation, deposition, disturbance and construction in the area of House Tomb 2, the most important house tomb in the cemetery for its architecture, its position and the exclusive connection with a special ceremonial area (Pl. XXVIIa). As House Tomb 2 and Ceremonial Area 1 are already known through various publications,7 we will 1

2 3

4

5

6 7

M. TSIPOPOULOU (ed.), Petras, Siteia, 25 Years of Excavations and Studies. Acts of a two-day Conference held at the Danish Institute at Athens, 9-10 October 2010 (2012); EADEM (ed.), Petras, Siteia, The Pre- and Proto-palatial Cemetery in Context, Acts of a two-day Conference held at the Danish Institute at Athens, 14-15 February 2015 (2017). For the complete bibliography on Petras, https://www.petras-excavations.gr/en/home/ bibliography. M. TSIPOPOULOU and E. HALLAGER, The Hieroglyphic Archive at Petras, Siteia (2010). M. TSIPOPOULOU, “Before, during, after: the Architectural Phases of the Palatial Building at Petras, Siteia,” in P.P. BETANCOURT, V. KARAGEORGHIS, R. LAFFINEUR and W.-D. NIEMEIER (eds), MELETEMATA. Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters His 65th Year (1999) 847-855; EADEM, “Petras, Siteia: the Palace, the Town, the Hinterland, and the Protopalatial Background,” in J. DRIESSEN, I. SCHOEP and R. LAFFINEUR (eds), Monuments of Minos. Rethinking the Minoan Palaces, Proceedings of the International Workshop “Crete of the hundred Palaces?” held at the Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain–la-Neuve, 14-15 December 2001 (2002) 133-144; EADEM, “Introduction: 25 Years of Excavations and Studies at Petras,” in TSIPOPOULOU (supra n. 1, 2012) 45-66. M. TSIPOPOULOU and A. PAPACOSTOPOULOU, “‘Villas’ and Vvillages in the Hinterland of Petras, Siteia,” in R. HÄGG (ed.), The Function of the Minoan Villa. Proceedings of the Eight International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 6-8 June 1992 (1997) 203-214; M. TSIPOPOULOU, Petras, Siteia I. A Minoan Palatial Settlement in Eastern Crete. Excavation of Houses I.1 and I.2 (2016). Y. PAPADATOS, “Back to the Beginnings: the Earliest Habitation at Petras on the Basis of the Evidence from the FN-EM I Settlement at Kephala,” in TSIPOPOULOU (supra n. 1, 2012) 69-80; IDEM, “The Beginnings of Metallurgy in Crete: New evidence from the FN-EM I Settlement at Kephala Petras,” in P.M. DAY and C.P. DOONAN (eds), Metallurgy in the Early Bronze Age Aegean (2007) 154-167; Y. PAPADATOS and P. TOMKINS, “Trading the Long Boat, and Cultural Interaction in the Aegean during the late fourth Millennium B.C.E.: The View from Kephala Petras, East Crete,” AJA 117 (2013) 353-381. D.W. RUPP, “Male Bonding and Remembering the Ancestors? The Late Minoan III Reoccupation and Use of the Kephala-Petras Cemetery Area,” in TSIPOPOULOU (supra n. 1, 2017) 245-268. TSIPOPOULOU (supra n. 1, 2017). M. TSIPOPOULOU, “Πετράς, Σητείας: Προανακτορικό-Πρώιμο Παλαιοανακτορικό Ταφικό Κτίριο 2,” in M. ANDRIANAKIS, P. VARTHALITOU and I. TZACHILI (eds), Αρχαιολογικό Έργο Κρήτης 2, Πρακτικά της 2ης Συνάντησης Ρέθυμνο (26-28 Νοεμβρίου 2010) (2012) 60-69; EADEM, “Documenting Sociopolitical Changes in Pre- and Proto-palatial Petras: The House Tomb Cemetery,” in TSIPOPOULOU (supra n. 1, 2017) 57-101, esp. 64-65, 69-72, 81-83, 85-90; P.P. BETANCOURT, M. TSIPOPOULOU and M. CLINTON, “The Tripartite Façade at the Petras Cemetery,” in TSIPOPOULOU (supra n. 1, 2017) 103-110; M. TSIPOPOULOU, “Ceremonial Area 1: Identity and Dating of a Special Ritual Space in the Petras Cemetery,” in TSIPOPOULOU (supra n. 1, 2017) 111-130.

82

Metaxia TSIPOPOULOU and David W. RUPP

concentrate primarily on the 2017 finds that shed a new and very interesting light on the history of the area of the most important burial structure in the elite cemetery of Petras. House Tomb 2 (HT 2) is situated at the southernmost part of the cemetery, in close proximity to the Final Neolithic IV – EM IA settlement (Pls XXV and XXVI). It contained a large number of precious finds, many of them made of imported materials (Pl. XXVIIb). HT 2 was built in MM IB on top of three large MM IA burial pits. The one under Room 3 contained one primary and five secondary burials with rich grave goods (Pl. XXVIIIa). Under Space 9 was a primary burial and secondary burials. In the area of Room 2 were secondary burials, In a second architectural phase, probably within MM IIA, House Tomb 2 was expanded to include two more rooms serving as storage areas for vessels used in commemorative ceremonies (Rooms 7, 8). A series of benches were added around its southern and eastern walls. And, a ceremonial area, “Ceremonial Area I” (CA I), with controlled entrance at the southeast corner, was created immediately to the east. A “Tripartite Façade” formed the area’s southern end (Pl. XXVIIIb). The previous history of this area was discovered through various stratigraphical trenches, in Room 3 and in Area 9, and goes as follows: In a depression and/or an E/W running drainage feature cut into the limestone bedrock, on the edge of the northern slopes of the hill, there was a colluvial layer of pebbles and cobbles that probably covered the entire area of the later HT 2. As this layer contained FN IV sherds, stone tools and sheep/goat bone fragments it must have washed down from the middens associated with the small FN IV and EM IA settlement immediately above on the slope. Into this colluvial layer a rectangular pit was dug oriented W/NW–E/SE and was lined with walls on at least the northern and southern sides (Pl. XXIXa). The width of the internal space was ca 75cm. The purpose of this construction was the interment of at least one primary burial (of which only the long bones so far have been revealed against the southern interior wall face). In the small exposure of this burial, as excavated in 2017, the following EM IIA finds were revealed: a unique veined orange-buff translucent travertine bowl with a ring base (rim diam. 28cm) that had been set upright in the middle of the burial space. In a circular depression in the surface of the southern wall were deposited a hole-mouthed pithoid jar, containing a long obsidian blade, similar to those found in the Aghia Photia cemetery, with a shallow spouted bowl with lug handle, placed over the mouth of the jar as a lid, as well as a beaked jug. On top of, and around the upper surface of the southern wall there were a group of gold finds, including a large number of gold band fragments, one of them with an eye loop and repoussé decoration, and fragments of small gold discs, plain and with repousse decoration, and stone beads (Pl. XXIXb). After the interment of the body in the “Lower Burial” and the covering of it with sediment, the above mentioned large magnificent travertine bowl was placed upright on the surface in the center, held in place by two small stones, to serve as a grave marker (Pl. XXXa). The entire area of the cist-like construction was then covered with sediment to a depth of ca 30cm that is, up to at least the level of the uppermost edge of the stone vessel’s rim. Then upon this layer was erected a large, probably rectangular, structure, constructed from large, irregular stones laid in two to three rough courses and measuring ca 1.50m in width and ca 1.70m in length (Pl. XXXb). Subsequently, the northwestern and western sections of the structure were dismantled and the stones were casted randomly in an arc to the north, northwest and west of the structure, leaving the southern and eastern portions of it more or less intact. An ovoid burial pit (oriented N/NW-S/SE, ca 1.50m x ca 90cm) was then dug into the area free of the stone structure. The bottom of the pit was at a level slightly above that of the upper part of the rim of the large stone bowl (Pl. XXXb). Into this pit was placed the body of a young person, probably female,8 along with grave offerings, including 70 beads made of carnelian, gold, rock crystal, stone and bone, probably part of a necklace, as they were found on the torso of the deceased. With the skeleton were also connected various fragments of gold bands, a stone bowl fragment, a bronze awl, and a fragmentary obsidian blade. This primary burial and its offerings were covered with sediment. 8

The study of the bones by Sotiria Kiorpe is not completed as yet.

THE PRE- AND PROTO-PALATIAL CEMETERY AT PETRAS-KEPHALA

83

Νot before the body tissue had rotted away the burial pit was disturbed for the first time, the grave offerings were scattered within the sediment of the pit, and some of the bones of the upper body and the pelvis were moved. The disturbed grave offerings included various stone tools, a stone amulet, and a triton shell fragment. Very significant were an EC IIA marble cylindrical pyxis and its fragmentary domed lid,9 imported from Naxos, as the analysis of the marble conducted by Yiannis Maniatis suggested.10 With them were two fragments from gold bands. The water flotation of the sediment associated with the burial pit produced 100 stone beads and 21 miscellaneous gold beads, sheets and bands (Pl. XXXIa). In the general area of the “Upper Burial” were found in previous years, in non-stratified and surface deposits, five imported EC IIA marble figurine fragments of canonical or schematic types: a Spedos/Dokathismata variety torso, two Spedos variety heads, and a Dokathismata variety head/neck; as well as a schematic/pebble figurine.11 It is quite possible that some, if not all, of these Cycladic figurines and fragments were originally placed in this burial deposit. All these grave gifts suggest a date for this second, “Upper Burial” also into the EM IIA phase. Furthermore, on the southern bench of HT 2 was found a complete EC IIA spouted bowl made of the same marble as the Naxian pyxis.12 In the disturbed sediment of the burial pit three hippopotamus ivory objects were also found: a large unfinished seal, a cylindrical seal, and a fragment from a bead (Pl. XXXIb). They suggest a date for the first disturbance in EM III. It appears as if a layer of sediment (ca 10-30cm thick), accumulated over the disturbed burial pit, the upper surface of the remnants of the burial structure and the open area to the north. It is important to note that these EM II burials were not isolated, as the southern part of the cemetery comprised at least five house tombs, 6, 12, 13, 15 and 17 (Pl. XXXIc).13 Unfortunately they were not all well preserved. HT 6 was dated to EM IIB, as indicated by a large Vasiliki jug.14 HT 12 contained only a few EM II sherds, as it was completely emptied of its earlier content and filled with medium-size stones and cobbles, probably in EM III.15 HT 17 was dated by two juglets in EM IIA and contained a primary burial of a young male, in one room, as well as a large number of secondary burials in a second room. HT 13 was very poorly preserved and contained only few EM II sherds. In the upper, southern part of the disturbed burial pit sediment were found various MM IA objects, including fragments of: a large pithoid bridge spouted jar, a fruitstand-lid, a carinated stone bowl, and a pithoid jar with tubular spout. They suggest a date for a second disturbance in this phase, or, more likely, in MM IB, at the time of the construction of HT 2, based on a fine wheel-made sherd from a closed vessel, found on the eastern edge of the disturbed burial pit. Immediately to the east of the “Upper Burial” pit, in Space 9, was a shallow, irregular pit where a complete, semi-articulated skeleton was found, oriented N/NE-S/SW. This burial was situated above the eastern remnant of the EM IIA burial structure. In a cluster, around the later doorway to Room 3 of HT 2, were the bones in secondary deposition of three adults and a 12 year old child. The offerings include: a 9

10 11

12

13

14

15

The knob of the lid was found in 2005, in the area of HT 3-Space 5, some 15m to the north of HT 2. I thank Maria Relaki, who studies the stone vessel of Petras for this identification. The analysis of these objects is still unpublished. For these figurines, as well as for small fragments found in the Petras cemetery, and for the two almost complete figurines bought by Evans in 1898 “in Siteia,” as reported, one of Koumasa and one of Spedos variety, now in the Ashmolean Museum, M. TSIPOPOULOU and A. SIMANDIRAKI-GRIMSHAW “Cycladic Figurines and Pottery at Petras, Siteia,” in N. STAMPOLIDIS and P. SOTIRAKOPOULOU (eds), Cycladica in Crete. Cycladic and Cycladicizing figurines within their archaeological context, Athens (1-2 October 2015) (2017) 353-378. M. RELAKI and C. TSORAKI, “Variability and Differentiation: A first Look at the Sstone Vase Assemblage in the Petras Cemetery,” in TSIPOPOULOU (supra n. 1, 2017) 159-178, esp. 162, fig. 2. In a future discussion the arguments for differentiating the “burial structures” of the EM II period (see below) from the “house tombs” of EM III-MM II periods will be presented based on the evidence from this cemetery. M. TSIPOPOULOU, “Documenting Sociopolitical Changes in Pre- and Proto-palatial Petras: The House Tomb Cemetery,” in TSIPOPOULOU (supra n. 1, 2017) 57-102, esp. 74. M. TSIPOPOULOU, “The Petras Cemetery in the Early Minoan II Period,” KENTRO 20 (2017) 20-22.

Metaxia TSIPOPOULOU and David W. RUPP

84

pithoid jar and a MM IA large depressed globular jar fragment which joins with another fragment in Room 1. This burial deposit accounts for the previously mentioned MM IA ceramics from the disturbed “Upper Burial” (Pl. XXVIIIa). In the area of HT 2-Room 3, immediately to the south of the remnants of the EM IIA burial structure, another large pit was dug into the pebbly layer (Pl. XXVIIIa, bottom). A primary burial of a male at least 45 years old, was placed along the eastern edge of this pit, oriented N/NW-S/SE, dated to MM IA by its offerings, which included bronze implements, light-on-dark large pithoid jars and a jug. In the northwestern area of the pit was a large cluster of bones and skulls from secondary burials of six adults and an infant. In the area of the later entrance to Room 3 was a cluster of bones from three secondary burials of adults (Pl. XXVIIIa, middle). After the deposition of the burials and the offerings in the pit it was filled in. HT 2 was built over and to the east of the earlier burial features described previously. The walls of Room 3 respected both the MM IA Burial Pit and the EM IIA burial structure (Pl. XXXIIa). The northwestern walls of Room 3 appear to be built on top of the southern and western edges of the burial structure. The most important rooms of HT 2 were 1 and 3 and both have entrances from Space 9 (Pl. XXVIIa). Room 1 is adjacent to the east of Space 9. It contained five concentrations of finds, including a burial pithos, with a primary burial of a man over 45, and a larnax with two adult males (Pl. XXXIIb). On top of the larnax there was a bronze tweezer with silver rivets (Pl. XXVIIb). Room 3 is situated to the south of Space 9 and was the richest in finds of the whole cemetery. It contained a larnax, with the remains of a male over 45 years old, placed on (some 70cm higher than) the primary burial in the MM IA pit. In the same room were found unique seals made of carnelian and jasper with hieroglyphic inscriptions (Pl. XXVIIb).16 The room also held the secondary burials of 19 individuals, namely a male over 50, two males over 45, a male over 40, three adult males, one female over 50, one female over 45, three adult females, four adults whose gender was not identified, one juvenile male, an infant 2-3 years old, and a foetus of 34 to 36 weeks. The grave goods as well as the old age of many individuals suggest the elite status of the group. Furthermore it cannot be accidental that most of the primary burials in the area of HT 2, representing at least five different phases, from EM IIA through MM IIB, belong to males over 45. The conceptual foundations for interpreting the remains at Kephala - Petras The excavation of the Pre- and Proto-palatial cemetery at Kephala – Petras has revealed a complex, often non-lineal, stratigraphy stretching the length of the plateau. The architectural remains and the scattered deposits date from EM IB through MM IIB periods. The use of this locale as a communal cemetery was not uniform, nor always continuous. The social processes that created these remains as well as later transformed them or attempted to obliterate them were many. The funerary structures erected, the mortuary practices used and the rituals performed in the southern portion of the cemetery around HT 2 are central to any attempt to understand the what, when, how and why the cemetery had the observed trajectory of development as well as the spatial patterns of use and abandonment that have been documented. The following interrelated concepts are the core foundations of the present narrative which attempts to provide plausible answers to these questions. Social / cultural memory Social or cultural memory is a construction, through negotiation and tension, of a collective notion of a group about the way things were perceived to have been in the past.17 This is the connective structure 16

17

O. KRZYSZKOWSKA, “Seals from the Petras Cemetery: a Preliminary Overview,” in TSIPOPOULOU (supra n. 1, 2012) 145-160. R.M. VAN DYKE and S.E. ALCOCK, “Archaeologies of Memory: An Introduction,” in R.M. VAN DYKE and S.E. ALCOCK (eds), Archaeologies of Memory (2003) 1-9, esp. 1.

THE PRE- AND PROTO-PALATIAL CEMETERY AT PETRAS-KEPHALA

85

of a society that unifies the social and the temporal aspects. It links a shared past to the present and forward to the future. It provides the basis for belonging and group identity.18 “Social memory is mutable emerging from and evolving from both acts of remembering and forgetting.”19 Place plays an important role in the social processes that create and maintain a shared cultural continuity. A specific geographical location links memories to a tangible locale to create a “sense of place” in the collective memory.20 Memories are performed in space. 21The persistence of place combines to build the “memory landscapes” of a social group. Each group uses various strategies for remembrance and for forgetting in these constructions. Paul Connerton identifies three types of memory: personal, cognitive and habit-memory. Social habit-memory to him is one of the essential components in the remembering of the correct performance of social codes and rules. 22 Following Maurice Halbwachs, Connerton sees that membership in and communication among members of a social group provide individuals with the memory frameworks for the localization of their memories.23 Thus, personal memory in isolation is an abstract concept. It can only function within the collective memory of a group. Crucial to the remembering and the forgetting of the past in the present by social groups are commemorative ceremonies and the bodily movements/practices (employing social habit-memory or embodied memory) used in them.24 Communicative memory versus cultural memory Jan Assmann25 draws a distinction between “communicative” and “cultural” memory. In the former this is the everyday memories and experiences of the members of a memory community which relate to the recent past, that is, approximately 80-100 years or three to four generations at any one period of time. This is what an individual has in common with his/her contemporaries and can be communicated face to face. After this length of time the memories fade and disappear (they are forgotten) as the individuals involved in the memory community die. Cultural memory, on the other hand, focuses on selected fixed points in the past. These often focus on symbolic figures or myths relating to the origins and the seminal events of the memory community. The time frame is the mythical past. The forms of these memories are highly organized and formal. They are normally shared in prescribed ceremonies, festivals, rituals and performances. Designate individuals are entrusted frequently with disseminating these memories.26 The memory community acquires this cultural memory by means of regular repetition in ceremonies and rituals. These festive activities ensure that “the communication and the continuance of knowledge” by the group. In doing so, it creates identity and social cohesion for the group.27 It should be noted, however, that social memory can also be used for resistance. Thus, competing, conflicting versions of past events can co-exist between rival factions in a society.28

18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

J. ASSMANN, Cultural Memory and Early Civilization. Writing, Remembrance, and Political Imagination (2011) 2-3. VAN DYKE and ALCOCK (supra n. 17) 2. Ibidem 4. N. YOFFEE, “Peering into the Palimpsest. An Introduction to the Volume,” in N. YOFFEE (ed.), Negotiating the Past in the Past. Identity, Memory and Landscape in Archaeological Research (2011) 1-9, esp. 3. P. CONNERTON, How Societies Remember (1989) 35-36. Ibidem 36-38. Ibidem 40. ASSMANN (supra n. 18) 36. Ibidem 39-41. Ibidem 42. VAN DYKE and ALCOCK (supra n. 17) 3-4.

Metaxia TSIPOPOULOU and David W. RUPP

86

Rituals A broad consensus on what constitutes a ritual has yet to be reached.29 E. Kyriakides has tentatively defined a ritual as an etic category that refers to a set of activities with a special, non-normal intention which is specific to a group of people.30 Rituals can be either religious in nature or secular. The shared experiences of those participating in these activities creates links among them and assists in defining membership in a certain social group. Different rituals are often linked in a “ritual system” of a social group. The beliefs accompanying the different rituals are frequently the same or complementary as part of a common “belief system” of the society.31 Participation in rituals are one of the variables that define an individual’s identity in a social group. Rituals can also draw boundaries between those who can participate in them and those who can’t.32 Non-religious rituals, especially, are one of the most effective political tools of the leaders of a social group to re-affirm “institutional facts” in a given society. They can use it to mobilize a workforce for conducting the rituals and in the process defining and uniting group membership within a wider society.33 Rituals consist of the repetition of a series of actions and practices, normally at a specific place and time. These activities and performances usually have a visual effect on the landscape by the erection of architectural features and/or the discard of items used in them, often purposefully broken. Some rituals are particularly effective in arousing the senses of the participants and/or spectators. This involvement of the senses assists in retaining the ritual in the collective memory of the group.34 Sensory pageantry is the material means for producing emotional and/or cognitive arousal in the participants of a ritual. This is achieved normally by stimulating the senses.35 The “ritual frequency hypothesis” postulates that the higher the level or degree of sensory pageantry in a ritual the less frequent the celebration of it and vice versa.36 Commemorative ceremonies “Commemorative ceremonies” are a special type of ritual performances where the cultural or social memory of a society is conveyed and sustained over time.37 These commemorative ceremonies explicitly refer to prototypical persons and events, whether or not they had a historical or mythological existence. They are staged re-enactments.38 For the cultural memory embedded in these ceremonies to be sustained, powerful mnemonic devices must be used. Central to these are formalized structure and performativity. The language used would have a limited, formal range to ensure the correct recitation each time. The use of specific postures, gestures and movements by the participants during the performances would assist in the regular reproduction of the re-enactment. Once the components of a ceremony were set there would be limited room for variance or changes.39 The time and place of a commemorative ceremony are other key variables in the performance. It would be crucial that a ceremony be re-enacted at the exactly the same point in a society’s cycle of rituals 29

30 31 32 33 34 35

36 37 38 39

E. KYRIAKIDIS, “Archaeologies of Ritual,” in E. KYRIAKIDIS (ed.), The Archaeology of Ritual. Cotsen Advance Seminar 3 (2007) 289-308. Ibidem 294. Ibidem 295. Ibidem 296, 302. Ibidem 301-2. Ibidem 299-301, 304. R.N. MCCAULEY and E.T. LAWSON, “Cognition, Religious Ritual, and Archaeology,” in KYRIAKIDIS (ed.) (supra n. 29) 209-254, esp. 248. Ibid. 240-1, fig. 10.5. CONNERTON (supra n. 22) 4-5. Ibidem 57. Ibidem 61-66.

THE PRE- AND PROTO-PALATIAL CEMETERY AT PETRAS-KEPHALA

87

and feasts.40 The specific geographical location of the performance, often augmented by the use of images, masks and/or a simulacrum of the locale of where the narrative is thought to have taken place, would reinforce the rhetoric of the re-enactment.41 Invented traditions A “tradition” is an activity or a ceremony that has fixed, invariable practices.42 Traditions do not necessarily have long histories, but can be deliberately invented at any point in a society’s trajectory. An “invented tradition” involves a set of practices which are designed to promulgate specific cultural values and norms of behavior that are claimed to have been enforce since an appropriate point in the historic past.43 At the commencement of an invented tradition there is a process of formalization and ritualization with reference to a suitably plausible or a completely fictive past for legitimatization. This rapidly becomes canonical by repetition, creating the impression of “continuity” since the distant past.44 Such novel inventions usually occur when a society is undergoing rapid change and transformation, where the existing social patterns have weakened or have been destroyed.45 The “old traditions” are seen as insufficient or unable to adapt for the maintenance of social cohesion and identity. Sometimes an invented tradition can be melded with an old one by redefining it and by the manipulation of existing symbols.46 An invented tradition is often used to establish or to symbolize social cohesion or membership in a real or an artificial community. It can also be employed to establish or to legitimatize institutions, status, or relations of authority, especially if they had recently emerged.47 Mortuary landscapes as chronotopic maps Yiannis Hamilakis48 has argued that in Pre- and Proto-palatial Crete the mortuary landscape of a communal cemetery was the direct result of a series of material and spatial strategies designed to come to terms with the remembering and the forgetting of the deceased. This involved the creation of a number of distinctive micro-locales around and within the burial structures and delineating pathways for access to them. In these spaces the practices of segmentation and sub-division related to the deceased’s body took place. The body of the once living individual gradually became an unidentifiable collection of bones, as remembering gave way to forgetting. The interplay in the organization of the mortuary landscape between remembering and forgetting created a three-dimensional, experiential “chronotopic map” for the visitors. In such a map the nodes and locales in space corresponding to specific familial and genealogical groups were linked with the embodied practices and processes of trans-corporeality. The bodily movements and interactions as one traversed this chronotope would have evoked the stories, legends and myths related to individuals and events in the community’s past.49

40 41 42

43 44 45 46 47 48

49

Ibidem 65-66. Ibidem 68-72. E. HOBSBAWN, “Introduction: Inventing Traditions,” in E. HOBSBAWN and T. RANGER (eds), The Invention of Tradition (1983) 1-14 esp. 2-3. Ibidem 1. Ibidem 4-5. Ibidem 4, 12. Ibidem 6. Ibidem 9. Y. HAMILAKIS, “The ‘Emergence of the Individual’ Rrevisited. Memory and Corporeality in the Mortuary Landscapes of Bronze Age Crete,” in M. RELAKI and Y. PAPADATOS (eds), From the Foundations to the Legacy of Minoan Archaeology (2018) 314-331, esp. 328. Ibidem 327.

Metaxia TSIPOPOULOU and David W. RUPP

88

Ancestor veneration Not every deceased, by any means, becomes honored as an ancestor. A deceased forebear from one’s clan, lineage or house is selected for a variety of reasons to remain apart and recognizable as a named dead from the multitude of the nameless dead in the collective consciousness of the descendants.50 The designation of an ancestor requires the living to engage in some appropriate ritual acts of transformation that separate the deceased from Burkheim’s “crowd of the profane.”51 This can happen either during the funerary rites or at some later time. The place of remembrance does not have to be at the presumed resting place of the dead. Ancestor veneration assumes the belief by the descendants of the continued presence and interference in some fashion by the ancestral ghosts in the daily affairs of the living.52 Therefore, ancestors, whether they are seen as having benign or antagonistic supernatural powers, generally require veneration by the living by various means in order to maintain good relations or to ward off retribution. These can consist of periodic rites, food offerings, libations, sacrifices, prayers and ritual acts, often at mortuary structures, ritual spaces and/or shrines.53 Ancestors are the reference points for the origins and the genealogies of a society, especially ones organized with lineal descent groups.54 Thus, they tend to emphasize social cohesiveness, exclusivity, entitlement and territorial rights.55 They are fundamental components of individual and group identities at multiple scales. As ancestors are about power – political, social, economic or religious – they are a conservative force which reinforces the status and authority of the elders within a social group.56 They are used explicitly in contentious issues relating to legitimacy, descent, inheritance and access to scarce resources within the social group. The veneration of ancestors provides an arena for both the symbolic interactions with them and the political contests among the elders. As a communal cemetery is a lieu de mémoire, which links the past with the present and suggests the future, it serves as a materialization of the permanence of the existing social order. A prominent, wellplaced funerary structure there would be an ideal place to remember an ancestor as part of a “landscape of ancestors.”57 The veneration of ancestors in a cemetery could take the form of architectural features, selected human remains, defined ritual spaces, the evidence of ritual activities and performances, the presence of processional ways, structured deposits or votive deposits.58 Discussion At present there is no evidence for the location of the cemetery of the inhabitants of the small FN IV-EM IA settlement on the western slopes of Petras – Kephala (Hill II).59 Perhaps they used one or more of the rock shelters on the lower western slopes of the hill. After the abandonment of the settlement, at least some of the population probably established a settlement at Petras (Hill I) in EM IB although there is 50

51 52 53 54

55

56 57 58 59

J.B. HAGEMAN and E. HILL, “Leveraging the Dead. The Ethnography of Ancestors,” in E. HILL and J.B. HAGEMAN (eds), The Archaeology of Ancestors, Death, Memory and Veneration (2016) 3-34, esp. 3. Ibidem 4. Ibidem 6. Ibidem 5-6. E. HILL and J.B. HAGEMAN, “The Archaeology of Ancestors,” in HILL and HAGEMAN (eds) (supra n. 50) 42-80, esp. 45. M. FERNÁNDEZ-GOTZ, “The Power of the Past: Ancestral Cults and Collective Memory in the Central European Iron Age,” in V. SÎBU, M. JEVTIĆ, K. DMITROVIĆ and M. LUŠTINA (eds), Funerary Practices during the Bronze and Iron Ages in Central and Southeast Europe. Proceedings of the 14th International Colloquium of Funerary Archaeology in Čačak, Serbia, 24th and 25th September 2015 (2016) 165-178, esp. 165. HAGEMAN and HILL (eds) (supra n. 50) 30-1. FERNÁNDEZ-GOTZ (supra n. 55) 170. Ibidem 171; HAGEMAN and HILL (supra n. 50) 32-3. PAPADATOS (supra n. 4, 2012) 69-79.

THE PRE- AND PROTO-PALATIAL CEMETERY AT PETRAS-KEPHALA

89

no architectural evidence preserved to go with the sporadic ceramic finds of this period. The presence in the Rock Shelter deposit60 on the lower western slope of Kephala of many EM IB complete vessels of Cycladic style, most of them of local manufacture, and some silver jewellery of Cycladic origin demonstrates that there was no gap in the settlement in the area of Petras. These remains suggest a close connection, ca 2km to the east, with the EM IB-IIA settlement on the hill of Kouphota at Aghia Photia61 and its adjacent cemetery at Glyphada,62 both with strong Cycladic connections. After the establishment of a settlement at Petras in EM IIA the inhabitants returned to Kephala to bury their dead on the southern end of plateau which lies immediately to the north of the hill. The “Lower Burial” in HT 2-S9 was the “Founder Burial” of this EM IIA-B cemetery. The choice of this particular location most likely was based on the group’s “communicative memory” of this locale as the place of the original habitation in the area. This would be a node in the “memory landscape” associated with a founding myth/narrative of the descendants of the FN IV + EM IA settlement on Kephala living at Petras and possibly as well of the settlement at Aghia Photia. The path leading down from Petras across the intervening small valley and up to the cemetery on Kephala linked the two settlements separated in time and space, thus, creating a “chronotopic map” for the population. Subsequently, another primary burial, the “Upper Burial,” was inserted into the construction that had been erected over the “Lower Burial.” Further, immediately to the north, in an arc around this area, a series of EM IIA burial structures were built: HT 15, HT 17, HT 12, HT 6 and HT 13. To the north of these a further five burial structures (BS) were erected in a rough west to east line: In the area of Room 6 of HT 1; below Rooms 1, 2, 3 of HT 1; BS 14 (under HT 5); BS 16 (under HT 3); and the central Room 1 of HT 4. If the EM society at Petras was organized in a series of lineages, then each burial structure could have served as the depository of the skeletal remains of a lineage. The division of the cemetery into two physically separated areas may reflect the fact this lineage society had superior and inferior groups with those focused around the Founder Burial as the superior ones. There is no evidence for any specific rituals performed along with or after the funerary practices to make physical the society’s collective memory of space and time. The transition to the EM III period on Crete was marked generally by destructions, although this is not seen in the settlement at Petras the houses were abandoned and new ones built with different orientations. There were significant changes in the society across the island. At the Kephala cemetery the southern portion was abandoned and the “Upper Burial” there was disturbed. Many of the Cycladic marble figurines and vessels placed as offerings in it were taken out and then scattered over a wide area. In the middle section of the cemetery a new type of funerary building appeared, built using in part the walls of the EM II structures. These constructions created the “house tombs” 5 and 3. The northern portion of the cemetery was used for the first time with the construction of HT 7. These developments at Kephala seem to represent a rejection and reversal of the previous ordering of society and the advent of a new one. The focus of internment on the middle and northern sections of the cemetery and the abandonment of the southern portion suggest that a new version of the “cultural memory” associated with the place had taken ascendancy. The earlier version focused on the south was forgotten in an explicit fashion. Thus, a new chronotopic map would have been created to visualize the changed world view of the local society. Where the lineages which had used the southern portion of the cemetery now interred their dead is not clear. Perhaps they were in the house tombs in the middle or in the north along with the other lineages? Or perhaps they were at another location yet to be discovered? At some point in the southern area, the three compartments of HT 15 were emptied, HT 17 was partially destroyed, the four spaces of HT 12 were emptied and the interior spaces filled completely to the 60

61

62

M. TSIPOPOULOU, “The Prepalatial/Early Protopalatial Cemetery at Petras, Siteia: a Diachronic Symbol of Coherence,” in TSIPOPOULOU (supra n. 1, 2012) 117-31. M. TSIPOPOULOU, “Aghia Photia-Kouphota: a Centre for Metallurgy in the Early Minoan Period,” in DAY and DOONAN (supra n. 4) 135-45. C. DAVARAS and P.P. BETANCOURT, The Haghia Photia Cemetery I: The Tomb Groups and Architecture (2004).

90

Metaxia TSIPOPOULOU and David W. RUPP

tops of the walls with cobbles and stones; and HT 6 and HT 13 were mostly destroyed. Such premeditated actions against these EM II burial structures did not occur at the contemporary ones in the middle section where the funerary deposits were left intact when the EM III house tombs were built over them. The EM III period, rather than in MM IA or IB, would be a more logical time for this purposeful closing and emptying of these tombs and the symbolic killing of HT 12. These actions were acts of forceful forgetting to enable the construction of a new collective, but non-inclusive social memory of place. During the MM IA period there were further developments and transformations in the island’s regional societies. At the Kephala cemetery House Tombs 5, 3, 4 and 7 continued to be used by a series of lineages with minor transformations to the structures. What is noteworthy is that in the southern portion of the cemetery, adjacent to the south and to the east of the remains of the Lower and the Upper burials, at least three large pits were dug (under HT 2 – Space 9, HT 2 – Room 3 and HT 2 – Room 2) to receive both elite primary and secondary burials. This return to the use of one portion of the southern part of the cemetery that had been abandoned in EM III, where the Founder Burial was located, and the use of a different form of interment (pit versus house tomb) was a very significant development. It probably marks the beginning of competing and conflicting versions of cultural memory relating to the founding myth/narrative for Petras and, thus, the existence of two chronotopic maps. That is the one associated with the dominant middle and northern portion versus a new or possibly a reworking of the original EM II mythical/narrative for the founding of the cemetery focused on the original point of use. There is no evidence in either area for any specific rituals performed to materialize the society’s collective memory of space and time. Of interest here in this discussion is the fact that the fortress-like, modular building with a central courtyard that was built over the EM IB/IIA settlement on the hill of Kouphota at Aghia Photia dates to MM IA.63 Could this be the entry point for a new, external population? or perhaps for the return of the dominant lineages at Petras (which buried their dead in the southern portion of the cemetery) that were forced out as a result of the changes in society during EM III? While in the MM IB period the “palaces” were built at Phaistos, Knossos and Malia, at Petras this development did not happen until MM IIA. Nevertheless, in the Petras settlement there is evidence of increased faction competition at this time.64 In the middle and northern sections of the Kephala cemetery House Tombs 5, 3 and 7 continued to be used. House Tomb 4 was enlarged and House Tomb 1 to the north of HT 5 was created. A narrow east-west corridor separated the two structures, allowing access from the west. In the southern portion House Tomb 2 was erected over the area of the Lower and Upper Burials as well as the MM IA burial pits. This structure was set in complete isolation from rest of the cemetery to the north. Immediately to the east of this house tomb there is evidence of simple ritual activity consisting of offerings of food and drinking. These remains probable were associated with an ancestor veneration cult focused on this house tomb. This would been an “invented tradition” based on a new version of the original cultural memory of the founding myth/narrative for Petras where the lineage using this structure would have claimed to be the “descendants” of the “ancestors” interred in the Lower and Upper Burials under S9 of this house tomb. This ancestor veneration cult would have assisted in the creation of a group identity and social cohesion among this corporate group. There was a contemporary votive deposit of mostly miniature vessels near the southwestern edge of the plateau where the original pathway from Petras entered the cemetery. Its placement would have help to restore the original chronotopic map linking the Petras settlement with the point of origin for the cemetery, below the first settlement on Kephala.

63

64

M. TSIPOPOULOU, “Αγία Φωτιά Σητείας: το νέο εύρημα,” in E.B. FRENCH and K.A. WARDLE (eds), Problems in Greek Prehistory. Papers presented at the Centenary Conference of the Bristish School of Archaeology at Athens, Manchester April 1986 (1988) 31-4. D. HAGGIS, “Stylistic Diversity and Diacritical Feasting at Protopalatial Petras: a Preliminary Analysis of the Lakkos Deposit,” AJA 111 (2007) 715-75; D. HAGGIS, “The Lakkos Pottery and Middle Minoan IB Petras,” in TSIPOPOULOU (supra n. 1, 2012) 191-204.

THE PRE- AND PROTO-PALATIAL CEMETERY AT PETRAS-KEPHALA

91

The division of the cemetery into two, physically separated zones was a central aspect of the rival, clashing narratives of community origins by the dominant rival elite factions which were competing for ascendency in settlement before the emergence of palace. At the beginning of MM IIA at Petras there was a radical re-ordering of the social structure in tandem with the construction of the palace.65 At the same time the cemetery expanded and changed significantly. In the south, HT 2 was augmented with the addition of two rooms on the southern side for the storage of sets of small plates (bowls), plates and drinking vessels. On the eastern side a stepped platform was placed against the external wall. On the southern sides benches were added against the walls. The large area with earlier ritual activity to the east, Ceremonial Area 1, was regularized by the construction of a light temenos wall on the east. The remnants of the southern walls of the EM II HT 6 and 13 may have served a similar purpose to the north. At the southeastern corner of the space was erected the so-called “Tripartite Façade.”66 This roughly rectangular space, oriented approximately north-south, was about the same dimensions as the central court of the Petras palace.67 Ceremonial Area I was demarcated as a performance space for “commemorative ceremonies” and rituals associated with an ancestor veneration cult. The possible aspects of the activities performed there may have included some of the following features. - The rituals performed there were invented traditions based on either an adaption or a reworking of the pre-existing cultural memory relating to the myth/narrative that described the founding of the settlement at Petras and the the construction of the palace. - The observances were not frequent, possibly only annually, as the quantity of offerings is very limited for the estimated 150+ years of use. - Probably relatively few people, representing the social sub-groups and/or the elders participated actively in the actual rituals and consumed the wine and food as there only relatively small quantities of ceramic vessels discarded for the period of use. - Given the presence of three classes of decorated vessels (Monochrome, L on D and D on L) and the differences in the size and forms of the cups and of small plates (bowls) vs plates68 these might have represented the sets of three different lineages that buried their dead in HT 2 and the hierarchal differences between the participants. - A procession from the settlement at Petras to the cemetery with the participants carrying jugs of wine and containers with charred food (grapes/raisins, figs69 and almonds70) for the offerings and for consumption during the commemorative ceremonies. - The route from the Petras settlement led to the southern side of HT 2 where the space and the benches served as a waiting/preparatory area and for collection of the cups, small plates (bowls) and plates from storage in Rooms 7 and 8. - The ceramic vessels in the deposit71 and three of the 13 stone vases were deliberately broken and their fragments scattered across the CA 1.72

65

66 67

68 69

70 71 72

M. TSIPOPOULOU, “The Archaeological Context: The Palatial Building,” in TSIPOPOULOU and HALLAGER (supra n. 2) 21-68; M. TSIPOPOULOU, “Defining the End of the Prepalatial Period at Petras,” in TSIPOPOULOU (supra n. 1, 2012) 179-90. BETANCOURT, TSIPOPOULOU and CLINTON (supra n. 7) 103-10. M. TSIPOPOULOU, “The Central Ccourt of the Ppalace of Petras,” in P.P. BETANCOURT, M.C. NELSON and H. WILLIAMS (eds), Krinoi kai limenes. Studies in Honor of Joseph and Maria Shaw (2007) 49-59. TSIPOPOULOU (supra n. 7) 111-130. E. MARGARITIS, “The Plant Remains of the House Tombs at Petras: Acts of Destruction, Transformation and Preservation,“ in TSIPOPOULOU (supra n. 1, 2017) 225-235, esp. 228-231. E. MARGARITIS pers. comm. TSIPOPOULOU (supra n. 7). RELAKI and TSORAKI (supra n. 12) 159-178, esp. 172-5, Table 1, fig. 9.

92

Metaxia TSIPOPOULOU and David W. RUPP

- The participants entered the CA I by the narrow passage between the SE corner of HT 2 and the “Tripartite Façade.”73 - On the highest part of the stepped platform on the eastern side of HT 2 an impersonator of the “ancestor” may have stood, symbolically observing, presiding over and/or participating in the commemorative ceremonies. - Some aspect of the commemorative ceremonies may have been conducted in darkness as there are some lamps present. - There was the possible use of burning aromatic substances to heighten the sensory pageantry (and, thus, the mnemonic experience) as there are some incense burners braziers. The house tombs in the middle of the cemetery ceased to be used and were left untouched, to form a low, broad physical barrier of ruins between the northern and the southern portions. To the north, House Tombs, 9, 11 and 8 were built in a line along the western edge of the plateau to the north of HT 1. Another west-east, narrow corridor was left between HT 1 and HT 9. On the eastern side, to the north of HT 4, HT 10 was built with an east-west, narrow corridor between them. HT 10 had a substantial, high bench on its western side. The house tomb’s northern wall face and the faces of the bench were covered in white plaster. One large and two smaller stone horns of consecration probably once rested on the top of the northern wall. The positioning of these house tombs and the ruins on the south created a large open space between them with access via the two corridors leading from the west and one from the east. To the north/northeast of HT 10 where there were no house tombs, a light, curving temenos wall was built to define the limits of the space. A simple, low platform was built at the southern end of the wall adjacent to the northeastern corner of HT 10. The evidence for commemorative ceremonies involving offerings of food and drinking here suggests that this too was a designated Ceremonial Area (CA II). The rituals celebrated here were most likely for an ancestor veneration cult, another invented tradition focused on and around HT 10. The Kephala cemetery in the MM IIA-B period consisted of two separate arenas for the commemorative ceremonies associated with ancestor cults that supported two rival cultural memories of the community’s origins. In the south the elite lineage using HT 2 and CA I may have gained supremacy in the community by their involvement in the creation of the new palace and the reordering of the sociopolitical system. The elite lineages using the north and its rival ceremonial area would have been those who had been ascendancy since the EM III period. In summary, in the southern sector of the Kephala-Petras cemetery there was a persistence of place for elite mortuary rites from the EM IIA through the MM IIB periods, with only one gap in the EM III period. A variety of strategies of remembrance were used over 750+ years to sustain the changing cultural memory of this locale. Despite over four hundred years of abandonment,74 this important node in Petras’ rich memory landscape continued to reverberate in the cultural memory of the residents of the area with the extensive and diverse interventions that occurred in the LM IIIA-C periods, when the area of the cemetery was used again for commemorative ceremonies and rituals.75 Adjacent to the cemetery and on the Kephala hill – a settlement was established as well.76 For almost two centuries the earlier cultural memory and the contemporary communicative memory co-existed. By the end of the 12th century BC this complex and long-lived memory landscape77 was completely forgotten, until it was re-discovered by 73 74

75 76 77

BETANCOURT, TSIPOPOULOU and CLINTON (supra n. 7) figs 1-3. The only extant evidence for remembrance of the Kephala hill during these centuries is the ritual deposition on top of the secondary deposit in the Rock Shelter of a LM IB high spouted, beaked jug and a conical cup. This may be part of an ancestor veneration cult. See TSIPOPOULOU (supra n. 60) 125-6, fig. 12a-b. RUPP (supra n. 5) 245-67. TSIPOPOULOU (supra n. 60) 126-9. YOFFEE (supra n. 21) 3.

THE PRE- AND PROTO-PALATIAL CEMETERY AT PETRAS-KEPHALA

93

archaeologists at the beginning of the 21st century CE and the traces of the palimpsests of these cultural memory contests between EM IIA and LM IIIC were documented. Metaxia TSIPOPOULOU David W. RUPP

94

Metaxia TSIPOPOULOU and David W. RUPP LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Pl. XXIV Pl. XXV

The archaeological sites of Petras (modified after the Google earth map). Petras-Kephala: Pre- and Proto-palatial cemetery, FN- EM I settlement and LM III A-C settlement and architectural remains (Aerial photo by Miriam G. Clinton, Petras excavation archive). Pl. XXVI Plan of the Petras Cemetery and LM III A-C settlement (Petras excavation archive). Pl. XXVIIa House Tomb 2 and the EM II burial structures to the South part of the cemetery (6, 12, 15, 17) (Petras excavation archive). Pl. XXVIIb House Tomb 2: Finds (photos by Chronis Papanikolopoulos, Petras excavation archive). Pl. XXVIIIa MM IA burial “pit” underneath House Tomb 2 (Excavation photos Metaxia Tsipopoulou, finds Chr. Papanikolopoulos, drawings Douglas Faulmann, Petras excavation archive). Pl. XXVIIIb Plan of House Tomb 2 and Ceremonial Area 1 (plan by Yiannis Papadatos and Maria Relaki, modified by M.G. Clinton, Petras excavation archive). Pl. XXIXa Area of House Tomb 2, Space 9, EM II Upper Burial (photo by David W. Rupp, Petras excavation archive). Pl. XXIXb Area of House Tomb 2, Space 9, EM II Upper Burial (photogrammetry by M.G. Clinton and Alex Howell, photos of finds by Chr. Papanikolopoulos, Petras excavation archive). Pl. XXXa Area of House Tomb 2, Space 9, EM II Lower Burial, travertine bowl used as grave marker (photo by D.W. Rupp, Petras excavation archive). Pl. XXXb Area of House Tomb 2, Space 9, EM II Upper Burial (photo and processing by David W. Rupp, Petras excavation archive). Pl. XXXIa Area of House Tomb 2, Space 9, EM II Upper Burial: EC II marble pyxis and lid and gold sheets and bead (photos by Chr. Papanikolopoulos, Petras excavation archive). Pl. XXXIb Area of House Tomb 2, Space 9, EM II Upper Burial: EM III disturbance hippopotamus ivory beads and seal (photos by Adrianos Psychas, Petras excavation archive). Pl. XXXIc Petras cemetery, South part, EM II burial structures and burial pits (Petras excavation archive). Pl. XXXIIa Area of House Tomb 2, MM IA burial pit underneath Room 3, male primary burial (photo by Y. Papadatos, Petras excavation archive). Pl. XXXIIb House Tomb 2, Room 1: burials in pithos and larnax (photos by Y. Papadatos, Petras excavation archive).

XXIV

XXV

XXVI

XXVII

a

b

XXVIII

a

b

XXIX

a

b

XXX

a

b

XXXI

a

b

c

XXXII

a

b

NEIGHBOURS IN PERPETUITY. A “LONE” PREHISTORIC PITHOS BURIAL AT GAVDOS – A LINK WITH LONG LIVING COLLECTIVE MEMORY* For Miss Androniki Gialynaki, and her ancestral land on the Tsirmiris hill

An undisturbed pithos burial of the mid-2nd millennium BC on the island of Gavdos – the interment of its earliest known inhabitant who was brought to light through systematic excavation – triggers a discussion on Archaeology as a science of what is lost forever but remains alive every time, as a confirmation of life through real and symbolic death. An ancient inhumation, single or multiple, named or anonymous, is without doubt the most “immediate” archaelogical guide to its own material and ideological contexts. But it is also connected, by its very nature, to long lasting imprints in a community’s memory, and thus it forms a major structural piece of social cohesion that transcends time. The dead person remains meaningful even after several millennia. Through his/her recovery he/she is “transferred” to the present, to (re)gain an overdue identity in a new chain of life, as an important link between the living and their forebears – and with their own ineluctable mortal future and fear of consignment to oblivion. This work follows the scholarly experience of unearthing the pithos burial, while focusing on the vivid academic and empirical recollections of the excavation team, and the commemorative and emotional participation of native Gavdiots, more than 3500 years later. Accordingly, it is suggested that, within the theoretical framework of the modern “archaeology of people” that we seek, and together with the interdisciplinary biosocial approach of mortuary evidence, we also need a cultural anthropological outlook in our effort to comprehend the ancient dead within both their distant and our contemporary settings.1 Archaeology and the dead Archaeology is a science of the dead (Pl. XXXIIIa). It exists only through peculiar natures mortes, the so-called “material remains”, the three-dimensional, still life pictures that we recover from the earth. *

1

I would like to thank warmly: Nektarios Karadimas, Eirini Charitaki and Dimitra Lazar, former graduate and post graduate students, who excavated the burial, and Nikos Koutoulakis, master craftsman of the Irakleio Archaeological Museum, for his expert supervision on the field; Tina MacGeorge, Elena Kranioti and Niki Papakonstantinou, for the, ongoing, bioarchaeological study; Κathy Hall, conservator at the INSTAP, who cleaned and restored the (fragile!) stone vase, and Anna Polenta, former conservator of the Laboratory of the University of Crete at Rethymno, for the restoration of the pithos; Pinelopi Stefanaki, for the drawings of the pithos and bowl, and Giannis Papadakis Ploumidis, for the photograph of the latter. I am most grateful to Andreas Manios, MD PhD Plastic Surgeon at the University Hospital of Irakleio, for the 3D CT scan of the skull and the prospective plastic facial reconstruction; and, as always, to Gerald Cadogan, for support with the English text. In its first form, this work was presented orally in Greek in an interdisciplinary Symposium on The Uncertainty of Death organised by G. Nikolakakis and the Department of Philosophical and Social Studies of the Universty of Crete at Rethymno, immediately after finding the burial in 2004. See also J. WHITLEY et al. (eds), “Gavdos, Siopata,” Archaeological Reports for 2006-2007 (2007) 121, fig. 145. For such human oriented approaches, see, for example: S. KUS, “Toward an Archaeology of Body and Soul,” in J.-C. GARDIN and C.S. PEEBLES (eds), Representations in Archaeology (1992) 168-177; M. SHANKS, Experiencing the Past. On the Character of Archaeology (1992) 195-206 [Death and the domestic: Of flesh, blood and bones]; G.R. DABBS and M. ZABECKI, “Abandoned Memories: A Cemetery of Forgotten Souls?” in B.W. PORTER and A.T. BOUTIN (eds), Remembering the Dead in the Ancient Near East. Recent Contributions from Bioarchaeology and Mortuary Archaeology (2014) chapter 7.

96

Katerina KOPAKA

Ruined buildings, splintered objects, decayed organic and inorganic residues… among them, human remnants. Through mainly perishable evidence, it decomposes, and then re-composes fragmentary images of what were once living people and their cultural sequences of daily, profane and sacred, environments, performances, and symbolisms – now lost for ever. Excavation, in itself irrevocably destructive, has moreover an almost “necrophiliac” character. With its trowel, pick and shovel, tools that are equally those of gravediggers – and tomb robbers –, it is allowed to disturb, interrupt, and desecrate what is most personal and private to man: the sleep of his/her own death (Pl. XXXIIIb). Death is the subject, the object and the vehicle of archaeological reasoning, method and interpretation. No matter how hard I try, I cannot think of any other discipline so totally and inextricably connected, by its nature, techniques and aspirations with the dead. Archaeologists are not content simply to document death. They are setting their eyes and minds in its narrow, gloomy opening to view, as through a kaleidoscope, some prismatic refractions of the past colourful events they are looking at. The life circles of a find, first in its own ancient time and space, then while buried, and finally in a new orbit after its discovery, form long vectors of archaeological sequences – even back to Palaeolithic horizons. They consist of myriads of inlays in a complex, ambitious mosaic of shadows and light, words and silence, actions and inactivity, memories and oblivion, in the past and the present. Implements broken, sometimes deliberately “killed”, or repaired to continue to live. Metals melted and re-melted in old furnaces to recycle riches and prestige goods. Settlements – and their walls – built and then levelled by time, flood, or human hubris (ὓβρις). Women and men (Pl. XXXIIIc) who gave birth but also, perhaps, buried their sons and daughters, thus delineating endless human genealogies – and their lands and domains, animals and grain. People who cared for, adorned (Pl. XXXIIId) and mourned the deceased of their families and communities, following unhesitatingly primeval intrinsic rites of passage – of death and re-generation. Persistent religious and political hierarchies founded upon the fear of death – and the promise and anticipation of an afterlife. Desolate landscapes, scenes of past action – dead volcanoes, exhausted quarries and mines, dried up springs, rivers and lakes, submerged coastal plains... Tangible and intangible disasters – famines, diseases, conflicts/vendettas and wars, mortal wounds, but also funeral ceremonies, prayers, laments and feasts of commemoration and remembrance. Burial structures and objects – tombs, altars, exvotos, unguents and scents (and even Gavdiot cedar incense?): to invoke, honour and comfort, as well as propitiate and claim the dead. Some of the rich attitudes and beliefs concerning human demise and mortuary rituals have passed away; while many others live on, say, for an eternity, so very slowly they change. Can archaeologists bring any of these back to life? By inverting soil stratigraphies and decoding their death sequences?2 Archaeology is a nostalgic but arrogant approach to the ephemeral and the eternal. Through fluctuating, elusive “holograms”, it seeks, often on the verge of utopia, traces of lost individuals and groups long relinquished to the rules of physical decay and taphonomic processes. Whatever our discipline

2

Representative multi-level archaeological studies include: the seminal R. CHAPMAN, I. KINNES and K. RANDSBORG (eds), The Archaeology of Death (1981); also, G.F.M. RAKITA, J.E. BUIKSTRA, L.A. BECK and S.R. WILLIAMS (eds), Interacting with the Dead. Perspectives on Mortuary Archaeology for the New Millennium (2005); and H. WILLIAMS and M. GILES (eds), Archaeologists and the Dead. Mortuary Archaeology in Contemporary Society (2016). For the Aegean, see especially: R. LAFFINEUR (ed.), THANATOS. Les coutumes funéraires en Égée à l’Âge du Bronze. Actes du colloque de Liège, 21-23 avril 1986 (1987); W.G. CAVANAGH and C. MEE, A Private Place. Death in Prehistoric Greece (1998); A. DAKOURI-HILD and M.J. BOYD (eds), Staging Death. Funerary Performance, Architecture and Landscape in the Aegean (2016). And for Crete, see in particular: J. SOLES, The Prepalatial Cemeteries at Mochlos and Gournia and the House Tombs of Bronze Age Crete (1992); K. BRANIGAN (ed.), Dancing with Death. Life and Death in Southern Crete, 3000-2000 BC (1993) and IDEM (ed.), Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age (1998); J. MURPHY (ed.), Prehistoric Crete. Regional and Diachronic Studies on Mortuary Systems (2011); B. LEGARRA HERRERO, Mortuary Behaviour and Social Trajectories in Pre- and Protopalatial Crete (2014).

NEIGHBOURS IN PERPETUITY. A “LONE” PREHISTORIC PITHOS BURIAL AT GAVDOS

97

touches is by definition dead, and dead it remains. To “re-animate” an ancient find,3 past evidence and living memories are both needed. Thus, archaeologists work more and more with other [death- and life-] specialists, including osteoarchaeologists and skeletal biologists,4 geneticists,5 and even forensic experts, palaeo-demographers, but also ethnographers and social/cultural anthropologists who help them listen to local experience and opinion on death and the dead.6 The pithos burial in its cultural contexts When we first visited Gavdos in the late 1980s, the island was going through a period of desolation and struggle for survival – with interesting but tired landscapes of cedar trees (Pl. XXXIIIe), rocks, monuments (Pl. XXXIVa)… and a handful of mostly aged people barely managing to stay alive. This state of an almost “pre-announced death” provided, I believe, a decisive challenge to start our archaeological survey there in 1993.7 But, as our research has shown, this place had hosted numerous 3

4

5

6

7

The most “direct” efforts of “animation” are the plastic reconstructions of ancient faces. For prehistoric Aegean examples, see J.H. MUSGRAVE, R.A.H. NEAVE, A.J.N.W. PRAG, E. SAKELLARAKIS and J.A. SAKELLARAKIS, “The Priest and Priestess from Archanes-Anemospilia: Reconstructing Minoan Faces,” BSA 89 (1994) 89-100; J.H. MUSGRAVE, R.A.H. NEAVE and J. PRAG, “Seven Faces from Grave Circle B at Mycenae,” AJA 90 (1995) 107-136; and the man and woman from Tomb 132 at Armenoi (D.K. WHITTAKER, “Catalogue Nos 212 and 213,” in Γ. ΤΖΕΔΑΚΙΣ and H. MARTLEW [eds], Μινωιτών και Μυκηναίων Γεύσεις, Εθνικό Αρχαιολογικό Μουσείο 12 Ιουλίου-27 Νοεμβρίου 1999 [1999] 238, and related figures). Representative approaches involving physical anthropology/bioarchaeology include: A. COCKBURN and E. COCKBURN, Mummies, Disease and Ancient Cultures (1980); D.R. BROTHWELL, Digging up Bones (1981); C.S. LARSEN, Skeletons in Our Closet. Revealing Our Past Through Bioarchaeology (2000); P.G. BAHN, Written in Bones. How Human Remains Unlock the Secrets of the Dead (2002). For the Aegean, see the pioneering work of J.L. Angel; also, e.g., S. TRIANTAPHYLLOU, A Bioarchaeological Approach to Prehistoric Cemetery Populations from Central and Western Greek Macedonia (2001); J. BUIKSTRA and A. LAGIA, “Bioarchaeological Approaches to Aegean Archaeology,” in L.A. SCHEPARTZ, S.C. FOX and C. BOURBOU (eds), New Directions in the Skeletal Biology of Greece (2009) 7-29. For Crete, see P.J.P MCGEORGE, “Biosocial Evolution in Bronze Age Crete,” in Eilapini. Tomos Timitikos gia ton Kathigiti Nikolao Platona (1987) 407-416; B. HALLAGER and T. MCGEORGE, Late Minoan III Burials at Khania. The Tombs, Finds and Deceased in Odos Palama (1992); S. TRIANTAPHYLLOU, “Constructing Identities by Ageing the Body in the Prehistoric Aegean: The View of the Human Remains,” in M. MINA, S. TRIANTAPHYLLOU and Y. PAPADATOS (eds), An Archaeology of Prehistoric Bodies and Embodied Identities in the Eastern Mediterranean (2016) 160-170, and further recent work by the same author. For studies of ancient DNA, see, e.g.: T.A. BROWN and K.A. BROWN, “Ancient DNA and the Archaeologist,” Antiquity 66 (1992) 10-23; C. KAYSER-TRACQUI, I. CLISSON, CRUBESI and É.B. LUDES, “Les relations de parenté dans les nécropoles. L’apport de l’ADNA ancien,” in L. BARAY (dir.), Archéologie des pratiques funéraires. Approches critiques. Actes de la Table Ronde de Bibracte 2001 (2004) 207-210; M.H. CRAWFORD (ed.), Anthropological Genetics: Theory, Methods and Applications (2007). And for the Aegean and Crete: T.A. BROWN, K.A. BROWN, C.E. FLAHERTY, L.M. LITTLE and A.J.N.W. PRAG, “DNA Analysis of Bones from Grave Circle B at Mycenae: A First Report,” BSA 95 (2000), 115-119; E.R. CHILVERS, A.S. BOUWMAN, K.A. BROWN and R.G ARNOTT, “Ancient DNA in Human Bones from Neolithic and Bronze Age Sites in Greece and Crete,” Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 2707-2714; also, I. LAZARIDIS et al., “Genetic Origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans,” Nature 548 (2017) 214-218 (DOI: 10.1038/nature23310), for the recent analysis and study by G. Stamatoyannopoulos’s team. Inspiring early works are: P. UCKO, “Ethnography and Archaeological Interpretation of Funerary Remains,” World Archaeology 1 (1969) 262-281; B. BARTEL, “A Historical Review of Ethnological and Archaeological Analyses of Mortuary Practice,” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1 (1982) 32-58). For “traditional” Greek communities, see L. DANFORTH and A. TSIARAS, The Death Rituals of Rural Greece (1982). See, e.g., Κ. KOΠAKA, “Επιφανειακή έρευνα στη Γαύδο. Προσεγγίσεις ενός οριακού μικρόκοσμου,” in Πεπραγμένα H´ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου (Hράκλειο, 9-14 Σεπτεμβρίου 1996) Α Προϊστορική και Αρχαία Ελληνική Περίοδος 2 (2000) 63-74, and K. KOPAKA, “The Gavdos Project. An Island Culture on the Cretan and

98

Katerina KOPAKA

births and deaths, even in the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic, and then from the Middle Neolithic onwards.8 By recycling, constantly, its limited resources it has fed, like a real womb, generations of people, natives and foreigners, of all genders and ages, and of multiple kin groups. It provided a home and a fatherland to its inhabitants and, as a rule, received them dead back into its soil (Pl. XXXIVb). The burial discussed here was the first “ground breaking” discovery of the training excavation of the Department of History and Archaeology of the University of Crete, on the Tsirmiris hill,9 at the crest of the ridge called sto Papouro. On this very spot, the sea first appears to the North, and the air changes, suddenly, and becomes cool and pleasant as the summer breeze reaches inland – the ancient choice of the place must have been deliberate.10 Today, this is part of the ancestral plots of Miss Androniki .ynaki, a particularly dynamic lady who spent her whole life here with the company only of her flock of goats (Pl. XXXVa). She kindly consented to our excavating the pithos, which was visible from the surface in her property (Pl. XXXVb), and had been recorded during our previous survey as a possible pithos burial, maybe related to a nearby prehistoric building.11 Νothing similar was detected around, nor in the trial trenches we opened in its vicinity the year after. This “solitary” aspect must have inspired the “individualised” insights that follow. Were we to have faced several such funerary vessels and contexts, our reasoning may have been different. The medium-sized pithos has a rather large mouth and narrow base (height 0.83, diam. 44.3 [rim]/0.64 [max.]/23.6 [base]), is well made and well preserved, broken but complete. It was on its side, facing westwards, in an oblong hollow curved in the soft, slightly sloping limestone bedrock. Its horizontal position strengthened our initial idea that it could be funerary – storage pithoi are usually found standing. A small slab was set against its base, its mouth being protected by a modest rubble wall (most of which had fallen into the vessel). Later cleaning revealed a dark-on-light decoration of brown splashes and blots on half of its body (Pl. XXXVIa) and, surprisingly, not on its top but on the bottom side. Its form and fabric were familiar and both pointed to a Gavdiot manufacture, datable to MM III-LM I in the Mesara and elsewhere on Crete.12 The first human bones appeared to confirm the hypothesis of a pithos burial. They belonged to an average- to poorly-preserved adult individual, in a crouched position (Pl. XXXVIb) with the head to the

8

9

10

11

12

Aegean Fringe,” The European Archaeologist 46 (2015) 62-67. Κ. KOPAKA and C. MATZANAS, “Palaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos, Near Neighbour to Crete in Greece,” Antiquity 83/321 (2009) http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/kopaka321/, and K. KOPAKA and E. THEOU, “Gavdos or Living on the Southernmost Aegean Island in the Neolithic Cultural Horizons,” in S. DIETZ, F. MAVRIDIS, Ž. TANKOSIĆ and T. TAKAOĞLU (eds), Communities in Transition. The Circum-Aegean Area during the 5th and 4th Millennia BC (2018) 441-455. This hill has four rural family house complexes (μετόχια) and their also abandoned gardens (περιβόλια) – one of them, at Siopata, has been restored and hosts the University’s field station. While age-old agricultural terraces cover the hill’s flanks down to the streambeds of Christos to the east and Bardaris to the west. Particular associations of burials in vessels and the sea still need more research. For the dead intentionally “occupying” the coast of Bronze Age Malia, see C. BAURAIN, “Les nécropoles de Malia,” in LAFFINEUR (supra n. 2) 64, 67, 72, n. 20 – with reference to H. van Effenterre’s remarks on the topic – R. LAFFINEUR, “La mer et l'au-delà dans l'Egée préhistorique,” in THALASSA. L'Egée préhistorique et la mer. Actes de la 3e Rencontre égéenne internationale de l’Université de Liège, Calvi, Corse, 23-25 avril 1990 (1991) 231-238. Connections between mortuary activities in general and Cretan seascapes are suggested in G. VAVOURANAKIS, “Funerary Customs and Maritime Activity in Early Bronze Crete,” in IDE M (ed.), The Seascape in Aegean Prehistory (2011) 91-118. The one we have been investigating since 2005 at Katalymata, ca 140m S/SE – see KOPAKA (supra n. 7 [2015]). See, also, K. ΚΟΠΑΚΑ and E. ΘΕΟΥ, “Αγγεία και πήλινα σκεύη της Εποχής του Χαλκού από τα Καταλύματα στη Γαύδο,” Πρακτικά της 4ης Παγκρήτιας Συνάντησης για το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στην Κρήτη, Ρέθυμνο 24-27/11/2016, forthcoming, where the pithos is compared typologically to K. CHRISTAKIS, Cretan Bronze Age Pithoi. Traditions and Trends in the Production and Consumption of Storage Containers in Bronze Age Crete (2005) 10, fig. 9: Form 40.

NEIGHBOURS IN PERPETUITY. A “LONE” PREHISTORIC PITHOS BURIAL AT GAVDOS

99

West, towards the vessel’s rim. He/she was accompanied only by a fine stone bowl set upright under the pelvis (Pl. XXXVIc). All our thoughts became at once more “anthropological”. Were we dealing with a dead man or a dead woman? And someone young or old? Why was he/she buried in a pithos, and how did he/she fit into it? Did he/she die a natural or a violent death? Did he/she come from the island? Why was he/she alone here? Where were his/her home and family? Rigid archaeological discourse and strict rational argument did not suffice anymore. Further interdisciplinary knowledge and even some sensibility and “responsiveness” to feelings tied up with death were also needed – and then, maybe, some empathy towards the unearthed dead. The individual who was buried here in the mid-2nd millennium BC came thus back to light on a late summer day about 3,500 years after he/she passed away. And had, we thought, a rather peaceful, almost smiling look, which made us originally opt, on impulse, for a woman.13 Thus gently submerged in the sleep of her death in the foetal position, in which the living used to “return” their dead to their primordial universal mother, the earth. Late the next day, just after sunset, the human remains were wrapped in a white cotton cloth from our mosquito nets, to leave the grave and set off on the new journey, and first, the scientific one (Pl. XXXVIIa). With the boat heading to Sfakia (for the Chania Museum apothiki, then the University’s laboratory at Rethymno), our dead crossed to the opposite shore – with a calm sea, and a fitting escort of nearly 30 students.14 Back at the burial place, the “negative” hollow of our pithos’s profile was left empty. The ancient burial and living memory The news of our finding spread rapidly through the island, and brought many locals and summer visitors up sto Papouro. Their loud speculations on the burial intruded on our until then silent site. In just one day, our modest excavation had become “famous”, a real attraction (to remind us that the “find” remains the pillar of the archaeological process and narrative). Some wished it to be a sealed treasure – a jar with gold sovereigns, of course – and were deeply frustrated. But most of them had climbed up to “see the deceased”, who, interestingly, was assumed to be a man: are death and the dead, spontaneously, of male gender in male-centred societies? For members of the research team and especially students for whom this was their first archaeological encounter with death, fatigue from the excavation duties did not hinder the least their excitement but also scepticism – some even questioned the ethics of the dead person’s “departure” from the island –, and sharing of death memories, from the field, lessons, and life. We recalled thus: The primal Neanderthal burial in the Shanidar cave, North Iraq, who, according to its excavators, was accompanied by pollen of wild flowers;15 and Neolithic inhumations beneath house floors, hearths, courtyards (e.g. at Khirokitia and elsewhere in Cyprus), 16 and plastered skulls of early Levantine agriculturalists (e.g. at Jericho), and others on display among the living (at Çatal Hüyük), to invoke –

13

14

15

16

Tina McGeorge, pers. com. But despite this empirical conjecture of ours, the macroscopic study of the skeletal material points rather to a male burial (N. ΠΑΠΑΚΩΝΣΤΑΝΤΙΝΟΥ, Αναφορά της μελέτης του ανθρώπινου σκελετικού υλικού από την αρχαιολογκή έρευνα του Πανεπιστημίου Κρήτης στη Γαύδο [2016]). Strong allusions to ancient water crossings to afterlife were impossible to avoid: for example, to funerary boats and corteges on the Nile in Bronze Age Egypt, but also in Mesopotamia, and to the Greek Underworld (see, e.g., G. JONES, Waters of Death and Creation. Images of Water in the Egyptian Pyramid Texts [2014], with comparisons with Mesopotamia and Greece) – and, maybe, in prehistoric Crete too (see also supra n. 10). R. SOLECKI, Shanidar, the Humanity of Neanderthal Man (1971); also, J.A. TYLDESLEY and P.G. BAHN, “Use of Plants in the European Palaeolithic: A Review of the Evidence,” Quaternary Science Reviews 2 (1983) 56, 77, for “the Shanidar ‘wreath’ of flowers”. But cf., e.g., J.A.J. GOWLLET, Ascent to Civlization. The Archaeology of Early Humans (19922) 103, where doubts are expressed. E.g., A. LEBRUN, “Le traitement des morts et les représentations des vivants à Khirokitia,” in E.J. PELTENBURG (ed.), Early Society in Cyprus (1989) 71-81, and IDEM, “At the Other End of the Sequence: The Cypriot Aceramic Neolithic as seen from Khirokitia,” in S. SWINY (ed.), The Earliest Prehistory Of Cyprus. From Colonization To Exploitation (2001) 109-118; K. NIKLASSON, Early Prehistoric Burials in Cyprus (1991).

100

Katerina KOPAKA

apparently worship, and certainly “exploit” – dead ancestors;17 the (also “lonely”) mid-3rd millennium fragmentary skull close to the “goddess” at Myrtos Fournou Koryfi in Crete;18 Aegean Late Bronze Age warriors, fully armed in their graves;19 women mourners on painted Mycenaean larnakes at Tanagra;20 prothesis scenes on Geometric vases, refined white lekythoi, and grave stelai often showing never fulfilled occasions in life.21 Also, the Egyptian Book of the Dead,22 and lethal “pharaohs’ curses”; and rulers accompanied to the grave by their belongings, symbolic plants, animal companions – horses, dogs… –, and even human escorts (think of the Royal Cemetery of Ur) or their substitutes (e.g. the Chinese clay warriors).23 We even went to our own deceased (grand)parents, other relatives, lost friends… and eventually, why not, ourselves: perhaps, we shivered, some future archaeologists – if not grave robbers – will happen to “deal” with our own skeletal remains too. The discussion generated by our burial took, thus, the form of a “call of the dead” with a universal perspective. The prehistoric dead whom we “woke up” on Tsirmiris was the first to find a place in an age-old and yet incomplete chain, the last ring of which remains open to link us, physically and intellectually, with death – the death of others, but also our own end. It was kyria Androniki, however, who performed the right, if late, memorial ceremony. She who had lived most of her life alone on and around the prehistoric tomb. She knew for years, of course, of our pithos, semi-buried inside her family field – she had been wondering but she never touched it. She must have doubted about its content, though, since that she had already mentioned an extremely relevant local 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

See e.g., respectively, J. CAUVIN, Naissance des divinités, naissance de l’agriculture. La révolution des symboles au Néolithique (1997) 156-158, J. MELLAART, Çatal Hüyük. A Neolithic Town In Anatolia (1967) 83-84, and D. OATES and J. ΟATES, The Rise of Civilisation (1976) fig. p. 91. P. WARREN, Myrtos. An Early Bronze Settlement in Crete (1972) 81-83, and E. SUNDERLAND and R.A. CARTWRIGHT, “Appendix XIII. Fragments of a Human Cranium,” ibidem 342. Also, à propos of the skull, J. DRIESSEN, “The Goddess and the Skull: Some Oobservations on Group Identity in Prepalatial Crete,” in O. KRYSZKOWSKA (ed.), Cretan Offerings, Studies in Honour of Peter Warren (2010) 107-117, and further discussion in G. CADOGAN, “Goddess, Nymph, or Housewife; and Water Worries at Myrtos?” ibidem 44. For the plausible suggestion of Cretan ancestors being revered and worshipped in the Bronze Age, strengthened by another intriguing skull and more skeletal material from living contexts at Mochlos, see J.S. SOLES, “Evidence for Ancestor Worship in Minoan Crete: New Finds from Mochlos,” ibidem 331-338 (with references, also to the author’s previous research). For Crete, see L. ALBERTI, “The Late Minoan II–IIIA1 Warrior Ggraves at Knossos: The Burial Assemblages,” in G. CADOGAN, E. HATZAKI and A. VASILAKIS (eds), Knossos. Palace, City, State. Proceeding of the Conference in Herakleion organised by the British School at Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities of Herakleion, in November 2000, for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evans’s Excavations at Knossos (2004) 127-136 (with references). See, e.g., S.A. IMMERWAHR, “Death and the Tanagra Larnakes,” in J.B. CARTER and A.P. MORRIS (eds), The Ages of Homer. A Tribute to Emily Townsend Vermeule (1995) 109-121, and W.G. CAVANAGH and C. MEE, “Mourning before and after the Dark Age,” in C. MORRIS (ed.), Klados. Essays in Honour of J.N. Coldstream (1995) 45-61. See, e.g., E. VERMEULE, Aspects of Death in Early Greek Art and Poetry (1979), Α. ΛΑΜΠΡΑΚΗ, “Αρχαίες ταφές στην Αθήνα,” Αρχαιολογία 11 (1984) 17-22, I. ΜORRIS, Death, Ritual and Social Structure in Classical Antiquity (1992), M.S. MIRTO and A.M. OSBORNE, Death in the Greek World: From Homer to the Classical Age (2012). See, e.g., E. VON DASSOW (ed.), The Egyptian Book of the Dead. The Book of Going Forth by Day - The Complete Papyrus of Ani Featuring Integrated Text and Full-Color Images ([1994] 19982). Cf., e.g., G. COLEMAN and T. JINPA (eds), The Tibetan Book of the Dead (2007). See, e.g., L. WOOLLEY, Excavations at Ur. A Record of Twelve Years’ Work by Sir Leonard Woolley (1954), esp. chapter III, and A. BAADSGAARD, J. MONGE, S. COX and R.L. ZETTLER, “Human Sacrifice and Intentional Corpse Preservation in the Royal Cemetery of Ur,” Antiquity 85(327) (2011) 27-42: for the unparalleled, mostly female “crowd” of attendants, retainers and quards, and also cattle and precious items buried mainly with queen Pu-abi (?) in the Royal Cemetery of Ur in 3rd millennium Iraq. Also, e.g., C. DEBAINNE-FRANCFORT, The Search for Ancient China. Discoveries (1999) and R. CIARA and A. DE LUCA, The Eternal Army: The Terracotta Soldiers of the First Emperor (2005): for the breathtaking “terracotta army” and other escorts buried with the first Emperor of China in the 3rd century BC. Cf. A. TESTART, Les morts d’accompagnement. La servitude volontaire Ι (2004).

NEIGHBOURS IN PERPETUITY. A “LONE” PREHISTORIC PITHOS BURIAL AT GAVDOS

101

tradition, namely that: “in the old days [but when exactly?] when people were very poor, the elderly used to go out in the countryside and wait for their death there, provided only with a handful of (sea-?)snails, and a pithari to ‘sleep’ in”. The modern “lady of the site” had followed almost every minute of our digging, and was deeply concerned by our discovery, as if it were for the delayed exhumation of a distant kinsman. She wept on seeing the bones and, in particular, the skull – even when she learned about their very old age. She searched, hastily, for incense to burn (λιβάνι να θυμιάσει) to venerate the dead; and insisted on calling the island’s priest, papa Manolis, to read the funeral blessing over him (να τον διαβάσει). On our leaving Gavdos, at the end of the season, she confessed: “each time I will pass over his grave, I will remember him, and pray for him… I will miss him a lot the poor dead fellow (τον μακαρίτη)”. To her it was clearly the loss of almost lifelong company (παρέα) and, thus, the breaking of some deep innate balance in her existence. It was also, maybe, a metaphysical fear caused by a self-recognition, self-identification with the lost prehistoric occupant of this place. Comparing the living with the deceased was inevitable to us too: indeed, we were astounded by their physical similarities, for example in size, and even, occasionally, by their, shared, posture (Pl. XXXVIIb). We were stunned, above all, at the former’s loneliness in life, and the latter’s apparent isolation in death – both in this same now deserted neighbourhood. The practice of pot burial – A few tentative thoughts Inhumations in various forms of, as a rule domestic, clay vessels (accordingly called urn- jar- or pithos burial, and εγχυτρισμός or πιθοταφή in Greek)24 have been noted in the Neolithic period, when they are often associated with infant and child intramural interments,25 and in the Bronze Age, particularly in the 3rd and the first half of the 2nd millennia. Such burials are familiar in Anatolia (e.g. at Bakla Tepe, Küçük Tepe, Karataṣ-Semayük), and known also in the Aegean, the Near East and Egypt,26 Spain (El Argar culture) 27 and elsewhere in the ancient world. 24

25

26

Rather neglected so far, this funeral practice is gaining increasing archaeological interest. See infra notes 25-29. And, for example, papers (on prehistoric Caucasus, Mesopotamia, the Levant, Anatolia and the Aegean and Crete) in the Workshop organised by B. PERELLO, S. MÜLLER CELKA and F. LE MORT on Pot Burials in the Aegean and the Near East (6th-2nd Millennium BC) 10th ICAANE 25-29 April 2016 OREA, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna Workshop, Vienna 27 April 2016, 235-240 (Programme and Abstracts) https://www.oeaw.ac.at/fileadmin/Institute/OREA/pdf/events/ICAANE_2016_Abstract_ Booklet.pdf K. BĂČVAROV, “The Birth-giving Ppot: Neolithic Jar Bburials in southeast Europe,” in V. NIKOLOV, K. BĂČVAROV and P. KALCHEV (eds), Prehistoric Thrace. Proceedings of the International Symposium in Stara Zagora, 30.09-04.10.2003 (2004) 151-160, IDEM, “Early Neolithic Jar Burials in Southeast Europe: A Comparative Approach,” Documenta Praehistorica 33 (2006) 101-106 (DOI: 10.4312/dp.33.11), and IDEM, “A Long Way to the West: Earliest Jar Burials in Southeast Europe and the Near East,” in K. BĂČVAROV (ed.), Babies Reborn: Infant/Child Burials in Pre-and Protohistory, Actes du XVe Congrès Mondial de l’Union Internationale des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques (Lisbonne, 4-9 Septembre 2006) (2008) 61-70. See, also, J.P. MCGEORGE, “Intramural Infant Burials in the Aegean Bronze Age. Reflections on Symbolism and Eschatology with Particular Reference to Crete,” in O. HENRY (ed.), Le mort dans la ville. Pratiques, contextes et impacts des inhumations intra-muros en Anatolie, du début de l’Âge du Bronze à l’époque romaine, 2èmes Rencontres d'Archéologie de l'IFEA, Istanbul 8-9 novembre 2012 (2013) 6-9 [including Neolithic Near East, Anatolia, Cyprus and Egypt]. M. MASSA and V. ŞAHOĞLU, “Western Anatolian Burial Customs during the Early Bronze Age,” in V. ŞAHOĞLU and P. SOTIRAKOPOULOU (eds), Across the Cyclades and Western Anatolia during the 3rd Millennium BC (2011) 164-171, and M. MASSA, “Early Bronze Age Burial Customs on the Central Anatolian Plateau: A View from Demircihӧyük-Sarιket,” Anatolian Studies 64 (2014) 73-93; E. CARTER and A PARKER, “Pots, People and the Aarchaeology of Death in Northern Syria and Southern Anatolia in the Latter Half of the Third Millennium BC,” in S. CAMBELL and A. GREEN (eds), The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East (1995) 96-116. See, also, A. ΜΑΝΙΚΗ, Η Ταφική Πρακτική του Εγχυτρισμού στο Αιγαίο την Εποχή του Χαλκού: Το Παράδειγμα του Ακρωτηρίου Θήρας, MA dissertation, University of Crete (2006), and Ε.-Σ. ΠΑΝΤΑΓΙΑ, Η πρακτική της πιθοταφής στο Αιγαίο και στην ευρύτερη περιοχή της Ανατολικής Μεσογείου

102

Katerina KOPAKA

In Crete they are reported sometimes as isolated burials, but usually they form entire cemeteries or are clustered, often in natural and man-made hollows, or even included in other types of funerary monuments: for example, as we know, at Pacheia Ammos and Sfoungaras, the Malia necropoleis (Ilôt du Christ, Pierres Meulières), the Knossos cemeteries (Ai Lias, Mavro Spilio, Monastiriako Kefali), Viannos (mainly Galana Charakia), Archanes (Fourni), inside some of the Mesara tholoi and, later in the 2nd millennium, at Mochlos (notably Limeraria).28 Vessels, and especially storage vessels made either to receive burials or, apparently more often, doing so on a second use, seem to bridge, materially and symbolically, the tomb with the house and home items and goods, from the early farmers (and pottery producers) onwards. A funerary pithos29 is, even more than a larnax, an individual clay “envelope”, a rounded coating, shell and shelter of the dead body, in primary or, occasionally, secondary burials: almost a metaphor of the maternal womb hosting the foetus. Pithos burials must represent, thus, an absolutely meaningful option: which was not uncommon, but not widely adopted or dominant in the prehistoric Mediterranean – and the Aegean and Crete –, where, however, it showed a proper resistance and found its way into the Geometric and, more sporadically, still later Greek times.30 They should, therefore, reflect an embedded funerary behaviour connected to specific cultural groups, and their patterns of ancestry and descent and life afterlife beliefs. As a nuclear (and/or “conservative”) component of their ethnic (?) identity and ideology, it is thus loyally imprinted in their honoured ritual attitudes and encodings of death. Our find sto Papouro is of interest. Not only because it provides the first prehistoric inhumation so far excavated on Gavdos. But also because it highlights and confirms the practice of pithos burials on this remote micro-insular territory – and enlarges thus its overall geo-cultural distribution chart. A number of scattered similar finds plotted during our surface survey, for example at Sellakia, Agios Pavlos and Koleriana, show that this practice was even frequent on the island, at least in prehistoric times.

27

28

29

30

την Εποχή του Χαλκού, MA dissertation, University of Crete (2017) – both with references; and M. ZAVADIL, this volume. For intramural infant jar burials in these regions, see MCGEORGE (supra n. 25) 7-9. See, e.g. V. LULL, “Argaric Society: Death at Home,” Antiquity 74 (285) (2000) 581-590 (DOI: 10.1017/ S0003598X00059949) and R. CHAPMAN, “The Living and the Dead in Later Prehistoric Iberia,” in S. TARLOW, L. NILSSON STUTZ (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Death and Burial (2013) chapter 20 (DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199569069.013.0020). See e.g., early, I. PINI, Beiträge zur minoischen Gräberkunde (1968) 11-14, and F. PETIT, “Les jarres funéraires du Minoen Ancien III au Minoen Récent I,” Aegaeum. Annales d’archéologie égéenne de l’Université de Liège 6 (1990) 29-57. Also: the related chapters in ΠΑΝΤΑΓΙΑ (supra n. 26); P.J.P. MCGEORGE, “The Petras Intramural Infant Jar Burial: Context, Symbolism, Eschatology,” in M. TSIPOPOULOU (ed.), Petras, Siteia – 25 Years of Excavations and Studies, Acts of a Two-day Conference Held at the Danish Institute at Athens, 9-10 October 2010 (2012) 291-304, and MCGEORGE (supra n. 25) 4-5 and 11-12 [discussion]. For Mochlos, see J.S. SOLES, G. RETHEMIOTAKIS and A.M. NICGORSKI, “Burial Containers: Sarcophagi, Pithoi, and Jars,” in J.S. SOLES and C. DAVARAS (eds), Mochlos IIC: Period IV, the Mycenaean Settlement and Cemetery: The Human Remains and Other Finds (2011) chapter 2, esp. 21-22, 29-34 and, for example, Pl. 8B. Also, infra n. 29. Recent systematic studies on Cretan burial pithoi are: G. VAVOURANAKIS, “Funerary Pithoi in Bronze Age Crete: Their Introduction and Significance at the Threshold of Minoan Palatial Society,” AJA 118 (2014) 197222 (I thank the author for the pdf of his study) and B. LEGARRA HERRERO, “Bodies in a Pickle: Burial Jars, Individualism and Group Identities in Middle Minoan Crete,” in MINA et al. [supra n. 4] 180-188. Interesting insights on pithoi in general as diachronic material but also social containers in A. BEVAN, “Pandora’s Pithos,” in A. SHRYOCK and D.L. SMAIL (eds), On Containers. A Forum, History and Anthropology 29 (1) (2018) (DOI: 10.1080/02757206.2017.1397651). For Crete, see, e.g., N. VOGEIKOFF-BROGAN and S. KIRKPATRICK SMITH, “A Male Spinner? A Late Geometric - Early Orientalizing Pithos Burial near Meseleroi, Ierapetra,” Aegean Archaeology 10 (20092010) 87-104, and K. SPORN, “Graves and Gravemarkers in Archaic and Classical Crete,” in O. PILZ, G. SEELENTAG (eds), Cultural Practices and Material Cultures in Archaic and Classical Crete. Proceedings of the International Conference Mainz, May 20–21, 2011 (2014) 224, n. 27.

NEIGHBOURS IN PERPETUITY. A “LONE” PREHISTORIC PITHOS BURIAL AT GAVDOS 103

May the future allow the safe return of our pithos burial back to its original “home” on the Tsirmiris hill. Because it represents a small but important part of the cultural heritage of the place – an integral link in its long lasting social memory. So will be for certain Miss Androniki Gialynaki, who died in February 2018, in her mid-nineties (Pl. XXXVIIIa-b). To her memory I dedicate, with respect, this paper. Αιωνία της η μνήμη! Epilogue No page of excavation notebook, preliminary report or final publication will speak easily, not yet, of the diachronic human side that the discovery of an ancient burial implies, and the impact it has on our contemporary living environment: what memories, emotions, feelings – of sorrow and awe, reticence, separation, loneliness... –, and what [moral] responsibilities it generates. It is only a comprehensive interdisciplinary approach that can provide the “freedom” of reasoning and scholarly expression which is needed to assess, with sufficient empathy, such social constructions and the performances they engender at the analytical and conceptual level. Katerina KOPAKA

104

Katerina KOPAKA LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Pl. XXXIIIa Pl. XXXIIIb Pl. XXXIIIc Pl. XXXIIId Pl. XXXIIIe Pl. XXXIVa Pl. XXXIVb Pl. XXXVa Pl. XXXVb Pl. XXXVIa Pl. XXXVIb Pl. XXXVIc Pl. XXXVIIa Pl. XXXVIIb Pl. XXXVIIIa Pl. XXXVIIIb

Plastered female skull. Jericho, PPNB/7th millennium (CAUVIN [supra n. 17] Pl. VI). Mummy of an adult man. Lima, Perou (COCKBURN and COCKBURN [supra n. 4] fig. 9.15). Inhumation of a couple, part of Roy Mata’s burial. Retoka island, 13th cent. AD (TESTART [supra n. 23] fig. 19). Plastered male skull with cowrie shells inset for eyes. Jericho PPNB/7th millennium (OATES and ΟATES [supra n. 17] Pl. p. 79). Dying cedar tree near the pithos burial (Gavdos University archives). Interior of a ruined metochi (Gavdos University archives). Contemporary family graves at Agioi Pantes, Ampelos (Gavdos University archives). Miss Androniki with her goats at Siopata (M. Nikiforakis). Surface evidence of the burial pithos (Gavdos University archives). The restored pithos (drawing P. Stefanaki). The pithos burial after cleaning (Gavdos University archives). The restored bowl (G. Papadakis Ploumidis, drawing P. Stefanaki). The human remains at the Rethymno laboratory (N. Papakonstantinou), and the Irakleio University Hospital (A. Manios). Miss Androniki in “vertical foetal positon” above her also crouched prehistoric neighbour (G. Nikolakakis). Androniki Gialynaki’s funerals at Agia Triada, Kastri (V. Tzounaras). Androniki’s last farewell from the threshing floor at Siopata (https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1554794108169642&id=1497517583897295&set=a. 1497517767230610&source=44 [webpage administrator: K. Kyriakakis])

XXXIII

a

b

c

d

e

XXXIV

a

b

XXXV

a

b

XXXVI

a

b

c

XXXVII

a

b

XXXVIII

a

b

C. RITUAL AND SOCIAL PRACTICES

RITUAL ΒREAKAGE IN MINOAN PEAK SANCTUARIES. THE DISPOSAL AND MANIPULATION OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY. REALITY AND MYTH Collective memory involves shared individual memories of repeated, systematic, performative ceremonies, also described as “ritualized action” in strictly religious contexts, which generate bodily, sensory and emotional experiences.1 It is these experiences that eventually shape group identities2 and often, in complex societies, enable the manipulation and propagation of collective religious conscience through the systematic reproduction of an orchestrated and deliberately theatrical ritual. Among the key elements for the creation of collective memories, religious or otherwise, are spatial and calendrical repetition, performance of ritualized acts, socialization, and transformation of artifacts.3 The intentional breakage/destruction of objects in the Aegean has been mostly associated with funerary rites and the “ritual destruction/killing” of funerary offerings.4 In religious contexts the deliberate breakage, the intentional destruction of objects, is usually associated with the ultimate dedication of the objects in question to the sphere of the divine. Although the terms used to describe the phenomenon are “frequently awkward, inexact, normalizing and maybe, complete mischaracterizations,” 5 modern ethnographic and historical research suggests that ritual smashing of pottery vessels used in feasts is not at all uncommon and that the ultimate meanings and/or motives behind these destructive acts embrace a wide variety of human emotions, both secular and religious.6 The idea concerning the intentional, presumably ritual breakage of objects in Minoan peak sanctuaries was initially conceived and thereon exclusively associated with the theory introduced by J.L. Myres,7 and subsequently embraced by N. Platon,8 K. Davaras,9 and B. Rutkowsky,10 among others,11 1

2 3 4

5

6

7

8

9

Y. HAMILAKIS, “Eating the Dead: Mortuary Feasting and the Politics of Memory in the Aegean Bronze Age Societies,” in K. BRANIGAN (ed.), Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age (1998), 115132, esp. 116, 117; W. HIRST and D. MANIER, “Towards a Psychology of Collective Memory,” Memory 16 (2008) 183-200; R. PETERSON, “Social Memory and Ritual Performance,” Journal of Social Archaeology 13 (2) (2013) 266-283, esp. 276. HAMILAKIS (supra n. 1) 118. PETERSON (supra n. 1) 280. P. ÅSTRÖM, “Intentional Destruction of Grave Goods,” in R. LAFFINEUR (ed.), THANATOS. Les coutumes funéraires en Egée à l’âge du Bronze, Actes du colloque de Liège, 21-23 avril 1986 (1987) 213–218; J.S. SOLES, “The Ritual ‘Killing’ of Pottery and the Discovery of a Mycenaean Telestas at Mochlos,” in P.P. BETANCOURT, V. KARAGEORGIS, R. LAFFINEUR and W-D. NIEMEIER (eds), Meletemata. Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters His 65th Year (1999) 787-792, esp. 787. K. HARREL, “The Social Life of Θραύσματα,” in K. HARREL and J. DRIESSEN (eds), Thravsma. Contextualising the Intentional Destruction of Objects in the Bronze Age Aegean and Cyprus (2015) 21-24, esp. 22. J. DRIESSEN, “Fragmented Souvenirs: Introduction to the volume,” in HARREL and DRIESSEN (supra n. 5) 15-19, 15, 16; HARREL (supra n. 5) 23. In the modern Greek world the breakage of objects in general is limited, mostly to clay vessels, and as an act, it is directly associated with the purification from the miasma caused by death, of both men and gods, and by extension with the aversion of death for human beings and agricultural produce alike. See G.Ν. POLITIS, Λαογραφικά Σύμμεικτα Β’ (1921) 268-283; G.A. MEGAS, Ελληνικές Γιορτές και Έθιμα της Λαϊκής Λατρείας (2005) 161, 200, 203-204; N. PSILAKIS, Λαϊκές Τελετουργίες στην Κρήτη. Έθιμα στον κύκλο του χρόνου (2005) 183-184. J.L. MYRES, “Excavations at Palaikastro II. The Sanctuary-site of Petsofa,” BSA 9 (1902-1903) 356-387, esp. 357-358. N. PLATON, “Το Ιερόν Μαζά και τα μινωϊκά ιερά κορυφής,” KretChron 10 (1951) 96-160, esp. 102–103, 114, 150-151, 157-158. K. DAVARAS, “Πετσοφάς,” Arch Delt 31 (1976) 380-381.

108

Iphiyenia TOURNAVITOU

concerning the allegedly universal custom of annual ritual pyres, representing the conclusion of elaborate yearly rituals, during which, various offerings, including pottery, figurines, and parts of sacrificed animals, were thrown into the fire. The deposits containing pottery, ashes, animal bones and votives, located in natural hollows or rock crevices, have been interpreted as the result of the periodical, ritual clearance of the sacred area, after the completion of these rituals.12 By the time the homogeneity and the frequency of the custom of ritual pyres were discredited by the emerging archaeological evidence, both at Atsipades 13 and at Ayios Georgios sto Vouno, 14 the intentional, presumably ritual breakage of pottery and votive offerings on Minoan peak sanctuaries has become something of a white elephant. The real reasons behind this extremely awkward academic impasse, are threefold: firstly, the academic obligation to deal with a theory/practice that has lost its original justification/context, secondly, the undeniably overwhelming evidence concerning the extremely fragmentary state of the vast majority of the material, be it pottery or other votive offerings attested at peak sanctuaries, which defies simple explanations and thirdly, the inescapable fact that a large portion of all this extremely fragmentary material is, according to the excavators, directly associated with natural hollows and rock crevices, the so called “primary deposition” areas, implying deliberate acts of deposition. Although the validity of primary depositions of material in rock crevices and natural hollows of the bedrock has been legitimized, not only by excavation, but also by the scene on the stone relief fragment from Gypsades, near Knossos, depicting a male figure placing an unspecified type of offering in a vessel, pot or basket lying in a rock crevice outside a building, presumably religious (Pl. XXXIXa),15 the diverse contexts of intentionally deposited material in peak sanctuaries suggest that, in some cases at least, they could represent the second or third stage of one or more ritual practices, the first stages of which are still enigmatic.16 Whatever the case, this would explain the embarrassingly large amounts of fragmentary material and the extremely small number of intact pottery and/or votive objects discovered in all the peak sanctuaries.17 At Atsipades, the pottery material is described as extremely fragmentary18 and the only 10

11

12 13 14

15

16

17

B. RUTKOWSKI, The Cult Places of the Aegean (1986) 91; IDEM, “Minoan Peak Sanctuaries. The Topography and the Architecture,” Aegaeum 2 (1988) 71-100, 74; IDEM, Petsofas. A Cretan Peak Sanctuary (1991) 53. N. MARINATOS, Minoan Religion. Ritual, Image, and Symbol, Studies in Comparative Religion (1993) 118-119; A. PEATFIELD, “The Topography of Minoan Peak Sanctuaries,” BSA 78 (1983) 273-280; IDEM, “Rural Ritual in Bronze Age Crete: Τhe Peak Sanctuary at Atsipadhes,” CAJ 2.1 (1992) 59-87, esp. 61; S. CHRYSOULAKI, “The Traostalos Peak Sanctuary: Aspects of Spatial Organisation,” in R. LAFFINEUR and R. HÄGG (eds), POTNIA. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age, Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference, Göteborg University, 12-15 April 2000 (2001) 57-66, esp. 64. MYRES (supra n. 7) 357-358, 360, 378, 380. PEATFIELD (supra n. 11, 1992) 66. I. TOURNAVITOU, “Ritual Pyres in Minoan Peak Sanctuaries. Reality and Popular Myths,” in J. BENNET, W.G. CAVANAGH, A. PAPADOPOULOS and D.M. SMITH (eds), The Wider Island of Pelops. Studies in Prehistoric Aegean Pottery in Memory of Professor Chris Mee. Proceedings of the International Conference in Memory of Professor Christopher Mee, British School at Athens, 18-19 September 2017 (forthcoming). Although the archaeological evidence confirms the existence of pyres/fires in just over 58% of the acknowledged Minoan peak sanctuaries, as well as the diachronic character of the custom, both during the Protopalatial and during the Neopalatial periods, it seems that the use of pyres was not a general practice, part of a homogeneous cult ritual practiced in all the Minoan peak sanctuaries. S. ALEXIOU, “Νέα Παράστασις Λατρείας επί Μινωϊκού Ανάγλυφου Αγγείου,” KretChron 13 (1959) 346352; P. WARREN, Minoan Stone Vases (1969) P476, 85. RUTKOWSKI (supra n. 10, 1986) 91 and (supra n. 10, 1991) 53; PEATFIELD (supra n. 11, 1992) 69; MARINATOS (supra n. 11) 118-119. At Juktas, it is specified that “the intact or restored vessels mostly hundreds of conical cups and a considerable number of juglets, are few, compared to the mass of sherds from the various deposits” (A. KARETSOU, “Το ιερό κορυφής Γιούχτα,” Prakt [1978] 232-258, esp. 252, 255, 258). The references to clay and stone votive offerings from the sanctuary in the preliminary reports are selective (mostly offering tables), and the overall picture remains vague, see KARETSOU (supra) 257-258; EADEM, “Το ιερό κορυφής Γιούχτα (1979-1980),” Prakt (1980) 337-353. The same is true for the material from Vrysinas, see

RITUAL ΒREAKAGE IN MINOAN PEAK SANCTUARIES

109

intact vessels mentioned in the preliminary reports are two upside-down cups in the Lower Terrace.19 None of the figurines or the other objects is reported as intact,20 while the absence of large fragments of vases/votive offerings from the Upper Terrace is attributed by the excavator to the periodical cleaning of the site, and to small scale looting in later periods.21 At Ayios Georgios sto Vouno, where the number of intact pottery vessels amounts to less than 1% of the pottery material,22 the overall picture seems to agree with that from the other metropolitan sanctuaries. The corpus of intact vessels includes mostly conical cups (90.84%), discs/plates (5.63%), and miniature juglets (2.91%).23 It is sufficient to say that the fragmentary vessels comprise over 99% of the material (99.49%).24 Among the clay votives the percentage of intact specimens is considerably higher (11.47% of the total), rising to almost 50% in the category of the stone and bronze votive offerings (48.78%).25 What remains unexplained is the activity or the activities, deliberate or accidental, ritual or secular, that resulted in the fragmentation of all this material, a considerable amount of which ended up in the natural hollows and rock crevices, termed “primary deposition” areas. The setting out of independent, theoretically objective criteria,26 as for example the size of the broken fragments, the examination of wear patterns on individual fragments, completeness indices of objects, evidence for the vertical and horizontal displacement of the fragments, potential re-use of the latter, and the existence of locations with a high density of finds, all context dependant parameters, is mandatory, and yet often ineffective, resulting in inconclusive and highly speculative assertions, mostly on account of the elusiveness of peak sanctuary contexts.27 Peatfield, who seems to embrace the theory of deliberate ritual breakage, suggests that the practice represented an act of ritual disposal, a ritual destruction, which eventually transforms all the finds (pottery and ritual vessels included) into votive offerings, thus preventing their future use.28 Most of the finds at

18 19

20 21

22

23

24 25

26

27

28

I. TZACHILI, “Quantitative Analysis of the Pottery from the Peak Sanctuary at Vrysinas, Rethymnon,” in K.P. FOSTER and R. LAFFINEUR (eds), METRON. Measuring the Aegean Bronze Age, Proceedings of the 9th International Aegean Conference, Yale University, 18-21 April 2002 (2003) 327-331, esp. 327. PEATFIELD (supra n. 11, 1992) 69, 71. PEATFIELD (supra n. 11, 1992) 71; C.D. MORRIS and A.A.D. PEATFIELD, “Pottery from the Peak Sanctuary of Atsipadhes Korakias, Ay. Vasiliou, Rethymnon,” in N.E. PAPADOGIANNAKIS (ed.), Πεπραγμένα του Z´ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου (Ρέθυμνο, 25-31 Αυγούστου 1991) (1995) 643-647, esp. 644. PEATFIELD (supra n. 11, 1992) 72. PEATFIELD (supra n. 11, 1992) 75, where it is maintained that the site was disturbed while it was still in use. A similar comment was made by J.L. Myres for Petsofas. See MYRES (supra n. 7) 358. There are only 994 intact vessels or vessels with a complete profile, out of a total of 196,010 specimens (0.05% of the entire corpus). The same corpus also includes two braziers, two miniature bird’s-nest bowls, one rhyton, and one semiglobular cup, see I. TOURNAVITOU, Κύθηρα.Το Μινωϊκό Ιερό Κορυφής στον Αγ. Γεώργιο στο Βουνό. 4: Κεραμεική της Εποχής του Χαλκού (2014) 4, n. 19, 139, Chart 2. 195.016/196.010 specimens, see TOURNAVITOU (supra n. 23) 4, n. 19, Chart 2. A. BANOU, Κύθηρα.Το Μινωϊκό Ιερό Κορυφής στον Αγ. Γεώργιο στο Βουνό. 2: Τα Ευρήματα, Δ. Μικροαντικείμενα Μινωϊκών Χρόνων από Πηλό, Λίθο και Πολύτιμες Υλες (2012) 249-507; Ε. SAPOUNA-SAKELLARAKI, Κύθηρα. Το Μινωϊκό Ιερό Κορυφής στον Αγ. Γεώργιο στο Βουνό. 2: Τα Ευρήματα, Α. Χάλκινα Ειδώλια (2012) 1-212; Y. SAKELLARAKIS, Κύθηρα. Το Μινωϊκό Ιερό Κορυφής στον Αγ. Γεώργιο στο Βουνό. 2: Τα Ευρήματα, B. Μινωϊκά Χάλκινα Μικροαντικείμενα (2012) 213-238. J. CHAPMAN, “Bits and Pieces: Fragmentation in Aegean Bronze Age context,” in HARREL and DRIESSEN (supra n. 5) 25-47, esp. 33, 36, 38. Context is handicapped by the characteristic topography of the sites, particularly prone to natural erosion, the scarcity of closed, uncontaminated deposits, and the incomplete excavation ratio, not to mention the lack of final, analytical publications. The elimination of post-depositional displacement of fragments/objects, vertical or horizontal, i.e. the verification of the integrity of the original assemblages, is an extremely tenuous proposition, to say the least, despite claims to the contrary. See PEATFIELD (supra n. 11, 1992) 78; CHAPMAN (supra n. 26) 38-39, with reference to Atsipades; CHRYSOULAKI (supra n. 11) 64; TZACHILI (supra n. 17) 327-328. A.A.D. PEATFIELD, “Minoan Peak Sanctuaries: History and Society,” OpAth 18 (1990) 117-132, esp.

110

Iphiyenia TOURNAVITOU

Atsipades were apparently discovered in rock crevices or hollows of the bedrock.29 Jones, in his synthetic study of extra-urban sanctuaries, also seems to agree with the deliberate breakage of at least some of the objects, especially pottery and clay offerings, which he identifies as a ritual withdrawal of dedications, emphasizing the expendable nature of the raw material. 30 On the other side of the spectrum, the fragmentary state of the pottery and other votive material from Vrysinas, the vast majority of which was found in hollows/crevices of the bedrock, is attributed by Tzachili to a combination of natural processes (erosion, weather and taphonomic conditions), and human intervention/s, both during and after the lifetime of the Minoan peak sanctuary,31 while Watrous wisely circumvents the issue, speaking instead, of deliberate placing of votive offerings in chasms, fissures and niches (Karphi, Atsipades, Mazas).32 As regards the material from Ayios Georgios sto Vouno, the evidence for deliberate breakage of votive offerings, including pottery vessels, is rather thin on the ground, at least for the vast majority of the finds. Although the size and the state of preservation of the pottery fragments vary greatly, the systematic study of the material has yielded no meaningful patterns in these variations. Joins or non joining fragments have been identified in very few cases, especially with regards to the pottery material (0.05% of the pottery material).33 In the clay votives the percentage of joining specimens rises to 0.81%,34 while the distance between fragments, in the vast majority of the cases (93.75%), was minimal. The only tenable conclusion from the material in question concerns the variation in the wear patterns on the joining pottery fragments, an indication that breakage had occurred elsewhere in the sanctuary and not in the “primary deposition” areas where they were found. As regards the spatial distribution of specific categories of objects, it should be pointed out that, in contrast to what has been claimed for other sites, only 11.52% of the pottery material was apparently located in so called “primary deposition” areas, undisturbed or superficially disturbed assemblages of Minoan material in specific areas of the sanctuary, usually identified with natural hollows or rock crevices.35 Almost half of these designated locations (48.14%), including the majority of the intact vessels, were located on Terrace 7, the lowest terrace of the south slope, while a considerable number of “primary deposition” areas was also discovered on Terraces 2 and 5, higher up the slope (Pl. XXXIXb). The number of votive objects in designated areas is definitely higher: almost half of the clay votives (46.31%)36

29

30 31 32

33

34

35

36

127; IDEM (supra n. 11, 1992) 67, 73. A similar view has been adopted for the fragmentary material from Traostalos, see S. CHRYSOULAKI, “Ιερό κορυφής Τραόσταλου,” Κρητική Εστία 7 (1999) 310-317, esp. 311; also see CHRYSOULAKI (supra n. 11) 62, 64. It is not clear if she believes that deliberate breakage preceded the deposition of these votives. A group of figurines was reported in a large rock fissure in the easternmost point of the Lower Terrace, see PEATFIELD (supra n. 11, 1992) 66-67. At Kophinas, the votive objects inside the Minoan peribolos wall, also featuring a built bench, were apparently much fewer than those discovered in rock crevices outside the peribolos wall (K. DAVARAS, “Αρχαιότητες και Μνημεία Ανατολικής Κρήτης” ArchDelt 17 [1961-1962] 287-288). D.W. JONES, Peak Sanctuaries and Sacred Caves in Minoan Crete. Comparison of Artifacts (1999) 31-32. TZACHILI (supra n. 17) 328. L.V. WATROUS, The Cave Sanctuary of Zeus at Psychro. A Study of Extra-Urban Sanctuaries in Minoan and Early Iron Age Crete (1996) 93. In the sanctuary were identified only 48 vessels with two joining or non-joining fragments, six vessels with three joining or non-joining fragments and a few isolated specimens with four or five joining or nonjoining fragments. In the vast majority of the cases (45/48), the fragments involved were discovered not only on the same terrace, but also in the same deposits, mostly “primary deposition” areas, see TOURNAVITOU (supra n. 23). Two non-joining fragments of a male figurine (Π3, Π9) discovered in the same “primary deposition” area (Terrace 7, Square 1, Layer 2), see BANOU (supra n. 25) 259-260, 262-263. 22.595/196.010 of the entire corpus of vessels/sherds or 22.595/182.059 – 12.41% of the identifiable shapes. See TOURNAVITOU (supra n. 23) 139, n. 1925. BANOU (supra n. 25). According to M. Zeimbeki, there is apparently no evidence for deliberate breakage of clay animal figurines from Juktas (oral communication with Maria Zeimbeki after a lecture at the Danish Archaeological Institute in Athens, in 1998).

RITUAL ΒREAKAGE IN MINOAN PEAK SANCTUARIES

111

and less than a third of the stone votive offerings (26.82%).37 Having said that, it is important to remember that the vast majority of the archaeological material at the sanctuary (88.47% of the pottery material, 73.17% of the stone objects, and 53.68% of the clay votives), was found, not in “primary deposition” areas, but in various locations at the top of the hill and on the north slope, in more or less disturbed deposits, where it had ended up after successive post-Minoan human interventions at the site, which, combined with natural processes, resulted in successive, unstratified collapses of Minoan and post-Minoan material and building debris.38 Although the majority of the “primary deposition” areas have yielded combinations of 10 to 21 different pottery shapes, especially storage/pouring vessels and libation vessels or vessels with a specialized, usually ritual use,39 all the designated locations include a set of three vessel types: conical cups, tripod cooking pots and straight-sided cups, followed by miniature juglets (in 81.48% of the locations), bridgespouted jars (in 70.37% of the locations), and semiglobular cups (in 66.66% of the locations). Storage vessels, including jugs/amphorae, pithoid jars and pithoi, occur in 51.85% - 55.55% of the “primary deposition” areas.40 The activities associated with the pottery contents of the designated “primary deposition” areas seem to reflect the communal activities of the pilgrims, with an emphasis on eating and drinking and occasional libations of liquid substances.41 The distribution pattern of broken votive offerings in the sanctuary indicated no particular concentrations by type of object.42 On a larger scale, it should also be pointed out that the vast majority of the pottery material at Ayios Georgios sto Vouno (91.59% of the extant material), consists of table ware, mostly drinking vessels (conical cups, straight-sided cups, semiglobular cups, carinated cups and semi-globular footed cups) and cooking ware (tripod cooking pots: 7.15% of the extant material), indicative of the social protocol in Minoan peak sanctuaries, or perhaps the ceremonial priorities of the pilgrims, who were presumably expected to partake in and contribute to communal meals, as suggested by the material in “primary deposition” locations. Liquid provisions were probably kept in closed storage and/or pouring vessels (jugs/amphorae, bridge-spouted jars), which at Kythera represent a meager 0.20% of the extant pottery material, as do the large storage vessels (pithoi, pithoid jars, large basins, etc. – 0.13% of the pottery). Although it is highly unlikely that food was actually prepared at the site, judging by the unused state of the vast majority of the cooking vessels, small, possibly short-lived fires would have been lit for the warming up of prepared meals, carried to the sanctuary by the pilgrims and/or the cult personnel. The material described as primarily votive in character, including specialized, mostly ritual vessels (rhyta, cup-rhyta, juglets, composite vessels, elaborately decorated specimens, and all the miniature versions of the different vessel types), comprising an unexpected 0.87% of the extant material, considerably higher than all the storage and pouring vessels combined, clay and bronze figurines/models of human parts, stone vessels/objects, jewellery, metal objects, etc., was obviously brought to the sanctuary 37 38

39 40

41

42

BANOU (supra n. 25). TOURNAVITOU (supra n. 23) 3; Y. SAKELLARAKIS, Κύθηρα. Το Μινωϊκό Ιερό Κορυφής στον Αγ. Γεώργιο στο Βουνό. 1: Τα Προανασκαφικά και η Ανασκαφή (2011) 147-336. TOURNAVITOU (supra n. 23) 137-140. The remaining shapes are encountered in less than 45% of the “primary deposition” areas and might be of less importance to the contextual analysis of the remains, see TOURNAVITOU (supra n. 23) 137-140. Although specialized libation rituals, including rhyta and cup-rhyta, were apparently more limited in scope (rhyta comprise only 0.14% of the extant material in “primary deposition” areas), the role of the braziers, the vast majority of which occurs in designated “primary deposition” areas (83.33% of the braziers), can be only described as symbolic, mostly on account of their size, see TOURNAVITOU (supra n. 23) 137-140. The bronze figurines were found in groups, scattered over all the terraces, on the south and north slopes of the mountain, see SAPOUNA-SAKELLARAKI (supra n. 25) 4, 8-10. The only exceptions to the rule are the clay scorpion figurines, see BANOU (supra n. 25) 293-295; also a number of architectural models, see BANOU (supra n. 25) 308-322. Their contexts imply that there were designated areas for the dedication of specific types of votives or that these objects represent one-off dedications by the same or different individuals at a specific point in time.

112

Iphiyenia TOURNAVITOU

for strictly religious reasons. The votive offerings were probably initially displayed in one or more designated public locations at the sanctuary, on some kind of built structure (altar, bench), or even a more makeshift, possibly wooden construction, possibly in the immediate vicinity of their eventual deposition.43 The scenario for the vast majority of the pottery material used in the suggested communal meals was quite different. At the end of the celebrations, it is highly unlikely that the paraphernalia of the feast, especially the pottery and the food remains, would have been carried back down the hill. Whether all or some of the pottery was actually deliberately smashed into pieces before it was abandoned, or deposited in predetermined locations, for practical reasons, or for ritual purposes, it is impossible to fathom. The same applies to the time schedule for the deposition of the material in predetermined locations and the agents responsible for this deposition. While the most precious of the votives were presumably removed after a period of time by the cult personnel, and placed in storage,44 the rest of the material was probably deposited in predetermined, designated areas by the pilgrims themselves or was abandoned all over the site, to be later collected by the religious personnel, who placed it in the so called “primary deposition” areas, during major cleaning operations. The evidence concerning the intentional and presumably ritual breakage of objects in Minoan peak sanctuaries is elusive and ambiguous. What evidence has survived is closely associated with the pottery material and hence, with the collective consumption of food and drink, with libations of liquid substances, and the disposal of the resulting detritus by the participants and/or the sanctuary personnel. In either case, the resulting fragmentation, although subject to spatial and calendrical repetition, performance of ritualized acts, socialization, and transformation of artifacts, all the key elements for the creation of collective memories, religious or otherwise, is, in this case, only marginally/indirectly related to religious, ritual practices per se. What we are probably witnessing, 3.000 years after the fact, is mostly social feasting in a religious context, and the disposal of the resulting debris, which was subsequently incorporated into the cult material littering the site after the end of the festivities, a well known, widespread and diachronic practice, which constitutes one of the commonest and most effective means for the construction, the legitimation and manipulation of social and religious memory.45

Iphiyenia TOURNAVITOU

43

44

45

RUTKOWSKI (supra n. 10, 1986) 91; IDEM (supra n. 10, 1991) 53; MARINATOS (supra n. 11) 118-119. The use of built benches or even altars for the initial deposition and display of votive offerings is attested only at Juktas and Kophinas. For Juktas, see A. KARETSOU, “Ιερόν Κορυφής Γιούχτα,” Prakt (1974) 228-239, esp. 232; EADEM, “Το Ιερό Κορυφής Γιούχτα,” Prakt (1977) 419-420, esp. 419; EADEM (supra n. 17, 1978) 252; EADEM, “Το Ιερό Κορυφής Γιούχτα,” Prakt (1979) 280-281, esp. 280; (supra n. 17, 1980) 342-343; EADEM, “The Peak Sanctuary of Mt. Juktas” in R. HÄGG and N. MARINATOS (eds), Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 12-13 May 1980 (1981) 137-153, esp. 145-146. For Kophinas, see DAVARAS (supra n. 29) 288. Some of the offerings had been perhaps suspended from a tree, a bush or some kind of pole or other structure, presumably wooden, which would obviously leave no visible traces. The only evidence alluding to this practice in the Minoan peak sanctuaries are the suspension holes on the surviving votive offerings, only a limited number of which has been attested. Suspension holes are attested at Traostalos, on models of human body parts, see CHRYSOULAKI (supra n. 28) 315-316, and on a model of a human leg from Atsipades, see PEATFIELD (supra n. 11, 1992) 74. Suspension holes at Ayios Georgios sto Vouno have been encountered in a relatively small number of votive objects (31 clay, and stone objects) and five objects in bronze, see BANOU (supra n. 25) 273, 330-332, 333, 336-337; SAKELLARAKIS (supra n. 25) 216, Χ5, Χ6, Χ7, Χ9, Χ157, Pls 2.β, γ, δ, 3γ. The good condition of the bronze figurines at Ayios Georgios sto Vouno indicates that they had been kept in some kind of a protected environment. HAMILAKIS (supra n. 1) 116, 118; PETERSON (supra n. 1) 279.

RITUAL ΒREAKAGE IN MINOAN PEAK SANCTUARIES LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Pl. XXXIXa Pl. XXXIXb

Stone vase fragment from Gypsades (ALEXIOU [supra n. 15] Pl. ΛΕ’). Ayios Georgios sto Vouno. Distribution map of “primary deposition” areas (Scale: 1:300).

113

XXXIX

a

b

VISIBLE AND COMMEMORATIVE STRUCTURED DEPOSITS. KEEPING THE MEMORY OF COMMUNAL SOCIAL PRACTICES AT MINOAN PALACES Introduction In the Aegean the best-known examples of structured deposits are the foundation deposits, which are plentiful in Minoan Crete.1 These deposits usually consist of objects that were intentionally deposited in a ‘structured’ manner on the ground or in a shallow pit, and buried beneath a new wall or floor in order to inaugurate the new feature. Beside them, the Bronze Age site of Phaistos, overlooking the Mesara plain in South-central Crete, provides a fair number of a new type of structured deposit that occur especially in the so-called First Palace, dating from the 19th to 17th cent. BC, i.e. the Protopalatial period. These structured deposits are here called ‘filled-in bench and platform deposits’. They mainly consist of complete or fragmentary ceramic vases, as well as occasionally other objects (e.g. animal bones, stone vases and/or loomweights), that are placed in a ‘structured’ way, with which I mean that have either been positioned vertically and/or horizontally and sometimes include stacked cups.2 These deposits have attracted the attention of the first excavators of Phaistos (i.e. Luigi Pernier and Doro Levi) and of other scholars because they are similar to foundation deposits,3 but actually they are not buried under the new architectural features, instead are contained in structures that remain visible and functional after their sealing. The characteristics of these structured deposits are the following: (1) deliberate and intentional deposition of material in a structured manner (vertical or horizontal deposition of vases, with also handleless conical cups in stacks); (2) the sealing up of the deposit, which implies the choice of removing the selected objects from circulation; (3) the intentional deposition of objects that reflect a not normal event, whatever feasting or non-ordinary (i.e. ritual) communal action; (4) the visibility of the deposit or of the ‘container’ of the deposit.

1

2

3

On foundation deposits in Minoan Crete: C. BOULOTIS, “Μινωικοὶ ἀποθέτες θεμελίωσης,” in T. DETORAKIS (ed.), Πεπραγμένα του Ε´ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου (Άγιος Νικόλαος, 25 Σεπτεμβρίου - 1 Οκτωβρίου 1981) Α´ (1985) 248-257; O. PELON, “Un dépôt de fondation au palais de Malia,” BCH 110 (1986) 3-19 ; J.A. MACGILLIVRAY, L.H. SACKETT and J. DRIESSEN, “‘Aspro Pato’: A Lasting Liquid Toast from the Master-builders of Palaikastro to their Patron,” in P.P. BETANCOURT, R. LAFFINEUR, V. KARAGEORGHIS and W.-D. NIEMEIER (eds), MELETEMATA. Studies in Aegean Archaeology presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He enters his 65th Year (1999) 465-468; V. LA ROSA, “Liturgie domestiche o depositi di fondazione? Vecchi e nuovi dati da Festòs e Haghia Triada,” CretAnt 3 (2002) 13-50; V. LA ROSA, “I saggi della campagna 2004 a Festòs,” ASAtene 82 (2004) 640-647; S. PRIVITERA, “Pregare insieme, libare da soli: i vasi capovolti tra rituale individuale e comunitario nella Creta minoica,” ASAtene 82,2 (2004) 429-441; V. HERVA, “The Life of Buildings: Minoan Building Deposits in an Ecological Perspective,” OJA 24 (2005) 215-227. For a recent revision of these structured deposits from Phaistos see: I. CALOI, “Preserving Memory in Minoan Crete: Filled-in Bench and Platform Deposits from the First Palace of Phaistos,” JGA 2 (2017) 3352. For previous works on these structured deposits from Phaistos see: I. CALOI, “Il vano β e il MM IB ad Haghia Fotinì di Festòs,” ASAtene 83 (2005) 19-45; S. TODARO, “The Latest Prepalatial Period and the Foundation of the First Palace at Phaistos: a Stratigraphic and Chronological Re-assessment,” CretAnt 10 (2009) 105-145; G. BALDACCI, “Banchine Protopalaziali a Festòs. Il caso delle strutture con riempimento di vasi,” in F.M. CARINCI, N. CUCUZZA, P. MILITELLO and O. PALIO (eds), KRETES MINOIDOS. Tradizione e identità minoica tra produzione artigianale, pratiche cerimoniali e memoria del passato (2011) 313-328; I. CALOI, “Memory of a Feasting Event in the First Palace of Phaistos: Preliminary Oobservations on the Bench Deposit of Room IL,” CretAnt 13 (2012) 41-59; CALOI (supra n. 2).

116

Ilaria CALOI

A recent re-analysis of these Phaistian deposits has convinced me that some of these peculiar filledin structures are connected with the biography of the First Palace of Phaistos, marking some events whose mnemonic record is materialised in the expressly constructed benches or platforms.4 In this paper I want to focus on the potential mnemonic value of these deposits, which seem to have remained visible as memorandum. In the next pages, first I present two significant cases from Protopalatial Phaistos, then I dwell upon two possible cases respectively from the Neopalatial court-centred building of Sissi and of Gournia. Two filled-in bench and platform structured deposits from Phaistos Among the four filled-in bench and platform deposits identified at Phaistos,5 I focus on the two following cases: the first comes from Corridor III/7, which is located in a central position between the southern and the northern wing of the First Palace and connects the Middle West Court (Piazzale I) with the Central Court (Cortile 40); the second one was found in Room IL, located in the northern part of the South-West Building of the palace. Both these structures have been excavated by Doro Levi during his 1950-1966 excavations at Phaistos, during which he brought to light the First Protopalatial Palace of Phaistos, with its South-West Building and North-West Building, as well as with its courts (i.e. Central Court, Middle West Court and Lower West Court) and peripheral quarters.6 The first filled-in structure from Protopalatial Phaistos is the low bench discovered by Levi during his 1959 excavation of the Protopalatial levels of Corridor III/7.7 This structure was filled-in with ceramic vases and animal bones, sealed up and then used as a bench. Among the Protopalatial remains Levi found in Corridor III/7, the most important is the huge wall α, which is 18m long. It is the northern limit of three pavings going from the Middle West Court to the Central Court, as well as the southern limit of a paved room, dubbed aula lastricata. The filled-in bench, which is 65cm wide and 15cm high, was set against the southern side of the long wall α.8 Filippo Carinci and Vincenzo La Rosa suggested a MM IB date for wall α based on its association with MM IB pottery. On the basis of stylistic comparisons, the two scholars attributed the ceramic material from inside the bench to Early MM IB, corresponding to the construction phase of the First Palace.9 The bench deposit comprises 102 handleless conical cups (henceforth conical cups), of which only one is decorated, three small pouring vessels, as well as fragments of both drinking and pouring vases.10 Some faunal remains (bones attributed to cattle, sheep and pigs) were also found together with the pottery, and interpreted as refuse from a consumption event. The presence of numerous conical cups and animal bones associated with the structured manner of the deposition (a number of conical cups were stacked), have led Carinci and La Rosa to interpret the bench deposit as the result of a communal feast;11 moreover, Simona Todaro has proposed to link the feasting to the construction of the northern wing of the First Palace in Early MM IB.12 Indeed, the make-up of the bench is stratigraphically associated with the construction of the paved room (aula lastricata) and of the huge wall α, which are both parts of the northern wing of the palace. Looking at the biography of the deposited objects, they have been first consumed in a special ceremonial event that occurred in Early MM IB, then collected and deposited all together in the same ‘container’, that is a new bench. This seems to have been remained visible and functional as a bench at 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12

See CALOI (supra n. 2). See table in CALOI (supra n. 2) 38-39, fig. 4. See the publication of the 1950-1966 excavation campaigns at Phaistos in: D. LEVI, Festòs e la civiltà minoica, vols. I-II.1 (1976) and D. LEVI and F.M. CARINCI, Festòs e la civiltà minoica, vol. II.2 (1988). LEVI (supra n. 6) 250-252. CALOI (supra n. 2) 42, fig. 6; see also LEVI (supra n. 6) 250-252. F.M. CARINCI and V. LA ROSA, “Revisioni Festie,” CretAnt 8 (2007) 88-98. CARINCI and LA ROSA (supra n. 9) 97, figs 104-108. See CARINCI and LA ROSA (supra n. 9) 98. S. TODARO, The Phaistos hills before the Palace: a Contextual Reappraisal (2013) 96.

KEEPING THE MEMORY OF COMMUNAL SOCIAL PRACTICES AT MINOAN PALACES

117

least during the first phases of the First Palace life. The position of the bench is strategic, as it is located at the key point between the two main courts, as well as between the two wings of the palace. Its central position and its high visibility should have played an important role for the Phaistian community who invested in the construction of the new palatial building. Indeed, the community could easily recognise the symbolic value of the bench, which contained the mnemonic record of the communal feast held to commemorate the construction event. The second filled-in structure from Protopalatial Phaistos is the platform excavated by Levi during his 1951-1952 excavation campaign in Room IL of the main palatial building of Phaistos,13 namely the South-West Building. This was constructed in MM IB and destroyed at the end of MM IIB. Following recent studies by Carinci, the platform was constructed along the northern wall of the room at the time of the renovation programme of the building, which occurred in MM II, that means after the first construction of the palatial building and before its final destruction.14 The platform is exceptionally large: it is 60cm high, 155cm wide and is 250cm long.15 It was built with stones, filled-in with hundreds of vessels and objects, both ceramic and lithic, and with animal remnants, and finally sealed up with slabs. My recent reinvestigation of the material from the platform allowed me to date it to MM IIA and interpret the deposit as the result of a ‘feasting hoard’. Beside 710 ceramic vases, the platform deposit includes also three clay loomweights, three stone vessels and faunal remains. The considerable quantity of vessels, especially conical cups, together with the presence of cooking pots and bone fragments, suggest some kind of communal drinking and eating. Moreover, the ceramic material from the platform was deposited in a ‘structured’ manner (i.e. vertical and horizontal position, with some conical cups in stacks) and within a uniform fill, suggesting that the material was deposited at one time.16 Of a total of 710 complete and restorable ceramic vases, there are 525 drinking pots. The platform deposit's most surprising feature is the exaggerated number of conical cups: of a total of 500 complete and restorable examples, 430 are plain while only 70 are decorated.17 It is noteworthy to mention that the platform included also a number of ritual implements, namely three bull rhyta decorated in polychromy, two fire-boxes, two horned pots, one fruitstand and one grater.18 Preliminary analysis of the 252 bone fragments collected during his excavation, has permitted their attribution to cattle, sheep and pigs. The most interesting example is the partial skull of an agrimi with almost entirely preserved horns.19 As stated above, the formal deposition and hoarding of feasting paraphernalia retrieved from inside the platform in Room IL appears to be the repository from a single feasting event held nearby, most likely in the Lower West Court of the palace. In this sense, the platform deposit's make-up, including hundreds of drinking pots and several special paraphernalia dating to MM IIA, i.e. earlier than the MM IIB destruction levels, seems connected with the architectural and functional transformations that occurred there. The filled-in platform can therefore be interpreted as the material mnemonic record of an exceptional and memorable event, likely represented by a feasting event on the occasion of the renovation of the northern part of the South-West Building, and especially of Room IL.20

13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

F. CARINCI, “Per una rilettura funzionale dell’ala Sud-occidentale del Palazzo di Festòs: il caso dei vani ILXXVII/XXVIII,” CretAnt 12 (2011) 41-43. Among the main trasformations occurred in the South-West Building between MM IB and MM IIB, a new entrance at the ground floor of the South-West Building was opened in Corridor L and a new door was opened in the western wall of Room IL connecting the room with the Lower West Court through Corridor L, then, the ceiling of Room IL was lift up, and finally a new large and paved platform was constructed on the northern wall of the room. See above n. 13. CALOI (supra n. 2) 44-45, figs 9-10. CALOI (supra n. 3, 2012) 41-59. CALOI (supra n. 3, 2012) 47-48, 51, figs 8-9. CALOI (supra n. 3, 2012) 51, fig. 6 and 54, Table A. CALOI (supra n. 3, 2012) 52, fig. 10. On the subject see also CALOI (supra n. 2).

118

Ilaria CALOI

Looking at the social meaning of these Phaistian structures, it appears reasonable that the choice not to scatter the material, but to place it in a specific context and in a structured manner is a practice aimed at preserving and memorialising events and/or places.21 Differently from foundation deposits and from other structured deposits attested in Minoan Crete,22 these Phaistian structured deposits are not buried in pits or under the floors/walls of buildings, but are sealed in built, above ground and visible structures, which are fully integrated into the life of the building in which they are found. In fact, Phaistian filled-in bench and platform deposits are sealed within settings that remain visible and functional (for example, people can use platforms to work and prepare food, as well as to sit on as benches). It appears therefore that the social meaning of the Phaistian structured deposits is to remind people living in and/or visiting the palace of the event connected with the deposit sealed within the bench/platform, and thus to develop and reinforce the sense of being part of the community that gravitates toward Phaistos and shares the same habitus. In fact, only people living or attending Phaistos could know or remember that these platforms and benches were made-up of the remains of feasting or other social events connected to the construction of specific parts or areas of the Phaistos palatial building. Since these specific filled-in structures were constructed with material belonging to a certain stage of the Protopalatial period, but went on to be used during the successive phases of the same Protopalatial period, they seem to materialise the temporal continuity of use of the palatial rooms or areas where they have been built. The high concentration at one site of these specific, multi-layered features points to the Phaistians need to mark their settlement's continuity and longevity. Filled-in benches and platforms are so far not attested outside Phaistos in the Protopalatial period. We have, however, identified two parallel cases at Neopalatial Sissi and Gournia. Two cases from Neopalatial Sissi and Gournia At Sissi, a comparable case has been discovered in Building F, i.e. the eastern wing of the Neopalatial court-centred building located on the south-east summit of the Kephali hill.23 In 2011, along the eastern wing’s south-east angle of the court-centred building, removal of the topsoil brought to light a conspicuous Neopalatial pottery deposit; this was deliberately placed in a box-like structure placed against

21

22

23

On the subject see: Y. HAMILAKIS, “Re-collecting the Fragments: Archaeology as Mnemonic Practice,” in K. LILIOS and V. TSAMIS (eds), Material Mnemonics. Everyday Memory in Prehistoric Europe (2010) 188-199; Y. HAMILAKIS, “Sensuous, Memory, Materiality and History: Rethinking the ‘Rise of the Palaces’ on Bronze Age Crete, in A.B. KNAPP and P. VAN DOMMELEN (eds), The Cambridge Prehistory of the Bronze and Iron Age Mediterranean (2014) 320-336. See also below n. 22. On foundation deposits see supra n. 1; on other kinds of structured deposits see, for example, the cases at Neopalatial Knossos (the well-known Temple Repositories: E. HATZAKI, “Structured Deposition as Ritual Action at Knossos,” in A.L. D’AGATA and A. VAN DE MOORTEL [eds], Archaeologies of Cult. Essays on Ritual and Cult in Crete in Honor of Geraldine C. Gesell [2009] 19-30; E. HATZAKI, “Under the Floor. Structured Deposits from Cists and Pits at the Bronze Age Palace at Knossos,” in Πεπραγμένα Ι΄ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου (Χανιά, 1-8 Οκτωβρίου 2006), Στρογγυλή Τραπέζα “Τελετουργικά δείπνα και τελετουργικές αποθέσεις στην Κρήτη των Προϊστορικών χρόνων,” Τόμος Α, Τμήμα Α΄ [2011] 241-253), at Neopalatial Malia (J. DRIESSEN, A. FARNOUX and C. LANGOHR, “Favissae. Feasting Pits in LM III,” in L.A. HITCHCOCK, R. LAFFINEUR and J. CROWLEY [eds], DAIS. The Aegean Feast. Proceedings of the 12th International Aegean Conference, University of Melbourne, 25-29 March 2008 [2008] 197-205), at Nopigeia-Drapanias (Y. HAMILAKIS and K. HARRIS, “The Social Zooarchaeology of Feasting: the Evidence from the “Ritual” Deposit at Nopigeia-Drapanias,” in ANDREADAKI-VLASAKI [supra] 199-218) and at Thronos/Kephala (A.L. D’AGATA, “Ritual and Rubbish in Dark Age Crete: The Settlement of Thronos/Kephala (Ancient Sybrita) and the Pre-Classical Roots of a Greek City,” Aegean Archaeology 4 [1997-2000] 45-59). On the court-centred building at Sissi see J. DRIESSEN, “Continued Excavation of the Court-Centred Building at Sissi,” in J. DRIESSEN, M. ANASTASIADOU, I. CALOI, T. CLAEYS, S. DEDERIX, M. DEVOLDER, S. JUSSERET, C. LANGOHR, Q. LETESSON, I. MATHIOUDAKI, O. MOUTHUY and A. SCHMITT, Excavations at Sissi IV. Preliminary Report on the 2015-2016 campaigns (2018) 151-153 with bibliography.

KEEPING THE MEMORY OF COMMUNAL SOCIAL PRACTICES AT MINOAN PALACES

119

a major wall (i.e. wall F30) of Building F.24 Plaster fragments were found together with whole and mendable vases, suggesting that the deposit was originally kept within a plastered bench. The deposit appears to be a secondary fill, deliberately deposited as a single event. The study of this closed deposit, which dates to MM IIIB, has allowed for its interpretation as the result of a feasting event, perhaps to be connected with the inauguration of the MM IIIB construction or re-construction of Building F facing the court-centred building.25 The feasting hoard is composed of 176 diagnostic ceramic objects. They include a very high concentration of intact and mendable plain, conical cups (i.e. 98 examples, plus 42 fragmentary), some of which were deposited in stacks, a few number of decorated cups, several bowls, pouring vessels and cooking pots, as well as special ritual implements, such as one imported globular rhyton, one miniature jar and one red-painted figurine in the shape of a snake.26 No animal bones have been retrieved from the deposit. We can therefore suggest either that food remains of the feasting event were placed or thrown away in another area, or that cooking pots were not used to prepare meat, but other kinds of foods (legumes?). The composition of the assemblage and the stratigraphic position of the deposit within Building F agree well with an interpretation as a feasting deposit, accompanying a construction event so that it can also be labelled a building deposit. With this I mean that, on the construction of Building F, a feasting event was held of which the paraphernalia were deliberately deposited in a special container placed within the building. Its dating to the MM IIIB would give a terminus ad quem for the construction of the building.27 We have observed that the Sissi deposit is not underground, but accommodated in a box-like structure (a bench?) built against a major wall of Building F. As such it is comparable with the visible and commemorative filled-in bench or platform deposits found at Protopalatial Phaistos, where they were constructed in crucial areas/rooms of the First Palace in order to memorialise the foundation of new wings or buildings. The memory of the feasting event for the MM IIIB construction (or re-construction) of Building F would have then been perpetuated through the visible box-like structure. A similar case could be represented by the early LM IB deposit found at Gournia, in the SouthWest wing of the palace.28 In Room 13, which is located in the south-west corner of the palace, were found two superimposed deposits dating respectively to MM IIIA and to early LM IB, which correspond to two building levels.29 The highest building level includes the ashlar walls on the south and west sides of the rooms. These ashlar walls contained the upper deposit, which included 300 vessels dating to early LM IB, organic remains, and carefully placed bits of pumice.30 This deposit has been interpreted by the excavators as the result of a communal feasting. Matt Buell and John McEnroe, whom I thank for this information, suggested that these later ashlar walls and associated deposit had to do with a post-Theran rebuilding in early LM IB.31 As in the cases observed at Protopalatial Phaistos and at Neopalatial Sissi, this 24

25

26 27 28

29 30 31

On the excavation of Building F see S. JUSSERET, “The excavation of Zones 6 and 7,” in J. DRIESSEN, I. SCHOEP, F. CARPENTIER, I. CREVECOEUR, M. DEVOLDER, F. GAIGNEROT-DRIESSEN, P. HACIGÜZELLER, V. ISAAKIDOU, S. JUSSERET, C. LANGOHR, Q. LETESSON and A. SCHMITT, Excavations at Sissi, II. Preliminary Report on the 2009-2010 Campaigns (2011) 153-177; S. JUSSERET, “The excavation of Zone 6,” in J. DRIESSEN, I. SCHOEP, M. ANASTASIADOU, F. CARPENTIER, I. CREVECOEUR, S. DEDERIX, M. DEVOLDER, F. GAIGNEROT-DRIESSEN, S. JUSSERET, C. LANGOHR, Q. LETESSON, F. LIARD, A. SCHMITT, C. TSORAKI and R. VEROPOULIDOU, Excavations at Sissi III. Preliminary Report on the 2011 Campaign (2012) 135-154. I. CALOI, “Inaugurating the Court-centred Building? A MM IIIB Feasting Deposit at Neopalatial Sissi,” SMEA NS 4 (2018 forthcoming). See the publication of the pottery from this deposit in CALOI (supra n. 25). CALOI (supra n. 25). L.V WATROUS, D.M. BUELL, J.C. MCENROE, J.G. YOUNGER, L.A. TURNER, B.S. KUNKEL, K. GLOWACKI, S. GALLIMORE, A. SMITH, P.A. PANTOU, A. CHAPIN and E. MARGARITIS, “Excavations at Gournia, 2010-2012,” Hesperia 84.3 (2015) 397-465. WATROUS et al. (supra n. 28) 429-431, fig. 21. WATROUS et al. (supra n. 28) 430-431, fig. 22. M. BUELL and J. MCENROE, “Addressing Disruption: Contextual Study of the Ashlar Mmasonry at

Ilaria CALOI

120

early LM IB deposit was not an isolated and buried foundation deposit, but a reminder of communal participation in the building process. Differently from the Phaistian deposits, however, this deposit was eventually covered by a LM IB floor; indeed, the second course ashlar block suggests that the LM IB walls framing Room 13 rose above the floor level. However, as suggested by the two scholars,32 until late in LM IB, the pavement of the Southwest Court continued over the foundations of House El, which is located immediately South-West of Room 13. This would have made the small Room 13 even more prominent when seen from the outside. This may imply that the ‘visibility’ of Room 13 was somewhat commemorative of the rebuilding operations occurred in early LM IB. The similarity with Phaistos is, therefore, in the intention of making visibile the containers of feasting deposits connected to building or rebuilding operations in the palaces’ life. Concluding remarks Filling-in new architectural structures with intentionally deposited objects appears to be a social practice strictly associated with the Protopalatial Phaistian community, and to have become a part of Phaistian tradition since the emergence of the First Palace.33 Indeed, it arose in MM IB with the foundation of the First Palace and stopped in MM IIB, with the palace's collapse. This practice sounds like a means to create a common symbolic language to be recognised by the Protopalatial Phaistian community, and can thus be interpreted as a ritualised attempt to establish a clear link between people and the place where they live or where they are symbolised. Since in the Neopalatial period parallel situations are encountered also in other Minoan palaces, it seems therefore plausible that these kinds of visible structured deposits were born at Protopalatial Phaistos and then widespread in other long-lasting Minoan palaces during the successive Neopalatial period, keeping the same function of embodying the mnemonic record of communal events connected to important changes in the palaces’ biography. From what observed in the previous pages, it appears that at Protopalatial Phaistos and at Neopalatial Sissi the reminders of communal social actions accompanying the construction of palatial buildings or areas are visible benches or platforms, instead, at Gournia it is the prominence of Room 13 which reminds people that a communal process has led to the re-construction of the Gournia palace. The visibility of the ‘containers’ of these deposits (whatever benches, platforms or rooms) are reminders for the community, with the aim to remember the feasting or social events connected to the building process that had produced the constructions where the structures are found. Ilaria CALOI

32 33

Gournia (Crete),” in M. DEVOLDER, I. KREIMERMAN and J. DRIESSEN (eds), Ashlar. Exploring the materiality of cut stone masonry in the eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age (2019 forthcoming). BUELL and MCENROE (supra n. 31). See CALOI (supra n. 2).

MINOAN MEMORIES IN THE SHRINE OF EILEITHYIA AT INATOS, CRETE* The goddess Eileithyia, one of the daughters of Zeus and Hera, was regarded as the patron of childbirth and mother hood.1 She was worshipped in numerous shrines in Greece where visitors left gifts along with their prayers for a safe childbirth and a healthy mother and child. One of her shrines was located in a small cave at modern Tsoutsouros, which is the modern name for ancient Inatos, a small town on the south coast of Crete.2 Inatos was the seaport for the inland city of Priansos during the first millennium BC. The shrine was in a small cave that had only one room. In 1962, Nicolas Platon and Costis Davaras excavated the shrine as an emergency rescue excavation to stop the looting that had been destroying the site over the previous two years.3 Many objects were excavated from the shrine, and other artifacts were confiscated by the police from the looters who had been robbing the cave. The identification of the goddess who was worshipped here is proved by a Hellenistic inscription, by several ancient texts that place a sanctuary dedicated to Eileithyia at this location, and by the specialized nature of the objects excavated from the site. In 2009, the president and members of the Association of Active Citizens of Arkalochori visited the director of the Archaeological Museum in Herakleion and discussed the study and publication of the Eileithyia and Arkalochori caves in order to document the rich archaeological material of the region and present it to the public Their offer was accepted, and a plan was implemented to begin with a color volume that would highlight the finest objects from the Eileithyia Cave. That objective was achieved with the publication of Ελουθία Χαριστήιον. Costis Davaras, Athanasia Kanta,4 and the current director of the Museum Stella Mandakaki then invited the first author to prepare a more complete publication of the shrine and its finds. That study is now under way. The entrance to the cave is on a small ridge that rises above the modern town. The doorway is blocked with bars, and the cave’s single room is now filled in and leveled. When it was excavated in 1962, the floor was several feet below the entrance, and the cave had to be entered with ladders. The shrine’s contents were excavated from three broad levels, a Classical to Hellenistic to Roman one at the end of the shrine’s life, a Proto-Geometric to Archaic level below that one, and a Minoan level that began its period of use by EM IIB to MM IA and lasted until the end of the Bronze Age. Many of the Minoan finds were discovered in crevices at the bottom of the soil accumulation inside the cave. Minoan offerings included many pieces of pottery, with conical cups in miniature size including versions that were pierced through the side before firing so that they could be hung up, which proves they were used as votives instead of for domestic purposes.5 Other Minoan finds included a limestone offering table from LM I6 and a large number of miniature double axes.7 The axes were made of both copper or copper alloy and of clay. They were deposited over a long period of time from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age. Over 75 pieces of gold *

1

2 3

4 5 6 7

Thanks are extended to many institutions who provided assistance to this project, especially the Archaeological Museum in Herakleion, the Institute for Aegean Prehistory, Temple University, the INSTAP Study Center in East Crete, and to the following individuals: Costis Davaras, Athanasia Kanta, Lefteris Platon, Thomas Brogan, Stella Mandalaki, Irini Galli, Doug Faulmann, Chronis Papanikolopoulos, Gabriella Lazoura, and Nikos Giannos. Paus. 1.18.5; Diod. Sic. 5.72.5; Pseudo-Apollodorus, Biblioteca, 1.13; see P. BAUR, Eileithyia (1902); S. PINGIATOGLOU, Eileithyia (1981). A. KANTA and C. DAVARAS (eds), Ελουθία Χαριστήιον. Το ιερό σπήλαιο της Ειλειθυίας στον Τσούτσουρο (2011). E. PLATON, “Η ανασκαφή του σπηλαίου της Ινάτου (Τσουτσούρου),” in KANTA and DAVARAS (supra n. 2) 16–21. KANTA and DAVARAS (supra n. 2). KANTA and DAVARAS (supra n. 2) 49, 50. P. WARREN, Minoan Stone Vases (1969) 64. KANTA and DAVARAS (supra n. 2) 149-154.

122

Philip P. BETANCOURT, Leanna KOLONAUSKI and Sydney R. SARASIN

came from the cave, and some of the simple discs and diadems of this material were offered during the Bronze Age, while others were later8 One of the remarkable aspects of the shrine is that the highest level, from the Roman period, featured a memorial to the Bronze origins of the cult. The memorial does not survive because it was dismantled by the looters, but its description is preserved in the notebook kept by Nicolas Platon when he excavated the cavern. Platon interviewed the man who looted the cave, and he described the feature in detail. It was an arched exhibit at the east wall of the cave’s single underground space, with three Minoan bronze figurines set up in the niche as a display. The display was in the upper level of the cave, which had the Roman remains. Other places for display included an earth platform or bench at the north of the room. Apparently the shrine was set up so that visitors could see some of the items left as gifts by previous visitors. The niche with the Minoan sculptures held some of the most dynamic objects from earlier times. The three objects consisted of a LM I standing female figure wearing a long flounced skirt with the bodice open to expose the breasts, a Late Minoan IIIA bronze female figurine, and half of a bronze figurine with upraised arms.9 The earliest figure in the group is a standing figurine wearing a long dress (Pl. XLa). Her open front and her shaved head with long locks of hair are typical of LM I.10 The figurine has diagonal grooves on the dress (visible especially just below the hand) to indicate the flounced overskirt that is worn over the main skirt. The second bronze figurine is later, and it has fewer details (Pl. XLb).11 The upper torso shows no signs of a garment, and the long dress is plain. This figurine can be dated to LM IIIA. The third bronze figuring has raised arms (Pl. XLc). This figurine belongs to a large class of female figures from the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age called the Goddess with Upraised Arms.12 It can be dated to LM IIIB to IIIC. Groups of these figurines were placed in bench shrines along with tubular stands and occasionally with clay plaques. The upraised arm gesture is well known from clay sculptures found at several locations in Crete including Gazi, Gournia, Kavousi, and elsewhere. Several examples of the Goddess with Upraised Arms come from the shrine. A broken figurine made of clay with a cylindrical wheelmade skirt is early in the sequence (unpublished). Smaller figurines of the Goddess with Upraised Arms from the Eileithyia shrine are from as late as the Protogeometric period, including one fragmentary figurine who rides on a horse or donkey.13 The figurine in a bowl in Pl. XLd is typical of the group. Its simplified form, without details of fingers, jewelry, or costume, is typical of the Protogeometric to Early Geometric style in Crete. The continuation of the honor paid to the Goddess with Upraised Arms in Crete into the Early Iron Age has been noted before,14 and the cave at Inatos adds considerable evidence for this continuity. On the south side of the shrine, several broken pieces of cylindrical stands with vertical handles like those from the bench shrines of the Goddess with Upraised Arms15 were discovered near one another. Perhaps they came from a display set up somewhere at the south side of the shrine, but only sherds remained when the site was excavated. Probably the shrine to Eileithyia had several places where a new visitor could leave a dedication and add a new gift alongside those given by earlier visitors.

8

9 10

11 12

13 14

15

Among the gold objects are disks, rosettes, a cut-out image of a wheel, and other items. See KANTA and DAVARAS (supra n. 2) 160-161. A. KANTA, “Ειδώλια, Ομοιώματα,” in KANTA and DAVARAS (supra n. 2) 90-91. C. VERLINDEN, Les statuettes anthropomorphes crétoises en bronze et en plomb, du IIIe millénaire au VIIe siècle av. J.-C. (1984) 202, no 109. VERLINDEN (supra n. 10) 208, no. 143. St. ALEXIOU, “Ἠ μινωϊκὴ θεὰ μεθ’ ὑψωμένων χειρῶν,” KretChron 12 (1958) 179–299; G. GESELL, “The Snake Goddess of the LM IIIB and LM IIIC Periods,” in O. KRZYSKOWSKA (ed.), Cretan Offerings. Studies in Honor of Peter Warren (2010) 131-139, with extensive bibliography. KANTA and DAVARAS (supra n. 2) 123, fig. 119. M. PRENT. “The Survival of the Goddess with Upraised Arms: Early Iron Age Representations and Context,” in A. D’AGATA and A. VAN DE MOORTEL (eds), Archaeologies of Cult. Essays on Ritual and Cult in Crete in Honor of Geraldine C. Gesell (2009) 231–238. G. GESELL, “The Minoan Snake Tube: A Survey and Catalog,” AJA 80 (1976) 247-259.

MINOAN MEMORIES IN THE SHRINE OF EILEITHYIA AT INATOS, CRETE

123

The changing iconography of the female figure who was acceptable as an appropriate image to place in this shrine continued to change in the next few centuries. The appearance of the Bronze Age figurines in a niche near the cave’s entrance is an important aspect of the cave because they will have contrasted markedly in their appearance alongside what was deposited from later times. The goddess Eileithyia was an ancient deity, and she had a long tradition at the site. The long flounced skirt and open bodice must have appeared very exotic in later ages when the figurines were very different. During Protogeometric and Geometric times, the female figurines in the shrine were very simplified. They included pregnant figurines (Pl. XLe), and scenes of preparation for childbirth in which a seated pregnant female figurine is accompanied by a second female figure who offers her support (Pl. XLf).16 Whether the second figure is a midwife or the goddess herself is not absolutely certain. The Cretan examples from Inatos always show the companion offering support, but the actual moment of birth is never depicted. This situation precedes the birth, and it is quite different from the parturation figurines of Iron Age Cyprus, which depict the actual birth. 17 The iconography of female figurines changed again during the seventh century BC when influences from the Eastern Mediterranean brought new ideas to Crete. During the Orientalizing period, female images in the shrine included frontal Dedalic figurines,18 some of which showed frontal nudity based on Near Eastern models (Pl. XLg). In the Late Archaic, the style of the female figurines changed again. They were now more modestly clothed, as in a figure of a mother carrying a child (Pl. XLh).19 She wears a long garment with vertical decoration. In the Hellenistic period, the concept of the female figure placed in the shrine become idealized (Pl. XLi).20 The stylized idealization of the Classical and Hellenistic periods resulted in a new conception of what was appropriate as a gift to the goddess that included female iconography. We do not know if this clay figurine in Pl. XLi is a donor or the goddess. The shrine was used successively by different ethnic groups: Minoans, Mycenaeans, Dorian Greeks, and Romans. During its long history, the concept of the female figure who was considered appropriate for presentation in the shrine changed from era to era, but the prayer for a healthy mother and child remained constant. A final image illustrates the end of the change in female iconography. A gilded earring illustrates an idealized frontal woman’s face with an elaborate crown with heraldic griffins facing a column whose upper part is damaged (Pl. XLj). A good parallel comes from an Early Hellenistic burial at Chersonissos.21 It provides a date for the class, and it shows the same face but with the missing upper part of the column with the griffins. The parallel shows that the griffins face a crescent and disc at the top of the column, which identifies the figure as the Near Eastern goddess Ishtar. At Inatos, each period of time could visualize the female iconography differently, but the underlying belief must have been constant: the ancient goddess served successive generations in a similar way. The memory of early times was apparently kept alive by displays like the niche with the three metal figurines and a probable display of the Goddess with Upraised Arms and some of the cult equipment that was necessary for her worship. Within this atmosphere of a long-lived tradition, new visitors could provide their own gifts in the hope of help for a successful childbirth and a healthy mother and child. Philip P. BETANCOURT, Leanna KOLONAUSKI, Sydney R. SARASIN

16 17

18

19 20 21

For discussion, see KANTA and DAVARAS (supra n. 2) 111-119. M. VANDERVONDELEN, “Child Birth in Iron Age Cyprus: A Case Study,” in D. BOLGER and N. SERWINT (eds), Engendering Aphrodite. Women and Society in Ancient Cyprus (2002) 143-156; S. BUDIN, “Maternity in Ancient Cyprus,” in S. BUDIN and J. TURFA (eds), Women in Antiquity. Real Women across the Ancient World (2016) 361-374. For detailed discussions of the Dedalic style, see R. JENKINS, Dedalica. A Study of Dorian Plastic Art in the Seventh Century BC (1936); G. RIZZA, Dedalo e le origini della scultura greca (1963); G. KAULEN, Daidalika. Werkstätten griechischer Kleinplastik des 7. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (1967); R. HIGGINS, Greek Terracottas (1967). KANTA and DAVARAS (supra n. 2) 132-133. KANTA and DAVARAS (supra n. 2) 134. A. KANTA,“Μικροαντικείμενα-Κοσμήματα-Χάλκινες Φιάλες,” in KANTA and DAVARAS (supra n. 2) 165.

124

Philip P. BETANCOURT, Leanna KOLONAUSKI and Sydney R. SARASIN LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Pl. XLa Pl. XLb Pl. XLc Pl. XLd Pl. XLe Pl. XLf Pl. XLg Pl. XLh Pl. XLi Pl. XLj

Bronze female figurine, LM I. Ht. 11.3cm. After KANTA and DAVARAS (supra n. 2) 90 no. 83. Bronze female figurine, LM IIIA. Ht. 11.5cm. After KANTA and DAVARAS (supra n. 2) 91, no. 84. Bronze female figurine, LM IIIB. Preserved ht. 4.4cm. After KANTA and DAVARAS (supra n. 2) 91, no. 85. Clay female figurine, Protogeometric. Ht. 10.2cm. Photo Herakleion Museum. Clay pregnant female figurine, Protogeometric.. Ht. 10.2cm. Photo Herakleion Museum. Pair of clay female figurines in preparation for childbirth, Protogeometric. Ht. 7.0cm. Photo Herakleion Museum. Dedalic clay figurine made in a mold, Early Archaic. Ht. 21cm. Photo Herakleion Museum. Clay female figurine holding an infant (kourotrophos), Late Archaic. Preserved ht. 12.6cm. Photo Herakleion Museum. Head of a clay female figurine, Hellenistic. Preserved ht. 12.0cm. Photo Herakleion Museum. Gilded silver female head, foil over a stamped lead core, Hellenistic. Preserved ht. 6.1cm. Photo Herakleion Museum.

XL

IN VINO VERITAS? IN SEARCH OF THE EVIDENCE FOR PAST MINOAN WINE RITUALS BEFORE THE KRATER* 1. The backgrounds of large elaborately decorated containers in Minoan Crete The original idea for this paper arose from a question I often asked myself when studying Late Minoan (hereafter LM) III pottery at Palaikastro in East Crete: what were these big containers, with different forms, but all similarly decorated, used for (Pl. XLIa)? Did these piriform jars, amphoroid kraters, barrel-shaped jars, and tub-larnakes – whether deposited together or separately, in houses or in tombs – each have a specific content, function, and purpose? One LM IIIA2 context from Palaikastro in particular is of great interest. In Building 7, room 12, a piriform jar and a tub-larnax (Pl. XLIb) were found associated with cultic equipment: a decorated rhyton in the form of a bull’s head, a triton shell, and plain storage vessels possibly storing substances to be consumed on a ceremonial occasion through the use of the rhyta, as well as several drinking vessels, carefully stored in the adjoining room.1 On the Mycenaean mainland, the ritual of drinking alcohol, probably wine, was part of a communal ceremony reflecting the horizontal integration but to an even greater extent, the competition of the communities who were invited to feasts sponsored by the palaces. This is a well-known practice – although only one of what were likely multiple forms of feasting – embodied in the archaeological record through the ubiquitous goblets, kylikes and kraters.2 During such ceremonies, which especially intensified at the time of the founding of the palaces in Late Helladic IIIA,3 the krater, used to hold the beverage before distribution, was a main focus.4 A study by J.H. Crouwel and C.E. Morris5 has shown that the Mycenaean amphoroid krater “was not produced for use within a local Mycenaean context, but for export to other regions, notably Cyprus” (my italics) and that this specific shape has its origin on Crete, in the early Late Bronze Age. The first amphoroid kraters appeared in LM II-IIIA1 North-Central Crete, where their size and decoration link them in turn with the contemporary Palace Style Jars, abounding in the new palace at Knossos. 6 These two elaborately decorated kinds of jars are symptomatic of the early Mycenaean period on Crete, but they also have significant roots in earlier Minoan Neopalatial traditions.

* 1

2

3

4

5

6

I would like to thank my friend and colleague Q. Letesson for his comments on a previous version of this paper, and Annelies Van de Ven for revising the English text. T.F. CUNNINGHAM and L.H. SACKETT, “Does the Widespread Cult Activity at Palaikastro Call for a Special Explanation?”, in A.L. D’AGATA and A. VAN DE MOORTEL (eds), Archaeologies of Cult. Essays on Ritual and Cult in Crete in Honor of Geraldine C. Gesell (2009) 79-97; C. LANGOHR and Q. LETESSON, Palaikastro Building 7 (in preparation). E. BORGNA, “Aegean Feasting: A Minoan Perspective,” in J.C. WRIGHT (ed.), The Mycenaean Feast (2004) 145-146. J.C. WRIGHT, “A Survey of Evidence for Feasting in Mycenaean Society,” in WRIGHT (supra n. 2) 4750, but see also 18, 20, 25, Tables 3, 6, fig. 4; S. SHERRATT, “Feasting in Homeric Epic,” in WRIGHT (supra n. 2) 206. E. Borgna has highlighted the meaningful distinction between the important focus on the preparation and manipulation of foods and drinks during the communal feasts in the Minoan world, on the one hand, and the emphasis on the consumption as the main social arena in the Mycenaean world, on the other, see BORGNA (supra n. 2) 146. J.H. CROUWEL and C.E. MORRIS, “The Minoan Amphoroid Krater: From Production to Consumption,” BSA 110 (2015) 147-201. For example, at Tylissos, two amphoroid kraters and a pirifom jar, all decorated in the LM II-IIIA1 “Palace Style” were found in the early LM III occupation levels, cf. J. HAZZIDAKIS, “Scavi a Tylissos in Creta,” Ausonia 8 (1913) 81-82, fig. 7; J. HAZZIDAKIS, Les villas minoennes de Tylissos (1934) Pl. XXVa-b.

126

Charlotte LANGOHR

In this short contribution, I would like to propose a brief look at the different forms and contexts of these brightly painted large containers in the Neopalatial period, in order to question the nature of the activities associated with these particular vessels in Bronze Age Crete. The purpose is to examine how the use of the later LM III jars in part reactivated earlier Minoan social practices, in the framework of this volume’s topic: the appropriation of the past and the role of social memory in the Aegean Bronze Age. The study of large storage vessels in Bronze Age Crete has shed significant light on different issues, from palatial economies to burial practices.7 However, the particular category of large carefully decorated containers may have had little to do with the plain or simply decorated pithoi. As underlined by K. Christakis,8 “painted decoration is a stage in pottery production involving substantial expenditure of energy” and it constitutes an additional element in the semiotic messages conveyed by material things. In the case of pithoid jars, the labour investment was increased further, and because of their size, they dominated the spaces in which they were placed, plausibly communicating the meaning of their symbolic value and use. In this context, the exclusive Palace Style Jars from the Monopalatial period at Knossos have crystallized a lot of the discussions on large elaborately decorated containers,9 and in the absence of any synthetic review of the earlier evidence, Neopalatial specimens are often presented as the forerunners of this specific category. Piriform jars with a high collar were not new in LM II however, they were typical in most of LM I contexts. Among the latter, one group stands out by its decoration with complex painted patterns. K. Christakis has shown that in the case of this particular group of Bronze Age pithoid jars 60% were found in palaces and elite buildings, 30% in burial contexts, and only 10% in the storage rooms of domestic dwellings.10 Moreover, it is generally assumed that the Palace Style Jars were meant for display and placed in specific key spots of the LM II-IIIA1 Knossian palace.11 A similar pattern and contextual distribution have also been observed for earlier Minoan periods. At several instances, Neopalatial piriform jars painted with complex and symbolic motifs were found in destruction deposits that have been assigned a LM IB date: in elite houses at Knossos, but also in contexts of high status at several settlements of Central and East Crete. These large containers are elegantly executed, finely painted and generously decorated with marine compositions, floral and reed motifs, spirals, ivy and whirling leaves, double axes and sacral knots. 2. Neopalatial decorated piriform jars (or pithamphorae) and their associated assemblages The Neopalatial decorated piriform jars appear throughout the different regions of Crete. Here a selected overview is offered that allows a better understanding of the nature of their contexts and their associated assemblages. In two wealthy houses at Knossos, these painted piriform jars belong to LM IB ceramic assemblages that were identified by the excavators as cult vessels. They were stored on the upper floor of the North House at the Stratigraphical Museum Extension site,12 with numerous cup-rhyta hoarded in two pithoi, and at the upper floor of the house of the Royal Road, North,13 also associated with cup-rhyta, as well as to numerous other cups.

7

8 9 10 11 12

13

K.S. CHRISTAKIS, Cretan Bronze Age Pithoi. Traditions and Trends in the Production and Consumption of Storage Containers in Bronze Age Crete (2005). CHRISTAKIS (supra n. 7) 81. W.-D. NIEMEIER, Die Palaststilkeramik von Knossos, Stil, Cronologie und historischer Kontext (1985). CHRISTAKIS (supra n. 7) 81. This group excludes pithoid jars decorated with simple trickle decoration. NIEMEIER (supra n. 9) 141-162. P. WARREN, “Knossos: Stratigraphical Museum Excavations, 1978-1980. Part I,” AR 27 (1981) 86-87, figs 45-46. S. HOOD, “Knossos Royal Road: North, LM IB Deposits,” in T.M. BROGAN and E. HALLAGER (eds), LM IB Pottery. Relative Chronology and Regional Ddifferences. Acts of a Workshop held at the Danish Institute at Athens in Collaboration with the INSTAP Study Center for East Crete, 27-29 June 2007 (2011) 172, fig. 53.

EVIDENCE FOR PAST MINOAN WINE RITUALS BEFORE THE KRATER

127

At Malia, in House Zα, three adjacent storerooms have provided a complete pithamphora and fragments of two others, as well as medium-sized remarkably decorated vessels including two large bridgespouted jars, an amphora with polychrome decoration, and a jug, but also a small askos, a conical rhyton and a prized beak-spouted jug painted in the Marine style.14 Several cooking vessels were also stored with these finer pieces, possibly in preparation for some gathering events that took place in the Minoan Hall, which could also have been structurally opened to the exterior.15 Hundreds of conical cups were also found in proximity to the Hall.16 In the Mesara, decorated pithamphorae were found in a storeroom of the “Royal Villa” at Haghia Triada,17 and in a small magazzino on the first floor of the Casa di Chalara at Phaistos.18 In these cases, the contextual data do not directly suggest a ceremonial nature. In the “Royal Villa”, the jars were stored with other simpler containers and far from the potential ceremonial areas of the building.19 At Phaistos, the LM IB jars are of smaller dimensions and decorated in a simpler manner with a large panel depicting a reeds motif. In this latter case, a storage function for precious liquids (wine or oil) has mainly been attributed to them, as they were 14 in number and stored with smaller containers and pouring vessels without any elaborated ornamentation.20 At Gournia, two of these piriform jars, decorated with various floral motifs, double axes and sacral knots, were discovered to the north of the palace, in House Ee in basement storeroom 29 21 and in House Fi in room 40.22 The latter provided a rich LM IB destruction deposit with numerous finely decorated vessels related to the use of liquids, such as stirrup jars, strainer, jugs, and double vases (Pl. XLIIa).23 At Pseira, one piriform jar appeared in a LM IB deposit from the Plateia Building associated with five rhyta and a jug.24 Three other splendid examples, one with exceptional bull heads decoration, come from buildings excavated by R.B. Seager. Though we lack relevant data on the associated contexts of these last three examples, they have all been dated to LM IA on stylistic grounds.25 14

15

16

17

18 19 20

21

22 23 24

25

P. DEMARGNE and H. GALLET DE SANTERRE, Fouilles exécutées à Mallia par l’Ecole française d’Athènes. Exploration des maisons et quartiers d’habitation (1921-1948). Premier fascicule (1953) 79-93, Pls XXXIX: 3-6, XL: 6, XLIII: 1-5, LIV: 3, LVI: 2-3. Q. LETESSON, Du phénotype au génotype. Analyse de la syntaxe spatiale en architecture minoenne (MM IIIB-MR IB) (2009) 135. DEMARGNE and GALLET DE SANTERRE (supra n. 14) 69-72. For an illuminating analysis of the whole assemblage in House Zα that suggests the minimal “interaction between elites, at the focal center of the rite, and the public, which may have watched or participated but only as anonymous actors”, see BORGNA (supra n. 2) 145-146. D. PUGLISI, Ceramiche Tardo Minoico I da Haghia Triada (Creta): contesti, produzioni, funzioni. I materiali dai primi scavi (1902-1914) (2013) 32-34, 98-99, Pl. VIII. O. PALIO, La casa tardo minoico I di Chalara a Festòs (2001) 296-298, no 351-358, 367-372, fig. 50 ; 344-346. PUGLISI (supra n. 17) 149. O. PALIO, “L‘immagazzinamento nella casa TM I di Chalara (Festòs),” in V. LA ROSA, D. PALERMO and L. VAGNETTI (eds), Epi ponton plazomenoi. Simposio italiano di Studi Egei dedicato a Luigi Bernabò Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli. Roma, 18-20 febbraio 1998 (1999) 146-149; PALIO (supra n. 18) 363. H. BOYD-HAWES, B.E. WILLIAMS, R.B. SEAGER, and E.H. HALL, Gournia, Vasiliki and other Prehistoric Sites on the Isthmus of Hierapetra, Crete (1908) 44, Pl. IX: 28. BOYD-HAWES et al. (supra n. 21) 60, Pl. K. BOYD-HAWES et al. (supra n. 21) 26, Pls K, IX: 1, 4-6, 9, 13-16. P.P. BETANCOURT and C. DAVARAS (eds), Pseira III. The Plateia Building (1998) 65-67, figs 15-16. Another LM IB example was found in Building BO by R.B. Seager in 1906-1907 (P.P. BETANCOURT and C. DAVARAS [eds], Pseira IV. Minoan Buildings in Areas B, C, D, and F [1999] 119, ill. 39; P.P. BETANCOURT, Minoan Objects excavated from Vasilike, Pseira, Sphoungaras, Priniatikos Pyrgos, and Others Sites [1983] 29, no 54, fig. 9), but no other objects originally associated with it can be recognized in the Museum collections. Two of them come from Building AD north, found in a row alongside seven other jars in an area identified as being used for domestic activities (P.P. BETANCOURT and C. DAVARAS [eds], Pseira I. The Minoan

128

Charlotte LANGOHR

At Petras, in House II.1, a piriform jar decorated with double axe motifs was found in a collapsed upper floor deposit, with several jugs, dozens of cups of different types, but also many cooking vessels.26 At Palaikastro, in Building 5, which sheltered the famous Kouros, a broken piriform jar in the LM IB polychrome style was found that is said to be very similar to examples at Zakros.27 In this context, it was associated with two cup-rhyta, a jug, and three plain pithoi.28 Still in Palaikastro, in Block N which provided the well-known stirrup jar in the Marine style, a LM IB decorated piriform jar was found, associated in the same room with an a priori prized MM III spouted large jar, as well as finely decorated jugs and strainers, several cups, and two pithoi.29 At Karoumes, within the East Building of the Sea Guard-House, a richly decorated piriform jar was uncovered belonging to the final Neopalatial occupation horizon of the site, in LM IB.30 The vessel was standing on the upper floor of the building – where a larger residential space probably existed – associated with other decorated vessels such as a beak-spouted jug, an askos, bus also a stone tripod offering table.31 At Zakros, about twenty specimens of pithamphorae were found in the west wing of the palace, in basement storerooms in proximity to the Central Shrine, or fallen down from the upper floor, associated among others vessels with finely decorated bridge-spouted jars and jugs, and other libation vases, as well as hundreds of painted cups.32 This particular class of decorated large containers was also exported. Turning to LM IA, Thera is particularly meaningful. I. Nikolakopoulou33 has shown that “the most prominent among the imported Cretan storage vessels in Akrotiri are the pithoid jars with a high quality of manufacture and the application of decoration”. These imported, but also locally produced pithoid jars, bearing the

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

Buildings on the West Side of Area A [1995] 94-95, figs 27, 45, Pl. 23C-E) and one was found in Building AB, room 3 (BETANCOURT and DAVARAS, ibidem, 34-35, figs 16, 38, Pl. 13). P.P. Betancourt talks about a “LM IA deposit” for the latter, P.P. BETANCOURT, “Pottery at Pseira in LM IB,” in BROGAN and HALLAGER (supra n. 13) 403, fig. 2. M. TSIPOPOULOU and M.E. ALBERTI, “LM IB Petras: the Pottery from Room E in House II.1,” in BROGAN and HALLAGER (supra n. 13) 467, fig. 6; N. MAVROUDI, “Interpreting Domestic Space in Neopalatial Crete: A Few Thoughts on House II at Petras, Siteia,” in K.T. GLOWACKI and N. VOGEIKOFF-BROGAN (eds), STEGA. The Archaeology of Houses and Households in Ancient Crete (2011) 124. This jar is unpublished. I warmly thank Alexander MacGillivray for sharing information about this vessel with me. It is compared to the Zakros jar published in N. PLATON, Zakros. The Discovery of a Lost Palace of Ancient Crete (1971) fig. p. 117 top. J.A. MACGILLIVRAY, L.H. SACKETT, J. DRIESSEN, C. MACDONALD, and D. SMYTH, “Excavations at Palaikastro 1987,” BSA 83 (1988) 269, fig. 4. L.H. SACKETT and M. POPHAM, “Excavations at Palaikastro VII,” BSA 65 (1970) 220, 238, fig. 16, NP69. L. VOKOTOPOULOS, “Between Palaikastro and Zakros: the Pottery from the Final Neopalatial Horizon of the Sea Guard-House, Karoumes,” in BROGAN and HALLAGER (supra n. 13) 561, fig. 8. Typo-stylistic elements point, however, to an earlier date for the production of this vase, possibly in LM IA. L. VOKOTOPOULOS, “A View of the Neopalatial Countryside: Settlement and Social Organization at Karoumes, Eastern Crete,” in GLOWACKI and VOGEIKOFF-BROGAN (supra n. 26) 141-142, fig. 13.4f-g. I thank L. Vokotopoulos for discussing all this information with me. PLATON (supra n. 27) 116, fig. p. 117; L. PLATON, “The Political and Cultural Influence of the Zakros Palace on Nearby Sites and in a Wider Context,” in J. DRIESSEN, I. SCHOEP, and R. LAFFINEUR (eds), Monuments of Minos. Rethinking the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the International Workshop “Crete of the hundred Palaces?” held at the Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, 14-15 December 2001 (2002) 148-149, Pls XLVa-b, XLVIb. I. NIKOLAKOPOULOU, “Remarks on Storage and Chronology in Late Cycladic I Akrotiri, Thera: a Response to Kostis Christakis,” in BROGAN and HALLAGER (supra n. 13) 257, figs 4-5.

EVIDENCE FOR PAST MINOAN WINE RITUALS BEFORE THE KRATER

129

iconography of the double axe and the figure-of-eight shield, have good parallels with the aforementioned LM IB examples of Knossos and East Crete. However, with the evidence on Thera, the production and use of these vessels on Crete in a LM IA horizon is clearly suggested. Such a style and date had indeed been already attributed by the excavators to some of these pithoid jars found in LM IB contexts on Crete (e.g. Pseira, Karoumes, see above), indicating that some of them could have been esteemed heirlooms. On another note, and going back to the amphorioid krater, J.H. Crouwel and C.E. Morris have shown that this particular shape could have had very early prototypes, in Neopalatial bronze vessels. Evidence is sparse but two examples found in later tombs in Cyprus are worthy of mention.34 The detailed analysis of the iconography and style of their relief decoration demonstrates a Minoan Neopalatial iconographic framework. Both kraters bear representations of Minoan genii and of beaked jugs (Pl. XLIIb). J.H. Crouwel and C.E. Morris have pointed to different elements that favour a LM I date for these bronze kraters, in particular, a well-known LM I stone triton shell from Malia,35 which also depicts, in a very similar manner, two genii, one pouring something from a beaked jug on the paws of the other in a possible ritual act of libation. In a nutshell, the contextual features associated with these Neopalatial large and richly decorated vessels, of high-quality manufacture, functioning as vehicles of meaningful symbols, all indicate a strong relationship to the use of liquids, as well as a regulated circulation. Indeed, their quantity on each site is rather limited (from one to half a dozen) with the exception of the palace of Zakros. 3. The function of elaborately decorated piriform jars and amphoroid kraters in Minoan Crete Their easily accessible contents, good transportability, imposing size suitable for generous symbolic painted decoration, elite contexts, and repeated association with finely decorated jugs, rhyta, but also drinking vessels, are convincing indication that these Neopalatial vessels were a focal point of ceremonies during which they presented and handled liquids – possibly wine – apparently distributed both through libation acts and drinking consumption.36 As evoked in the title of this contribution, a remaining question is: how do these Minoan Neopalatial practices relate to the use of the later, numerous and various, LM III large containers? As a concluding answer, I would like to focus on what appear to me as three “moments” in the development and use of these elaborately decorated Minoan pithoid jars. The LM IB period saw an increased competition between the different regional, political groups, which resulted in an increased appeal for conspicuous consumption between stronger elites.37 The specific contexts detailed above point to socially restricted gatherings. The increasing use of these impressive, flamboyant piriform jars, decorated with highly meaningful Minoan symbols (double axes, bull heads, sacral knots), would coincide with the development of new social practices. They were prized items, structuring regulated acts, including the use of ritual vessels such as rhyta and elegant jugs, to distribute the liquid contained in the pithamphora, most possibly wine.38 Yet, it would be essential to assess how the

34

35

36

37

38

CROUWEL and MORRIS (supra n. 5) 155, cats. e and f, figs 9-11. The first one was found at KourionKaloriziki, the second is presumably from Cyprus, maybe from Kition, and is conserved at Metropolitan Museum of Art (https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/244563). C. BAURAIN, “Pour une autre interprétation des génies minoens,” in P. DARCQUE and J.-C. POURSAT (eds), L’iconographie minoenne. Actes de la table ronde d’Athènes (21-22 avril 1983) (1985) 95-96, fig. 1. This rhyton was found in the north-east area of the palace at Malia (C. BAURAIN and P. DARCQUE, “Un triton en pierre à Mallia,” BCH 107 [1983] 3-58). See the perceptive analysis on the different participants in these ceremonies as suggested by BORGNA (supra n. 2). J. DRIESSEN and C.F. MACDONALD, The Troubled Island. Minoan Crete before and after the Santorini Eruption (1997). See already L. VOKOTOPOULOS, Το κτηριακό συγκρότημα του Φυλακίου της Θάλασσας στον όρμο Καρούμες και η περιοχή του. Ο χαρακτήρας της κατοίκησης στην ύπαιθρο της Ανατολικής Κρήτης κατά τη Νεοανακτορική εποχή, Ph.D. Diss., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (2007) 287.

130

Charlotte LANGOHR

contexts in which these large elaborately decorated jars were found differ from Neopalatial structured deposits full of drinking vessels – sometimes also associated with cooking pots and food remains – that are the results of communal events, some of which were specifically connected to the construction or renovation of palatial or elite buildings but which a priori lack the presence of such large decorated vessels (cf. I. Caloi, this volume). After the general LM IB collapse, the Palace Style Jars of the Monopalatial period, essentially found in the Knossian new palace and wealthy tombs, are symptomatic of what has been explained as a short transitional period of social experimentation: rallying around the Minoan past and implementing new external elements, in this case, an entirely new decorative syntax.39 These jars have been interpreted as having a specific function in a specific context: portable items on display, interacting with the astonishing wall paintings which adorned the new palace. Catherine Egan40 has suggested, furthermore, that they also served as ritual equipment, since a number of examples feature symbolic motifs that are not depicted in the palace wall paintings. Hence, they could have acted as temporary “set dressing”,41 setting the stage for ritual performances held by the Knossian elite who embodied the new central authority and most possibly mixed individuals of both Mycenaean and Minoan origins. These jars would then have functioned as focal objects in a much controlled and entirely new built environment, as both warrants of the Minoan past and indicators of an innovative and highly distinctive style that would soon make it to the Mainland.42 Later, from LM IIIA onwards, these piriform jars belong to a new, enlarged production tradition of big coarse vessels, still brightly decorated, alongside amphoroid kraters, barrel-shaped jars and reactivated larnakes (Pl. XLIa). Despite clear connections between and within regionally produced groups, the definition of their respective functions and contexts is complex, because of their clearly multi-faceted nature, having been found, jointly or separately, in domestic, ritual and funerary environments. Their find context ranges from small storage rooms in large dwellings associated with simple storage domestic vessels, such as in the LM IIIA2 Building 4 at Palaikastro,43 to simple or wealthy tombs, associated with drinking vessels or not, such as in the LM IIIB-C tombs at Milatos.44 One indicative element may lie in the fact that these large elaborately decorated containers were now esteemed enough, in memory of their affiliation with items of high social status in the Minoan past, to remain in use for decades through several changes in their contexts of use or ownership, from their utilisation in life to their much later deposition in tombs.45 39

40

41

42 43

44

45

L. PRESTON, “Mortuary Practices and the Negotiation of Social Identities at LMII Knossos,” AJA 103 (1999) 131-143; L. PRESTON, “A Mortuary Perspective on Political Changes in Late Minoan II-IIIB Crete,” AJA 108 (2004) 321-348; J. DRIESSEN and C. LANGOHR, “Rallying Around a Minoan Past. The Legitimation of Power at Knossos during the Late Bronze Age,” in M.L. GALATY and W.A. PARKINSON (eds), Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces. New Interpretations of an Old Idea, 2nd edition (2007) 178189. E.C. EGAN, “From Permanent to Portable: The Ceramic Perpetuation of Painted Landscapes at Knossos in the Final Palatial Period,” in A. VLACHOPOULOS and Ch. DOUMAS (eds), ΧΡΩΣΤΗΡΕΣ-PAINTBRUSHES / Wall-Painting and Vase-Painting of the 2nd Millennium BC in Dialogue. An International Conference on the Aegean Iconography Held at Akrotiri, Thera, 24-26 Μay 2013 (abstracts) 129. E.C. EGAN, “Cut from the Same Cloth: The Textile Connection between Palace Style Jars and Knossian Wall Paintings,” in M.-L. NOSCH and R. LAFFINEUR (eds), KOSMOS. Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 13th International Aegean Conference, University of Copenhagen, Danish National Research Foundation’s Centre for Textile Research, 21-26 April 2010 (2012) 322. DRIESSEN and LANGOHR (supra n. 39) 184. J.A. MACGILLIVRAY, A. SARPAKI, J.-P. OLIVIER, J. WEINGARTEN, L.H. SACKETT, J. DRIESSEN, R. BRIDGES and D. SMYTH, “Excavations at Palaikastro 1988,” BSA 84 (1989) 432, 434, Pls 65-66. A.J. EVANS, The Prehistoric Tombs of Knossos. I. The Cemetery of Zafer Papoura; II. The Royal Tomb of Isopata (1906) figs 105-106. The most prized items may have had a long and intricate biography in the Aegean Bronze Age, as suggested by the Homeric epics that mention the changing owners of valued and long-lived metal kraters and drinking vessels, SHERRATT (supra n. 3) 187-188, 201.

EVIDENCE FOR PAST MINOAN WINE RITUALS BEFORE THE KRATER

131

Although their size and sophisticated decoration make them the best candidates for commensal ceremonies, their contextual analysis suggests a much more varied functional and ideological framework, now independent of any central authority, while still certainly embodying the privileged occasions in which power relationships were created and negotiated.46 Charlotte LANGOHR

46

For the later LM IIIB-IIIC periods in particular, see the analysis of E. BORGNA, “Social Meanings of Food and Drink Consumption at LMIII Phaistos,” in P. HALSTEAD and J.C. BARRETT (eds), Food, Cuisine and Society in Prehistoric Greece (2004) 183.

132

Charlotte LANGOHR LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Pl. XLIa Pl. XLIb Pl. XLIIa Pl. XLIIb

LM IIIA2-B piriform jar, amphoroid krater, barrel-shaped jar, and tub-larnax from Palaikastro. Respectively from Building 4, Block Gamma, Block Pi (2) (©British School at Athens). Palaikastro, Building 7, room 12. LM IIIA2 decorated tub-larnax and piriform jar (©British School at Athens; drawing by Hannah Joris). Gournia, Building Fi, room 40, piriform jar, strainer, and jugs, LM IB (after BOYD-HAWES et al. [supra n. 21] Pls K and IX: 1, 9, 13). Relief decoration on the handle of a bronze amphoroid krater, presumably produced in Neopalatial Crete and deposited in a later tomb in Cyprus, maybe at Kition, conserved at Metropolitan Museum of Art (https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/244563).

XLI

a

b

XLII

a

b

D. MEMORIAL PRACTICES IN THE CYCLADES

RAOS AND AKROTIRI: MEMORY AND IDENTITY IN LC I/LM IA THERA AS REFLECTED IN SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND CERAMIC PRODUCTION Introduction In both earlier and current theoretical cultural studies, memory, either individual or collective/social, is closely associated with places and objects.1 So I have chosen to approach the topic of memory and identity of the Theran society in the final occupation phase before the volcanic eruption through both settlement patterns, that is places in their environments, and ceramic vessels, a truly large group of objects. Both habitation sites, in a number of cases at least, and pottery have a long history in Thera that dates back to the Neolithic period or Early Bronze Age. They evolved constantly until the island’s abandonment before the volcanic eruption, unlike other aspects of everyday life and art, such as script, an advanced measuring system, and the art of wall painting that were introduced to Thera from Crete at some time of the Middle and/or the very beginning of the Late Bronze Age. It should also be noted that new evidence for the two subjects I review here has emerged during the past twenty years, so we are now in a better position to approach the topic of memory and identity in LC I Thera through them. Environment and memory: Raos and settlement patterns in LC I Thera Regarding settlement patterns, research into the landscape of Thera, Therasia and Aspronisi prior to the Bronze Age eruption is very much limited, because the pre-eruption land surface of all three islands is covered with thick layers of volcanic material, ash and pumice, ejected by the volcano, in some places up to 70m thick. Nevertheless, excavations and field research from the late 19th century to the 1980s conducted first in quarries, where volcanic materials were removed for exploitation, and second in banks and beds of streams, in ravines and on hilltops, where materials are removed naturally by soil erosion or by strong winds, have revealed significant evidence for settlement in prehistoric Thera including LC I, i.e. the period before the eruption, when prehistoric Thera was at the height of its cultural and economic prosperity.2 Sperling’s pioneering work in the early 1970s offers an early insight into the settlement patterns on pre-eruption Thera.3 Very important in this field is the study presented at the 3rd International Congress of Thera and the Aegean World by Davis and Cherry in 1989.4 These scholars drew the following notable 1

2

3 4

R.M. VAN DYKE and S.E. ALCOCK, “Archaeologies of Memory: An Introduction,” in R.M. VAN DYKE and S.E. ALCOCK (eds), Archaeologies of Memory (2003) 1-13; A. ASSMANN, “Memory, Individual and Collective,” in R.E. GOODIN and C. TILLY (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis (2006) 210-224; D. NADALI, “Community and Individuals: How Memory Affects Public and Private Life in the Ancient Near East,” in D. NADALI (ed.), Envisioning the Past Through Memories. How Memory Shaped Ancient Near Eastern Societies (2016) 37-52. In using the term LC I here, I mean the phase B of the last period of occupation at Akrotiri. For the definition of this phase, see M. MARTHARI, “The Chronology of the Last Phases of Occupation of Akrotiri in the Light of the Eevidence from the West House Pottery Groups,” in D.A. HARDY and A.C. RENFREW (eds), Thera and the Aegean World III, vol. 3: Chronology. Proceedings of the Third International Congress, Santorini, Greece, 3-9 September 1989 (1990) 57-70 with Table I. J.N. SPERLING, Thera and Therasia (1973). J. DAVIS and J. CHERRY, “Spatial and Temporal Uniformitarianism in Late Cycladic I: Perspectives from Kea and Milos on the Prehistory of Akrotiri,” in D.A. HARDY, C.G. DOUMAS, J.A.

136

Marisa MARTHARI

inferences by comparing the distribution patterns of Thera with those of Melos and Keos: first, the sites in the countryside of Thera in LC I were several, despite the difficulties of investigating the pre-eruption environment, while the intensive surface surveys have shown an absence of rural sites on both Melos and Keos during this phase; then, some of the Theran sites “share elements of architectural and artefactual sophistication with Akrotiri itself”; and lastly, the most obvious parallel for a Theran pattern of dispersed settlement is LM I Crete. The investigations from the 1980s onwards have added more rural sites to the already known settlement pattern of LC I pre-eruption Thera. LC I along with LM IΑ sherds have been collected at several points on the Akrotiri Peninsula and Emporeio area, such as on the banks of the seasonal torrents, but further evaluation of these locations is not possible for the time being.5 In addition, two new LC I sites with architectural remains have been identified, Chalarovounia and Raos, the first by surface investigation and the second by excavation. Chalarovounia is a hill to the north of the village of Emboreio (Pl. XLIIIa-b), which offers a view of the plain stretching from Emboreio to Akrotiri and the open sea to the southeast. Remains of a long rubble-masonry wall and some stone piles on the top of the hill indicate the existence of an establishment there. Local Theran pottery dated from the LC I period, together with pottery imported from Minoan Crete and other Cycladic islands, was found scattered around the building remains.6 The most important new site is Raos, located on the northern side of the Akrotiri peninsula7 at the edge of the southern side of the Theran caldera with an excellent view to the Kamenes islets, Therasia and north Thera (Pl. XLIIIa and c). It was situated on the outskirts of the LC I town at Akrotiri (which lies on the southern side of the homonymous peninsula close to the sea), less than 1km from its northwest limit, on the route leading to the hinterland of the peninsula, where there are extensive tracts of arable land. Geological and volcanic research during the past twenty years has shown that the form of Thera prior to the Bronze Age eruption was not very different from what it is today (Pl. XLIIIb). The caldera was in its present position, but it was more closed than it is now, since Therasia was at that time joined to Aspronisi and, according to one version, also to Thera. The crater of the volcano was in the same location as today, that is, on an islet corresponding to the Kamenes.8 Thus, during the Bronze Age there was, as today, a view from Raos toward the caldera and the volcano. Excavations there, mainly from 2009 to 2012, have brought to light a significant LC I complex atop the long and narrow crest of the hill (total area about 700m2) (Pl. XLIVa), consisting of a residential

5 6

7

8

SAKELLARAKIS, and P.M. WARREN (eds), Thera and the Aegean World III, vol. 1. Proceedings of the Third International Congress, Santorini, Greece, 3-9 September 1989 (1990) 185-193. The selection of sherds was made in the context of occasional fieldwalking by the Ephoria of the Cyclades. M. MARTHARI, “Raos and Chalarovounia: Preliminary Evidence from two New Sites of the Late Cycladic I Period on Thera,” ΑΛΣ 2 (2004) 61-65; EADEM, “Χαλαροβούνια,” ArchDelt (Chron.) 56-59, 2001-2004, Β6 (2012) 154. MARTHARI (supra n. 6, 2004) 57-60, 62-65; EADEM, “Ραός: Οικόπεδο Μ. Αλεφραγκή,” ArchDelt (Chron.) 56-59, 2001-2004, Β6 (2012) 105-106; EADEM, “The Attraction of the Pictorial Reconsidered: Pottery and Wall-paintings, and the Artistic Environment on Late Cycladic I Thera in the Light of the most Recent Research,” in A.G. VLACHOPOULOS (ed.), ΧΡΩΣΤΗΡΕΣ / PAINTBRUSHES. Wall-painting and Vasepainting of the Second Millennium BC in Dialogue. Proceedings of the International Conference on Aegean Iconography held at Akrotiri, Thera, 24-26 May 2013 (2018) 211-213. G. HEIKEN and F. McCOY, “Caldera Development during the Minoan Eruption, Thira, Cyclades, Greece,” Journal of Geophysical Research 89/B10 (1984) 8441-8462; W.L. FRIEDRICH, U. ERIKSEN, H. TAUBER, J. HEINEMEIER, N. RUD, M.S. THOMSEN and B. BUCHARDT, “Existence of a Waterfilled Caldera prior to the Minoan Eruption of Santorini, Greece,” Nat.wiss. 75 (1988) 567-569; T.H. DRUITT and V. FRANCAVIGLIA, “An Ancient Caldera Cliff Line at Phira, and its Significance for the Topography and Geology of Pre-Minoan Santorini,” in HARDY et al. (supra n. 4) 362-369; G. VOUGIOUKALAKIS, “The Minoan Eruption and the Aegean World,” ΑΛΣ 4 (2006) 20-55; F.W. McCOY, “The Eruption within the Debate about the Date,” in D.A. WARBURTON, Time’s Up! Dating the Minoan Eruption of Santorini. Acts of the Minoan Eruption Chronology workshop, Sandbjerg November 2007 (2009) 73-90.

RAOS AND AKROTIRI: MEMORY AND IDENTITY IN LC I/LM IA THERA

137

building (approximately 110m2) (Pl. XLIVb), a spacious courtyard bounded by a robust stone-built enclosure and terrace wall and an auxiliary space (some 35m2) adjacent to the inner face of this wall (Pl. XLIVc). Despite the poor state of preservation by Theran standards due to its location at the brow of the pre-eruption caldera, opposite the volcano (Pl. XLIIIb), the evidence shows that the residential building will have been a quite impressive free-standing edifice with parts built from ashlar blocks of tuff, in all likelihood in the entrance area. Grey volcanic slabs from paved floors, abundant terracotta slabs, which possibly covered the lower parts of some interior walls, and a considerable number of artefacts found in the destruction level, deposited far above the floor-levels of the ground floor strongly suggest the existence of an upper storey, covering all or part of the ground floor plan. On the ground floor at least seven rooms have come to light thus far. The Raos building seems to be similar in size to private houses in the town at Akrotiri, which include seven to ten rooms on the ground floor.9 The most unexpected and impressive find, however, is the high-quality wall-paintings of the Raos residential building (Pl. XLVa-b). Most of the fresco fragments were found on intact or broken mud-bricks and must have fallen from a collapsed mud-brick wall. All the fresco fragments belong to one composition, which I call the Wall Painting with the Rosettes and Lilies. This mural adorned a room in the residence area of the complex that was separated from the corridor by a pier-and-door partition. Although the restoration of the fresco is still in progress, there is no doubt that this is tripartite in structure. It has an upper narrow frieze of polychrome rosettes, some of which have purple petals, crowning a wide middle zone with red pendent triangular surfaces with wavy outlines alternating with upright triangles, covered with scattered red lily flowers on a white ground.10 A lower zone of oblong panels embellished with colored wavy bands imitates a polychrome veined marble dado. It is beyond the scope of this paper to present the Raos frescoes and compare them to the Akrotiri ones in detail. This will be the subject of another study. Here I will confine myself to just one observation. The Raos wall painting with the Rosettes and Lilies is not identical to any of the Akrotiri wall paintings, but presents similarities with several of them, the Xesti 3 fresco assemblage in particular, in terms of syntax, motifs, technique and colors including the rare one of purple.11 Consequently, the wall paintings of both Akrotiri and Raos were probably created by the same teams of painters, who executed commissions both in the town itself and in the rich surrounding area. The household equipment brings to mind the richest deposits at Akrotiri. The finds include gold jewelry, lead balance weights, bronze objects such as hooks, sickles, a knife and fragments of bronze vessels, and imported Cretan serpentine vases such as a lamp (Pl. XLVIa-b) and two bucket-jars. Local pottery is plentiful. The shapes are both Cycladic (Pl. XLVIc) and Minoanising (Pl. XLVId-e), and they are known to us for the most part from the town at Akrotiri. The imported vessels, which represent no more than 10% of the total assemblage, likewise have parallels at Akrotiri. Most are of Minoan provenance (Pl. XLVIf-g), among which are LM IA fine wares of both central and east Crete. Τhere are, however, imports from other Aegean places as well. The Raos complex, as far as the residential building is concerned, recalls the most significant buildings in the town at Akrotiri as regards advanced architecture, decoration with frescoes and rich finds. Akrotiri, however, is a densely inhabited urban center, and the absence of private outdoor space, that is courtyards, is one of its main features. By contrast, the Raos complex has a large courtyard. In this respect it is closer to other LC I countryside individual complexes, such as those at Balos very close to Raos to the east but low down next to the sea and again at Ftellos in the middle of the eastern side of the Caldera, as well as the units in the rural settlement at the Alafouzos quarry in Therasia (Pl. XLIIIb). All three sites have buildings with courts suitable for rural activities and penning livestock. The Balos complex seems to

9

10 11

Cf. C. PALYVOU, Akrotiri Thera. An Architecture of Affluence 3,500 Years Old (2005) 46-53, 63-95, fig. 46, 76, 86, 90, 99, 107, 112, 116, 122, 126. MARTHARI (supra n. 7, 2018). For the use of purple in Xesti 3 frescoes, see Ε. ΧΡΥΣΙΚΟΠΟΥΛΟΥ and Σ. ΣΩΤΗΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΥ, “Το ιώδες στην παλέτα του Θηραίου ζωγράφου,” in Α. ΒΛΑΧΟΠΟΥΛΟΣ and Κ. ΜΠΙΡΤΑΧΑ (eds), Αργοναύτης. Τιμητικός τόμος για τον καθηγητή Χρ. Γ. Ντούμα (2003) 490-504.

138

Marisa MARTHARI

be also a farmstead, though not as rich as that at Raos: it includes a residence with three rooms and an individual room beside it in contact with part of a stone-built pen, which, in my opinion, could demarcate a courtyard.12 The Ftellos complex, interpreted as a pastoral installation, has rooms of special use around a central courtyard, attached to a stone-built enclosure wall.13 The main excavated domestic unit in the Alafouzos quarry settlement has a residence to the west with six rooms on the ground floor and a large court to the east, including a small circular construction made of ashlar blocks, which resembles a well, close to its stone-built enclosure wall.14 A few MC sherds found among the LC I/LM IA pottery from the Raos residential building’s destruction deposit, accidentally incorporated in the walls and floors, allow us to suggest that the site of Raos was inhabited earlier. The situation in the area of the enclosure wall of the courtyard leaves no room for doubt on this subject. The destruction level of this wall is LC I, as is the building. The wall, however, must have been built initially in the late MC – a period also represented at the town at Akrotiri15 – as is evident from the pottery of that time (late MC Black Burnished [Pl. XLVIIa] and Cycladic White wares both monochrome [Pl. XLVIIb, bottom, and XLVIIc, left] and bichrome, Pl. XLVIId]) found in a fragmentary condition in its foundations. A few sherds of early MC vessels of Cycladic White ware included in the pottery found under the enclosure wall of the courtyard (Pls XLVIIb, top, and XLVIIc, right), show that there was human activity in the area even before its construction, that is, from the early MC – a period primarily represented at a settlement with dug-out houses at Ftellos16 and a cemetery at Ayios Ioannis Eleemon (Karageorgis quarry),17 both set in the middle of the eastern Caldera, and again, if to a lesser degree, at Akrotiri where sherds of this period have been found, but not associated with building remains.18 Moreover, in the wider region of Raos, there is scattered about EC pottery that indicates the

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

For the LC I site at Balos, see H. GORCEIX and H. MAMET, “Recherches et fouilles faites à Théra Santorin par MM. Mamet et Gorceix, membres de l’École française,” BCH 9 (1870) 187-191; F.A. FOUQUÉ, Santorin et ses éruptions (1879) 118-122; SPERLING (supra n. 3) 13-14, 53-56 with literature; R.L.N. BARBER, “The Late Cycladic Period: a Review,” BSA 76 (1981) no 41; I. ΤΖΑΧΙΛΗ, Οι αρχές της Αιγαιακής Προϊστορίας. Οι ανασκαφές στη Θήρα και τη Θηρασία τον 19ο αιώνα (2006) 77, 173-182; W.L. FRIEDRICH, Santorini. Volcano, Natural History, Mythology (2009) 182-185, figs 10.29-10.30, 10.32-10.34; W.L. FRIEDRICH and A. HØJEN SØRENSEN, “New Light on the Ship Fresco from Late Bronze Age Thera,” PrähZ 85.2 (2010) 243257. For the LC I site at Ftellos, see C. DOUMAS, “Φτελλος,” ΑΕphem (1973) 161-166; IDEM, “A Lonely Steading in Late Bronze Age Thera,” ΑΛΣ 4 (2006) 82-91. For the LC I site at the Alaphouzos quarry in Therasia, see FOUQUÉ (supra n. 12) 96-103; SPERLING (supra n. 3) 39, 56-61 with literature; BARBER (supra n. 12) no 48; ΤΖΑΧΙΛΗ (supra n. 12) 111-144. This period is represented at Akrotiri by first the foundation deposits of the West House, containing local polychrome nippled ewers with swallows, and second in parts of buildings retaining their floors with both local bichrome pictorial and imported MM IIIA pottery, which have been revealed in the pits dug for the pillars of the site's new shelter. On these deposits, see mainly MARTHARI (supra n. 2) 61, 66-67, 69, fig. 1-3, 13, Pl. 1; C. KNAPPETT and I. NIKOLAKOPOULOU, “Colonialism without Colonies? A Bronze Age Case Study from Akrotiri, Thera,” Hesperia 77 (2008). For this late EC-early MC settlement, see M. MARTHARI, “Αvασκαφή στη θέση Φτέλλoς Θήρας: περίoδoς 1980,” ArchAnAth 15 (1982) 86-100; EADEM, “Θήρα, Φτέλλoς,” ArchDelt (Chron.) 35, 1980, Β2 (1988) 472-473; EADEM, “Θήρα, Φτέλλoς,” ArchDelt (Chron.) 36, 1981, Β2 (1989) 373-375; EADEM, “Η Θήρα από την Πρώιμη στη Μέση Εποχή του Χαλκού: Τα αποτελέσματα των ανασκαφών στον Φτέλλο και τον ΄Αγιο Ιωάννη τον Ελεήμονα,” in Ι.Μ. DANEZIS (ed.), Σαντορίνη, Θήρα, Ασπρονήσι, Ηφαιστεία (2001) 106109, figs 1-8. This site is not far from the LC I Ftellos complex (supra n. 13). For this late EC-early MC cemetery, see A. PAPAGIANNOPOULOU, Τhe Influence of Middle Minoan Pottery on the Cyclades (1991) 31-32, 321-323, Pls 3-4; MARTHARI (supra n. 16, 2001) 109-111, figs 13-22. MARTHARI (supra n. 16, 2001) 112-114; I. NIKOLAKOPOULOU, F. GEORMA, A. MOSCHOU and P. SOFIANOU, “Trapped in the Middle: New Stratigraphic and Ceramic Evidence from MC Akrotiri, Thera,” in N. BRODIE, J. DOOLE, G. GAVALAS and C. RENFREW (eds), Horizon-Ορίζων. A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades (2008) 317.

RAOS AND AKROTIRI: MEMORY AND IDENTITY IN LC I/LM IA THERA

139

existence of a human presence already at that time, as occurs in other areas in Thera.19 It has to be stressed that, excluding Crete itself, it is the first time in the South Aegean that a habitation unit, such as here at Raos, that includes a luxurious residence decorated with wall paintings, is located outside the boundaries of the main urban center of an island or land area during the early phase of the Late Bronze Age, the phase in which the phenomenon of Minoanisation in the South Aegean is at its peak. So, to the already known complex settlement system of pre-eruption Thera, a “villa”, a wealthy farmstead, was added, which brings the island even closer to Neopalatial Crete than the rest of the Cyclades and beyond.20 The excavations carried out in Thera, including the recent one at Raos, helps to clarify that a settlement hierarchy based on at least three types of sites existed in LC I Thera: a) a major urban center and harbor, i.e. the town at Akrotiri, which is the economic and political center of the island; b) hamlets or villages like that at the Alaphousos quarry in Therasia; and c) isolated occupational units of various kinds from meager pastoral structures such as the establishment at Ftellos to simple farmsteads such as that at Balos and even actually wealthy ones such as that at Raos. Sites that have been identified by fieldwalking – and these are many – are classified in the last two types, or possibly constitute yet other sorts that cannot be accurately determined at present. Consequently, there can be no doubt that the built environment of pre-eruption Thera was Minoanised to a great extent. A number, however, of the LC I habitation sites dispersed across the island’s landscape, including the most important of them, Akrotiri and Raos, were founded on earlier habitation sites dating back to the EC or MC period, which shows a strong memory and persistence in the occupation processes and land use. The introduction of Cretan ways and habits has decisively influenced the character of the Theran hinterland. Nevertheless memory played an important guiding role in selecting LC I domestic sites. Objects and memory: aspects of pottery in the LC I town at Akrotiri and other Theran sites As regards the pottery, the excavations at both Akrotiri21 and Raos22 in the 2000s and 2010s increased the ceramic material from the Volcanic Destruction Level, assigned chronologically to LC I period, by hundreds of complete vessels and thousands of sherds. Yet, despite this increase the picture we had of this pottery has not essentially changed. The relative percentages of imported and local pottery 19

20

21

22

For the Neolithic and EC settlement in Thera, see P. SOTIRAKOPOULOU, “Οι αρχαιολογικές μαρτυρίες για την πρώτη κατοίκηση της Θήρας,” in DANEZIS (supra n. 16) 97-104. For the settlement in Neopalatial Crete, see J. DRIESSEN and J.A. MACGILLIVRAY, “The Neopalatial Period in East Crete,” in R. LAFFINEUR (ed.), Transition. Le monde égéen du Bronze moyen au Bronze récent, Actes de la deuxième Rencontre égéenne internationale de l’Université de Liège (18-20 avril 1988) (1989) 99-111; J. DRIESSEN and C.F. MACDONALD, The Troubled Island. Minoan Crete Before and After the Santorini Eruption (1997) 25-33, 36 with fig. 4.1, 119-247; J. REID, Minoan Kato Zakro. A Pastoral Economy (2007) 8-11; J.C. MCENROE, Architecture of Minoan Crete. Constructing Identity in the Aegean Bronze Age (2010) 93-114; L.V. WATROUS and M. SCHULTZ, “Middle Minoan III - Late Minoan I Periods: the Rise of a Regional Stage,” in L.V. WATROUS, D. HAGGIS, K. NOWICKI, N. VOGEIKOFF-BROGAN and M. SCHULTZ, An Archaeological Survey of the Gournia Landscape. A Regional History of the Mirabello Bay, Crete, in Antiquity (2012) 51-63; D.M. BUELL, “Building a Minoan State at Neopalatial Galatas,” in L.V. WATROUS, D.M. BUELL, E. KOKINOU, P. SOUPIOS, A. SARRIS, S. BECKMANN, G. RETHEMIOTAKIS, L.A. TURNER, S. GALLIMORE and M.D. HAMMOND, The Galatas Survey. Socio-economic and Political Development of a Contested Territory in Central Crete during the Neolithic to Ottoman Periods (2017) 55-74. C. DOUMAS, “Ἀνασκαφή Ακρωτηρίου Θήρας,” Prakt 154, 1999 (2002); IDEM, “Ἀνασκαφή Ακρωτηρίου Θήρας,” Prakt 155, 2000 (2003); IDEM, “Ἀνασκαφή Ακρωτηρίου Θήρας,” Prakt 156, 2001 (2004); IDEM, “Ἀνασκαφή Ακρωτηρίου Θήρας,” Prakt 157, 2002 (2005); IDEM, “Ἀνασκαφή Ακρωτηρίου Θήρας,” Prakt 158, 2003 (2006). MARTHARI (supra n. 7, 2004); EADEM (supra n. 7, 2012); EADEM (supra n. 7, 2018).

140

Marisa MARTHARI

remain the same. The imported pottery does not exceed ten to fifteen percent of the total of the pottery recovered. About fifty percent of all the imported pottery comes from Minoan Crete. What is particularly important is that the local pottery of the Volcanic Destruction Level can shed light on several aspects of the subject of memory, so allowing us to touch on some subtle and intangible facets of Theran society just prior to the volcano’s eruption. It should be noted that here I mean the abundant local pottery that was produced during the LC I period, and not some heirlooms that also exist in the material of this level. Shapes of two types are evident in this pottery: first those that are a creation of the era, i.e. LC I, and, second those derived from a shared background of traditional ceramic approaches, a memory already formed and in place in Thera before LC I. The shapes of the first category come mainly from imitations of LM IA pottery. These are easy to discern, since as a rule one can compare directly the imported Cretan vessels (Pls XLVIf-g and XLVIIIa) 23 with the contemporary local pottery (Pl. XLVIIIb-c) 24 found together in the Volcanic Destruction Level at Akrotiri and Raos. The comparison indicates that the majority of the Minoanising types of Theran pottery take as their prototypes the LM IA fine wares of both eastern and central Crete, mainly the dark-on-light wares both lustrous and not-lustrous.25 Yet the copying is never precise. The Theran vessels are usually more massive and more globular than the originals.26 Likewise evident is the influence of the coarse Minoan pottery wares. For instance a category of pithoid jars locally made (Pls XLVIIId and XLIXa-b) appears to imitate the pithoid jars of a particular Knossian workshop, which might be active during the entire New Palace period.27 The crescent-shaped handles of the Theran jars joining to the shoulder or belly are a Cycladic idiosyncrasy that supplements this form, adjusting it thereby to the Cycladic spirit. The shapes of the second set are associated primarily with the cultural and social past of the Cyclades and/or Thera itself. Since a great many of them occurred in the Cyclades from the EC and MC periods, it is clear that the potters and their clients chose to retain them until the LC I period. Their form and decoration changed very little from phase to phase. The beaked jugs (Pl. XLIXc) and nippled ewers (Pl. XLIXd), which combine bird-like and anthropomorphic features, are the most interesting examples of this tendency. The neck, with a swelling often present in the lower part and the beaked spout, are reminiscent of the neck, breast, and beaked head of a bird, while the two nipple-like knobs suggest female breasts. The painted decorative elements – eyes, necklaces – emphasise these characteristics still further. Both plastic form and painted decoration express the continuation of the disarming simplicity of Cycladic art. The beaked jug and nippled ewer, and some others of the traditional Cycladic shapes, such as the piriform cup, the “Cycladic” cup (Pls XLVIc and La) and the ribbed vessel (Pl. Lb), have all been recorded on other Cycladic islands, as well as being made in Theran

23

24 25

26

27

W.-D. ΝIEMEIER, “Die Katastrophe von Thera und die spätminoische Chronologie,” JdI 95 (1980) 1-76; M. MARTHARI (supra n. 2) 61-63; EADEM, Ακρωτήρι Θήρας. Η κεραμεική τoυ Στρώματoς της Ηφαιστειακής Καταστρoφής (1993) 44-49. MARTHARI (supra n. 23) 72-362, 421-484. For the various Knossian LM IA dark-on-light wares, shapes and motifs, and synchronisms of the Knossian LM IA deposits to other deposits in Crete and beyond, see the thorough overview by E. HATZAKI, “Neopalatial (MM IIIB–LM IB): KS 178, Gypsades Well (Upper Deposit) and SEX North House Groups,” in N. MOMIGLIANO (ed.), Knossos Pottery Handbook. Neolithic and Bronze Age (Minoan) (2007) 172-184. The Theran Volcanic Destruction Level deposits are actually richer than most Cretan LM IA deposits and help us to substantially enhance our knowledge of the LM IA pottery and period. Therefore, it should not be surprising that the shape repertoire of both the LM IA vessels imported to Thera and the local Minoanising vessels includes some forms not yet found in contemporary Cretan assemblages. M. MARTHARI, “The Fine Local Pottery Wares with Painted Decoration from the Volcanic Destruction Level of Akrotiri, Thera,” AA 1987, 359-379. P. MUDD, “Pithoi and Pithoid Jars,” in M.R. POPHAM, The Minoan Unexplored Mansion at Knossos (1984) 178-179, Pl. 77c-d.

RAOS AND AKROTIRI: MEMORY AND IDENTITY IN LC I/LM IA THERA

141

workshops. Other shapes, such as the kymbe and cylindrical rhyton (Pl. LIIa-b and d), have been found thus far only in Thera and they may well have been made only there, since at least the late MC period. There are, however, certain shapes of the second type, which are actually of Minoan origin. They had been introduced to Thera and incorporated into its ceramic tradition much earlier than the LC I period, namely in the early or late MC period: the Theran potters preserved them until LC I. Such an example are the large bowls with loop handles decorated in LCI with applied white motifs, usually floral ones, on a dark ground (Pl. Lc-d), which survived on Thera down to the LC I period.28 They became inseparable parts of the MC Theran memory channel and as such were transferred to the LC I period. On the other hand, the Theran potters chose to keep but redesign a number of shapes that were clearly Cycladic, in a way that reflects Minoan habits in the everyday and religious life of the inhabitants of Thera. For instance they had no hesitation in making rhytons in all the forms of the Cycladic pouring libation vessels, such as the spouted piriform cup (Pl. Le-f), the ribbed vessel, and the nippled ewer (Pl. LIa). This habit, though, of constructing both the pouring libation vessels or other ritual vessels and the rhyta in the same form has its roots in Crete29 rather than in the Cyclades. Indeed at Akrotiri there is a whole series of LM IA imported (or local Minoanising) ritual large-sized cups and their counterparts in the form of rhyta (cup-rhyta).30 The picture we receive of the mixing of features becomes even more complex, if we consider the decoration as well. As a rule, the shapes of Cycladic or Minoan origin have a decoration that corresponds to their place of origin. In quite a few cases, however, we can observe the opposite phenomenon: Cycladic shapes may have Minoan decoration, whilst Minoanising shapes, such as the famous swallows and crocuses strainer (LIb), are decorated in a Theran style. Thus, the great variety observable in both the shapes and decorative styles of Theran vessels is due to the employment of two rich pottery memory channels, the Cycladic and the Minoan, and to the mixing of the two. Moreover, in pictorial Theran pottery influences from other Minoan arts have been confirmed, especially from seal stones. A characteristic example is the adoption of the symbolic iconography of the group of talismanic Minoan seals that illustrate the Minoan libation jug with leaf-bearing branches. The Theran vase painters, however, transformed the Minoan libation jugs on the surfaces of their vessels into nippled ewers (Pl. LIc-d), that is, into the main type of Cycladic libation jug (Pl. LIIc), established in the Cycladic islands from at least the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age.31 The ceramic evidence as a whole shows then that there is a kind of respect for and persistence in the use of local Cycladic libation shapes in the LC I Theran society. Although the inhabitants of Akrotiri imported a limited number of ritual vessels from Crete (a couple of libation jugs decorated with figure-ofeight shields, a bull rhyton, a bull’s head rhyton, a couple of boar’s head rhyta, and not more than 20 other intact and restored rhyta) 32 and also in their own workshops made only a few ritual vessels that imitated the Minoan ones (three vessels in the shape of a triton, nine chalices and a few other shapes),33 yet the usual ritual libation sets, judging by their actually great numbers, remain their own ones – the nipple ewer (Pls XLIXd, LIa and LIIc) (more than one hundred and fifty intact and restored examples) and the cylindrical rhyton (Pl. LIIa-b and d) (more than one hundred intact and restored examples).34 28

29 30 31

32

33 34

For the early and late Middle Cycladic large bowls with loop handles at Akrotiri, see NIKOLAKOPOULOU et al. (supra n. 18) 317, fig. 32.5d, 319; A. PAPAGIANNOPOULOU (supra n. 17) 48, 345 with nos 203-209, fig. 11, Pl. 18. R.B. KOEHL, Aegean Bronze Age Rhyta (2006) 58-64, 313-237, figs 41-46. MARTHARI (supra n. 23) 105-107. On this subject, see in detail M. MARTHARI, “Αγροτική οικονομία και αγροτική λατρεία στο Ακρωτήρι της Θήρας: Στοιχεία από την εξέταση μιας θηραϊκής κεραμικής κατηγορίας,” in C. DOUMAS (ed.), Ακρωτήρι Θήρας. Τριάντα χρόνια έρευνας (1967-1987) (2008) 363-386. For the libation jugs with figure-of-eight shields, see most recently MARTHARI (supra n. 7, 2018) 206207; for most Minoan ritual rhyta imported to LC I Akrotiri, see KOEHL (supra n. 29) cat. nos 20, 96, 99, 100, 101, 105, 163, 164, 171, 172, 306, 333, 334, 337, 338, 431, 631, 635, 1130, 1131, 1135. MARTHARI (supra n. 23) 86-88, 109-112. MARTHARI (supra n. 23) 100-103, 122-130; KOEHL (supra n. 29) cat. nos 209-210.

Marisa MARTHARI

142

In summary, to add to the imports from Crete, a good many Minoanising vessels were produced locally on LC I Thera, meeting the new demands formed by the eager embracing of a Minoan way of life. A great many local pottery shapes, however, were carriers of a pancycladic and/or Theran memory that dated back to MC and sometimes even to the EC period. It is also of particular importance that the predominant ritual libation sets, as is evident from the high frequency in which they appear, are the local Theran ones, of the nippled ewer and the cylindrical rhyton. This is a strong proof that untangling the relationship of ritual behavior with commemorative patterns was challenging35 at LC I Akrotiri and other Theran sites. Conclusion There is no doubt that Thera with its large urban center and safe harbor at Akrotiri and a rather densely populated countryside organized on the basis of Minoan standards was an important place in the Minoanised South Aegean during the LC I/LM IA period, a development that had been under way since the late MC/MM IIIA period. This does not mean that Thera was more Minoanised than other Cycladic islands, such as Melos or Kea, at this time; it means, however, that its scale of development was superior to that of other Cyclades and can only be compared with the most advanced areas of Crete. This high level attained is due to the fact that the island – and especially its main town Akrotiri – was in the south of the Cycladic archipelago, very close to Crete and Knossos in particular, a proximity that resulted in an intimate and possibly special relationship with the dominant Minoan palace center of the time. Thera was possibly a key-island for the Knossian interests in the Cyclades and beyond. On the other hand there is no doubt that the process of how Minoan features penetrated Thera at the cultural and social level is considerably much more complex than, for instance, the penetration of Knossian features into other regions in Crete itself. On Thera, they are introduced into a society with a quite different past and different memories than those in Crete. There exist indeed Minoan features that the inhabitants of Thera chose to adopt or possibly had imposed on them, but equally there are other elements inextricably linked to their Cycladic past, which they chose to maintain or simply could not be uprooted from the Theran cultural and social memory. Thus, while the settlement pattern is of Minoan type, the occupation often continues on sites with an EC and MC past. The pottery production again adopts many elements from Minoan Crete, but it also keeps some important ones from its Cycladic past, indicating a fundamental attachment of the inhabitants to their culture in certain areas, religion and ritual in particular. Marisa MARTHARI

35

VAN DYKE and ALCOCK (supra n. 1) 4.

RAOS AND AKROTIRI: MEMORY AND IDENTITY IN LC I/LM IA THERA

143

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Pl. XLIIIa Pl. XLIIIb Pl. XLIIIc Pl. XLIVa Pl. XLIVb Pl. XLIVc Pl. XLVa Pl. XLVb Pl. XLVIa-b Pl. XLVIc Pl. XLVId Pl. XLVIe Pl. XLVIf-g Pl. XLVIIa Pl. XLVIIb Pl. XLVIIc Pl. XLVIId Pl. XLVIIIa Pl. XLVIIIb Pl. XLVIIIc Pl. XLVIIId Pl. XLIXa-b Pl. XLIXc Pl. XLIXd Pl. La Pl. Lb Pl. Lc-d Pl. Le-f Pl. LIa Pl. LIb Pl. LIc Pl. LId Pl. LIIa-b Pl. LIIc Pl. LIId

Map of Thera, showing the sites of Akrotiri and Raos. Settlement in LC I Thera, the main sites (Map of pre-eruption Thera, after VOUGIOUKALAKIS (supra n. 8) 23, fig. 1. Raos site, seen from the south. In the background, Palaia and Nea Kameni, northern Therasia, eastern and northern Thera and the island of Ios (Balloon photograph by K. Xenikakis). Raos site, atop the long and narrow crest of the Raos hill, during excavation; seen from the northwest (Balloon photograph by K. Xenikakis). Raos building complex: the residential building (Balloon photograph by K. Xenikakis). Raos building complex: the stone-built enclosure and terrace wall and the auxiliary space adjacent to its inner face (Balloon photograph by K. Xenikakis). Raos residential building: fragment of the wall-painting with the Rosettes and Lilies (photograph by K. Xenikakis). Raos residential building: fragment of the wall-painting with the Rosettes and Lilies, detail (photograph by K. Xenikakis). Raos residential building: Minoan serpentine lamp imported to Thera. Raos residential building: local Cycladic cup. Raos residential building: local Minoanising conical cups. Raos residential building: local Minoanising bridge-spouted jar. Raos residential building: Minoan bridge-spouted, collar necked jug imported to Thera. Raos complex: Late MC Black Burnished ware found in the foundations of the enclosure wall of the courtyard. Raos complex: Early and late MC monochrome Cycladic White ware found in the foundations of the enclosure wall of the courtyard. Raos complex: Early and late MC monochrome Cycladic White ware found in the foundations of the enclosure wall of the courtyard. Raos complex: Late MC bichrome Cycladic White ware found in the foundations of the enclosure wall of the courtyard. Akrotiri: Minoan jar imported to Thera, Akr. 4103. Akrotiri: local Minoanising jar, Akr. 4354. Akrotiri: local Minoan bridge-spouted, collar necked jug, Akr. 1776. Akrotiri: local Minoanising pithoid jar, Akr. 9770. Akrotiri: local Minoanising pithoid jar, Akr. 8341. Akrotiri: local beak-spouted jug, Akr. 8804. Akrotiri: local nippled ewer, Akr. 1107. Akrotiri: local “Cycladic” cup, Akr. 4218. Akrotiri: local ribbed vessel, Akr. 8816. Akrotiri: local minoanising large bowl with loop handles, Akr. 5829. Akrotiri: local rhyton in the shape of piriform cup, Akr. 4074. Akrotiri: local rhyton in the shape of nippled ewer, Akr. 3591. Akrotiri: local globular strainer, Akr. 3592. Akrotiri: local eyed ewer, Akr. 9088. Akrotiri: local bridge-spouted jar, Akr. 4810 (drawing by N. Sepetzoglou). Akrotiri: local cylindrical rhyton, Akr. 8108. Akrotiri: local nippled ewers, Akr. 8250, 8253, 8252, 8442. Akrotiri: local cylindrical rhyta, Akr. 8108, 8109, 8110, 8111.

XLIII

a

c

b

XLIV

a

b

c

XLV

a

b

XLVI

b

a

d c

f e

g

XLVII

b

a

c

d

XLVIII

a

b

c d

XLIX

a

c

b

d

L

a b

d

c

e f

LI

b a

c d

LII

a

c

d

b

A MEMORABLE FEAST AT LATE BRONZE AGE PHYLAKOPI?* This paper explores issues of memory as they relate to a Late Bronze Age ceramic deposit from Pit 1 in trench PK at Phylakopi on Melos. This pit, discovered during Renfrew’s excavations at the site in the mid-1970s, was located just beneath a section of the City Wall that had been built sometime in, or perhaps shortly after, the LH IIIB1 period (ca 1300-1250 BC). Given the location and contents of the pit, I consider here the possibility that it was a foundation deposit of feasting remains for the town’s renewed fortifications. Both feasting and foundation rituals, it has been argued, are mnemonically charged events, with the latter often deeply entwined with beliefs concerning the order and origins of the world. A good place to begin is with a brief description of the archaeological context. Trench PK is located in the south-central sector of the site, just east of the well-known Sanctuary complex.1 Excavation at the northern end of PK in the area between Walls 100 and 121 – that is, between the inner face and presumed outer face of the City Wall – revealed deposits of wind- or water-borne material that had accumulated after the site’s abandonment in LH IIIC Middle. Below these levels, and adjacent to the lowest courses of Walls 100 and 121, was a hard soil stratum dubbed PK layer 4.2 Layer 4 sealed PK Pit 1, which was partly obscured at its northern end by a mass of stones. These stones may be all that remains of the rubble fill that likely once existed between the two faces of the City Wall.3 It is clear from the stratigraphy that PK Pit 1 and Walls 100 and 121 are later than the soil on which they rest. They are also earlier than layer 4, which seals the pit and abuts the walls. However, the latest pottery in layer 4, in the pit, and in layer 7 beneath the southern face of Wall 100 is LH IIIB1,4 suggesting that all of the stratigraphic features under consideration were formed within the same period. As for PK Pit 1, it has an oval shape and measures over a meter in diameter and about 45cm deep, with vertical sides and a flat bottom. According to the excavation diary, the pit’s fill lacked any recognizable stratigraphic distinctions, an indication (but not a guarantee) that it was filled in a single depositional event. As noted above, the pit was not completely excavated due to the significant overburden of stones at its northern end. Within the excavated portion of the pit were some small stones, a few odd objects,5 traces of ash, bones,6 and numerous pot sherds, from which no complete or nearcomplete vessels could be restored. Since a full presentation of the pottery from this deposit appears elsewhere,7 I present only a brief account here. *

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

The impetus for this paper came several years ago, when I was studying the undecorated Late Bronze Age pottery from Colin Renfrew’s excavations at Phylakopi. I owe a debt of thanks to Colin Renfrew for permission to study this material, to the successive ephors of the Cyclades who granted access to the material, and to the staff of the Melos Archaeological Museum who not only facilitated my work but made it enjoyable. C. RENFREW, C. SCARRE, T. WHITELAW and N. BRODIE, “The Excavated Areas,” in C. RENFREW (ed.), Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos 1974-77 (2007) 7, fig. 2.1, 59-64, 65, fig. 3.41. The Excavation Notebook (BSA Archives, Renfrew Papers, Φ PK notebook, 11) gives the thickness of layer 4 as ca 50cm, but the published section drawing indicates a thickness of ca 35cm (RENFREW, SCARRE, WHITELAW and BRODIE [supra n. 1] 61, fig. 3.38). Cf. T.D. ATKINSON, “The Architecture,” in T.D. ATKINSON, R.C. BOSANQUET, C.C. EDGAR, A.J. EVANS, D.G. HOGARTH, D. MACKENZIE, C. SMITH and F.B. WELCH, Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos (1904) 31. RENFREW, SCARRE, WHITELAW and BRODIE (supra n. 1) 63; P.A. MOUNTJOY, “The Mycenaean and Late Minoan I-II Pottery,” in RENFREW (supra n. 1) 321. J.F. CHERRY and J.L. DAVIS, “The Other Finds,” in RENFREW (supra n. 1) 414-415, SF 706-707, 432, SF 709. The types and quantities of bones, ash, and charcoal found are not quantified in the Excavation Notebook or in the final publication (RENFREW [supra n. 1]) and could not be independently established during my restudy of the material from PK Pit 1. J.W. EARLE, “Mycenaeans on Melos? Reassessing a Late Bronze Age Ceramic Deposit at Phylakopi,”

146

Jason W. EARLE

Of the 774 sherds removed from the pit, finewares are by far the most numerous (48.45% of the assemblage). Included in this category are Mycenaean imports and local wares, with the latter far more common (at least 82.93% of the finewares).8 The range of identifiable Mycenaean fineware shapes is limited and includes kylikes, kraters, amphoras, jugs, hydriae, shallow angular bowls, and deep bowls. Various medium-coarse to coarse wares are also present, representing 40.57% of the assemblage. Many of these wares, such as Coarse Cycladic White and Later Local,9 had centuries-long traditions at Phylakopi by the time this material was produced and deposited in the 13th cent. BC. Most medium-coarse to coarse sherds belong to closed vessels, such as jars, jugs, amphoras, and hydriae, but others come from cups, bowls, or basins; at least ten sherds belong to pithoi.10 With respect to cooking vessels (5.94-10.98% of the assemblage, depending on whether one includes the badly burnt sherds in this category), a few different fabrics are attested, and in terms of shapes, both cooking jars and tripod cooking pots are recognizable. As an assemblage, these ceramics meet three of the six criteria proposed by Dabney, Halstead, and Thomas for identifying Mycenaean feasting deposits. 11 First, the PK Pit 1 deposit includes a high percentage of serving and drinking shapes: among the diagnostic sherds, at least 66.92% belonged to serving and drinking vessels. Second, jugs and cooking pots are present: jugs are represented by both fine and medium-coarse sherds and cooking vessel sherds constituted as much as 10.98% of the overall assemblage and 11.15% of the diagnostic sherds. Third, there is a restricted range of vessels: the identifiable shapes in PK Pit 1 represent a small fraction of those known from Phylakopi in this period.12 In the estimation of Dabney and her colleagues, many, but not all, of these ceramic criteria must be met in order to positively identify a Mycenaean feasting deposit, although additional evidence (e.g., faunal) may be needed. In this light, to conclude unequivocally that the contents of PK Pit 1 are the remains of a feast would be imprudent. Nonetheless, I do believe that the finds from this deposit suggest at least some sort of commensal drinking and dining occurred at Phylakopi in the 13th cent. BC, and it is quite possible that such activities occurred in connection with the reconstruction of the City Wall. Commensal drinking and dining, under the rubric of “feasting,” has been much discussed in archaeological scholarship of recent decades, both from an anthropological perspective and with specific reference to the Bronze Age Aegean.13 Consequently, I mention here only a few salient points concerning the mnemonic aspects of these activities. Feasting is defined as a distinct period, different from the ordinary, by the consumption of unusual foods, the use of uncommon material culture, and the presence of atypical company in an unusual space. This disruption of the daily routine heightens the remembrance of the feast. Also contributing to a feast’s memory-making power are its biological necessity, play on

8

9 10

11

12

13

Hesperia (forthcoming). It was not possible to identify all the unpainted Mycenaean fragments from the deposit published by MOUNTJOY (supra n. 4). The term “Fine Painted” is used to describe the high-quality decorated Minoan and Mycenaean imports at the site in S.J. VAUGHAN and D. WILLIAMS, “The Pottery Fabrics,” in RENFREW (supra n. 1) 104. VAUGHAN and WILLIAMS (supra n. 8) 101-102. For similar sherds from Phylakopi, see R.L.N. BARBER, “Unpublished Pottery from Phylakopi,” BSA 103 (2008) 116-117 and 133, cat. nos 603-605. M.K. DABNEY, P. HALSTEAD, and P. THOMAS, “Mycenaean Feasting on Tsoungiza at Ancient Nemea,” in J.C. WRIGHT (ed.), The Mycenaean Feast (2004) 82-91. The three unmet criteria are: deviation from normal types and quantities of decoration, the presence of miniature kylikes with high-swung handles, and the presence of oversized cups or bowls. Cf. P.A. MOUNTJOY, “The Pottery,” in C. RENFREW, The Archaeology of Cult: The Sanctuary at Phylakopi (1985) 151-208, passim; MOUNTJOY (supra n. 4) 341-344; P.A. MOUNTJOY, “The Late Minoan II-III and Mycenaean Pottery from the 1911 Excavations at Phylakopi on Melos,” BSA 104 (2009) 105-111. See, e.g., M. DIETLER, “Theorizing the Feast: Rituals of Consumption, Commensal Politics, and Power in African Contexts,” in M. DIETLER and B. HAYDEN (eds), Feasts. Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power (2001) 65-114; Y. HAMILAKIS, “From Feasting to an Archaeology of Eating and Drinking,” in L.A. HITCHCOCK, R. LAFFINEUR, and J. CROWLEY (eds), DAIS. The Aegean Feast. Proceedings of the 12th International Aegean Conference, University of Melbourne, Centre for Classics and Archaeology, 25-29 March 2008 (2008) 3-19.

A MEMORABLE FEAST AT LATE BRONZE AGE PHYLAKOPI?

147

multiple senses, and embodiment (i.e., the physical enactment of cultural practices and consumption of cultural material). Because feasting induces a state of heightened remembrance it proves an effective means of reproducing and reaffirming social groups and practices. Elites, including those in the Bronze Age Aegean, may thus capitalize on this power by staging banquets that reinforce the social order (to their benefit) through distinctions in guests’ placement, provisions, and paraphernalia. Unfortunately, the remains from PK Pit 1 shed little light on the social and political organization of Late Bronze Age Phylakopi, which itself is still poorly understood.14 With the archaeological context and assemblage laid out, we may now consider what the grounds for identifying PK Pit 1 as a foundation deposit are, and how issues of memory might come into play with such a deposit. Let us begin with a definition. Generally speaking, a foundation deposit is characterized by its association with architecture, exhibiting a physical and temporal proximity to the beginning of construction. Typical locations are beneath walls, between wall courses, below floors or thresholds, or in foundation trenches.15 PK Pit 1 meets this definition, given its position directly beneath, and its close temporal association with, the City Wall. Further support for identifying PK Pit 1 as a foundation deposit comes from comparisons with documented Bronze Age examples in the Aegean. While known from various regions and periods, most foundation deposits have been found on Crete and date to the Minoan Protopalatial and Neopalatial periods.16 Foundation deposits did not proliferate on Crete until the Protopalatial period,17 when contacts with the Near East and Egypt burgeoned.18 It is therefore quite possible that the practice was adopted by certain Minoans in emulation of their neighbors in the East. With respect to form, distinctions may be drawn between foundation deposits “proper” (i.e., those placed in the foundations of a building) and related types of structured deposits, such as the bench and platform deposits attested at Phaistos,19 or the cult-related repositories at Knossos.20 For this study, however, I take an inclusive approach and prefer to see all such deposits as part of a larger tradition of burying symbolically charged objects in architectural 14

15

16

17

18

19

20

For recent discussions of the social and political organization at Phylakopi, see EARLE (supra n. 7); J.W. EARLE, “Melos in the Middle: Minoanisation and Mycenaeanisation at Late Bronze Age Phylakopi,” in E. GOROGIANNI, P. PAVÚK, and L. GIRELLA (eds), Beyond Thalassocracies. Understanding Processes of Minoanisation and Mycenaeanisation in the Aegean (2016) 94-115. G.R. HUNT, Foundation Rituals and the Culture of Building in Ancient Greece, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (2006) 5. For surveys of the subject, see C. BOULOTIS, “Ein Gründungsdepositum im minoischen Palast von Kato Zakros – Minoisch-mykenische Bauopfer,” Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 12 (1982) 153-166; S. MACGILLIVRAY, L.H. SACKETT, and J. DRIESSEN, “‘Aspro Pato’. A Lasting Liquid Toast from the Master-Builders of Palaikastro to Their Patron,” in P.P. BETANCOURT, V. KARAGEORGHIS, R. LAFFINEUR, and W.-D. NIEMEIER (eds), MELETEMATA. Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters His 65th Year (1999) 465-467; V. LA ROSA, “Liturgie domestiche e/o depositi di fondazione? Vecchi e nuovi dati da Festòs e Haghia Triada,” CretAnt 3 (2002) 13-49; C. PAPADAKI, “Αποθέτες κεραμικής,” Εννοιολογικός προσδιορισμός, τρόποι σχηματισμού, τυπολογία και σημασία για τη λειτουργία της ζωής των κοινοτήτων, κατά τη 2η χιλιετία π.Χ. στην Κρήτη, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Athens (2014). A. VIANELLO, “Minoan Foundation Deposits of Palatial Period,” Πεπραγμένα ΙΑ΄ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου (Ρέθυμνο, 21-27 Οκτωβρίου 2011) A1.1 (2018) 365-373. M.H. WIENER, “Contacts: Crete, Egypt, and the Near East circa 2000 BC,” in J. ARUZ, S. GRAF, and Y. RAKIC (eds), Cultures in Contact. From Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC (2013) 34-43. I. CALOI, “Preserving Memory in Minoan Crete: Filled-in Bench and Platform Deposits from the First Palace of Phaistos,” Journal of Greek Archaeology 2 (2017) 33-52. M. PANAGIOTAKI, The Central Palace Sanctuary at Knossos (1999) 8-179; E. HATZAKI, “Structured Deposition as Ritual Action at Knossos,” in A.L. D'AGATA and A. VAN DE MOORTEL (eds), Archaeologies of Cult. Essays on Ritual and Cult in Crete in Honor of Geraldine C. Gesell (2009) 19-30; E. HATZAKI, “Under the Floor: Structured Deposits from Cists and Pits at the Bronze Age Palace at Knossos,” in Πεπραγμένα Ι΄ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου (Χανιά, 1-8 Οκτωβρίου 2006), Στρογγυλή Τραπέζα “Τελετουργικά δείπνα και τελετουργικές αποθέσεις στην Κρήτη των Προϊστορικών χρόνων,” Τόμος Α, Τμήμα Α΄ (2011) 241-253.

148

Jason W. EARLE

contexts. Broadly speaking, these deposits range from the simple (e.g., a single “teapot” placed in a stonelined cist in the foundations of the Old Palace at Malia)21 to the complex (e.g., the diverse and rich Vat Room Deposit at Protopalatial Knossos).22 A number of foundation deposits seem to contain feasting remains, as, for example, the MM III deposit under the northwest corner of the North Wing at Galatas, which contained about 60 vessels, traces of burnt matter, and animal bones.23 This Minoan tradition appears to have extended to Thera in the Cyclades by the later Middle Bronze Age, as evidenced by the numerous and often simple foundation deposits found in the houses of Akrotiri,24 as well as the more elaborate “Treasuries” discovered beneath the floor in the House of the Ladies.25 Few foundation deposits are known on Crete, or anywhere else in the Aegean, after the Minoan Neopalatial period. Published foundation deposits from the period of Mycenaean influence (i.e., LM II-III) on Crete seem limited to the site of Sissi.26 In these periods, it seems, a related phenomenon—the burial of broken ceramic vessels and animal bones in pits devoid of architectural associations—became more common. 27 Beyond Crete the evidence for foundation deposits is equally slim. Boulotis noted two examples from the Greek mainland: one at Asine and the other at Tiryns.28 Two more examples are now known from Aigeira.29 As with many earlier Cretan foundation deposits, the Tiryns and Aigeira examples include serving and drinking vessels, suggesting that libations were part of the foundation rituals. In terms of contents, PK Pit 1 at Phylakopi fits within the corpus of Bronze Age Aegean foundation deposits, where the inclusion of ceramics related to food and drink consumption and preparation is well documented. That said, the extremely fragmentary and incomplete state of the ceramics in this pit is uncommon for foundation deposits and raises questions about the nature of the deposit. Given that no intact vessels were found and no complete vessels could be restored from the excavated sherds, it is reasonable to conclude that the vessels were broken before their deposition in the pit. Beyond that conclusion, however, there exist several possible explanations for the state of the material. One possibility is that the vessels were intentionally broken before being deposited in PK Pit 1. Deliberate destruction of vessels is well attested in the Late Bronze Age Aegean, especially in ritual contexts,30 and the breakage and 21 22 23 24

25

26

27

28 29

30

O. PELON, “Un dépôt de fondation au palais de Malia,” BCH 110 (1986) 3-19. PANAGIOTAKI (supra n. 20) 8-43. PAPADAKI (supra n. 16) 171-172. V. LANARAS, Αποθέσεις θεμελίωσης στο προϊστορικό Αιγαίο. Η περίπτωση του Ακρωτηρίου Θήρας, M.A. Thesis, University of Crete (2002). S. MARINATOS, Excavations at Thera V (1971 Season) (1972) 13; R. KOEHL Aegean Bronze Age Rhyta (2006) 332. Several examples dating to LM IIIB have been excavated recently at Sissi. These deposits come from the main building of the settlement and are quite simple, consisting of shells, bones, and/or ceramic vessels, including miniature jugs, conical cups, and tripod cooking pots (F. GAIGNEROT-DRIESSEN, “The Excavation of Building CD: The Excavation of Zone 3,” in J. DRIESSEN and I. SCHOEP [eds], Excavations at Sissi II: Preliminary Report on the 2009-2010 Campaigns [2011] 93). Numerous pits of this type, spanning the LM IIIC through Protogeometric periods, have been excavated at the site of Thronos/Kephala and are discussed in: A.L. D’AGATA, “Ritual and Rubbish in Dark Age Crete: The Settlement of Thronos/Kephala (Ancient Sybrita) and the Pre-Classical Roots of a Greek City,” Aegean Archaeology 4 (1997-2000) 45-59. BOULOTIS (supra n. 16) 158, with references. S. DEGER-JALKOTZY and E. ALRAM-STERN, “Aigeira-Hyperesia und die Siedlung Phelloë in Achaia. Österreichische Ausgrabungen auf der Peloponnese 1972-1983. Teil I: Akropolis. Die mykenische Siedlung,” Klio 67 (1985) 404, 407; S. DEGER-JALKOTZY, “Stratified Pottery Deposits from the Late Helladic IIIC Settlement at Aigeira/Achaia,” in S. DEGER-JALKOTZY and M. ZAVADIL (eds), LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms. Proceedings of the International Workshop Held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences at Vienna May 7th and 8th, 2001 (2003), 72. P. REHAK. “The Use and Destruction of Minoan Stone Bull’s Head Rhyta,” in R. LAFFINEUR and W.-D. NIEMEIER (eds), POLITEIA. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, University of Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut, 10-13 April 1994 (1995) 435-460; Y. HAMILAKIS, “Eating the Dead: Mortuary Feasting and the Politics of Memory in the Aegean Bronze Age Societies,” in K. BRANIGAN (ed.), Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age (1998) 122-123. The

A MEMORABLE FEAST AT LATE BRONZE AGE PHYLAKOPI?

149

burial of feasting equipment has been argued to produce a physical memorial of the event for its participants.31 With regards to the sherds missing from PK Pit 1, they simply may not have been cleaned up, or they may have been deposited in other pits, or they may have been distributed as commemorative tokens to the individuals who had used the previously intact vessels. Driessen, Farnoux, and Langohr have suggested this last possibility in connection with a LM IIIA2/B1 deposit at Malia, where missing ceramic fragments may have been saved as symbols of the bonds made among objects, people, and place at the event in question.32 While the archaeological evidence provides some indication of the actions associated with the potential foundation deposit in trench PK at Phylakopi, we have little understanding of the rituals and beliefs that typically (if indeed there was a standard practice) surrounded foundation deposits in the Bronze Age Aegean. It is possible, however, that some insights may be gained from an examination of the welldocumented foundation rituals in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. Egyptian temple foundation deposits, for example, were situated within a series of rituals performed by the king or his representatives over the course of construction. Since lengthy discussions of these rituals may be found elsewhere,33 suffice it to say here that they made symbolic connections to the Egyptian creation myth. For instance, the hoeing of the earth down to the water table and the pouring of sand into the foundation trenches mimicked the construction of the first temple on the primeval mound that rose from the waters of chaos.34 Foundation deposits are known from other, non-religious structures in Egypt – tombs, palaces, forts, houses, and town walls – but the type and nature of rituals associated with them is unclear. In Mesopotamia, foundation deposits are known from town walls, palaces, temples, and houses.35 The prayer recited at the rebuilding of a dilapidated temple – an undertaking often closely associated with the king – explicitly linked the structure with those built by the gods at the beginning of creation.36 Foundation rituals are also documented in the region during the early first millennium BC in connection with Neo-Assyrian houses, where clay figurines depicting supernatural beings were often buried beneath floors in order to protect the occupants. Ritual incantations associated with these figurines note that the clay used in their manufacture was equated with the clay of creation in Mesopotamian cosmogony.37 The burial of these figurines in the earth may also reflect the Mesopotamian conception of the cosmos since many of the mythical beings depicted were believed to dwell underground in the Netherworld. By the same rationale, digging into the ground during construction could be seen as a serious transgression of the

31 32

33

34 35 36

37

smashing of objects is commonly explained in sacrificial terms (i.e., transforming the profane into the sacred) but Hamilakis argues that the deliberate destruction of vessels in Mycenaean funerary rituals facilitated the forgetting of individuals through a powerful performative experience. HAMILAKIS (supra n. 13) 17. J. DRIESSEN, A. FARNOUX, and C. LANGOHR, “Favissae. Feasting Pits in LM III,” in HITCHCOCK, LAFFINEUR and CROWLEY (supra n. 13) 202-203. According to Chapman’s theory of fragmentation and enchainment, users ascribe artifacts distinctive biographies and construct meaningful and permanent links between themselves and the objects in question. See, e.g., J. CHAPMAN and B. GAYDARSKA, Parts and Wholes: Fragmentation in Prehistoric Context (2007), but also DRIESSEN, FARNOUX and LANGOHR (supra) 203, n. 48, for criticism. J.M. WEINSTEIN, “Foundation Deposits,” in D.B. REDFORD (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Vol. 1 (2001) 559–561; I. FORSTNER-MÜLLER, “A Foundation Deposit in a Hyksos Palace at Avaris,” Bulletin d’archéologie et d’architecture libanaise, Hors-Série 10 (2015) 532-533. HUNT (supra n. 15) 197. R.S. ELLIS, Foundation Deposits in Ancient Mesopotamia (1968) 97; HUNT (supra n. 15) 143-144. C. AMBOS, “Building Rituals from the First Millennium BC: The Evidence from the Ritual Texts,” in M.J. BODA and J. NOVOTNY (eds), From the Foundations to the Crenellations: Essays on Temple Building in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible (2010) 227. Various specialists – the exorcist (āšipu), lamentation-singer (kalû), musician (nāru), and diviner (bārû) – were involved in these rituals (C. AMBOS, Mesopotamische Baurituale aus dem 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr [2004] 222-223). C. NAKAMURA, “Dedicating Magic: Neo-Assyrian Apotropaic Figurines and the Protection of Assur,” World Archaeology 36 (2004) 16-18.

150

Jason W. EARLE

boundary between the earthly realm and the Netherworld; several texts note that such trespasses required the propitiation of the gods.38 From this brief review, it is clear that Egyptian and Mesopotamian foundation rituals shared three important characteristics: first, foundation deposits were made in a wide range of architectural contexts; second, the ruler often played a significant role in the enactment of foundation rituals, at least in the case of temple (re)construction; and third, the foundation rituals performed made explicit reference to cosmogonies that purported to explain the order and origins of the world. To bring this discussion of foundation rituals back to the Aegean, let us look to later Greece for additional insight. Unfortunately, and despite the fact that Greek foundation deposits are well attested archaeologically, only a handful of Greek literary sources speak to the topic, and even then the references are oblique.39 For example, in Book 7 of the Iliad Poseidon complains to Zeus that the Achaeans built their defensive wall at Troy without first offering prayers or sacrifices to the gods – an offense punished by the wall’s later destruction.40 Of special interest here is Poseidon’s epithet ἐνοσίχθων, or “earth-shaker,” which underscores the danger to buildings posed by earthquakes and the divine agency believed to be behind them. Two more pertinent examples can be found in the work of Pausanias. In the first instance, the actions surrounding the construction of the fortified city of Messene in the fourth century BC are recorded to have included prayers, sacrifices, and the summoning of ancient Messenian heroes to dwell in the new city.41 A similar honoring of ancestors appears in a passage concerning the city of Megara, where the mythical founder, Alkathoos, is reported to have given the first sacrifice to the mysterious προδομει̃ς, or “builders before,” when initiating construction of the city wall.42 As with the Egyptian and Mesopotamian examples discussed above, these accounts highlight the role of rulers in performing foundation rituals, as well as the concern with the ancient origins of a place, if not the world. To conclude, the information considered here allows us to hypothesize that PK Pit 1, if indeed a foundation deposit for the rebuilt City Wall, would have been created within a milieu of ritual actions. Events invisible in the archaeological record – e.g., prayers, omens, music, and processions – are likely to have occurred in addition to those suggested by the physical evidence, namely the consumption of food and drink, the destruction of ceramic vessels, and the deposition of this fragmented pottery. The mnemonic aspects of these last few actions are well known, as is the use of feasting by rulers as a means to affirm their privileged position in society. First and foremost, however, these ritual actions would have been intended to propitiate the gods prior to construction, as later Greek texts make clear. It is also implied by the Egyptian and Mesopotamian evidence that certain foundation rituals in these two cultures were thought to symbolically strengthen the structure for which they were being performed by mimicking the events believed to have shaped the known world at the dawn of creation. Might similar symbolic actions reflective of an Aegean cosmogony have been carried out on Melos? If so, these collective “memories” of the past, combined with the mnemonic powers of feasting smashing, distributing, and burying pottery, surely would have made for a memorable feast at Late Bronze Age Phylakopi. Jason W. EARLE

38 39 40 41 42

HUNT (supra n. 15) 190, citing AMBOS (supra n. 36, 2004) 70. HUNT (supra n. 15) 5, 9-13. Il. 7.448-7., cited in HUNT (supra n. 15) 12. Paus. 4.26.6-4.27.7. Paus. 1.42.1-1.42.2, discussed in HUNT (supra n. 15) 13.

E. MEMORIES OF MYCENAEAN PALACES AND SETTLEMENTS

THE CITADEL OF MYCENAE: A LANDSCAPE OF MYTH AND MEMORY* Introduction There can be no doubt that the members of the dynasty buried in Grave Circle A at Mycenae in the 17th and 16th cent. BC were exceptional in their own day and there can be no doubt that they were regarded as exceptional by their descendants. No other group of Mycenaean burials was honoured with such riches and no other Mycenaean burial ground was treated as an ancient monument so magnificently. Generation after generation, the site was respected and revered until in the 13th cent. BC it was incorporated within the Citadel Wall and provided with the double ring of slabs whose entrance faced the imposing new entrance to the Citadel – the Lion Gate. So much is familiar. Less familiar is its relationship to the group of buildings which developed to the south – the Ramp House, House of the Warrior Vase and the South House, relationships which must have been integral, not accidental, to the rites and rituals performed to honour the noble dead. Despite Schliemann’s excessively enthusiastic approach to excavation, it is still possible to reconstruct parts of these relationships on the basis of the levels on which each was constructed and the routes of access around and between them. The first sign of diminishing respect, a respect which had previously been accorded to Grave Circle A and based securely on memory and tradition, can be seen in the construction of the so-called Granary at the beginning of LH IIIC. This building partially blocked the route from the Lion Gate to the Grave Circle entrance after the collapse of the palatial authority which had, we may suppose, retained uninterrupted control for around 500 years. Even so, some memory of the significance of the Circle and of respect for those buried there survived perhaps another thousand years until Pausanias’ day, since it was never built over and remained a feature obvious enough in the landscape of Mycenae to attract Schliemann to what are still the most remarkable discoveries of Mycenaean civilization. Date Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5 Stage 6 Stage 7 Stage 8 Stage 9

The Prehistoric Cemetery and Grave Circle B Shaft Graves in ‘Circle A’ Continuing commemoration Ramp House, House of the Warrior Vase (HWV) and South House Monumental mound raised over Circle A The Citadel Wall extension and the double ring of slabs Construction of the 'Granary' Post-Mycenaean – a distant but vivid memory Rediscovery

MH II-III LH I LH II-IIIA LH IIIB 1 LH IIIB 1 LH IIIB mid/2 LH IIIC early 11th-2nd cent. BC 1876

Well Built Mycenae Phase III IV V VIA VIB VIII IX-X

The successive stages of use and memorialisation of the royal graves at Mycenae

There has been no shortage of discussions about the history and significance of Grave Circle A and those buried in the Shaft Graves within it since their discovery in 1876.1 It is not our purpose to review *

1

We are grateful to Lisa French for teaching us so much about Mycenae, for passionate discussions and for critiques of our work which always improved it – even if we still ended up disagreeing! We would also like to thank the organising committee of the MNEME Conference and the Universities of Udine and Ca’ Foscari Venice for the excellent conduct of and warm hospitality at the Conference. For example, C. GATES, “Rethinking the Building History of Grave Circle A at Mycenae,” AJA 89 (1985) 263-274. R LAFFINEUR, “Grave Circle A at Mycenae: Further Reflections on its Hhistory,” in

154

Ken A. WARDLE and Diana WARDLE

these, whether to agree or disagree, but to build on the evidence presented in KAW’s recent account of the history of the W slope at Mycenae2 on the basis of the excavations conducted by Wace and Taylour.3 We will extend this in considering, stage by stage, the sequence of construction and the role of the buildings immediately to the S in perpetuating the memory of these noble ancestors. Reference will be made to the sequence of development shown in the figures in that account as ‘Reshaping fig. …’ and may be made to the more detailed discussion of each of the Well Built Mycenae Phases III-VIII in the account. No building, and certainly no building as substantial as the House of the Warrior Vase or the South House, was ever erected without regard to its intended function, its place in the landscape, its relationship to pre-existing buildings, or to the activities which already took place in the immediate vicinity. It is our contention that the key element in these relationships was proximity to and orientation towards the ancestral burial ground, where rituals of commemoration took place over many centuries until the end of the Bronze Age and perhaps even until the 5th cent. BC. Stage 1: The Prehistoric Cemetery and Grave Circle B (Well Built Mycenae Phase III) The presence of a substantial community at Mycenae from at least the middle of the MH period is demonstrated by the extensive Prehistoric Cemetery4 stretching around the western and northern slopes of the Citadel (Pl. LIIIa) and away from it to the NW, but by only a few MH sherds on the Citadel itself, with no trace of structures or defensive walling. The majority of the graves are simple pits with a single crouched burial and only one or two pottery vessels. At some point a group of larger and richer graves – the only ones so far discovered for this period – were placed some 150m away from the later Citadel Wall.5 Burials here continued to be made until the first years of the Mycenaean/LH I period when, for example, the burials with rich offerings (amber beads, the rock crystal duck etc) were made in Grave O.6 At some point, presumably still within the MH period, these were enclosed by a circular wall of rough stones, to create the monument we know today as Circle B. None of the graves, neither the smaller, earlier ones nor the larger and later ones, is overlaid by the enclosure wall (or at least by that part of it which survives today). It remains uncertain whether it marked out some pre-existing graves, to which other, richer, graves were added later or was, from the first, intended to separate the burials of the wealthy members of perhaps a single group with some familial relations,7 from those of the rest of the community. The use of a small number of stone grave stelae argues against the idea of a single large tumulus within the enclosure covering all the burials but rather indicates, as Mylonas suggested,8 that there

2

3

4 5 6

7

8

R. HÄGG and G.C. NORDQUIST (eds), Celebrations of Death and Divinity in the Bronze Age Argolid: Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 11–13 June, 1988 (1990) 201-206. Note also the important series of articles, “Mycenae Revisited. Parts 1-4” in BSA 104 (2009), 105 (2010) and 107 (2012) which focus on the important contribution of Stamatakis, unacknowledged by Schliemann, and the results obtained from the study of the human remains from the Grave Circles with the latest techniques. K.A. WARDLE, “Reshaping the Past: Where was the “Cult Centre” at Mycenae?,” in A-L. SCHALLIN and I. TOURNAVITOU (eds), Mycenaeans up to date. The Archaeology of the North-eastern Peloponnese - Current Concepts and New Directions (2015). W. LAMB and A.J.B. WACE, “Excavations at Mycenae,” BSA 24 (1921) 185-209; A.J.B. WACE et al., “Excavations at Mycenae,” BSA 25 (1923) 1-434; W.D. TAYLOUR, The Excavations, Well Built Mycenae 1 (1981). M. ALDEN. The Prehistoric Cemetery: Pre-Mycenaean and Early Mycenaean Graves, Well Built Mycenae 7 (2000). G.E. MYLONAS, Ο Ταφικός Κύκλος Β των Μυκηνών (1972-1973). Ibidem 187-207. Cfr K.A. WARDLE, “Wessex and Mycenae: a Rapprochement?,” forthcoming in Festschrift for Professor George Styl. Korres. A.S. BOUWMAN, K.A. BROWN, T.A. BROWN, E.R. CHILVERS, R. ARNOTT and A.J.N.W. PRAG, “Kinship in Aegean Prehistory? Ancient DNA in Human Bones from Mainland Greece and Crete,” BSA 104 (2009) 293-309. G.E. MYLONAS, Mycenae Rich in Gold (1983) fig. 35. See also O.T.P.K. DICKINSON, “Why Grave Circles A and B at Mycenae are Very Unlikely to be Burial Tumuli,” in E. BORGNA and S. MÜLLER CELKA

THE CITADEL OF MYCENAE: A LANDSCAPE OF MYTH AND MEMORY

155

were originally either separate mounds of earth covering each of the graves, some with stelae set in them or a platform retained by the circuit wall. The location chosen for Grave Circle B was close to one of the natural access routes to the Citadel but was not particularly prominent from a distance. Those used in Circle B are modest in size in comparison with the stelae of Grave Circle A, but are still part of the conspicuous display accompanying the funerals of this elite group – perhaps the rulers who controlled Mycenae in the MH period. We do not intend to explore the much-debated issues of what kind of individuals were buried in both circles.9 Elite groups certainly, royalty in the sense perpetuated by the myths of the House of Atreus, possibly, ‘monarchs’ in the modern sense, probably not. Whatever their precise role and status at the time of burial, those in Circle A were clearly remembered and revered through successive generations as real or imaginary ancestors. We have used ‘royal’ and ‘royalty’ as words which should convey this broader meaning without intending to imply a single blood line. Stage 2: Shaft Graves in ‘Circle A’ (Reshaping fig. 2, Well Built Mycenae Phase IV) The graves in Circle A mark, by modern definition, the start of the Mycenaean period but in many ways this is an arbitrary division since there is no significant discontinuity between the MH and Mycenaean periods. Six large deep shafts were cut into the lower slope of the Citadel at a point where a relatively soft conglomerate was exposed below the hard limestone stratum which defines the Citadel itself. The original rock surface sloped steeply from north-south and east-west.10 The group of graves forms a semicircle against this outcrop – the Circle itself is a much later feature (see Stage 6) – and seems to have been enclosed by a wall of rough stones of which a part survives to the west of the graves .11 As with Circle B, this wall marked a boundary between the elite burials and the surrounding area of the preexisting Prehistoric Cemetery. Large shafts of this type had already been cut in Circle B and continued to be cut there for a short period. In both Circles these shafts were provided with roofs to form underground chambers to accommodate these exceptional dead and the extraordinary wealth of offerings which accompanied them. These roofs of wooden beams and clay could be supported either by steps in the rock-cut sides of the shaft or by additional stone walls. Every effort was made to ensure the ‘comfort’ of the dead and the provision of goods needed for the next life – or simply a lavish display of the resources of the dead and of the family which mourned them. In the case of these graves, the Homeric phrase ‘Mycenae Rich in Gold’ was no mere epic exaggeration but an astonishing reality, vividly illustrating the concept of ‘conspicuous consumption’. It is likely that both sets of graves represent the burial places of elite kinship or ‘faction’ groups12 but it is less obvious what the relationship was between them. Were they separate dynasties vying for control of Mycenae – a control which was eventually sized by those who were subsequently buried in Circle A? It is hard to believe that there were any groups more powerful than these at Mycenae and it is not unreasonable to see these as royal graves – not least because of the respect paid to them by subsequent generations. Recent stable isotope determinations suggest that several members of the group originated in other regions.13

9

10 11 12 13

(eds), Ancestral Landscape. Burial Mounds in the Copper and Bronze Ages (Central and Eastern Europe – Balkans – Adriatic – Aegean, 4th-2nd Millennium BC) (2012) 429-432. See discussion in O.T.P.K. DICKINSON, A. NAFPLIOTI, L. PAPAZOGLOU-MANIOUDAKI and A.J.N.W. PRAG, “Mycenae Revisited Part 4: Assessing the New Data,” BSA 107 (2012) 161-18. WACE et al. (supra n. 3) Pl. XVII, sections A-B and C-D. Ibiem Plan Pl. I. DICKINSON (supra n. 8). A. NAFPLIOTI, “Mycenae Revisited Part 2. Exploring the Local Versus Non-local Geographical Origin of the Individuals from Grave Circle A: Evidence from Strontium Isotope Ratio (⁸⁷Sr/⁸⁶Sr) Analysis,” BSA 104 (2009) 279-291.

156

Ken A. WARDLE and Diana WARDLE

Another clear indication of the importance of the group buried in Circle A is the use of monumental grave stelae up to 1.8m in height, decorated with scenes of elite activity, such as chariotry and hunting.14 There were more of these markers than graves and it was probably deliberate that these graves were located at the foot of the slope below the Citadel and marked in such a way that these monumental markers would have been seen from a distance by those approaching the Citadel from below. We cannot know why Circle B fell out of use in favour of the new Circle A, but it is likely that power struggles within the elite favoured those who were buried and their descendants who continued to be buried for a period of between 50 and 100 years in the same graves. Although Mycenaean-style pottery was found in many of the simple graves in the surrounding Prehistoric Cemetery, this cemetery may well also have gone out of use before the final burials in Circle A – an indication perhaps that, at least, this part of the slope was reserved for ‘royalty’. The fact that these simple graves were built over at a later date also indicates that no great regard was paid to them – in contrast to those in Circle A. The numerous chamber tombs around the edge of the inhabited area of the town of Mycenae which came into use at about this time will have provided alternative burial places for those of more moderate means. The actual appearance of Circle A at the time of the burials made within it can only be a matter of speculation, given the monumentalisation which took place many generations later. Schliemann recorded a stone platform (plausibly an altar) above Grave IV which may well have been a focus for the continuing commemoration of the noble dead as enacted for, example, in Aeschylus’ Choephoroi a thousand years later.15 Stage 3: Continuing commemoration (Well Built Mycenae Phase V) We have no specific evidence of activity in Grave Circle A for perhaps 250 years (8-10 generations) between the end of LH I and early LH IIIB, but clearly the character of the royal burial ground was maintained sufficiently to justify its transformation in LH IIIB (Stage 5). The structure below the Ramp House floors was erected during this period.16 The wall-painting fragments, found by both Schliemann and Wace,17 including pieces from a bull-leaping scene, suggest a prestige building which could well be part of a suite of ‘service rooms’ set on the rock terrace below which the shafts had been cut. A building this close to the graves must surely have had some connection to them (the nearest is only 15m away) and some role in the performance of rituals. Perhaps surprisingly, the gold in the graves (as well as in the majority of those in Circle B) had escaped the attention of grave robbers during this period to survive undisturbed until Schliemann’s excavation. It is possible that the reputation of the burial ground and its location at the heart of the growing town around the Citadel rock may have provided its own security. Illicit excavation of the deep shafts could hardly have gone unnoticed whilst the rulers and their retinue lived on the rock above. It is not unreasonable to assume that these rulers recognised the significance of and their connection to these ancestral graves throughout this phase, even if their own burials now took place in more and more lavish tholos tombs, including the Aegisthus tholos a short distance away, close to Circle B (Pl. LIIIa). Circle B was not used for new burials, except for the unique built chamber of Grave Rho, with its gabled stone roof, clearly an elite burial but long since robbed or emptied to leave only a few Minyan and LH IIA pottery vessels, a sealstone, lapis lazuli scarab and an ivory rosette.18 At the beginning of the LH IIIB1 period, whilst the location of this Circle may have been remembered, perhaps even still visible, the Clytemnestra tholos was cut into the edge of the Circle.19 Had the Circle’s prestige faded to such an extent 14 15 16

17 18 19

W.A. HEURTLEY, “The Grave Stelai of Mycenae,” BSA 25 (1923) 126-146. H. SCHLIEMANN, Mycenae (1878) 212-213, 337, Plan F. WACE et al. (supra n. 3) 75-76, Pl. I. Wace also indicates two MH walls, below the Ramp House, Plan Pl. I and section Pl. XVII. W. LAMB, “Frescoes from the Ramp House,” BSA 24 (1921) 189-199. MYLONAS (supra n. 5) 211-225. D. MASON, “The Date of the Tomb of Clytemnestra,” BSA 108 (2013) 97-119.

THE CITADEL OF MYCENAE: A LANDSCAPE OF MYTH AND MEMORY

157

that the builders of the tholos could ignore it – or, more probably, was the site chosen specifically to make a direct association with these early graves? Its position beside the much earlier Aegisthus tholos, in the narrow space remaining between Circle B and that tholos, demonstrates clearly the intention to make a link with those originally buried there. Its construction may have provided the impetus for the new ashlar poros façade with which that tholos was embellished.20 Another monumental feature added to the landscape of the Prehistoric Cemetery at this time was the Great Poros Wall, a segment of a circle enclosing the mound above the vault of the Clytemnestra tholos and some 25m away from its centre.21 Mason has suggested, with more than a little justification, that the dump of early LH IIIB pottery with unusual non-domestic features as well as figurine fragments, against the inner face of the Great Poros Wall may have been debris from rituals – including libation and feasting – enacted around or above the Clytemnestra tholos.22 If he is correct, it is a rare instance of evidence of such rituals at Mycenae, rather than the more-than-likely supposition of their performance. Both these tholoi opened onto what must have been a well-used route from which both Grave Circle A and the Tsountas House Shrine/Shrine Γ could be reached on the slope above. On the Citadel itself there is little sign of its elite occupants, apart from pottery sherds of each period and occasional valuable finds such as the Ivory Trio, found in a basement room on the edge of the presumed, and later certain, site of the Palace.23 Stage 4: The Ramp House, the House of the Warrior Vase (HWV) and the South House24 (Reshaping figs 3 and 4, Well Built Mycenae Phase VIA) All these structures were erected in the early part of LH IIIB 1 and their location and orientation suggest that they were closely associated with the Grave Circle and certainly could not have been built without the authority of those who controlled access to the Grave Circle and the rituals enacted there. The only one of the group for which we have a direct construction date is the South House. As discussed below, we see the most likely sequence of construction as: early Ramp House, South House, HWV, later Ramp House together with the monumental terraced mound. The Ramp House The Ramp House was built early in LH IIIB, with a plan which includes a ‘megaron hall’ and , another sign of a significant structure. The only available dating evidence is the material below the floors which French25 interpreted as containing LH IIIB1 pottery. On this basis she places it in the “early years of the thirteenth Century”. Two phases of construction were detected but there is no indication of the length of the interval between them. The Ramp House has a basement level with entry from the west, and the whole is supported on a substantial terrace which extended the original rock ledge. There is nothing to help us determine whether this terrace was built for the first phase and remained in use for the 20

21 22 23 24

25

We are not entirely convinced by Y. GALANAKIS’ argument (“The Construction of the Aegisthus Tholos Tomb at Mycenae and the ‘Helladic Heresy’,” BSA 102 [2007] 239-256) that this tholos was constructed in a single programme despite the elegant demonstration of the ratios of the stomion lengths in respect to other dimensions. If this tholos is one of the earliest, even the earliest at Mycenae, it is hard to argue that any principles had already been established. The use of poros ashlar would be unusual as early as LH IIA but this is an aspect which needs further research. It is unlikely that we will learn more from the tomb itself. W.D. TAYOUR, “Mycenae 1939-1954. Part IV: The Perseia Area,” BSA 50 (1955) 199-237, Pl. 36. MASON (supra n. 19) 115-116. H.P. WACE, The Ivory Trio: The Ladies and Boy from Mycenae (1939). Note the extended discussion of the early excavations of the South House and House of the Warrior Vase by E.B. FRENCH, The Post-Palatial Levels, Well Built Mycenae 16/17 (2011) 24-31. E.B. FRENCH “Late Helladic IIIA1 pottery from Mycenae,” BSA 59 (1964) 242; E.B. FRENCH, Mycenae. Agamemnon’s capital, the site and its setting (2002) 82.

158

Ken A. WARDLE and Diana WARDLE

second, or whether the terrace we see today26 was built for the second phase and made continuous with that around Circle A when the monumental mound was raised, as part of a single episode of construction. Our preference is for the second alternative. The location of this building, on exactly the same level as the rock terrace above the semicircle of graves and very close to them, as already noted for its predecessor, surely suggests a direct connection. The present state of the remains as wall-footings, following at least one phase of Mycenaean period rebuilding and excavation at three different periods (Schliemann, Wace and Taylour) gives little confidence that the ground plan with the megaron hall, entered from the south, is the same as the original version. Logically the entrance to the megaron at that point should have been at the north end,27 if our belief that it is related to the rituals around the graves is correct. We speculate, but have no evidence either way apart from pure practicality, that the entrance was reoriented to the south when the ring of slabs was set in position, effectively cutting off the Ramp House and its occupants from any part in these rituals. Access to the south from the building would have followed the route of the paved ‘Causeway’ to and through South House Annexe Room 4, if these were not already in place, and to the higher levels of the Citadel via a pair of narrow ramps. The House of the Warrior Vase28 There is no direct evidence for the date of this two-storey (or even three-storey?) building. The wall of the ground floor level is built with massive double-width foundations, as is that of the South House immediately to its south. This suggests very strongly that the Citadel had not yet been extended this far since such a thick wall would be unnecessary if the Citadel Wall already existed outside it. The un-aligned joint where the west wall meets the west wall of the South House indicates that the latter, for which an early LH IIIB date has been established,29 had already been built. The curious plan of the building with its megaron -like Room with a passage on either side suggests a prestige structure as is the case with the Ramp House. Neither are likely to be purely domestic but should surely be related to continuing activities or rituals at the site of the ancestral royal graves immediately to the north. The construction of the HWV to the west of and below the Ramp House terrace created a narrow dog-leg passage sloping down ca 2m from the threshold of the basement entry of the Ramp House to the ground floor entrance to HWV Room close to the southwest corner of Circle A. The shape of this room pre-supposes an existing feature. Was this the perimeter wall of the Circle established already in LH I or was it the monumental terraced mound raised over it early in LH IIIB? One clue is provided by the drain which runs the length of the passage and passes so close under the southwest corner of the mound that it is hard to believe that it was not already in place when the mound was raised by builders who did not know its precise course. Cutting it later would have been more difficult and would risk undermining the mound – though builders are not always known for logical actions. Since the course of the drain mirrors the E side of the HWV, it is either contemporary with or later than the HWV and thus the HWV would also antedate the raising of the mound. Since the E side of the HWV follows more or less the line of the Ramp House terrace, it is likely that the first phase Ramp House was already in place. Both the sloping passage and the entrance to Room gave direct access to the area and level where the grave stelae and altar were set. On this basis we would suggest that the HWV was probably the most important of the group of buildings at this point in the history of the area, at least in respect to rituals of commemoration. Until the Citadel Wall was built ‘public’ access would have been equally easy from the slope below, as it was also to the Cult Centre. Access to the southeast from this building would have been 26

27

28 29

Much terracing/revetment has been built since Schliemann’s excavation to support the ancient structures and there are times when it is difficult to tell the modern terraces from the Mycenaean. In the inset to Wace’s plan, WACE (supra n. 4) Pl. 1, the north wall is marked as partly conjectural, leaving open the possibility of a doorway. SCHLIEMANN (supra n. 15) 130-131, called this the ‘Cyclopean House’. P.A. MOUNTJOY, “Late Helladic IIIB1 Pottery Dating the Construction of the South House at Mycenae,” BSA 71 (1976) 77-111.

THE CITADEL OF MYCENAE: A LANDSCAPE OF MYTH AND MEMORY

159

gained by climbing the slope past the north face of the South House and its Annexe to reach the paved Causeway or the pair of ramps already mentioned for the Ramp House. The South House As already noted, the HWV appears to be built against the South House, judging by the misaligned joint in their west walls, and, in consequence, the South House must also already have been in existence before the raising of the monumental mound. This third building in the group to the south of the Grave Circle, must surely also have had a connection with the Grave Circle rather than the Cult Centre. Neither the South House, nor the Annexe have any entrances to the area of the Cult Centre to the south and could only be reached by passing through the Ramp House, up the sloping passage past the HWV from the northwest, by the narrow passage to the east through Room 4 of the Annexe or down the pair of ramps from above. This effective barrier between the Grave Circle and its dependencies and the Cult Centre makes it very unlikely that the sanctuaries of the Cult Centre played any direct role in rituals performed around the grave stelae. The one distinctive feature of the South House is the pithos storage in Room 1 of the ‘Annexe’30 added to it to the east and the presence of some vessels in that room with pierced bases, as noted by Lisa French, likely to have been used for libation. Is it too much to imagine that these could perhaps relate to the ritual or ceremonial practices for which its occupants were responsible? Stage 5: Monumental mound raised over Circle A (Pls LIIIb and LIVa, Reshaping fig. 5, Well Built Mycenae Phase VIB) Previous studies have assumed that the raising of the mound followed the construction of the Citadel Wall but this seems unlikely for three reasons, as KAW has argued previously.31 The first is that the mound is free-standing with a deep but narrow gap to the west between it and the Wall. If the Wall came first a simple fill would have sufficed to raise the ground level. The second is that the terrace wall around the mound has a distinct ‘jog’ to negotiate the corner of Room in the HWV. Finally, Schliemann reported finding the grave stelae (reset after the mound was raised) facing outwards towards the valley,32 as they surely would have been originally, rather than facing the Lion Gate, which would only be logical since the full height of the Wall, once erected, would have concealed them from outside. Wace suggested, on the basis of tests at its base, that the mound was raised in LH IIIB, without any greater precision.33 A possible reason for raising the mound could have been to provide complete protection for the graves from robbing. Whether this is true or not, the terrace walls around the new mound and the later phase of the Ramp House are continuous. The new platform created some 4.0m above the outer graves (II and IV) was at the same level as the floors of this building, although sloping from east-west, and would make access easy from one to the other – and the performance of commemorative rituals more convenient. For the same reason, we do not believe that the double ring of slabs was yet in place. With its only entrance to the northeast, there would be no access to the graves within the ring of slabs from the south from any of the buildings whose entrances face north, no route to the east of the Circle to reach the Ramp House, and only a restricted passage around the ring to the west, in places along a ledge only a metre in width. There is nothing to suggest that the altar found at the lower level was re-instated with a new structure although it could have been obliterated by later developments in the area. Once the mound was raised the direct connection between the HWV and the graves themselves would have been interrupted, although it would have been possible for access to have been gained to the upper level through the basement entry and presumed stairs from there into the Ramp House. 30 31 32 33

TAYLOUR (supra n. 3) Plan 1. WARDLE (supra n. 2). SCHLIEMANN (supra n. 15) 92; Chr. TSOUNTAS, “Ανασκαφαί Μυκηνών,” AEphem (1887) 155-172. WARDLE (supra n. 2) 523, n. 87

160

Ken A. WARDLE and Diana WARDLE

All these events – construction of the HWV and South House, of the later Ramp House and the monumental terraced mound – must have taken place in a relatively short period in the first part of LH IIIB. The rituals and commemoration associated with these houses will have continued for several decades (Well Built Mycenae, Phase VII) before the major reorganisation of the Citadel – perhaps as a consequence of the earthquake detected in areas outside the Citadel.34 Stage 6: The Citadel Wall extension and the double ring of slabs (Pl. LIVb, Reshaping fig. 7, Well Built Mycenae, Phase VIII) The extension of the Citadel Wall, the Lion Gate, the creation of the Great Ramp leading to the Palace and the double ring of slabs on the Grave Circle mound are surely all part of a single programme of monumentalisation which, intentionally or not, removed the status of the South House and the other adjacent buildings and enclosed them in a kind of backwater. There is no clear pottery evidence for the date of the west extension to the Citadel Wall: on the basis of the small number of sherds retrieved from under or against it, LH IIIB1 and B2 are both possible.35 As noted above, we believe that it post-dates the raising of the monumental mound and our preference is for a date around the middle of LH IIIB or a little later. Logically, the erection of the double ring of slabs with its entrance facing the Lion Gate should follow the erection of the Lion Gate itself as part of the west extension. The re-dating of the so-called Granary to the LH IIIC period36 removes, as it were, the apparent barrier between the ring and the Lion Gate as shown in Wace’s 1923 plan. At the same time, however, the ring imposes a barrier between the Grave Circle and the structures to the south which had probably served it before its erection so that they could no longer be relevant to any rituals of commemoration. Access to all of them was only possible through Room 4 of the South House Annexe or to a higher level via a pair of rather narrow ramps. The double ring of shelly limestone slabs forming the new grave enclosure was now an impressive monument visible immediately on entering through the Lion Gate and an alternative to ascending the Great Ramp, itself constructed shortly afterwards as indicated by the chippings from the dressing of these slabs which Mylonas found underneath it.37 The creation of the ring was clearly the result of an initiative at the highest level to demonstrate the continuing importance of the royal graves and of the ancestors (actual or claimed) and the probable scene of continuing commemoration. The chippings which Wace found low down in the narrow space between the outer walls of the HWV and South House and the Citadel Wall,38 may represent no more than a convenient dump of the debris from the construction work for the ring. The anomalies in the way the entrance passage to the Circle was constructed do not seem to us to be sufficiently significant to suggest that the entrance ‘passage’ (as it is today) was a later insertion in the ring to re-orient it to face the Lion Gate. In any case, the only possible earlier, alternative orientation would have been to face the original route of access from the Ramp House. Whether intentionally or not, the west extension appropriated control of both the Grave Circle and the Cult Centre since access to both was now from within the Citadel rather than from outside it. As shown earlier,39 use of the Room with the Fresco ceased at this time and that of the Temple was much reduced, whilst that of the Tsountas House Shrine/Shrine Γ was reinvigorated.40 The once-important structures next to the Grave Circle were cut off from the town below – and any fresh breezes blocked – by 34

35 36 37

38 39 40

E.B. FRENCH, “Pottery from Late Helladic IIIB1 destruction contexts at Mycenae,” BSA 62 (1967) 149. FRENCH (supra n. 25, 2002) 64, 68. See discussion in WARDLE (supra n. 2) 527-528. FRENCH (supra n. 25, 2002) 28. G.E. MYLONAS, “Η Ακρόπολις των Μυκηνών, οι Περιβόλοι, αι Πύλαι, και αι Άνοδοι,” ΑEphem 1962, 117-118. WACE et al. (supra n. 3) 96; FRENCH (supra n. 24) 25, 31. WARDLE (supra n. 2) 528-529. K. SHELTON, Tsountas House, Well Built Mycenae 14, forthcoming.

THE CITADEL OF MYCENAE: A LANDSCAPE OF MYTH AND MEMORY

161

the new Citadel Wall. If the drainage was no longer maintained, the HWV and South House were both vulnerable, at least to water pooling outside and at worst to flooding. It is perhaps not surprising that the finds from the later destruction level within the South House and Annexe are mostly rather mundane in character.41 Stage 7: Construction of the Granary (see A.J.B. WACE, BSA 25, Pl. I) (Well Built Mycenae Phases IX and X)42 The destruction at Mycenae at the end of LH IIIB2, which can be seen in the area of the South House and beyond, is part of the much wider horizon of destruction which affected all the major Mycenaean centres and is presumed to have caused the collapse of palatial administration and the removal of the powerful elites who had previously dominated much of southern mainland Greece as well as Mycenae. By LH IIIC the regime responsible for the final stage of monumentalisation was no longer in control. The ‘Granary’ which was constructed in that phase43 not only blocked the view of the Grave Circle from the Lion Gate but also blocked the route between them. A second stage of construction when the long corridors were created to the south of the Granary, made access even more difficult. No sign of any destruction debris has been observed, nor has any fill of LH IIIC date, intentional or otherwise, been reported in the gap between the terraced mound and the Citadel Wall. The Circle area must have been maintained, even if it was no longer the focus of such significant rituals. Schliemann found two remarkable objects in the HWV, the Warrior Vase itself – a very large krater of mid-LH IIIC date – and a Naue II sword, but he gives no details about the level at which they were discovered or any hint of context.44 Was the sword from a grave? Could the Warrior Vase have been a grave marker?45 Fragments of kraters with warrior decoration of the same date have been found on the surface between chamber tombs at Voudeni in Achaea and are presumed to relate there to funerary or post-funerary feasting.46 The only other LH IIIC graves within the Citadel Wall are simple cists placed there at the very end of the Bronze Age.47 Whether from a grave or not, these are exceptional objects for the period and suggest the renewed importance of this area adjacent to Circle A in the 12th cent. BC. Stage 8: Post-Mycenaean – a distant but vivid memory? By the end of the Mycenaean period, the community at Mycenae had shrunk considerably, part sheltering within the Citadel and part on the slopes below. In the following periods life continued, apparently without a break, but without new monumental or large-scale structures like those of the Bronze Age with the exception of the Archaic Temple of Athena built over the Mycenaean Palace.48 The gap between the Citadel Wall and the terrace around the Grave Circle remained open at least until the 3rd cent. BC. The ‘Hellenic’ walls marked by Wace on his plan49 were perhaps intended to buttress the terrace around the Grave Circle. Their preserved tops are ca 1m above the base of the terrace and still 2m

41 42 43 44 45

46

47 48

49

K.A. WARDLE, The South House and Annexe, Well Built Mycenae 9, forthcoming. FRENCH (supra n. 24). FRENCH (supra n. 25, 2002) 28. SCHLIEMANN (supra n. 15) 132, 144. Iconographically, the closest parallel to the scene on this vase is the re-used stone stele from a chamber tomb which was plastered over and painted with a coloured scene of very similar warriors. Chr. TSOUNTAS, “Γραπτή Στήλη εκ Μυκηνῶν,” AEphem 1896, Pl. 1. Information kindly shared by Dr Kolonas, cf. L. KOLONAS, “Βούντενη,” ArchDelt 49 (1994) B’ Chron., 227-230. V.R.D’A. DESBOROUGH, “Late Burials at Mycenae,” BSA 68 (1973) 87-101. N.L. KLEIN, “Excavation of the Greek Temples at Mycenae by the British School at Athens,” BSA 92 (1997) 247-322. WACE et al. (supra n. 3) Pl. 1.

Ken A. WARDLE and Diana WARDLE

162

below the level on which the slabs and ring were set. The community of the early 5th cent. was sufficiently thriving to send a contingent of 80 men to fight at Thermopylae in 480 BC50 and probably more at Plataea in 479 BC51 and sufficiently a threat to the leaders of Argos for the Argives to attack Mycenae, enslave the population and slight the defences in 468 BC.52 After an interval where Mycenae seems to have been almost deserted, it was re-occupied and the Citadel Walls repaired with fine polygonal masonry in the late 4th or early 3rd cent. BC.53 Although the Citadel was covered with a network of walls representing small-scale industrial as well as domestic occupation, neither was the ring built over nor the gap between the Citadel Wall and the terrace around the Circle filled in. Wace assigned one of the walls across this gap to this period. Had those who sponsored this Hellenistic re-occupation of the Citadel and the city around chosen the site for their theatre with knowledge of the burial ground on the slope above as well as the tholos tomb below it – the so-called Tomb of Clytemnestra?54 Did they go to the immense effort of raising the floor of the orchestra some 6m above the floor of the dromos below with the specific intention of enabling performances of plays such as Aeschylus’s Oresteia - Agamemnon, Choephoroi and Eumenides. These tragedies were first performed in Athens 10 years after the Argives had driven out the inhabitants – tragedies commemorating more than any others the House of Atreus and the fate of Agamemnon. The Hellenistic settlement,55 however, was not very long-lived and the site which held so many memories was largely abandoned during the 2nd cent. BC, perhaps following the Roman sack of Corinth in 146 BC and the creation of the Roman Province of Achaea.56 The tholoi were presumably as obvious when Pausanias visited in the 2nd cent. AD57 as they were in the early 19th cent. and prompted Pausanias’s identification of them as the treasuries of ‘Atreus and his children’. He reports the graves of Atreus, Agamemnon and Electra ‘within’ (ἔνθα Ἀγαμέμνων τε αὐτὸς ἔκειτο) whereas the burial places of the conspirators were at some little distance from the wall (ὀλίγον ἀπωτέρω τοῦ τείχους). Could Pausanias still have seen the ring of slabs and some of the grave stelae and learnt of the legends attached to it of Agamemnon’s burial place from those who still farmed the land around the former glorious Citadel – still a testimony to the skills of the Cyclopes who built it? Is it even possible that the site of Grave Circle B was still recognisable 2000 years later and identified with the graves of Aegistheus and Clytemnestra? We can only speculate. Stage 9: Rediscovery It was the legend of ‘Mycenae Rich in Gold’ – the memory of this glorious past – preserved in the Homeric epics which led Schliemann to hire workmen, pick and shovel to explore a site which had never been lost from view or lost its identity, unlike Hissarlik whose identification as Troy remains disputed by some. His account58 of his early days’ work is sketchy but something must have led him to start digging just inside the Lion Gate. Despite centuries of hill-wash from the slopes, had a relatively level area remained within the Lion Gate? Schliemann reports two different figures for the depth of this wash, presumably one close to the Great Ramp above and the other towards the outer edge of the ring. First to

50 51 52 53

54

55 56 57 58

Paus. 10.20.1. Hdt. 9.28.6. Diod. 11.65.4-5. J.A. DENGATE, “Coins from the Mycenae Excavations, 1939-1962,” BSA 69 (1974) 95-102; W. RUDOLF, “Hellenistic Fine Ware Pottery and Lamps from above the House with the Idols at Mycenae,” BSA 73 (1978) 213-234. It is hard to believe that the builders of the theatre were totally unaware of the monument below: the first row of seats is set into the dromos walls which would surely have prompted comparison with the neverlost-to-view Treasury of Atreus, even if the Clytemnestra dromos was completely full of debris. C.A. BOËTHIUS, “Excavations at Mycenae XI: Hellenistic Mycenae,” BSA 25 (1923) 408–228. RUDOLF (supra n. 53) 233. Paus. 2.16.6-7. SCHLIEMANN (supra n. 15).

THE CITADEL OF MYCENAE: A LANDSCAPE OF MYTH AND MEMORY

163

appear were the decorated grave stelae and Pausanias’ account of the graves ‘inside’ the Citadel was no longer just distant memory but a reality. Around them he found ash and animal bones which he interpreted as the remains of sacrifices.59 Is this a tantalising hint of the rituals performed there? Soon after, he exposed the double ring of slabs which he at first thought was the ‘Agora’ for Agamemnon’s council. He debates whether Euripides could have seen it but at the same time doubts it was still visible in Pausanias’ day. He identifies the building we know as the House of the Warrior Vase as the Palace of Mycenae, recognising the importance of the building but over optimistic about its identification. The wealth of the grave chambers deep below the ‘Agora’ was beyond imagination – and well worth a telegram to King George, even if today we know that Schliemann was often over hasty in his excavations and his interpretations. Mneme had not failed the royal House of Atreus.

Ken A. WARDLE Diana WARDLE

59

SCHLIEMANN (supra n. 15) 93.

164

Ken A. WARDLE and Diana WARDLE LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Pl. LIIIa

Pl. LIIIb Pl. LIVa Pl. LIVb

Plan of Grave Circles A & B, the Prehistoric Cemetery and the ‘Aegisthus’ Tholos in early LH IIA. The line of the later (LH IIIB mid) enceinte has been added to enable the graves and other early features to be located more readily. There is no evidence for the position of a fortification wall in the early Mycenaean period. Plan adapted from Maura Pringle for M. ALDEN, Well Built Mycenae 7. Plan of the West Slope of the Citadel of Mycenae in Stage 5, showing division between the Cult Centre and buildings associated with Circle A. WARDLE (supra n. 2) fig. 5 with additions. The West Slope at Mycenae from below in LH IIIB1 (Stage 5). Grave Circle A as configured in LH IIIB 2 (Stage 6), before construction of Granary in LH IIIC.

LIII

a

b

b

a

LIV

THE PALACE THRONE OF MYCENAE: CONSTRUCTING COLLECTIVE HISTORICAL MEMORY AND POWER IDEOLOGY* Introduction Collective memory, whether episodic (experience-based), semantic (communicated knowledge), or procedural (acquired skills and habits), is a complex amalgam of shared individual memories that serves as a community compass and social adhesive for group bonding and forging communal identity. Collective memory is constructed through gradual transformation of communicative memory into cultural memory. The former is rather short, spanning no more than 3-4 generations, as it is informally created out of personal mnemonic experiences of living contemporary witnesses communicated and shared through social interaction and hearsay. Cultural memory, on the other hand, is diachronic, connecting past historical events with a mythical absolute remote past. By contrast with communicative memory, cultural memory is extremely formal and traditional, being centrally organized by societal hierarchies or political authorities and constructed by specialized agents utilizing ritual symbolism, ceremonial performative communication (festivals, processions, feasts, sacrifices, libations, games) and theatrical staging (through visual images, words, music, dance) to generate, stimulate, and heighten collective mnemonic experiences that bond the community, forge communal identity and reaffirm social hierarchy.1 The symbols used during such ceremonial performative actions serve to underscore, codify, encapsulate, and visually portray the messages conveyed. The greatest power image, the throne, is a material symbol of power ideology, portraying royal status, embodying divine sanctification of authority, evoking royal propaganda, and serving as visual manifestation of the ruler’s power and sovereingty. The palace throne of Mycenae On June 12, 2014, during a paleohydrological survey in the dry riverbed of the Chavos torrent aiming to study water level notches on the bedrock and understand the hydrodynamics of the river (Pl. LVb), a large fragment of a massive stone seat was discovered lying in the riverbed, exposed by torrential rain that had caused extensive soil erosion (Pl. LVIb). The fragment was catalogued as a surface find of the Lower Town Excavations in the Mycenae Museum (2014/001/AM657) and was subsequently studied by an international team of archaeologists for nearly 2 years.2 The large seat fragment was securely identified as belonging to the massive stone throne of the palace at Mycenae – the only Mycenaean throne found so far on mainland Greece – on the basis of a tightly-knit causal nexus integrating diverse, interdisciplinary, *

1 2

I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. Malcolm Wiener, a life-long friend and esteemed colleague, for his advice, support, and all the fruitful discussions, and to the institutions that have been generously supporting the archaeogeophysical survey and systematic excavations of the Lower Town of Mycenae for nearly 20 years (Pl. LVa-b): Dickinson College, the Institute for Aegean Prehistory, and the Mycenaean Foundation. The Mycenae Lower Town field project is conducted under the direction of the author of this paper and the auspices of the Athens Archaeological Society (http://mycenae-excavations.org). Finally, I wish to thank my colleagues and students who joined me in studying the surviving throne fragment: Prof. Nikolaos Lianos, Prof. Heidi Dierckx, Prof. Antonia Stamos, Dr. Dan Fallu, Erik DeMarche, Chrysanthe Maggidis. On communicative and cultural memory, cf. J. Wright’s keynote paper in the present volume. In June 2016 the Mycenae throne fragment (aka the “Throne of Agamemnon”) was presented in an international press conference in Athens, followed by a public lecture at the Theocharakis Center in Athens, cf. http://mycenae-excavations.org/news.html. In 2017, the archaeological discovery and identification of the palace throne at Mycenae was presented in the 2nd Conference for Archaeological Work in the Peloponnese (ΑΕΠΕΛ) at Kalamata (publication forthcoming in 2019). A collaborative paper on the Mycenae palace throne is currently under way.

166

Christofilis MAGGIDIS

and interrelated evidence, including the find’s location, findspot, context, taphonomy, damage analysis, type, shape, morphological features, size, proportions, material, construction, comparanda and the undeniable similarities with the throne of Knossos and the throne base of Tiryns. Ι. Topography and contextual analysis: location, findspot and context (Pls LVIa-b and LVIIa) The hill of Mycenae and the adjacent mountains belong to the western part of the Arachnaion mountain range that divides the Argolid from Corinthia, and rise at the mouth of the only passage connecting the two regions and in the crossroads of the eastward routes to the Saronic Gulf. Therefore, the site of Mycenae combines a strong geopolitical location, which controls access points to and from the Argolid, and a commanding view of the Argive plain to the south below. The citadel of Mycenae3 comprising an area of 30,000sqm was built on a low rocky hill rising 278m above sea level and approximately 40-45m above the surrounding plain. The hill of Mycenae is nestled between two mountains, Profitis Elias (750m) to the north and Zara (600m) to the south, from which it is separated by two ravines formed by seasonal torrents, Kokoretsa and Chavos, respectively, that supplied the settlement with water for irrigation; it is, therefore, a natural stronghold, protected by deep gorges and steep rocky sides all around, except its western slope which is the only accessible side. The natural defensibility of the site was further enhanced by a formidable 900m-long circuit wall built of huge boulders in the megalithic ‘cyclopean’ technique to imposing dimensions (12-15m high and 5-8m thick); furthermore, the citadel was supplied with fresh water by the Perseia spring which lies 360m to the east and approximately 13m higher than its summit. Whereas the early palace was built on the summit of the hill, stretching north-south, the later palace of Mycenae (13th cent. BC) followed a different orientation (east-west) standing further south upon a lower artificial terrace that was partially retained by the south cyclopean fortification wall.4 The southeastern part of the floor of the palace, including the southeastern column of the four posts that surrounded the central circular hearth and the throne itself collapsed into the ravine below during a massive earthquake in ca 1200 BC (LH IIIB2) (Pl. LVIIa); the palace was never repaired or re-occupied again.5 The throne fragment was located right below the palace, just 80m away from the foot of the hill of the Mycenae citadel (37°43’44 North, 22°45’28 East) within the dry riverbed of the Chavos torrent that runs between the hill of Mycenae and Mount Zara (Pl. LVIa-b). The surviving throne fragment was found in the vicinity where A. Orlandos located and retrieved the missing column base of the megaron throne room during the restoration of the palace 60 years ago (1950-1955).6 II. Taphonomy and damage analysis (Pls LVIa-b and LVIIIb) The throne fragment was found out of context, resting on top of a gravel and cobble bar and buried in silt on the edge of an active seasonal channel (Pl. LVIa-b). Careful examination of the fragment traced and recorded deep impact breaks, fractures, low impact marks, and zones of differential weathering. The analysis and comparative assessment of these impact traces revealed patterns of variation in their form, size, intensity, and relative position on the surviving fragment (impact marks and fracture planes truncating or overlying each other), indicative of their relative timing and, consequently, of the successive stages of the destruction process (free fall, rolling, final deposition and burial) (Pl. LVIa).

3

4 5 6

C. MAGGIDIS and A. STAMOS, “Detecting Mycenae: Systematic Remote Sensing Survey in the ‘Lower City’ – Towards the Discovery of the Mycenaean Settlement Outside the Citadel,” 2nd International Conference on Remote Sensing Archaeology. From Space to Place (Rome 2006) (2006) 158; C. MAGGIDIS et al., The Lower Town of Mycenae I: Archaeogeophysical Survey 2003-2013 (forthcoming) ch. 1; S. IAKOVIDIS, Late Helladic Citadels on Mainland Greece (1983) 23-26; E. FRENCH, Mycenae, Agamemnon’s Capital. The Site in its Setting (2002) 13-16. IAKOVIDIS (supra n. 3) 60-63; FRENCH (supra n. 3) 57-61. IAKOVIDIS (supra n. 3) 70-72. IAKOVIDIS (supra n. 3) 62.

THE PALACE THRONE OF MYCENAE

167

Stage 1 (free fall): deep impact breaks and fractures on the surviving fragment suggest that the throne fell from a great height and crashed into several fragments upon impact on the ground. The largest break involves violent removal of material from the “bottom” of the seat. Whereas on one axis the rounded bottom profile of the break is sub-parallel to the polished top surface of the seat, on the other axis the plane of the top surface forms an acute angle with the bottom fracture plane (Pl. LVIIIb:1), a disparity of plane angles that is suggestive of force consistent with free fall from high elevation (70m) (Pl. LVIa). Stage 2 (rolling): low-impact fractures producing the “rounded” or convex bottom profile of the surviving fragment and more substantial breaks with similar angles of truncation resulting from multiple impacts against the channel walls are remnants of “rolling damage” indicative of high-energy transport along a slope gradient within the channel (Pl. LVIIIb:2). Evidently, therefore, the throne fragment rolled on the riverbed with the current for about 35m down to the funnel of the second cataract that forms the outlet of the ravine into the lower channel of the Chavos, where it fell rolling further down for another 50m (Pl. LVIa). Stage 3 (final deposition, fine sediment erosion, and burial): a large-clast lag filled with gravel and cobble was the final resting place of the surviving throne fragment at the margin of the modern incised channel below the second cataract (Pl. LVIa-b). The throne fragment was quickly buried in the fine yellow-grey sediments of the local depositional basin, which minimized exposure to weathering or erosion, as indicated by the fact that the polished top surface of the seat is very well preserved, with only occasional damage of jagged surfaces and small dents caused from impacts with smaller stones or other torrent debris until the fragment was finally buried in silt (Pl. LVIIIb:3). III. Typology and morphological analysis (Pls LVIIb, LVIIIa, LIX-LXI, LXIIIb and LXIVa-b) The surviving fragment is part of a large stone seat bearing a shallow central depression that is framed by a slightly raised, flat ledge (preserved on two of the three ledged sides) (Pls LVIIb and LVIIIa). The sloping bottom of the central seat depression deepens gently towards the rear ledge (max. depth 3cm) (Pl. LIXb). The interior face of the ledge slopes smoothly towards the depression of the seat and forms slightly rounded corners (only one of two surviving) (Pls LVIIb, LVIIIa and LIXa-b). On the upper surface of the rear ledge is preserved the rectilinear scar from the contact surface of a thin, flat slab that was apparently the backrest of the seat (Pl. LXa-b). Consequently, the form of the ledge, the contact traces of a backrest slab, and the shallow central seat depression with a sloping bottom deepening towards the backrest are, undeniably, diagnostic features of a stone seat (Pl. LXIb). This particular type of seat finds an exact parallel in the alabaster “Throne of Minos” at Knossos (backrest slab, identical seat ledge and shallow central seat depression with sloping bottom) and is comparable to other Minoan/Mycenaean stone or gypsum seats found at the palace of Knossos (in the “Kitchen” and the “Room of the Woman’s Seat” service rooms of the “Throne Room”), in the vicinity of Knossos, at Katsambas, and near Anemospelia (Myristis) on Mt Juktas (Pl. LIXa-b),7 thus attesting to the development of a standardized throne type for the Mycenaean palaces by the Late Helladic IIIB period (Pls LXIa-b, LXIIa, LXIIIb and LXIVa-b). This throne type was established among several other Aegean types of folding stools («δίφρος»), or seats with raised backrest and/or armrests (Pl. LXVIb),8 under the strong influence of monumental royal stone thrones (with high or low backrest) from Egypt, Anatolia, and Mesopotamia (Pl. LXVIc). 7

8

A. EVANS, The Palace of Minos. A Comparative Account of the Successive Stages of the Early Cretan Civilization as Illustrated by the Discoveries at Knossos vol. 4.2 (1935) figs 877, 890, 891, 899; P. REHAK, “Enthroned Figures in Aegean Art and the Function of the Mycenaean Megaron,” in P. REHAK (ed.), The Role of the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean (1995) 97-101, figs 32-36. REHAK (supra n. 7) 95-117; M. VETTERS, “Seats of Power? Making the Most of Miniatures. The Role of Terracotta Throne Models in Disseminating Mycenaean Religious Ideology,” in W. GAUSS, M. LINDBLOM, R.A. SMITH, J. WRIGHT (eds), Our Cups Are Full. Pottery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age. Papers Presented to Jeremy B. Rutter on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (2011) 319-328; L. NAEH and D. BROSTOWSKY GILBOA (eds), “The Throne in Art and Archaeology. From the Dawn of the Ancient Near East until the Late Medieval Period,” Workshop (April 27, 2016), 10th International Congress on the

168

Christofilis MAGGIDIS

IV. Material and technical analysis (Pls LVIIb, LXb, LXI-LXII and LXIIIa) The throne fragment is made of marine slope, oligomictic, light gray conglomerate with mostly hard carbonate rocks (local limestone) and low percentage of non-carbonate rocks (less than 5% chert and flysch) (Pls LVIIb and LXIIb). This type of stone contrasts with the typical conglomerate that was widely used throughout the citadel of Mycenae, which is yellow and contains laterite pebbles and nodular chert. This is undoubtedly a local stone that can be found in boulders of the same general composition throughout the Chavos channel and on Mt. Zara (Skiathis), distinct from the hard crystalline grey limestone of the surrounding hills (Pl. LXIIIa). The use of conglomerate is a feature of Mycenaean palatial architecture observed at Mycenae, Tiryns, and Knossos; despite the wide variety of decorative sandstones and conglomerates found at Mycenae, this is the only known object from the citadel to be carved from this type of local conglomerate. The choice of local material for the Mycenae throne – by contrast with the imported material opted for the Knossos throne – may be intended to convey different overtones and political symbolisms. The stone fragment preserves a contact (60° incline) between a well-sorted layer composed of coarse sand through fine pebble layer (above) and a moderate to poorly sorted stratum of rounded prolate and tabular fluvial fragments (below) (Pl. LXIIb). The inclination of the bedding, oblique to the major axes of the object, may suggest that this object was cut from a loose boulder in the torrent bed rather than from undisturbed bedrock in a quarry, in which case it would likely follow the bedding and produce cuts subparallel to the sedimentary structures within the block. Comparably to the Knossos throne, the throne of Mycenae was assembled of two separate but adjoining monoliths, carefully carved and perfectly polished, namely a massive seat and a thin backrest ledged slab squeezed between the wall and the seat, leaving its contact trace on the rear ledge of the seat (Pls LXb and LXIb). Three surviving fragments of decorated serpentine blocks may have been part of the decorated base of the throne,9 similar to the base of the Tiryns throne (Pls LXIa and LXIIa).10 Two joining block fragments of green serpentine decorated with a relief running spiral were found in the area of the Cult Center of Mycenae (LH IIIB2 destruction layer, Basement II, under Room 2 or megaron in the eastern sector) and near the Lion Gate, and a similar but non-joining third fragment was discovered in the vicinity of the Tomb of Clytemnestra. Found scattered in various contexts at Mycenae, these surviving serpentine blocks may have been salvaged, collected and retained as relics (or for reuse?) after the catastrophe.11 V. Metrological analysis: dimensions and proportions (Pl. LIXb) The surviving throne fragment weighs approximately 70-80kg and its dimensions are 23cm (max. preserved height), 54cm (max. preserved depth), 30-35cm (max. preserved width), 9-10cm (thickness of ledge). The royal throne, as reconstructed, must have been approximately 50cm in depth, 70cm in width, 50cm in height (without the backrest of the seat), with a seat depression of 45cm x 45cm in size and 3cm in depth, and must have weighed more than 250kg in total. The study of proportions, based on 3D scanning and photogrammetry, revealed close analogies with the throne of Knossos. The Mycenae throne (50cm x 70cm) is more massive than the Knossos throne (32.2cm x 45.1cm), but their depth-to-width ratio is identical (0.71). The contact zone of the backrest (5.86.2cm) occupies 63% of the total width of the rear ledge (8.9-10cm) on the Mycenae throne (65% on the Knossos throne). The central shallow seat depression of the Mycenae throne is similar to that of the

9

10

11

Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (Vienna 25-29 April, 2016) at https://www.oeaw.ac.at/fileadmin/ Institute/OREA/pdf/events/ ICAANE_2016_Abstract_Booklet.pdf, 257-262. E. FRENCH, “Recycling in Palatial Mycenae,” in D. DANIELIDOU (ed.), Doron. Studies in Honor of Professor Sp. Iakovidis (2009) 285-290. K. KILIAN, “Die ‘Thronfolge’ in Tiryns,” AM 103 (1988) 1-9; T. SCHULZ, “Die Rekonstruktion des Thronpodestes von Tiryns,” AM 103 (1988) 11-23. FRENCH (supra n. 9) 287-289, theorizes that the two damaged (unfinished?) joining serpentine fragments were collected and retained as raw material to be later recycled and reused.

THE PALACE THRONE OF MYCENAE

169

Knossos throne, with its sloping bottom slightly deepening towards the backrest, where it reaches a maximum depth of 3cm (compatible to that of the Knossos throne which is merely 0.5cm deeper). The estimated maximum length of the seat depression of the Mycenae throne (44.8cm), as derived from the converging planes of its sloping bottom and the horizontal ledge, is longer than that of the Knossos throne (30.2cm), but is absolutely consistent with the average length of femurs of the skeletons in the royal graves of Grave Circle A at Mycenae. The Mycenae throne was, therefore, tailored to accommodate larger body types, an observation which is consistent with the conclusions of recent comparative anthropometric analysis of skeletal remains of Minoans and Mycenaeans.12 Finally, the length-to-width ratio of the raised throne bases of Mycenae and Tiryns (both built of green serpentine blocks with relief decoration of a running spiral) is identical (1.32) and slightly greater than that of the throne bases of Pylos (1.19) and Knossos (1.24). The close proportional analogies between the thrones of Mycenae and Knossos as well as among the throne bases of Tiryns, Mycenae, Pylos, and Knossos betray advanced standardization of the established palace throne type in Mycenaean Greece by the Late Helladic IIIB period. VI. Historical and literary sources The term to-no («θρόνος») appears on contemporary Linear B tablets from the Pylos Ta series (707, 708, 714, 721) that record palatial inventory lists of vases, furniture, and equipment, including 11 tables, 6 thronoi (to-no) and 16 footstools (ta-ra-nu-we or «θρήνυς») with brief description of material, construction, and decoration (wooden with inlays of quartz, gold, silver, semi-precious stones and bluemass) (Pl. LXVIb).13 In the Iliad, the word «θρόνος» is used 14 times for divine thrones of gods (Zeus, Hera, Athena, Ares, Thetis, Hades), while, alternatively, the word «κλισμός» (seat) is used only 4 times. In the Odyssey, «θρόνος» is used 39 times while «κλισμός» appears only12 times, both terms denoting divine thrones for gods, palatial thrones for the wanax (Menelaos, Nestor, Odysseus), or luxury seats for aristocrats (suitors in Ithaca). Both the contemporary Linear B tablets and the later Homeric epic poems present the luxuriously decorated wooden throne as a symbol of power, wealth, prestige, and elite status, connected with the divine, royalty, or aristocracy. A monumental throne like that of Mycenae or Knossos, made of permanent rather than perishable material, must have been an even more emphatic symbol of antiquity, power, and stability (Pls LXIVa-b and LXVa). Mneme and Power: the palace throne of Mycenae, semiology of power and the mechanics of cultural memory Constructing Mneme and power ideology The megaron, a distinct architectural form tracing back to the Early Helladic “corridor house” and the Neolithic megara of Sesklo and Dimini, developed into the core unit of the Mycenaean palace surrounded by courtyards, residential quarters, workshops and storage facilities, and eventually reached an advanced stage of spatial and morphological formalization by the LH IIIB period. The close similarities among the Mycenaean palaces in terms of form, size and proportions, spatial lay-out, construction, materials, techniques, decoration and iconography have led scholars to theorize about travelling workshops employed by palatial hierarchies that applied a basic uniform plan with minor variations adjusted to the different tastes and needs of the local patrons. Certain diagnostic features of the Mycenaean megaron, such as the central circular hearth, the monumental throne, and the iconography of the wall frescoes acquired manifold symbolic significance attached to their practical function, thus serving as visual manifestation of the ruler’s power and sovereignty, evoking divine sanctification of palatial

12

13

S.C. BISEL and J.L. ANGEL, “Health and Nutrition in Mycenaean Greece. A Study in Human Skeletal Remains,” in N.C. WILKIE and W.D.E. COULSON (eds), Contributions to Aegean Archaeology. Studies in Honor of William A. McDonald (1985) 197. REHAK (supra n. 7) 101; J. CHADWICK, Documents in Mycenaean Greek (1973) 332-346.

170

Christofilis MAGGIDIS

authority, displaying wealth and elite status, and operating as control mechanisms of collective cultural memory through royal propaganda. Although the throne is the most prominent symbol of royal power and authority, the focal feature of the throne room of the Mycenaean megaron is not the throne itself, which stands mid-way against the long wall on the right-hand side of the incomer, but the central circular hearth, a fixed visual point of communal gathering obeying to an egalitarian principle of equality represented by a closed, perfectly symmetrical geometric shape without beginning or end (Pls LVIIa and LXIVa-b). The throne room (or more appropriately, “hearth room”) of the Mycenaean megaron, therefore, is at variance with contemporary royal throne rooms in Egypt, Anatolia, Assyria, and Mesopotamia, which follow a radically different spatial arrangement oriented to the monumental throne as the main focal feature. The power semiotics of this spatial variance that challenge the absolute authority of the wanax and the degree of centralization of the Mycenaean palace states may actually find support in Linear B textual evidence for peripheral decentralization, provincial and local administration, and collective bodies of political power.14 The close morphological and proportional analogies among the thrones or throne bases of Mycenae, Knossos, Tiryns, and Pylos indicate standardization and formalization of an established throne type by the LH IIIB period. The choice of material and decoration for the throne of Mycenae echo the “royal” combination of conglomerate (throne) and green marble/serpentine (throne base), a feature of Mycenaean palatial architecture employed for the decoration of facades on contemporary royal tholos tombs at Mycenae (Pl. LXVIa). The extensive use of conglomerate is a diagnostic feature of Mycenaean palatial architecture observed at Mycenae, Tiryns, and Knossos for walls, gates, tomb facades, and important spatial transitions (thresholds, lintels, antae) (Pls LXVb and LXVIa). Conglomerate was originally used for practical reasons as it is softer and easier to quarry in larger size of blocks (by contrast to limestone, which is harder and thinly bedded),15 but eventually may have acquired political significance as a material symbol connected with palatial power and wealth, to infer from its spatial distribution and targeted placement in important buildings and key locations.16 Despite the wide variety of decorative sandstones and conglomerates found at Mycenae, the palace throne is the only known object from the citadel to be carved from this type of local conglomerate. Unlike the throne of Knossos that was made of alabaster, an imported material alluding to Minoan ties with Egypt and Minoan thalassocracy, the choice of local limestone conglomerate for the Mycenae throne may have intended to convey different political symbolisms of indigenous power and to construct collective cultural memory upon a visual image of autochthony, stability, antiquity, and tradition, as the massive stone throne must have stood inside the palace like a solid outcrop of the natural bedrock on the rocky hill of Mycenae (Pls LXIIIa and LXIVb). Likewise, a bedrock outcrop was left unhewn in the adyton of Temple Γ at the Cult Center of Mycenae, perhaps as a sacred landmark.17 Furthermore, if the throne was indeed carved out of a loose boulder that tumbled down into the riverbed, then the particular material selected for the royal throne might have also served as apotropaic mnemonic visualization of a catastrophic event of the past (rock slide or earthquake) or as a material symbol transcendentally connected with divine sanctification of palatial power and authority.

14

15 16

17

E. KYRIAKIDIS, “Collectors as Stakeholders in Mycenaean Governance: Property and the Relations between the Ruling Class and the State,” Cambridge Classical Journal 56 (2010) 140-177; IDEM, “Polity and Administrative Control in Mycenaean Pylos” (forthcoming). M.D. HIGGINS and R. HIGGINS, A Geological Companion to Greece and the Aegean (1996) 46-47. J. WRIGHT, “The Social Production of Space and the Architectural Reproduction of Society in the Bronze Age Aegean during the 2nd Millenium BCE,” in J. MARAN, C. JUWIG, H. SCHWENGEL, U. THALER (eds), Constructing Power. Architecture, Ideology and Social Practice (2006) 49-69, esp. 60-62; J. MARAN, “Mycenaean Citadels as Performative Space,” in ibidem 75-88. IAKOVIDIS (supra n. 3) 44-45.

THE PALACE THRONE OF MYCENAE

171

Preserving Mneme The royal throne of the last palace at Mycenae (LH IIIB) dates to the period that saw the culmination of Mycenaean power and wealth, the extension of the cyclopean walls and expansion of the citadel (southwest and northeast extensions), monumental and megalithic architecture (Lion Gate, tholos tombs, cyclopean walls), large-scale engineering projects (Underground Cistern, dams, and highways), extensive restoration of the palace and the surrounding town after the catastrophic earthquake of 1250 BC, increasing colonization abroad and imperialistic expansionism in the Aegean islands, Cyprus, Asia Minor and the coastal regions of the Near East.18 In Greek mythology, this era of power, wealth, and glory was connected with the legendary kings Atreus and Agamemnon, and with the epic saga of the Trojan War. The last palace of Mycenae was leveled by massive earthquakes in ca 1200 BC (one of several natural and cultural factors that triggered the fatal systems failure of the Mycenaean palace states) (Pl. LVIIa).19 The Mycenaeans witnessed in shock and awe the sudden seismic destruction that ruined their palace and the violent crash of their king’s throne over the cliff into the ravine below. Surviving blocks from the throne base were salvaged, collected and retained perhaps as relics right after the catastrophe. This shocking experience was vividly preserved in their collective memory as visual manifestation of the gods’ wrath and may have given rise to the Greek aetiological myths of the Atreid saga, the prepatoric family curse and Agamemnon’s tragic fall, thus transforming collective historical memory to cultural memory through the mystical power of mythology, epic poetry and ancient drama. Christofilis MAGGIDIS

18

19

C. MAGGIDIS, “Mycenae Abroad: Mycenaean Foreign Policy, the Anatolian Frontier, and the Theory of Overextension – Reconstructing an Integrated Causal Nexus for the Decline and Fall of the Mycenaean World,” in P. KOUSOULIS and K. MAGLIVERAS (eds), Moving Across Borders. Foreign Relations, Religion and Cultural Interactions in the Ancient Mediterranean (2007) 71-100. C. MAGGIDIS, “Mycenaean Palatial Overextension and the Dynamics of the Systems Collapse of the Mycenaean World,” in DANIELIDOU (supra n. 9) 397-418.

172

Christofilis MAGGIDIS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Pl. LVa Pl. LVb Pl. LVIa Pl. LVIb Pl. LVIIa Pl. LVIIb Pl. LVIIIa Pl. LVIIIb Pl. LIXa Pl. LIXb Pl. LXa Pl. LXb Pl. LXIa Pl. LXIb Pl. LXIIa Pl. LXIIb Pl. LXIIIa Pl. LXIIIb Pl. LXIVa Pl. LXIVb Pl. LXVa Pl. LXVb Pl. LXVIa Pl. LXVIb Pl. LXVIc

Mycenae, Lower Town, South Sector (copyright: C. Maggidis). Mycenae, Lower Town excavation (copyright: C. Maggidis). Mycenae: collapse, rolling course, and findspot of the throne (copyright: C. Maggidis). The throne fragment in situ (copyright: C. Maggidis). The palace of Mycenae: the LH IIIB megaron (copyright: C. Maggidis). The throne fragment (copyright: C. Maggidis). The throne fragment (copyright: C. Maggidis). The throne fragment: damage analysis (copyright: C. Maggidis). The throne fragment and comparanda: morphology and typology (copyright: C. Maggidis). The thrones of Mycenae and Knossos: metrological analysis, dimensions and proportions (copyright: C. Maggidis). The throne fragment: contact surface with backrest (copyright: C. Maggidis). The throne of Mycenae: reconstruction of seat and backrest (copyright: C. Maggidis). Serpentine relief decoration of the throne bases of Mycenae and Tiryns (copyright: C. Maggidis). The throne of Mycenae (reconstruction) (copyright: C. Maggidis). The throne of Mycenae (reconstruction) (copyright: C. Maggidis). The throne fragment: petrographic analysis (copyright: C. Maggidis). The palace of Mycenae: the LH IIIB megaron with Mount Sara in the background (copyright: C. Maggidis). The palace of Mycenae: the throne room of the LH IIIB palace (copyright: C. Maggidis). The palace of Mycenae: the throne room of the LH IIIB palace (copyright: C. Maggidis). The palace of Mycenae: the throne room of the LH IIIB megaron (copyright: C. Maggidis). The palace of Knossos: the throne room (copyright: C. Maggidis). Mycenae: the Lion Gate relief (copyright: C. Maggidis). Mycenae: the 'Tholos Tomb of Atreus' with façade reconstruction (copyright: C. Maggidis). 'Diphros-type' thrones and seats from Egypt and the Aegean (copyright: C. Maggidis). Thrones with high and low backrest from Egypt and Mesopotamia (copyright: C. Maggidis).

LV

a

b

LVI

a

b

LVII

a

b

LVIII

a

b

LIX

a

b

LX

a

b

LXI

a

b

LXII

a

b

LXIII

a

b

LXIV

a

b

LXV

a

b

LXVI

a

b

c

FACING THE MYCENAEAN PAST AT MYCENAE* The organization of a complex society and the accumulation of wealth in favour of a ruling class during the Early Mycenaean period and the following Palatial period was an achievement that marked the rise and peak of the Mycenaean culture and political power. The self-confidence of the people of the next generations left traces of collective social memory not only because of their feelings as proud heirs of the glorious past, but also for their own purposes depending on historical circumstances. The Mycenaean past faced by the people of our past is a matter that just began being discussed, enough time after the appearance of the seminal work of M. Halbwachs1 and it will continue as long as the following generations are interested in its perception in the modern world. Many scholars, archaeologists, anthropologists, historians, philologists have discussed this issue, beginning from J. Assman, coming to C. Antonaccio for Iron Age Greece, J. Maran especially for the Argolid with a focus to the 12th cent. BC Tiryns and S. Button for mortuary practices at Mycenae.2 Generally the past is preserved mainly through a selective memory, fed by visible remains, oral tradition, epic poetry, heirlooms. This paper will try to investigate it through the material remains that excavation at Mycenae has brought to light. Grave Circle A stands as the most prominent case of the history of the site, since it first appeared in MH time, in order to separate the special group of Shaft Graves from the rest Prehistoric Cemetery at Mycenae.3 The construction of a wall – whether circular, elliptical or just a curvilinear retaining wall4 – was the first act to commemorate the deceased ancestors buried in one or two of the shaft graves and consequently to receive the other burials. Furthermore, the marker, that usually pointed the position of a grave for practical purpose, took theform of a stone slab, a stele, often with a sculpture or engraved decoration on it referring to the life of the deceased, whose memory the society wanted to preserve.

*

1 2

3

4

I am very grateful to the organizers of the conference for accepting my contribution and especially to Professor Elisabetta Borgna for reading my presentation, as unforeseen difficulty prevented me from being present. I also express my thanks to the director Alcestis Papadinitriou for facilitating my research at the Museum of Mycenae providing me photographs of high quality, to the conservators Michalis Skourtis, Antonia Papathanassiou and Maria Dimitrakopoulou, who cleaned and mended the pottery, and the guards Nikos Katsoulieris and Nikos Mitrovgenis, who assisted my work. The drawings are owed to the abilities of Sofia Sakkari, Gerassimos Rassias and a draft of our late Maria Nioti and the maps to the experience of Giorgos Biniaris ad Katerina Mitsou. I am deeply indebted to the Athens National Museum and especially to Alexandra Chatzipanagiotou who gave me access to unpublished material. I also want to thank for the fruitful discussions Charalambos Kritzas, Wolf Rudolf, Gunnel Ekroth, Eustathios Chiotis, Kostas Paschalidis and Yiannis Glanakis, who corrected my English text. I am responsible for the expressed views or errors. The photographs, if not otherwise indicated, are taken by the author. M. HALBWACHS, La mémoire collective (1950). J. ASSMAN, Η πολιτισμική μνήμη. Γραφή, ανάμνηση και πολιτική ταυτότητα στους πρώιμους ανώτερους πολιτισμούς (2017) 365-405; C. ANTONACCIO, An Archaeology of Ancestors. Tomb Cult in Early Greece (1995); J.MARAN, “Contested Pasts. The Society of the 12th c BCE. Argolid and the Memory of the Mycenaean Palatial Period,” in W. GAUSS, M. LINBLOM, R. ANGUS K. SMITH, J.C. WRIGHT (eds), Our Cups Are Full. Pottery And Society in the Bronze Age. Papers presented to Jeremy B. Rutter on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (2011); S. BUTTON, “Mortuary Studies, Memory, and the Mycnaean Polity,” in N. YOFFEE (ed.), Negotiating the Past in the Past. Identity, Memory, and Landscape in Archaeological Resaerch (2007) 76-103. M. ALDEN, Well Built Mycenae, Fascicule 7, The Prehistoric Cemetery, Pre-Mycenaean and early Mycenaean Graves (2000). There are many suppositions about this segment of curving wall, since it is impossible to be revealed, see, R. LAFFINEUR, “Le cercle des tombes de Schliemann, cent-dix ans après,” in R. LAFFINEUR (ed.), Thanatos. Les coutumes funéraires en Egée à l’Âge du Bronze. Actes du colloque de Liège (21-23 avril 1986) (1987) 118119 and Ch. GATES, “Rethinking the Building History of Grave Circle A at Mycenae,” AJA 89 (1985) 265-268. The fact is that the shaft graves had to be separated as exceptional burials, BUTTON (supra n. 2) 86.

174

Heleni PALAIOLOGOU

The Shaft Graves’ area is not used anymore for burials after LH IIA, but there are serious indications that memorial ceremonies took place there. First, Schliemann has described and drawn an elliptical stone hollow construction,5 uncovered over grave IV, which has been interpreted as an altar destined to accept libations to the buried ancestors, during MH/LH I according to his description of sherds found. Secondly, a small cave-like opening, between graves I and IV, partially blocked with mud bricks, contained sherds and a psi figurine of LH IIIB.6 Two other similar figurines had fallen in grave I. Obviously, these are enough indications that a cult activity used to take place over the graves from LH I till LH IIIB, when a new circular enclosure was built. It is a fact that for a long period afterwards there are not found material remains, but the building history of the 13th cent. displays that the people buried in these graves were highly respected. At this time, a building programme was undertaken by the authorities of Mycenae, which aimed enlarging the acropolis and refurbishing of the area of Grave Circle A. A circular enclosure was constructed, luxurious in appearance because the material used consists of slabs mainly of a rare shelly and bioclastic limestone. They were quarried at the recently identified deposits of Perachora, about 60km north of Mycenae7 by road (Pl. LXVIIa). They were probably carried by boat to a harbor at the Corinthian gulf and then by chariots to Mycenae through the well-built identified roads. Although the renovators were unaware of the exact position of the graves, the much earlier stelae were re-erected, eleven sculpted and nine unsculpted stelae in total standing over or close to the six shaft graves,8 indicating a group more than the exact number of burials or tombs underneath.9 The plaques of the stelae were shaped from two types of oolithic limestone, most of them of a shelly stone and the rest without inclusion of shells.10 The stone material appears similar to the shelly and bioclastic limestone used for the enclosure in the 13th cent. BC, coming from Perachora. Although there is no geological analysis for the stelae, the research conducted by the Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration identified three slabs from the Grave Circle A (1.7% of the corpus) cut from oolithic limestone from the Examilia quarry.11 5

6 7

8

9

10 11

I. STRØM, “The so-called Altar above the Shaft Grave IV at Mycenae,” Acta Archaeologica 54 (1983) 141146, with further references. A. KERAMOPOULOS, AEphem 1918, 52. A special research was undertaken by a geological team to investigate the provenience of the material of Grave Circle A all over the area, starting from Magoula Monastiraki, proposed by Wace (A.J.B. WACE, Mycenae. An Archaeological History and Guide [1949] 137) and repeated by other scholars, at the end with successful results at Perachora. E. ZANANIRI, P. TSOBOS, A. PHOTIADES and E. CHIOTIS, “Η διαχρονική εξέλιξη του Κορινθιακού κόλπου σε διεθνές γεωλογικό εργαστήριο. Ιδιαίτερη αναφορά στην Περαχώρα Λουτρακίου,” Bulletin of the Geological society of Greece 36, Proceedings of the Conference “Land and Sea of Korinthos”, May 2007 (2008) 61-64; E. CHIOTIS, P. TSOMBOS and A. PHOTIADES, “Αρχαία λατομεία ασβεστολίθου στη λίμνη Περαχώρας Λουτρακίου,” in N. ZACHARIAS, M. GEORGAKOPOULOU, K. POLYKRETI, Y. FACORELIIS and Th. VAKOULIS (eds), Πρακτικά 5ου Συμποσίου Ελληνικής Αρχαιομετρικής (2012) 661-677. J.G. YOUNGER, “The Stelai of Mycenae Grave Circle A and B,” in R. LAFFINEUR and Ph. BETANCOURT (eds), TEXNH. Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 6th Rencontre égéenne internationale, Philadelphia, Temple University, 18-21 April 1996 (1997) 229-239. D. VASSILIKOU, Το Χρονικό της ανασκαφής των Μυκηνών 1870-1878 (2011) 168, n. 425, who considers that possibly one or two of the fourteen tombs were of EH date; A.J.B. WACE, “Pausanias and Mycenae,” in W. KOHLHOMER (ed.), Neue Beiträge zur Klassischen Altertumswissenschaft. Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Bernhard Schweitzer (1954) 22; WACE (supra n. 7) 61. Twenty stelae, thirteen of them standing, could not mark the number of the nineteen burials of the six shaft gaves, which was unknown to the renovators. R. LAFFINEUR, “Aspects of Rulership at Mycenae in the Shaft Grave Period,” in P. REHAK (ed.), The Role of the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean. Proceedings of a Panel Discussion presented at the Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America New Orleans, Louisiana, 28 December 1992 (1995) 86-93, where, after a detailed analysis of the known data, it is suggested that the stelae were re-erected later than LH IIIB. We think that this might have happened, if they were already re-erected earlier and had fallen for some reason, possibly the great earthquake at the end of the 13th cent. BC. YOUNGER (supra n. 8) 230-231. CHIOTIS et al. (supra n. 7) 667-8.

FACING THE MYCENAEAN PAST AT MYCENAE

175

This “poros” was much used in Mycenaean architecture during the early period before LH IIIA1, so it sounds possible that the oolitic limestone plaques of the enclosure may indeed belong to reused material found there. The evident difference is that early Mycenaeans used a nice material from the Examilia quarries, from a distance of 25km to the northeast of Mycenae, while the renovators of the mature palatial period were able to afford a great quantity of slabs from Perachora, paying a special attention to the appearance of earlier stones but now using material of higher quality. The circular form of the enclosure is in accordance to the Bronze Age Aegean funeral tradition12 and it encircled humble graves, which were rather ignored. We suppose that the Circle A was used for ritual ceremonies that may not have involved or at least left behind any movable finds, because its space is not used for other burials or buildings. On the contrary, a monumental entrance is added, without traces of a door, so that access is given to a number of visitors to take part in ceremonial events, while at the nearby cult Centre the space is limited inside and outside the cult buildings. At its last phase in the Bronze Age, LH IIIB or IIIC, according to the excavators’ observations, the area of Circle A was covered by a layer of red earth,13 not local, but carried there from a distant place and possibly with the aim of giving a special appearance to the encircled space. It is observable that the tops of the markers stelae bear traces of more use than their rest body, so that it has been supposed that they were possibly covered at the lower part by that earth, to which I return below. Grave Circle B, constructed separately from the Prehistoric Cemetery to the west, presents a simpler history, yet one which cannot be easily understood. It is almost identical in size to Circle A, it received a greater number of graves, and it preserved, although much damaged, the shape of its original, early cyclopean enclosure14 without any sign for later alterations. In Late Bronze Age, it is unclear for how long its whole surface remained visible. In early LH IIIB its northeastern part was partially covered by the mound of the tholos Tomb of Clytemnestra, specifically the debris of the conglomerate stone used for its construction, as it was observed during the excavation.15 Except the some evidence of post funeral rites inside the circle, there is no trace of later cult activity. Instead part of the circle was used to accommodate later, more “fashionable” perhaps constructions, i.e. Tomb Ro, Chamber Tomb 222 and the Tholos of Clytemnestra. Tomb Ro stands inside the Grave Circle B as a more sophisticated architectural form than the shaft graves, but it was overwhelmed by the monumentality of the tholos tombs. Chamber Tomb 222 constructed in LH IIB and abandoned in LH IIIA116 and the Clytemnestra’ Tholos built in early IIIB17 continue the funeral function of the plot, perhaps indicating also awareness of its past function. Later, the roof of Tomb 222 collapsed and the chamber was filled up with rubbish. Even later, in LG II phase, a circular altar was built at the top of the chamber, close to the southwest part of the enclosure of the Grave Circle B, where a tomb cult took place in Late Geometric times.18 It has been considered that the cult was addressed to the chamber tomb, because it has been found on the top of the collapsed chamber and in comparison to other similar constructions at Prosymna and Deiras, but it was also almost in touch with the wall of Circle B, which was partially visible at that

12 13 14 15 16

17 18

O. PELON, Tholoi, tumuli et cercles funéraires (1976) 148-152. GATES (supra n. 4) 270. G.E. MYLONAS, Ο Ταφικός Κύκλος Β των Μυκηνών (1972-1973) 19. MYLONAS (supra n. 14) 10-11; I. PAPADIMITRIOU, Prakt 1952, 433-4; IDREM, Prakt 1953, 205-206. E. KONSTANTINIDI-SYVRIDI and C. PASCHALIDIS, “Life and Death at Mycenae at the End of the Prepalatial Period,” in A.-L. SCHALLIN and I. TOURNAVITOU (eds), Mycenaeans up to date. The Archaeology of the Northeastern Peloponnese, Current Concepts and New Directions (2015) 405-431. D.J. MASON, “The Date of the Tomb of Clytemnestra,” BSA 108 (2013) 97-119. E. KONSTANTINIDI-SYVRIDI and C. PASCHALIDIS, “Honouring the Dead off-stage: A Case of Tomb Cult south of Grave Circle B, Mycenae,” in H. CAVANAGH, W. CAVANAGH and J. ROY (eds), Honouring the Dead in the Peloponnese. Proceedings of the Conference held at Sparta 23-25 April 2009, 289-328 (CPS Online Publications prepared by S. Farnham: http://www.notingham.ac.uk/cps/documents/ honor ingthedead/konstantinidi-syvridi-paschalidis.pdf).

176

Heleni PALAIOLOGOU

time.19 The votive offerings on the altar pottery of decorated pottery, including four kraters and a cup, dated to the short period LG IIb (725-700 BC). The fragment of an architectural model of a possibly absidal building, designed elaborately with a column inside an entrance or a window, beside the vases echoes the ideology oikos of heroic ancestors or the oikos of a newly appeared elite family, which displays its social position in the competitive society of the rising polis. The feasting ceramic set and the model look as coming from a memorial ceremony addressed to the ancestors.20 The nearby Tholos of Clytemnestra received similar geometric pots as offerings in the dromos at the same times. Earlier in LH IIIB1, a funeral feast and/or an inauguration ceremony appears to have taken place at the foundation of the retaining wall on the east side of the tholos,21 a deposit of potsherds and figurines was discovered there without disturbing the Grave Circle B. It is generally accepted that the avoidance of building22 over the Grave Circle A was conscious and betrayed a deep respect in part of the people of the post palatial period and of the Iron Age, during which times that the acropolis was inhabited. For the LH IIIC phase this reverence is strengthened by the inconvenient position of the Granary abutting the fortification wall and the missing posterior buildings there until the end Mycenae’s live history, the Roman conquest. A similar situation is probably observed at Grave Circle B, where its precise arrangement was forgotten but its function as a funeral monument was preserved through the later aforementioned tombs. Finally, Pausanias narrates that he had been shown the Tombs of Clytemnestra and Aegisthus outside the acropolis.23 As the tholoi tombs were generally known at his time as “treasuries”, it is possible that what Pausanias associated with the Tombs of Clytemnestra and Aegisthus were actually remains the Grave Circle B and been informed what the cultural memory had recorded from the past and elected to transmit. We should accept his information and it is also suggested that only the preserved part was covered by the Clytemnestra’s debris, the rest was visible and for this reason the stones of the enclosure collapsed or were looted. The remains of a construction dated to Geometric or early 7th cent. BC, a wall and a pile of tiles, known only through a brief description by their excavator, also abutted Circle B, though they did not

19 20

21 22

23

See below. KONSTANTINIDI-SYVRIDI and PASCHALIDIS (supra n. 18) 297-310. Different views have been expressed, depending on the find circumstances of every model. A. GADOLOU, “Narrative Art and Ritual in the Sanctuary of Poseidon Heliconius in Ancient Helike, Achaea,” in V. VLACHOU (ed.), Pots, Workshops and Early Iron Age Society. Function and Role of Ceramics in Early Greece (2015) 267-276; IDEM, “A Late Geometric Architectural Model with Figure Decoration from Ancient Helike, Achaea,” BSA 106 (2011) 247-273; G. NORDQUIST, “A House for Athena Alea? On Two Fragments of House Models from the Sanctuary at Tegea,” in E. ØSTBY (ed.), Ancient Arcadia. Papers from the Third International Seminar on Ancient Arcadia, held at the Norwegian Institute at Athens, 7-10 May 2002 (2005) 151-166; A. MAZARAKIS AINIAN, From Ruler’s Dwellings to Temples. Architecture, Religion and Society in Early Iron Age Greece (1100-700 BC) (1997). For feasting activities, see J.C. WRIGHT (ed.), The Mycenaean Feast (2004). MASON (supra n. 17) 115-7. E. FRENCH, “The Significance of Changes in Spatial Usage at Mycenae,” in R. BACHHUBER and R.G. ROBERTS (eds), Forces of Transformation. The end of the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean. Proceedings of an International Symposium held at St. John’s College, University of Oxford 25-27th March 2006 (2009) 108-110; C. GALLOU, The Mycenaean Cult of the Dead (2005) 21. The same attitude is observed at the palace of Knossos, where it is untouched by any settlement, although its surroundings were densely inhabited, and its space was used only for the establishment of sanctuaries, see M. PRENT, “Cultic Activities at the Palace of Knossos,” in G. CADOGAN, E. HATZAKI and A. VASILAKIS (eds), Knossos, Palace, City, State. Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion organized by the British School at Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities of Herakleion in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evans’s Excavations at Knossos (2004) 411. Paus. II, 16, 7; I. PAPADIMITRIOU, Prakt 1952, 434; IDEM, Prakt 1954, 224, fig. 12, contra MYLONAS (supra n. 14), 19-20; WACE (supra n. 9) witnessed the excavation and also estimated that a part was visible; ANTONACCIO (supra n. 2) 51-52.

FACING THE MYCENAEAN PAST AT MYCENAE

177

extend on its interior surface. These remains may suggest the presence of a semi-open air sanctuary, in analogy to other similar cases listed below.24 Both circles, during the early Mycenaean and LH IIIA period, look belonging to a heroic past, not very far, known through communicative memory25 transmitted mainly by narrations, and secondly by bards’ songs and recitations. They represented the testimony of the heroic ancestors who had been the founders of their prosperity and prestige. By caring for the funeral monuments and conducting ceremonies, they strengthened their social cohesion and legitimized their ruling position. The Schlieman’s and Keramopoulos’s “altars” may be material expressions of this type of social memory. Later, in the 13th cent. BC, when details about the graves had been forgotten, but their presence was remembered and reminding the past, this memory was institutionalized through expensive public works as seen in the refurbishment of Circle A and the continuity at Circle B. For this reason, the cultural memory at Mycenae already begun in LH IIIB, a time of great expansion and high stress at the same time. After the collapse of the palatial system, a similar source of pride and identity was necessary to the members of the weakened society to re-establish or to legitimize their social position. Besides other manifestations,26 this is apparent at the three burial practices of the new generations. Firstly, the old chamber tombs continued to be used or re-used, declaring their lineage and memory of the earlier generations. After the scarcity of offerings in LH IIIB2 burials,27 funerals once again become arenas of display, especially during the flourishing interval of LH IIIC Middle, although in a decreased quantity and luxury, by comparison to the earlier Mycenaean periods. Secondly, a number of cist or pit graves are established over the ruins of the demolished buildings of the earlier palatial period, declaring either their ownership or admiration with the monumental buildings of the past. Big ceramic kraters were used as markers, such as the Warriors’ crater above the ruins of the homonymous House,28 and bronze tripods, as the two vessels found in situ over the House of the Tomb of the Tripods29 suggest. Both shapes, kraters and tripods of vessels make reference to funerary meals, wellknown in the antiquity. The ruins of the Warrior’s House and other buildings were left untouched from repairing and accepted burials on their debris. It is at this time, in LH IIIC Middle, that a shaft grave stele with incised decoration, is plastered and painted on its renovated surface with the representation of a procession of warriors and other characteristic figures of the Mycenaean repertory. It was possibly reused as a tomb marker, but it is certain that it was finally broken and used as precious building material and marker of a niche inside Chamber Tomb 70 in the Kalkani cemetery, at Mycenae,30 maintaining this way its funeral function. A representative case of the transformation that took place in postpalatial period and Iron Age is the site of Chania (Pl. LXVIIb), where in LH IIIB1, the landscape was domesticated to a small but prosperous settlement, in the plain.31 A sudden destruction by fire in advanced LH IIIB, interrupts the 24 25 26 27 28 29

30

31

See below, the sanctuaries at Chania and Agamemnoneion. This analysis and terms are based on view of the memory by ASSMAN (supra n. 2). MARAN (supra n. 2); LAFFINEUR (supra n. 4) 90. E.B. FRENCH, “A Group of Late Helladic IIIB Pottery from Mycenae,” BSA 64 (1969) 71. E.B. FRENCH, Well Built Mycenae, Fascicule 16/17, The Post-palatial Levels (2011) 26. J. MARAN, “Coming to Terms with the Past: Ideology and Power in Late Helladic IIIC,” in S. DEGERJALKOTZY and I.S. LEMOS (eds), Ancient Greece. From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer (2006) 139140, n. 27; A. ONASOGLOU, Η Οικία του Τάφου των Τριπόδων στις Μυκήνες (1995) 25-9, Σχ. ΙΧ, Πιν. 7α, 8α. According to the excavator’s description, the stele was inserted upright covering the right half of the opening of the niche, instead of the wall, which would complete the left half part of the wall. It is impossible to know the exact date of this last use, because the accompanying pottery has not been found. Ch. TSOUNTAS, “Γραπτή στήλη εκ Μυκηνών,” ΑEpem 1896, 1-22; A. XENAKI-SAKELLARIOU, Οι θαλαμωτοί τάφοι των Μυκηνών ανασκαφής Χρ. Τσούντα (1887-1898) (1985) 203-4, frontispiece; S. IMMERWAHR, Aegean Painting in the Bronze Age (1990) 149-151, no. MY No. 21; LAFFINEUR (supra n. 4) 90. H. PALAIOLOGOU, “A Mycenaean Building at Chania of Mycenae,” in SCHALLIN and TOURNAVITOU (supra n. 16) 53-78.

178

Heleni PALAIOLOGOU

human habitation. After a short interval, at LH IIIC Middle, a burial stone tumulus was constructed close to the ruins and a part of the extant building material was used for a small percentage of its filling.32 The people, who buried their deceased almost three generations later, knew and recognized the traces of the earlier habitants of the ruined buildings and considered themselves their heirs at the exploitation of the land and the control of the road, leading from Mycenae to Argos. The tumulus accepted at least nine burial cremations in urns, an alien practice to the customs of the predecessors, but it also bears Mycenaean features, similar to the circles. Yet, the circular plan of the tumulus appears to bear resemblance to the preceding Mycenaean funerary practices and may well bear reference to them. The enclosing wall was built of big stones in a late cyclopean style reminding the early cyclopean enceinte of Circle B. The interior surface of the circle was even as if it was constructed to be visible and not to be concealed by the stone filling of the mound, as it happened after the first burial was placed under its floor. The primary floor of the tumulus was covered by a thin layer of red earth and finally its top surface was also concealed by a layer of red clay destined to insulate and protect the surface from rainwater33 and also to give a colorful contrast to the pale stones of the circle. As already mentioned, a similar layer of red earth covered the Circle A in LH IIIB or LHIIIC Early.34 While the usual material for waterproofing and creating even surfaces at Mycenae was the yellow clay plesia, used at floors, tholos tombs, and fortification walls, that was not applied over the Grave Circle A and tumulus at Chania.35 At the bases of most of the stelae found in Circle B the excavator Ioannis Papadimitriou observed the use of a red clay level, inside which the slabs were fixed.36 This red clay level was used to cover the grave, and around it, before the installation of the marker and it was similar to the artificial clay plinths of the side walls inside the graves. It was absent at the disturbed parts of the surface of the cemetery. In addition, a powder of red ochre has been identified inside a golden vessel from Tomb Γ.37 Possibly, the red earth served a special care and the red colour ascribed these monuments with a particular symbolism.38 The people who constructed the tumulus at Chania had most likely seen Circle A after its last renovation and were also aware of the visible part of Circle B. Constructional elements and associated beliefs of the glorious past continue to appear in the 12th cent. BC, while new practices, cremations and stone filling, are adopted through the multicultural contacts of the period. A heirloom of the palatial period, a bronze stylus,39 was deposited on the primary floor under the filling, a practically useless object for the illiterate people of the post-palatial period, but prestigious for its material, as well as its origin and useful for the inauguration of the tumulus. A gesture toward the ancestors buried in a LH IIIA2 chamber tomb, looted only of its metal offerings,40 is the deposition of a LH IIIC Late stirrup jar at the upper level, over the entrance, at the 32

33 34

35

36 37

38

39 40

H. PALAIOLOGOU, “Late Helladic Cremation Burials at Chania of Mycenae,” in M. LOCHNER and F. RUPPENSTEIN (eds), Cremation Burials in the Region between the Middle Danube and the Aegean, 1300-750. Proceedings of the International Symposium held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences at Vienna, February 11th-12th, 2010 (2013) 248-279. PALAIOLOGOU (supra n. 32). GATES (supra n. 4) 268-271. The objections about this layer are mainly addressed to the proposed thickness of the red earth layer. On our opinion, it should be not more than 20-40 cm, comparing to Circle B, see below n. 36. The local clay plesia is widely applied for the roofs of the shaft graves of Circle B (I. PAPADIMITRIOU, Prakt 1952, 451, 1953, 233 and 1954, 255), the waterproofing of tholos tombs from the beginning of their construction, but it is used as a connecting material from the second constructional phase of the fortification wall (S.E. IAKOVIDIS, Late Helladic Citadels on Mainland Greece [1983] 29). I. PAPADIMITRIOU, Prakt 1953, 224, εικ. 12 and 1954, 242-244. M. SAKELLARIOU, “De l’ocre dans la tombe Γ du cercle B de Mycènes,” in ΦΙΛΙΑ ΕΠΗ ΕΙΣ ΓΕΩΡΓΙΟΝ Ε. ΜΥΛΩΝΑΝ III (1989) 15-18. F. BLAKOLMER, “Die Farbe Rot in Symbolik, Bildkunst und Sprache der bronzeitlichen Ägäis,” Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle 10 (2013) 275-286. PALAIOLOGOU (supra n. 32) 270, fig. 14b. About selective looting of Mycenaean tombs in Mycenaean time, see B. WELLS, “Death at Dendra. On Mortuary Practices in a Mycenaean Community,” in R. HÄGG and C. NORDQUIST (eds), Celebrations

FACING THE MYCENAEAN PAST AT MYCENAE

179

Asprochoma cemetery41 (Pls LXVIIb and LXVIIIb). The remaining numerous finds of the disturbed tomb were homogeneous and belonged to LH IIIA2 date. We cannot know if the vase was an excuse for the plundering, if it occurred simultaneously by the same people, or was an offering to the ancestors of the accidentally revealed tomb. Beside the road leading to the the Argive Heraion in an archaic cemetery at the site ofTserania (Pls LXVIIb and LXVIIIc-e), three human skulls, three fragmented vases, a stirrup jar (FS 170, FM 19), a rounded alabaster decorated with a rock pattern (FS 85, FM 32), a flask of the horizontal type (FS 190), dated to LH IIIA2 and a Late Geometric trefoil oinochoe were collected and deposited in a poros cist tomb, over a single burial42 (Pl. LXVIIIc-e). Evidently, all the contents, except the deceased in situ, are accidental finds of a Mycenaean chamber tomb, while the Late Geometric oinochoe had been an earlier offereing. The retention of the human remains with a selective choice of the skulls43 and the material offerings, deposited in a poros tomb-ossuary, indicates at least respect, “a general piety on part of the anonymous”44 towards the deceased from the past. There is no further evidence for the identification of ancestors’ cult with any contemporaneous offerings. The inclusion and deposition of the Mycenaean skulls and grave goods in a tomb of the cemetery is the only evidence intriguing that nothing else was offered to the deceased. On the contrary, at the cemetery of Asprochoma, in close proximity to the east of the Enyalios shrine, inside the chamber of a plundered tomb, three vases dated to the late sixth-early fifth cent. BC were found (Pl. LXIXa-c). They consist of a black glazed small stemmed dish, and a base of a bigger vase turned upside down, cut and worked properly and transformed to a shallow phiale, which preserves the black paint of the base inside.45 The third vase is a krateriskos (a small krater), of the popular Argive type with angular vertical strap handles, which is a usual offering in tombs and mainly sanctuaries and is associated with chthonian and heroic cult. This idea stems from the occurrence of this vessel at Agamenoneion, the Argive Heraeum, Tiryns, Kourtaki46 and its depiction on the heroic rock cut reliefs at the foothills of Larissa and Aspis at Argos47 (Pl. LXIXa-c). The few sherds discovered in the dromos and chamber of this particular tomb date to LH II-LH III A2 phase. Inside traces of fire in a thin layer of ash48 found at the centre of the chamber containing LH and early classical sherds. No bones were found anywhere and the vases except the heavy phiale were found broken. Both events took place at a time, the

41

42

43

44 45

46

47

48

of Death and Divinity in the Bronze Age Argolid. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 11-13 June, 1988 (1990) 126-7. Asprochoma, chamber Tomb VIII, stirrup jar FS 175, air hole opposite to the missing spout, FM 31 on the shoulder elaborate triangles (BE 27847). Tserania, Tomb 15, geometric oinochoe, black glazed with thin horizontal unpainted bands, a slender shape unlike the globular or ovoid Argive types, pointing to Attic influence or the Atticizing workshop of Asine (BE25917). A selective retention and veneration of human skulls has been observed during the history through the ages. For the Mycenaean period see GALLOU (supra n. 22) 118-9; for EM and MM see J. SOLES, “Reverence for Dead Ancestors in Prehistoric Crete,” in R. LAFFINEUR and R. HÄGG (eds), POTNIA. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age, Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference, Göteborg, Göteborg University, 12-15 April 2000 (2001) 229-235. BUTTON (supra n. 2). Asprochoma chamber Tomb I, marked in Atlas B3, 3, I; stemmed dish (BE 27783, to be compared with Athenian Agora XII, 149, Pl. 35, 985), phiale (BE 27821), krateriskos (BE 27826). A. FOLEY, The Argolid 800-600 BC. An Archaeological Survey (1988) 69-79, with further bibliography. There is confusion about the name of the vase, which is recorded as kantharos and krater or krateriskos as well; we consider the latter is more precise, depending on its size. M. ANDRONIKOS, “Λακωνικά ανάγλυφα,” Πελοποννησιακα 1 (1956) 253-314, especially 304, where the vase is represented with a snake and a rider, so it is identified as an attribute of the heroic cult, even if it is figured on its own. There are more rock cut reliefs around, which are to be published by Ch. Kritzas to whom I owe the information. Y. GALANAKIS, “Fire, Fragmentation and the Body in Late Bronze Age Aegean,” in M. MINA, S. TRIANTAPHYLLOU and Y. PAPADATOS (eds), An Archaeology of the Bodies and Embodied Identities in the Eastern Mediterranean (2016) 189-196.

180

Heleni PALAIOLOGOU

6th cent. BC, when transfer of ancient bones had already begun being practiced for various reasons.49 At Tserania, the transfer of skulls and offerings to a new deposit looks as an act of respect toward the deceased people or even ancestors, possibly followed by a ceremony, which is not archaeologically documented. At Asprochoma, the chamber tomb was emptied of its human remains and offerings and a new funeral ceremony involving a fire ritual and ceramic offerings took place. We cannot know what happened to the selected content of the tomb, but its treatment points to the veneration of the bones, maybe at the nearby shrine of Enyalios.50 It is at the late 8th cent. BC that pottery starts to get deposited in chamber tombs and sherds of that period were found on the surface of the tumulus at Chania decorated in the Late Geometric and subGeometric style, some of them coming from a big open krater, the neck of an amphora, the foot of a pedestral krateriskos. Five pottery fragments shape the upper part of an “Argive” krater51 of medium size, found also in a miniature shape, which denotes the character of the cult (Pls LXIXd and LXXa-b). Onwards, in the 4th cent. BC, among other fragments a black glazed mug of the Pheidian type52 was offered. In the Hellenistic period, the black glazed nozzle of a lamp is a slight indication for chthonic cult with night rituals. Miniature ceramic vases, cups and phialae dated to the Archaic and Hellenistic periods, were deposited there, a practice usually associated with sanctuaries. Including a tiny handmade quadruped animal, they probably form remnants of ritual and commemorative ceremonies. 53 It is remarkable that almost all these are finds from the first 20cm under the modern cultivated surface, while some fragments come from a disturbed part of the tumulus, at the southwest part. The monumental tumulus was visible in 3rd cent. BC, haunted by the heroic past and its mythological tradition, when it accepted three bronze coins,54 one from Sicyon, one from Phlius and the last from Argos. The nearby ruins of the LH IIIB building was transformed to an archaic semi open-air sanctuary, similar to the Agamemnoneion55 and with similar figurines, typically Argive, handmade seated goddesses, and warrior horsemen bearing shields and helmets, a clay plaque with a relief representation of a running Gorgo, a subject related to the mythical founder of Mycenae, Perseus56 (Pl. LXXc). Two mould made male figurines and inscribed sherds of the early 5th cent. BC might give further evidence. The ruins of the past at both sanctuaries, the Chania building and the abandoned Mycenaean water works at the Chavos stream for the setting of Agamemnoneion were an impetus for their establishment, as well as their position

49

50

51 52 53

54 55

56

B. MCCAULEY, “Heroes and Power: The Politics of Bone Transferal,” in R. HÄGG (ed.), Ancient Hero Cult. Proceedings of the Fifth International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, organized by the Department of Classical Archaeology and Ancient History, Göteborg University, 21-23 April 1995 (1999) 85-98; IDEM, “The Transfer of Hippodameia’ Bones: A Historical Context,” The Classical Journal 93, 3 (1998) 225-239. M. LINDBLOM and G. EKROTH, “Heroes, Ancestors or Just any Old Bones? Conextualizing for Consecration of Human remains from the Mycenaean Shaft Graves at Lerna in the Argolid,” in E. ALRAM-STERN, F. BLAKOLMER, S. DEGER-JALKOTZY, R. LAFFINEUR and J. WEILHARTNER (eds), METAPHYSIS. Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 15th International Aegean Conference, Vienna, Austrian Academy of Sciences, and Institute of Classical Archaeology, University of Vienna, 22-25 April 2014 (2016) 235-243, where the phaenomenon of missing bones is investigated. Supra p. 179. Athenian Agora XII, 72-74, Pl. 11, 205. S. BARFOERD, “The Significant few Miniature Pottery from the Sanctuary of Zeus at Olympia,” WA 47:1 (2015) 170-188; G. EKROTH, “Small Pots, Poor people? The Use and Function of Miniature Pottery as Votive Offerings in Archaic Sanctuaries in the Argolid and Corinthia,” in B. SCHMALTZ and M. SÖLDNER (eds), Griechische Keramik in kulturellen Kontext (2003) 35-38. H. PALAIOLOGOU, “Monnaies trouvées à Mycènes,” BCH 139-140 (2015-2016) 633-640. J.M. COOK, “The Agamemnoneion,” BSA 48 (1953) 30-68; IDEM, “The Cult of Agamemnon at Mycenae,” in Geras Antoniou Keramopoulou (1953) 112-118. A similar figure of Gorgo is painted under the handles of a krater from the Agamemnoneion deposit, although in a different posture, Gorgo’ hands are raised: COOK (supra n. 55, 1953) 57, fig. 30, Pl. 17. Similar clay plaques have been found at Agamemnoneion (COOK [supra n. 55, 1953] 62, fig. 35, Pl. 22), the Argive Heraeum (AH, 47ff.) and much farther.

FACING THE MYCENAEAN PAST AT MYCENAE

181

at the side of Mycenaean highways, the latter still in use in the first millennium BC. It is not clear to whom the cult at Chania was addressed, but “Agamemnon”57 is recorded on the incised lips of one or two 4th cent. kraters (Pl. LXXd) from his attributed shrine situated beside the Mycenaean waterworks, an appropriate place for Agamemnon, who was murdered in his bath and was also famous as a hydraulic expert.58 Beside the inscriptions, the position of the shrine, the pottery and the horsemen figurines indicate an early heroic cult for Agamemnon as early as the late 8th cent. BC. We are faced with a different situation when we come to the cult of Perseus, whose ritual place already existed outside the acropolis without preserved offerings or architectural remains and dated to the early Iron Age; this place known only through the Hellenistic Fountain, if two related archaic inscriptions had not been found.59 There is a possibility for Agamemnoneion – and maybe for the Chania shrine – to guest a ritual symbiosis of a warrior hero and his patroness, a female heroine, the goddess Hera; this interpretation indicated slightly by the type and sex of the figurines, and more by the etymological type of the goddess’ name and the tradition of a cult at a common place of a hero and a goddess.60 Nevertheless, hero Agamemnon remains the predominant cult of the sanctuary, since there is no other evident cult survives. In the Early Iron Age, the growing ambitions of the early city state of Mycenae used the monuments of the past as documents, establishing cults over them. The area of Circle A is always respected, while a much discussed sherd incised το ηρωος εμί (Pl. LXXe),61 in accordance with a bronze statuette of an athlete,62 a ball thrower (Pl. LXXIa-b), attest the heroic cult of the site. The statuette, 7cm high, a usual offering to great sanctuaries, where games took place, was found by P. Stamatakis in the upper levels of the Circle. At the Treasury of Atreus a similar cult was practiced, documented by a krater of the aforementioned Argive type, bearing the depiction of a horse race, dated at 7th cent. BC.63 At the Clytemnestra’s Tomb Late Geometric sherds and archaic figurines64 display a continuous concern with honourig the past. The sanctuaries function as the main public space of the community: a temple at the summit of the citadel and at the symbolical point of the palace,65 and the newly established sanctuaries. The first was 57 58

59 60

61

62

63

64

65

COOK (supra n. 55, 1953) 64, fig. 38. J. BOARDMAN, The Archaeology of Nostalgia. How the Greeks re-created their Mythical Past (2000) 113-114, T. 57; J. KNAUSS “Agamemnóneion fréar,” Antike Welt 5 (1997) 381-395; G. SALAPATA, “The Heroic Cult of Agamemnon,” Elektra (2011) 1, 47, with a discussion and extensive bibiography, including the ancient sources on hydraulic works of Agamemnon. M.H. JAMESON, “Perseus, the Hero of Mykenai,” in HÄGG and NORDQUIST (supra n. 40) 213-223. A symbiosis with Hera was recently presented in Ch. PFAFF, “Artemis and a Hero at the Argive Heraion,” Hesperia 82, 2 (2013) 277-299. See also G. NAGY, The ancient Greek Hero in 24 Hours (2013) http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3: hul.ebook:CHS_Nagy G. The_Ancient_Greek_Hero_in_24_Hours.2013. Hour 11/45, 51-52,56, Hour 12/21, Hour 20/21. We also have in mind the case of Erechtheus and Athena in the Erechtheion. L.H. JEFFERY, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece (19902) 173, 174, n. 6; N. COLDSTREAM, “Hero Cults in the Age of Homer,” JHS (1976) 10; PFAFF (supra n. 60) 280, fig. 3. EAM X 19763, R. THOMAS, Athletenstatuetten der Spätarchaik und des strengen Stils (1981) 111-112, N.516; VASSILIKOU (supra n. 9) 168, n. 423; for the association of heroes to funeral games, see C. MORGAN, Athletes and Oracles. The Transformation of Olympia and Delphi in the Eighth Century (1990) 208. The shape of the krater is similar to the aforementioned vases (see above) in a bigger scale and evidently with the same function: preserved height 21cm, MM 1006 and BE 9083 at Mycenae Museum. E. FRENCH, Mycenae, Agamemnon’s Capital. The Site and its Setting (2002) 143-4, fig. 69. In the preliminary publication (A.J.B. WACE, BSA 51 [1956] 119, fig. 6, Pl. 26), it is misunderstood as a LH IIIA vase. It was found among other archaic votive offerings ANTONACCIO (supra n. 2) 39; E. FRENCH, “‘Dynamics’ in the Archaeological Record at Mycenae,” in M.M. MACKENZIE and C. ROUECHE (eds), Images of Authority. Papers presented to Joyce Reynolds on the occasion of her 70th birthday (1989) 126. ANTONACCIO (supra n. 2) 39, fig. 4; A.J.B. WACE, “Excavations at Mycenae IX. The Tholos Tombs,” BSA 25 (1921-1923) 357-376. N. KLEIN, “Excavations of the Greek Temples at Mycenae by the British School at Athens,” BSA 92 (1997) 248-322.

182

Heleni PALAIOLOGOU

dedicated to god Enyalios, a deity surviving from the Bronze Age, at the Asprochoma66 saddle, 1500m north of the acropolis. Close to the Lion Gate, initiation rites were performed in association with the heroon of Perseus as suggested by archaic inscriptions.67 At the Agamemnoneion, ca 1km southwest of the Lion Gate, cultic activities with plentiful offerings take place in honour of Agamemnon at Agamemnoneion. At Prosymna to the south, a contested sanctuary between Mycenae and Argos was established, the later famous Argive Heraion, set on top of Mycenaean ruins. In addition, the terrace wall of the early temple was built in a pseudocyclopean masonry, and with the use of local, prestigious conglomerate stone recalled the Mycenaean fortifications. The impressive ruins of the House of the Oil Merchant were the base for the construction of a Geometric apsidal building interpreted as a sanctuary functioning until the Hellenistic period. At Mycenae, during a period of political independence, at the late 6th cent. BC, another sanctuary with nice figurines was established on the ruins of the two-storeyed part of the West House and a “Sacred House” was built in the dromos of the Aegisthus Tholos tomb. Therefore it is evident that the cults at Mycenae are associated either to monumental ruins, indifferently if they were tombs or temples, or addressed to glorious heroes and gods of the past. The cult of heroes or ancestors and the cult of ruins often overlap each other. An end was put to Mycenae’s independent early state after its conquest by the Argives, in 468 BC. Afterwards Mycenae is mentioned on bronze inscriptions dated to early 4th cent. as a kome68 of the powerful city state of Argos, which seize the opportunity to appropriate from Mycenae everything, gods and legends, to the extent that literature often referred to Argos as the capital place of Atreids. From the 3rd cent. BC onwards, walls, temple and sanctuaries are repaired and used, ruins of monumental constructions inspire respect or fear, while at the same time the local heroes Perseus and Agamemnon continue to receive cultic activities.69 The Enyalios shrine, besides new offerings, also held the weapons looted by Mycenaeans from the Persians at the battle of Plataia,70 where the Argives where accused for not participating. The cavea of a theatre was built on the dromos side walls of the Tholos of Clytemnestra, intentionally on the visible ruins71 and by chance at the usual place of memorial gatherings. However, it was at the Hellenistic times that most tholos and many chamber tombs were plundered. Possibly it was in this period that tholoi the tholos were considered “treasuries” of the Atreides dynasty, because of their precious content. The movable wealth, especially the metals were mainly considered an economic capital, while the monuments, preserved intact or in ruins, were a symbolic capital used according to circumstances. At his visit to Mycenae, in the 2nd cent. AD, Pausanias has the chance to observe many monuments first hand. Thanks to his observations he passed to us a lot of information about the view to the past of Mycenae,72 some accurate but some also confused by the oral tradition of his time. Leaving the citadel 66

67 68

69 70

71 72

M. GONZALES, “The Shrine at Asprochoma near Mycenae and its Dedications from the Persian wars,” ZPE 184 (2013) 131-138; M.-F. BILLOT, “Sanctuaires et cultes d’Athéna à Argos,” OpAth 22-23 (19971998) 21, n. 116. JAMESON (supra n. 59) 213-223. Ch. KRITZAS, “Nouvelles inscriptions d’Argos : les archives des comptes du trésor sacré, IVe siècle av. J.-C.,” CRAI 2006 I, 434. JAMESON (supra n. 59); COOK (supra n. 55, 1953). An inscription of the early 5th cent. (Pl. LXXId) first announced the presence of the Enyalios shrine and the dedicated weapons. See GONZALES (supra n. 66); SEG LXIII 244; BILLOT (supra n. 66) 21, n.112; KONSTANTINIDI-SYVRIDI and PASCHALIDIS ([supra n. 16] 421, fig. 22) have suggested that the bronze arrowhead of Near Eastern type (NAM 18514) possibly comes from the loot of the Persian wars, at the battle of Plataiai, which had been dedicated at the shrine of the Atreus treasury, where it was found, according to its museum label. ANTONACCIO (supra n. 2) 40. Paus. II, 16, 18; WACE (supra n. 9). Pausanias speaks only about the past, monuments and oral tradition, and he does not record anything about his contemporary monuments intentionally, because he is an admirer of the past Hellenism, so he makes his resistance to the Roman occupation, according to S. ALCOCK, “Landscapes of Memory and the Authority of Pausanias,” in O. REVERDIN and E. GRANGE (eds), Pausanias historien. Entretiens sur l’Antiquité Classique 41 (1996) 241-276.

FACING THE MYCENAEAN PAST AT MYCENAE

183

and going to Argos, he encountered the identified heroon of Perseus and next a monument that was identified with the Tomb of Thyestes.73 The latter should be identified with the tumulus at Chania for many reasons. First, the stone tumulus, situated by the road, was visible at this time. The monument reminded the passerby of the remote past and it triggered the imagination of people. Thyestes was the hero of tragedies, a member of the royal family, recorded by Homer, especially the protagonist of the lost play “Thyestes in Sicyon” by Sophocles,74 so he deserved an appropriate memorial tomb. According to the local tradition preserved at Pausanias time, Clytemnestra and Aegisthus were buried at a distance from the walls of the citadel, because they had slaughtered Agamemnon and his companions.75 Moreover, for Thyestes being an enemy of the Atreid dynasty as a competitor to the throne, a tomb further away from the ruins of Mycenae may have offered a more appropriate location. Furthermore, the monument was venerated through the 1st millennium BC, as offerings indicated. Pausanias writes that the site of Thyestes’ Tomb was called Κριοί, rams, because a ram sculptured in stone stood on the tomb as a reference to the golden female sheep of the legend. A circular stone altar from a church near the modern village of Phichtia, bears an inscription with a chthonic text and the incised depiction of the head of a ram.76 This altar has been assumed to be connected with the Krioi and consequently the Tomb of Thyestes. Its original findspot is unknown, but Chania is a possible candidate, because of its funeral monument and its position in the plain. The incised figure of the ram does not correspond with Pausanias description of the sculptured female sheep, but the subject might be repeated in different forms. The ancient texts speak of a ram or lamb and it is after Euripides that a female sheep is mentioned.77 The plural form for the site’s name Krioi has been interpreted as referring to the rams, which were sacrificed at the tomb,78 but it is rather possible that we have another case of elliptical plural79. Thus, the tumulus at Chania was possibly the so-called Tomb of Thyestes, where Pausanias passed by and its site was known under the name Krioi. Summing up and beginning from the end we have to admit that memory of the Mycenaean past is omnipresent at Mycenae. Pausanias saw the Lion Gate and was guided through the remains of Grave Circles A and B, the “treasuries”, the heroon of Perseus and the Tomb of Thyestes. His information is everywhere based on the goodwill of the habitants to show the monuments and to speak about their stories. At the deserted Mycenae of his time, he encountered people, who kept a cultural memory alive and were eager or proud enough to transmit it. This memory was not precise; it was transformed through the ages according to human feelings and needs. During the early palatial period, when the memory was 73 74

75 76

77

78

79

Paus. II, 18:1, 3. A scene of the tragedy is depicted on an Apulian krater by the Darius painter dated to the end of the third quarter of the 4th cent. BC and the identity of the figures is testified by inscriptions on the vase. The scene was identified through a charming detailed analysis by E. VERMULE, “Baby Aegisthus in the Bronze Age;” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 33 (1987) 122-152. About the whole picture of Thyestes through sources and art, see M. PIPILI, in LIMC VIII, 1 (1997) 20-22. Paus. II, 16, 7. H. PALAIOLOGOU, “Water Management, Climatic, Social Changes and Agriculture in the Plain of Mycenae during the 13th c. BC and Later: The Case of Chania,” in G. TOUCHAIS, R. LAFFINEUR and F. ROUGEMONT (eds), PHYSIS. L’environnement naturel et la relation homme-milieu dans le monde égéen protohistorique. Actes de la 14e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Paris, Institut National d’Histoire de l’Art (INHA), 11-14 décembre 2012 (2014) 519. The inscription IG IV, 496; F. BAUMGARTEN, “Grabmonument aus der Argolis,” AM 8 (1883) 141-146; Ν. ΠΑΠΑΧΑΤΖΗΣ, Παυσανίου Περιήγησις Ελλάδος (1976) 150, n. 1 where the author, in his comments of the text, considers the plain as the place of the tomb of Thyestes and associates the altar to the tomb. W. BURKERT, HOMO NECANS. Ανθρωπολογική προσέγγιση στη θυσιαστήρια τελετουργία και τους μύθους της Αρχαίας Ελλάδας (2011) 209. BURKERT (supra n. 77) 211. Animal bones have not been found in the excavation, although some sherds of cooking vessels existed. G. NAGY, Homer’s Text and Language (2004) ch. 9. If the site was identified by the depiction of a ram, the latter would be transformed to plural, rams, Κριοί, as a place name, see PALAIOLOGOU (supra n. 32) 249.

184

Heleni PALAIOLOGOU

still communicative, the accurate position of the shaft graves was forgotten little by little, but the sanctity of the circles was kept in their memory. Onwards, after the shock of the disastrous collapse of the palatial order, an intensified collective cultural memory emerged as a protective shield for the new society. Later, near the end of the 8th cent. BC, under urgent historical circumstances for the creation of identity and political power, the cultural memory of the past assisted the early city state of Mycenae, but consequently soon it was claimed as a heritage and paradigm for Argos and Hellenic identity as a whole. Nowadays, Mycenaean memory has been adapted to modern civilization in every field of art and science, while the habitants and visitors of Mycenae look at the shape of the mountains, to the west, and recognize Agamemnon’s profile (Pl. LXXIe). Heleni PALAIOLOGOU

FACING THE MYCENAEAN PAST AT MYCENAE

185

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Pl. LXVIIa Pl. LXVIIb Pl. LXVIIIa Pl. LXVIIIb Pl. LXVIIIc Pl. LXVIIId Pl. LXVIIIe Pl. LXIXa Pl. LXIXb Pl. LXIXc Pl. LXIXd Pl. LXXa Pl. LXXb Pl. LXXc Pl. LXXd Pl. LXXe Pl. LXXIa-c Pl. LXXId Pl. LXXIe

A map of NE Peloponnese. A map of the area of Mycenae, roads indicated. The tumulus at Chania of Mycenae, during the excavations. A stirrup jar from chamber Tomb VIII, at Asprochoma (drawn by Sofia Sakkari). LH IIIA2 flask, from Tserania. Fragments of a stirrup jar and an alabaster from Tserania. Late Geometric oinochoe, from Tserania. Stemmed dish, from chamber Tomb I, at Asprochoma. Phiale, from chamber Tomb I, at Asprochoma. Krateriskos from chamber Tomb I, at Asprochoma. Geometric and Subgeometric sherds, from the tumulus at Chania. Krateriskos, from the tumulus at Chania (drawn by G. Rassias). Miniature pottery from the tumulus at Chania. Figurines from the building at Chania. An inscribed krater fragment from Agamemnoneion, MM 1292 (Photographic archive of the Eforeia of Antiquities of the Argolid). Inscribed sherd (Photogtraphic archive of the National Archaeological Museum). Bronze statuette from Grave Circle A, X 19763 (National Archaeological Museum, photograph El. Galanopoulos). Inscription from Enyalios sanctuary, MM 1445 (Photographic archive of the Eforeia of Antiquities of the Argolid). A view to the mountain resembling to Agamemnon’s profile.

LXVII

a

b

LXVIII

a

b e

c

d

LXIX

a

b

c

d

LXX

a

b

c

d

e

LXXI

a

b

d

e

c

OLD MEMORIES VERSUS NEW TRENDS IN POSTPALATIAL THEBES* Recurrent excavations over the years at various locations in the citadel of Thebes, together with new research projects in the central palatial complex and its various annexes, have revealed rich architectural remains and movable objects of Mycenaean date. Most of them belong to the early or the main palatial phase of the period, which succeeded the Early and Middle Helladic occupation of the site.1 The extensive cemeteries lying outside the citadel mostly belong to the palatial phase, while in both the premycenaean and in the postpalatial periods, tombs were dug mostly inside the settlement, which in both periods covered only part of the spacious hill of the Kadmeia (Pl. LXXIIa).2 In the Mycenaean palatial period at Thebes, as well as in other such polities over the Greek mainland and the Aegean, the ruling elites dominated specific territories through a complex administrative structure and exerted their influence over a more or less vast area (Pl. LXXIIb). They monitored production and economy, controlling exchange and long-distance trade. They moreover established a system of asserting profane and religious power, concentrated in the hands of the rulers, members of dynastic elites. The early Mycenaean and the palatial periods in Thebes are rather well documented and the latter has been overviewed quite recently elsewhere.3 By the end of LH IIIB2, dated to ca 1200/1190 BC, the palatial period in the Aegean came to an end in the Peloponnese and in Central Greece, including Boeotia. The architectural complexes fell into ruins and the economic and political organization collapsed in the main centres as well as in the surrounding communities. A series of very large earthquakes in the late Mycenaean period, often accompanied by violent fires, might have struck repeatedly the citadels of the Argolid (Mycenae, Tiryns and Midea), other centres in the Peloponnese and quite certainly Thebes and other contemporary Boeotian and Central Greek sites.4 Widespread earthquake activity at the end of the Aegean Bronze Age *

1

2

3

4

I am most grateful to Elisabetta Borgna, Ilaria Caloi, Filippo Maria Carinci and Robert Laffineur, dear colleagues and friends, for the invitation to participate in the Venice-Udine conference. On the occasion of this exceptional event they, as well as Malcolm H. Wiener, extended to me and Margherita their great kindness, warmest feelings and heartfelt hospitality. My warmest thanks are due to Don Evely and Antonia Livieratou for reading and commenting this paper improving its English. Finally for constant and generous financial support I would like to thank the Institute for Aegean Prehistory (INSTAP) in Philadelphia. For a review on Thebes in the Bronze Age, see recently V. ARAVANTINOS, The Archaeological Museum of Thebes (2010), with bibliography – available also on line at www latsisfoundation.org. For the premycenaean period at Thebes, see the still very useful D. KONSOLA, Προμυκηναϊκή Θήβα (1981). See also V.L. ARAVANTINOS, “Tebe e il ruolo dei centri elladici nel commercio egeo in età premicenea,” in M. MARAZZI, S. TUSA and L. VAGNETTI (eds), Traffici micenei nel Mediterraneo. Problemi storici e documentazione archeologica (1986) 215-251. V. ARAVANTINOS and I. FAPPAS, “Tα μυκηναϊκά νεκροταφεία των Θηβών: προκαταρκτικό σχέδιο μελέτης,” in Ch. LOUKOS, Ν. XIFARAS and K. PATERAKI (eds), Ubi dubium ibi Libertas. Τιμητικός Τόμος για τον Καθηγητή N. Φαράκλa (2009) 87-122. An ongoing project for the publication of the so-far excavated cemeteries of chamber tombs in Thebes is funded by INSTAP. It is coordinated by this author, with the participation of the colleagues I. Fappas and A. Dakouri-Hild. See V.ARAVANTINOS, A. DAKOURI HILD and I. FAPPAS, The Theban Cemeteries Revisited. The Excavations by A.D. Keramopoullos (forthcoming). For a review of the most recent evidence for palatial Thebes, see V.L. ARAVANTINOS, “Mycenaean Thebes up to date. The Palatial Administration of Thebes Updated,” in F. RUPPENSTEIN and J. WEILHARTNER (eds), Tradition and Innovation in the Mycenaean Palatial Polities (2015) 19-49. See for example A. SAMPSON, “Cases of Earthquakes at Mycenaean and Premycenaean Thebes,” in S. STIROS and R.E. JONES (eds), Archaeoseismology (1996) 113-117. This same volume also includes articles about destructions in other places of Central Greece (e.g. Kynos) and in the Peloponnese (Mycenae, Tiryns, Midea).

188

Vasileios L. ARAVANTINOS

has been claimed mainly by archaeologists.5 But other scholars hold that the palaces reacted to economic pressure, calamities and unstable conditions by tightening political control over their territories and further centralizing their economic administration. Whatever caused these catastrophes, they seem to have brought the heyday of the palatial civilization to an end.6 As has been observed, the collapse of the palatial system marks the end of the elite patron/artist relationship, but not the end of artistic activities in the Mycenaean world. True, there was now a clear lack of expensive and exotic raw materials and there were no more palatial centres with wall painting decoration, but most of the motifs earlier developed and employed in the arts and crafts were transferred to pottery.7 Although the inhabitants partially repaired some of the damage in the citadels, erecting new buildings, and gradually returned to live in them, they did not recover for a long time. The palace system was essentially dissolved, to be followed, less than a century later, by a total decline and eclipse.8 Written documents, architectural decoration of buildings (frescoes), and other sectors of the refined material culture and high level artistic production did not survive the collapse of the palatial system. Nonetheless, a new Aegean koiné developed at the end of the LBA as a result of interconnections, influences and ideas.9 This is evident, more than anywhere else, on pictorial vases influenced by the visual arts and especially by frescoes, albeit in decline. Thebes is in fact the only Mycenaean centre in Boeotia where, in terms of the preserved archaeological evidence, a comparison between material culture, societies and ideologies of the palatial and postpalatial periods can be attempted successfully. Here, along with good and long-term knowledge of the palatial period, the recent discovery and study of copious and interesting LH IIIC finds, reminiscent of the once glorious past, has shed new light on the LH IIIC period and the still insufficiently known transition between the Late Bronze and the Early Iron Age.10 These finds consist mainly of architectural remains (foundations of buildings and new tombs or reused old ones), ceramics that include finely decorated kraters, still significant in the demonstration of rank and leadership, and other deposits of pottery, mostly utilitarian vessels such as amphorae, jugs, cups and stirrup jars, all still regularly produced, and a general range of objects in terracotta, stone or bone, though less often in metal.11 The rest of the 5

6

7

8 9

10

11

See also A. NUR, “The Collapse of ancient Societies by Earthquakes,” in B. PEISER, T. PALMER and M.E. BAILEY (eds), Natural Catastrophes During Bronze Age Civilisations (1998) 140-147; O.T.P.K. DICKINSON, “The Collapse at the End of the Bronze Age,” in E.H. CLINE (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (2010) 483-490. See also V. ARAVANTINOS, “Mycenaean and Early Iron Age Boeotia,” in I.S. LEMOS and A. KOTSONAS (eds), A Companion to the Archaeology of Early Greece and the Mediterranean (forthcoming). See more generally on this topic, C. BACHHUBER and R. GARETH ROBERTS (eds), Forces of Transformation. The End of the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean (2009); G.D. MIDDLETON, The Collapse of Palatial Society in LBA Greece and the Postpalatial Period (2010), especially 113-122; DICKINSON, in CLINE (supra n. 5) 483-490. T.G. GIANNOPOULOS, Die letzte Elite der mykenischen Welt (2008). On Mycenaean pictorial pottery, see J. CROUWEL, “Late Mycenaean Pictorial Pottery. A Brief Review,” in E. RYSTEDT and B. WELLS (eds), Pictorial Pursuits. Figurative painting on Mycenaean and Geometric Pottery (2006) 15-22. On warrior representations, see A. PAPADOPOULOS, “Warriors, Hunters and Ships in the Late Helladic IIIC Aegean. Changes in the Iconography of Warfare?,” in BACHHUBER and GARETH ROBERTS (supra n. 6) 69-77. MIDDLETON (supra n. 6); ARAVANTINOS, in LEMOS and KOTSONAS (supra n. 5, forthcoming). See the various contributions in S. DEGER-JALKOTZY and M. ZAVADIL (eds), LH IIIC Chronology and Synchronisms (2003); S. DEGER-JALKOTZY and M. ZAVADIL (eds), LH IIIC Chronology and Synchronisms II. LH IIIC Middle (2007); S. DEGER-JALKOTZY and A.E. BÄCHLE (eds), LH IIIC Chronology and Synchronisms III. LH IIIC Late and the Transition to the Early Iron Age (2009). ARAVANTINOS in LEMOS and KOTSONAS (supra n. 5, forthcoming). Cf. for Tiryns J. MARAN, “Tiryns and the Argolid in Mycenaean Times: New Clues and Interpretations,” in A.-L. SCHALLIN and I. TOURNAVITOU (eds), Mycenaeans up to date (2015) 278-293, especially 278-283. Generally I. LEMOS, The Protogeometric Aegean. The Archaeology of the late Eleventh and Tenth Centuries BC (2002), passim. It was commonly believed that this was a period of unrest with land and sea battles and with a need for skills in weaponry, although these conditions were not unknown in the rest of the Aegean Bronze Age either. Metals differ from other materials, as they can be melted down again and again for recycling. This

OLD MEMORIES VERSUS NEW TRENDS IN POSTPALATIAL THEBES

189

material culture is made up of heirlooms like seals, jewellery or miscellaneous small objects, such as those discovered in the most populated sites as well as in some early Greek sanctuaries, proving thus the existence of communal assemblies and/or cult continuity reminiscent of past rituals, respectively.12 The postpalatial finds from the citadel of Thebes and from surrounding cemeteries have not attracted any special attention for a long time and have very often been regarded as random or unimportant.13 Τhus, the evidence from Thebes is regrettably not as rich and clear as it should be. The main reason is that only a very small part of the material uncovered over more than a century of intermittent research has been identified and consequently properly and thoroughly published.14 Long ago, Fr. Matz wrote that the 12th century BC was a turning point in history, as important as the transition from Antiquity to the Middle Ages.15 At Thebes, as reported by P. Mountjoy, there was little or no published material for this period which could be assigned to this or the other phase.16 But just as the classification and dating of the excavated material was delayed, so too was the publication of its context. Most of the finds dating to the LH IIIC period have appeared rather recently in rescue or systematic excavations in the centre of the Kadmeia. However, long experience of excavation at Thebes indicates that most of the latest occupation levels of the Bronze Age settlement, as well as elsewhere in the Aegean, might have been removed in ancient or in modern times. Postpalatial evidence is very significant exactly because it is, truly or effectively, so rare, and also because it is related to the transition to a new era, which preserved the memory of whatever preceded it, while at the same time having to adjust to new conditions and rapid changes.17 Reviewing the brief reports of past excavations at Thebes reveals that postpalatial burials were sporadically found in chamber tombs around the prehistoric citadel, and they were sometimes linked to the reuse of earlier tombs as places of memory and/or worship addressed to their first owners (Pl. LXXIII).18 It is quite possible that such attitudes may indicate an intentional adherence or even return to palatial tradition, thus representing a claim for direct descent from the Mycenaean ancestors.19

12

13

14

15 16

17

18

19

property assigns to them a special value, important for the understanding of their circulation and utilization in past societies. S. SHERRATT, “Circulation of Metals and the End of the Bronze Age in the Eastern Mediterranean,” in C.F.E. PARE (ed.), Metals make the World go Round. The Supply and Circulation of Metals in Bronze Age Europe (2000) 82-98; P.P. BETANCOURT and S.C. FERRENCE (eds), Metallurgy. Understanding How, Learning Why. Studies in honour of J. D. Muhly (2011). J. MARAN, “Coming to Terms with the Past: Ideology and Power in Late Helladic IIIC,” in S. DEGERJALKOTZY and I. LEMOS (eds), Ancient Greece. From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer (2006) 123150; W.-D. NIEMEIER, “Ritual in the Mycenaean Sanctuary at Abai (Kalapodi),” in E. ALRAMSTERN, F. BLAKOLMER, S. DEGER-JALKOTZY, R. LAFFINEUR and J. WEILHARTNER (eds), METAPHYSIS. Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age (2016) 303-309. See ARAVANTINOS (supra n. 1) 125-128. IDEM, in LEMOS and KOTSONAS (supra n. 5, forthcoming). S.E. IAKOVIDIS, “The LHIIIC at Mycenae,” in DEGER and ZAVADIL (supra n. 9, 2003) 117. For LH IIIC pottery in Thebes, see now E. ANDRIKOU, “The Late Helladic III Pottery,” in E. ANDRIKOU, V. ARAVANTINOS, L. GODART, A. SACCONI and J. VROOM, Thèbes. Fouilles de la Cadmée II.2 (2006) 11-179. Quoted by R. HIGGINS, TUAS 8 (1983) 477. P.A. MOUNTJOY, Regional Mycenaean Decorated Pottery II (1999) 639-648. See the brief account by S. SYMEONOGLOU, The Topography of Thebes from the Bronze Age to Modern Times (1985) 60-63. See lastly ARAVANTINOS in LEMOS and KOTSONAS (supra n. 5, forthcoming). MOUNTJOY (supra n. 16) 647-648; LEMOS (supra n. 10) passim; ARAVANTINOS in LEMOS and KOTSONAS (supra n. 5, forthcoming); MARAN (supra n. 10 ) 278-293, especially 278-283. S. DEGER-JALKOTZY, “Decline, Destruction, Aftermath,” in C.W. SHELMERDINE (ed.), The Aegean Bronze Age (2008) 387 ff; ARAVANTINOS in LEMOS and KOTSONAS (supra n. 5, forthcoming). C.Μ. ANTONACCIO, An Archaeology of Ancestors. Tomb Cult and Hero Cult in Early Greece (1995) 130-133; A.D. KERAMOPOULLOS, Θηβαϊκά (1919) passim; N. FARAKLAS, Θηβαϊκά (1998) 218-227; ARAVANTINOS and FAPPAS (supra n. 2) 87-122; ARAVANTINOS, DAKOURI-HILD and FAPPAS (supra n. 2, forthcoming); ARAVANTINOS in LEMOS and KOTSONAS (supra n. 5, forthcoming).

190

Vasileios L. ARAVANTINOS

The reuse of some old tombs and the use of new ones (of an unknown number) are assigned to population groups living most possibly outside the citadel from the 12th century BC onwards. A few infant burials, mostly without gifts, isolated or in small groups, took place inside the citadel and have been occasionally and approximately dated to the LH IIIC period.20 On the other hand, burials placed either in newly dug, plain pits or in ash urns possibly indicate the delineation of new areas destined for communal use. These extramural areas were later occupied by the city’s cemeteries of historical times.21 Sporadic burials were thus possibly used as memory places/landmarks by succeeding communities. It is supposed that these burials are related to habitation outside the acropolis in small hamlets (κώμας) or in farmsteads (ο҆ίκους), as well as being indicative of the changes in the burial customs (cremations, isolated graves or tumuli). 22 This kind of settlement and cemetery arrangement seems to be reflected in the term Hypothebai, appearing in the Catalogue of Ships in Homer’s Iliad, instead of Thebai (Β 505).23 But the most important finds pointing to LH IIIC habitation at Thebes consist of pottery and a few architectural remains discovered recently on the Kadmeia.24 Rescue excavations, in a trench of ca 6 x 25m beneath Pelopidou Street and close to the so-called Armoury, have demonstrated that the destruction of the Mycenaean Palace in the LH IIIB-final phase was followed by reoccupation and resettlement of the site in LH IIIC Early, with habitation in this area continuing until the LH IIIC Advanced phase (Pl. LXXIVa).25 This excavation revealed a copious Linear B archive, as well as the presence of abundant, distinctive pottery in a most active settlement of Mycenaean postpalatial times.26 The pottery assemblage, in fact, dates to more than one LH IIIC phase, embracing both LH IIIC Early and Middle.27 Out of many typical sherds of the LH IIIC period with plain or pictorial decoration, it is worth mentioning a small sherd from the upper part of a large, ring-based krater (Nr. 359).28 It bears a pictorial scene depicting a bearded man, possibly a warrior, wearing a helmet, holding a mace in his right hand and raising his barely surviving left arm. The krater shape and decoration point to the LH IIIC Middle period and recall a well-known vase of this type with a similar scene of a prothesis and sacrifice from a chamber tomb at H. Triadha in Elis (West Peloponnese).29 Although the possibly identical scene on the krater 20

21

22 23

24

25 26 27 28

29

A. ANDREIOMENOU, “Böotien in der Zeit von 1050-800 v. Chr.,” in H. BEISTER and J. BUCKLER (eds), Boiotika (1989) 253-263, 329-335; V. ARAVANTINOS, “Ανασκαφή μυκηναϊκού ανακτόρου Θηβών,” Prakt (2014) 151, fig. 3; ARAVANTINOS in LEMOS and KOTSONAS (supra n. 5, forthcoming). A. PAPADAKI, “Πρόδρομοι τάφοι. Μικρές συστάδες μυκηναϊκών ταφών σε χώρους θηβαϊκών νεκροταφείων ιστορικών χρόνων,” in V. ARAVANTINOS and E. KOUNTOURI (eds), 100 χρόνια αρχαιολογικού έργου στη Θήβα. Οι πρωτεργάτες των ερευνών και οι συνεχιστές τους (2014) 181-211. LEMOS (supra n. 10) passim; PAPADAKI in ARAVANTINOS and KOUNTOURI (supra n. 21) 181-211. See on this vexed question ARAVANTINOS, in LEMOS and KOTSONAS (supra n. 5, forthcoming). Neither the mythological tradition nor the mention of Hypothebai in Homer’s Catalogue (Iliad Β 505 ff.) constitute arguments for an early abandonment of the city in the end of the palatial period, allegedly after its supposed destruction by the Epigonoi. For a possibly parallel development in Tiryns, see T. MÜHLENBRUCH, “Power and Cult in LH IIIC Tiryns,” in SCHALLIN and TOURNAVITOU (supra n. 10) 131-141. V.L. ARAVANTINOS, L. GODART and A. SACCONI (eds), Thèbes. Fouilles de la Cadmée I, II 2, III and IV (2001-2006). For a concise and complete report on discoveries, see V.L. ARAVANTINOS, “Mycenaean Texts and Contexts at Thebes. The Discovery of New Linear B Archives on the Kadmeia,” in S. DEGER-JALKOTZY, S. HILLER and O. PANAGL (eds), Floreant Studia Mycenaea I (1999) 45-78, with an appendix on pottery by E. ANDRIKOU, Ibidem 79-102. ANDRIKOU (supra n. 14) 11-179; R. JUNG, “The End of the Bronze Age,” in CLINE (supra n. 5) 173. See ARAVANTINOS, GODART and SACCONI (supra n. 24); ARAVANTINOS (supra n. 24) 45-78. ANDRIKOU (supra n. 14) passim. ANDRIKOU (supra n. 14) 46, 51-52, 89, Pl. 23, 75.146. For a recent discussion, B. MONTECCHI, “Scene di prothesis e di deposizione a Creta e sul continente greco in età micenea,” in F. LONGO, R. DI CESARE and S. PRIVITERRA (eds), Dromoi. Studi sul mondo antico offerti a Emanuele Greco dagli allievi della Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene II (2016) 681-692. Cfr MOUNTJOY (supra n. 16) 815-816, fig. 325, 28. O. VIKATOU, “Σκηνή πρόθεσης από το μυκηναϊκό νεκροταφείο της Αγ. Τριάδας,” in V.

OLD MEMORIES VERSUS NEW TRENDS IN POSTPALATIAL THEBES

191

fragment from Thebes does not instantly seem to fit with its find-spot, it should be remembered that this vase was most possibly related to memorial rituals dedicated to ancestors, right at the location where they lived and/or died.30 Thus, its place and use would not be in conflict with a scene depicting burial content and symbolism. Kraters in this period were used in ritual and were produced of a very large size, probably for communal use. Such kraters were rare, as they were expensive possessions of the elite. But it is quite possible that more ritual kraters, with scenes depicting the life and burial of hero-ancestors, circulated and could be found in the postpalatial settlement and on the palace ruins of the Kadmeia.31 They could have been used for a variety of special events, such as assemblies of leaders, symposia, festivals, sacrifices, cult activities, warrior gatherings, funerals and burial rituals. In the postpalatial deposits of the Pelopidou Street excavation, deep bowls (FS 284, 285) were also present, some with reserved parts, known from Developed phase at Mycenae, also from the Entwickelt one in Tiryns and from Lefkandi 2 phase.32 These and other postpalatial pottery pieces offer a preview of what further excavations may reveal at Thebes. Indeed more recent work in the area of the central palace complex not only revealed its magnificent architectural remains, but also some building activity accompanied by a careful dismantling of the palace ruins, as well as large quantities of pottery related to the latter.33 Sherds of robust kraters, found over the ruins of the palace, perhaps point to the persistence of cult and feasting activities. Postpalatial kraters at Thebes seem to continue the tradition of palatial pictorial pottery, while now they are also decorated with warriors in combat scenes as are similar contemporary vases from Mycenae, Tiryns, Kalapodi (Abai), Kynos and Lefkandi.34 Three joining pieces of a LH IIIC Middle, ring-based (FS 282) krater (M.Th. Nr. 49149) were found just over the ruins of the Pithos Magazine II, in the excavated part of the Theban palace (Pl. LXXIVb).35 The preserved part of this pictorial vase depicts three warriors painted in solid black,

30 31

32

33

34

35

MITSOPOULOU-LEON (ed.), Forschungen in der Peloponnes (2001) 273-284; MONTECCHI (supra n. 28) 681-692. MONTECCHI (supra n. 28) 681-692. Note also the long-lasting discussion on the close relation and funeral symbolism of the Warrior vase, the painted stele from Mycenae, the chariot kraters and the larnakes from Tanagra. See on the last the first interpretative attempt by E.T. VERMEULE, “Painted Mycenaean Larnakes,” JHS 85 (1965) 123-148, especially 137-147; E.T. VERMEULE and V. KARAGEORGHIS, Mycenaean Pictorial Vase Painting (1982) 120ff, especially 130-134. See recently Ε.B. FRENCH, “The Postpalatial Levels,” in W.D. TAYLOUR, E.B. FRENCH and K.A. WARDLE (eds), Well Built Mycenae 16/17 (2011) 26-27; B. BOHEN, Kratos and Krater (2017) 13-31. ANDRIKOU (supra n. 14) 46, 51-52, 89 and passim. On another krater of similar shape (Nr. 360) from the same place is depicted an animal, as well as on a deep bowl (Nr. 370). On kraters 362-363 and on basin 376 we find representations of birds. There are others with elaborate panelled patterns, decorative tendencies already attested in LH IIIC Developed and Advanced phases at Mycenae and contemporary Tiryns and Lefkandi. See more recently FRENCH (supra n. 31) 71-79. ARAVANTINOS (supra n. 3) 19-49. For yearly reports on this very difficult but important excavation, see V. ARAVANTINOS, “Ανασκαφή μυκηναϊκού ανακτόρου Θηβών,” Prakt (2012-2017). On postpalatial building programs in Tiryns, see MARAN (supra n. 10 ) 278-293, especially 278-283. CROUWEL in RYSTEDT and WELLS (supra n. 7) 15-22. For an up to date review, see I.S. LEMOS, “Euboea and Central Greece in the Postpalatial and Early Greek Periods,” in Z. ARCHIBALD (ed.), Archaeology in Greece 2011-2012, Archaeological Reports 58 (2011-2012) 19-27. Vases deriving from the pictorial decorative style come from many sites on Mainland Greece, the Aegean islands as well as the West coast of Asia Minor, namely Bademgediği Tepe, not far from Ephesos. P. A. MOUNTJOY, “Mycenaean Pictorial Pottery from Anatolia in the Transitional LH IIIB-IIIC Early and the LH IIIC Phases,” in RYSTEDT and WELLS (supra n. 7) 107-121; EADEM, “The East Aegean-West Anatolian Interface in the 12th Century BC,” in N.C. STAMPOLIDIS, Ҫ. MANER and K. KOPANIAS, Nostoi. Indigenous Culture, Migration and Integration in the Aegean Islands and Western Anatolia during the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Ages (2015) 37-80 (with an up to date bibliography). ARAVANTINOS, Prakt (2014) 139-162, esp. 151, fig. 5. Dimensions: H. 12cm, W. 15.6cm, Th. 1.11.6cm.

192

Vasileios L. ARAVANTINOS

silhouette style (skiagrafia), with only their eyes drawn in outline.36 They are armed with swords or spears and each one is carrying two bags filled with war booty, hanging from wooden sticks on their shoulders. One of the sacks is represented in outline, evidently empty or left without paint by omission due perhaps to a hasty or absent-minded painter. The warriors are walking to the left on a cliff-path. Supposedly they are departing from a sacked city or from a boat and are heading to their own town, walking through a hilly landscape. Alternative proposals for the reconstruction and interpretation of this scene are possible as well (Pl. LXXVa).37 Pieces of another large krater of similar shape, depicting a similar scene with warriors, are known from Kalapodi/Abai in Phthiotis (Central Greece).38 The armed warriors, with their big sacks of booty, are moving to a walled town to the right, coming up from the sea after disembarking from a ship represented on the edge of the scene. According to a recent reconstruction and proposal by W.-D. and B. Niemeier, this krater seems to have been created in the same workshop as the kraters from Kynos.39 But its similarity to the krater from Thebes is striking. They both had the characteristic LH IIIC rope band below their rim, consisting of two plastic ridges obliquely slashed. Both also bear pictorial decoration on their exterior with armed warriors carrying their loot. Finally they are both real masterpieces of LH IIIC Middle art. Representations of this kind seem to convey first of all memories of military action undertaken by the community, acting as exempla and encouragements to overcome present or future moments of crisis, heavy losses or disintegration. Rituals in which people from various peripheral settlements, such as Kynos and Kalapodi (Avai), participated possibly also took place at the site of the deserted and perhaps only partially rebuilt palace of Thebes. The sanctuary of Kalapodi was founded in LH IIIC and was afterwards in continuous use in the Submycenaean and Protogeometric period. Most of the postpalatial material published so far belongs to the LH IIIC pottery phase, which demonstrates close links with sites in Euboea and other areas in Central Greece, both at the end of the Bronze and the beginning of the Early Iron Ages.40 Finally, it cannot be excluded that the two afore-mentioned large kraters with warriors from Thebes and Kalapodi respectively, and perhaps also with the one with the prothesis scene from the Armoury area on the Kadmeia, may have been produced in the same LH IIIC Middle pottery workshop.41 A part from another krater of excellent and robust fabric is made up of six joining pieces (Pl. LXXVb).42 It too was discovered over the Pithos magazine II in the central Palace complex at Thebes, quite close to the warrior vase found there. It is of very similar fabric to the latter, but its spirit and decorative style are quite different. It depicts swimming fish and flying birds, moving free in a wide band on its belly. All of them proceed from left to right and are rendered in the outline technique, with the same

36

37 38

39

40 41 42

CROUWEL (supra n. 7) 15-22; F. DAKORONIA, “Mycenaean Pictorial Style at Kynos, East Lokris” in RYSTEDT and WELLS (supra n. 7) 23-29; W. GÜNTNER, “Mycenaean Pictorial Vase Painters. A View from Tiryns,” ibidem 51-61. ARAVANTINOS, Prakt (2014) 139-162, esp. 151, fig. 5. Mountjoy (supra n. 16, 816, fig. 325, n. 28) reports hunters. She is followed by M. KRAMER HAJOS, Beyond the Palace: Mycenaean East Lokris (2008) 88-96, esp. 93. But see NIEMEIER (supra n. 12) 303-309. See NIEMEIER (supra n. 12) 303-309. Also W.-D. NIEMEIER, “Kultkontinuität von der Bronzezeit bis zur römischen Kaiserzeit im Orakel-Heiligtum des Apollon von Abai (Kalapodi),” in I. GERLACH and D. RAUE (eds), Sanktuar und Ritual. Heilige Plätze im archäologischen Befund (2013) 33-42, fig. 2; IDEM, “Das Orakelheiligtum des Apollon von Abai/Kalapodi,” in Trierer Winkelmannsprogramme 25 (2013) 1-46, 10-13 with plates. See quite recently W.-D. NIEMEIER and B. NIEMEIER, “Kynos und Kalapodi/Abai. Ein spätmykenisher Krater mit figürlichen Dekoration aus der Töpfer Werkstatt von Kynos im Heiligtum von Kalapodi/Abai,” in M.-F. PAPAKONSTANTINOU, C. KRITZAS and I.P. TOURATSOGLOU (eds), Πύρρα. Μελέτες για την αρχαιολογία στην Κεντρική Ελλάδα προς τιμήν της Φ. Δακορώνια (2018) 195-211. LEMOS (supra n. 34) 19-21. See on this topic GÜNTNER (supra n. 36) 51-61; ARAVANTINOS, Prakt (2014) 151. Dimensions: H. 10.7cm. W. 16cm. The pictorial kraters from Thebes will be published soon in detail elsewhere.

OLD MEMORIES VERSUS NEW TRENDS IN POSTPALATIAL THEBES

193

filling pattern. Their tails are shown in a similar way.43 This large krater was also possibly connected to communal celebrations and feasting in relation to gatherings over the ruins of the palace, some decades after its collapse. The aforementioned examples of pictorial kraters from Thebes are certainly not isolated items. On the contrary, they fit well into a context of more fine and coarse-ware pottery of domestic use found in the remains over the palace ruins and on other palatial buildings destroyed at about the end of LH IIIB.44 Given the easy communication from Thebes to Orchomenos and thence to the north, via the Kephissos Valley, it is not surprising that some prestige goods should have found their way to the area of the sanctuary of Abai in the LH IIIC period.45 Consequently pictorial craters of this type might have reached Kalapodi, located not far from Kynos or Thebes, on the occasion of a special feasting ceremony of ancestral memory.46 Finally their representations could also allude to conditions prevailing at Thebes, in Central Greece, and in the rest of the East Mediterranean by this time.47 In passing it should be noted that in a test trench dug in the ‘Armoury’ a small hoard of various metal tools was revealed in a context over the palatial destruction layers, most possibly in a postpalatial layer.48 They were intended for carpentry and farming activities, being apparently removed from a Mycenaean palatial workshop somewhere in the area and then hidden away in the hope of reusing them, without ever being retrieved.49 Here arises the question of their destination and use, as the hoard did not include weapons or scrap metal items, good for recycling. Finally some years ago in a test trench at the west edge of the so-called Treasure Room, a simple wall was discovered over and in contact with the destruction layer of the palace.50 This wall possibly belonged to a peribolos, related perhaps to memorial celebrations in the main area of the already ruined palace. An interesting figurine head (MTh Nr. 32416) found there bears an obvious resemblance to figurines of the final Mycenaean period, to which it seems to date. Its crudely managed facial features, partly covered with colour representing a beard, are reminiscent of some figurines from the cult centre of Mycenae or of some creations of the Early Iron Age like the centaur from Lefkandi. It is possible that its find spot was related to cult ritual taking place in LH IIIC in memory of the calamities that affected the area of the palace and in relation to the reorientation of society on its future paths.51 These few finds, dating all to a time around the mid-12th cent. BC, strongly support the idea that the area of the palace at Thebes was then used possibly not for habitation but a fortiori for communal 43

44 45

46

47

48 49

50

51

VERMEULE and KARAGEORGHIS (supra n. 31) 156 and passim. Also J.A. SAKELLARAKIS, The Mycenaean Pictorial Style in the National Museum of Athens (1992). Fish and birds are depicted in outline with similar tails and fill of the body. Stylistically they seem to date in the LH IIIC period. As far as I know the way of their painting is quite uncommon. ANDRIKOU (supra n. 14) 11-96. J. RUTTER, “How Different is LH IIIC Middle at Mitrou? An Initial Comparison to Kalapodi, Kynos and Lefkandi,” in DEGER-JALKOTZY and ZAVADIL (supra n. 9, 2007) 287-300; KRAMER-HAJOS (supra n. 38) 99; LEMOS (supra n. 34) 19-27; NIEMEIER and NIEMEIER (supra n. 39) 195-211. On LH IIIC sites in Central Greece, see LEMOS (supra n. 34) 19-27. More generally M. THOMATOS, The Final Revival of Aegean Bronze Age. A Case Study of the Argolid, Corinthia, Attica, Euboea, Cyclades and the Dodecanese during LH IIIC Middle (2006); G. MARAKAS, Ritual Practice between the Late BA and Protogeometric Periods of Greece (2010). The pottery clearly demonstrates close links with sites in Euboea and other areas in Central Greece both at the end of the Bronze and the beginning of the EIA: LEMOS (supra n. 34) 19-27; J. CROUWEL, “Late Mycenaean Pictorial Pottery,” in D. EVELY (ed.), Lefkandi IV. The Bronze Age. The Late Helladic IIIC Settlement at Xeropolis (2006) 233-255. ΑRAVANTINOS (supra n. 1, 2010) 90. E. BORGNA, “I ripostigli delle acropoli micenee e la circolazione del bronzo alla fine dell’età palaziale,” SMEA 35 (1994) 7-55. See also S. IAKOVIDIS, “The Mycenaean Bronze Industry,” in J.D. MUHLY, R. MADDIN and V. KARAGEORGHIS (eds), Early Metallurgy in Cyprus: 4000-500 BC (1982) 213-230. V. ARAVANTINOS, “Καδμείο – Δωμάτιο του Θησαυρού,” ArchDelt 51, B1 Χρονικά (1996) 264; IDEM, “Καδμείο – Δωμάτιο του Θησαυρού,” ArchDelt 52, Β1 Χρονικά (1997) 361. ARAVANTINOS (supra n. 50). The head is still unpublished. See general discussion in MARAN (supra n. 17) 283-286.

194

Vasileios L. ARAVANTINOS

activities and rituals related to memories of the past, in honour of the mighty ancestors. The rather homogeneous group of robust, decorated LH IIIC kraters found at Thebes, Kalapodi, Kynos, Eleon, Lefkandi and elsewhere in Central Greece, as well as in the Peloponnese (Mycenae and Tiryns), is unsurprisingly related to sanctuaries or cult practice, to palace ruins and community rituals, to the memory of ancestors, a heroic past and at social gatherings. In addition, we argue that the continuity of use and the establishment of new, organized cult places in the postpalatial period reinforced the crucial contribution of religion to the interaction between individuals and groups, as well as to the maintenance of intra-communal cohesion. It has been observed that the similarities between LH IIIC Middle and Late Geometric pictorial vases are iconographical, not stylistic.52 Although the kraters appear to show a fascinating variety of human activities, they effectively deal almost exclusively with burial customs (prothesis, ekphora) and with activities relevant to the dead ancestors (fighting on land and sea, hunting, dancing, sacrificing, chariot racing). 53 On the other hand, narrative scenes such as sea battles, the marching out of warriors or the siege of a coastal city, may have been inspired by tales and epic poetry (or vice versa), and remained unchanged from the Late Mycenaean times until the Geometric period. There is no need to postulate a continuous development from the 12th to the 8th centuries, as the similarities may be due to the fact that many cultural features of an elite behaviour in the Early Ιron Age were very much the same as those of the Late Mycenaean period, possibly emerging first in that latter time. During the Protogeometric and Early Geometric periods, ‘heroic epic poetry was a powerful tool of expression more than any other image’.54 However, in LH IIIC Middle, it seems that imagery was already a very powerful medium by which to express memory and ancestry, as demonstrated by these and perhaps other lost kraters from Thebes, Kalapodi, Kynos, Lefkandi, Eleon, and later from Bademgediği in Asia Minor,55 and last but not least in the Peloponnese. The scenes on the pottery – chariots, hunting, seafaring, dancing, fighting on land and sea, sacrifice, assaulting fortifications – may have reflected the lifestyle of the previous and contemporary elite. According to Mühlenbruch, ‘an elite which we can possibly connect to important houses in the Lower Citadel of Tiryns used the medium of pottery to show its ideals – whether they lived these ideals or not’.56 For some reason we do not have so many pictorial vessels from LH IIIC Early: the style became popular in IIIC Middle. To explain their presence in the palace area of Thebes in a postpalatial horizon is not an easy task. Were they used in some community celebrations in the area of the ruined palace? But where did they originate from? Can we imagine kilns and workshops in the area of the citadel or of the lower city? Can we think of Kynos or Kalapodi as the centres of production of the Theban examples, used as memorials for the dead ancestors? Were the production communities connected through ancestral links with the Mycenaean palatial tradition of Thebes? These are questions waiting urgently for an answer. It might seem quite logical to suppose that Thebes was also a production centre of all this fine and varied postpalatial Mycenaean pottery. In conclusion, it could be assumed that the site of the palace at Thebes became in postpalatial times, if not a dominating place of power, at least a major point of reference for social memory, symbolism and probably also for public ritual. The palace, an important and highly symbolic architectural construction, collapsed and burnt almost certainly due to an enormous natural disaster, as our excavations seem to suggest at several points of the site. The disaster was not forgotten by the immediately surviving Mycenaean population groups. Some people, if not all, escaped and spread themselves out to live in the surroundings of the Kadmeia or even further off in some distant coastal settlements or valley areas. But the great palace continued to be remembered through memory and/or oral tradition for a long time after its fall, celebrated through communal gatherings and in ceremonies redolent of the old glory. There is also 52 53

54 55 56

S. DEGER-JALKOTZY, in DEGER-JALKOTZY and ZAVADIL (supra n. 9, 2003) 257. Note also the sacrifice of a goat on a pictorial krater from Kynos, East Lokris: F. DAKORONIA, “Sacrifice on Board,” in ALRAM-STERN, BLAKOLMER, DEGER-JALKOTZY, LAFFINEUR and WEILHARTNER (supra n. 12) 387-391; DAKORONIA, in RYSTEDT and WELLS (supra n. 7) 23-29. LEMOS (supra n. 10) passim. P.A. MOUNTJOY, in STAMPOLIDIS, MANER and KOPANIAS (supra n. 34) 37-80. T. MÜHLENBRUCH, in DEGER- JALKOTZY and ZAVADIL (supra n. 9, 2007) 352-353.

OLD MEMORIES VERSUS NEW TRENDS IN POSTPALATIAL THEBES

195

a high possibility that some parts of its ruins remained visible or but partially buried under a tumulus of dissolved mudbricks. Indeed some areas were reclaimed, perhaps inhabited and some walls were rebuilt in areas used and visited some decades later for public celebrations in honour of the ancestors, who once resided there. All this might somehow explain the LH IIIC Middle kraters found at Thebes in a close stratigraphic relation to the palace ruins, even placed deliberately on some walls or enceintes built over the ruins. The examination of more LH IIIC pottery recovered from over the debris of the fallen palace will resolve more problems and will tie in our evidence to postpalatial material from other sites in Central Greece (Kalapodi, Kynos, Lefkandi and Eleon), as well as in the Peloponnese, especially to Mycenae and Tiryns.57 Mycenaean kraters of whatever period clearly appealed to pictorial painters and their patrons. They would have functioned as the natural centre-pieces of drinking sets belonging to the elite groups of the time. At certain times and places, however, they were also regarded as appropriate funeral or burial gifts. Another more specific, cult use for LH IIIC Late monumental kraters, especially for those with pierced bottoms, would be for libations and/or mortuary practices. Although their original locations are unknown, it could be suggested that the pierced kraters were sunken into floors. The LH IIIC Middle phase of Mycenaean Greece witnesses a last, but rather brief, blossoming, although there was no proper return to the great achievements of the past. The so-far available evidence points to the emergence of power at the centres of smaller-scale principalities. Some warrior tombs and representations of warriors and of warfare on pictorial vases of this period seem to confirm the above statement. In Boeotia, many LH IIIB sites in the Kopais basin were flooded, since the Mycenaean drainage system was abandoned after the destruction of Thebes, Orchomenos and Gla. Other centres of Boeotia also seem to have been abandoned at the end of LH IIIB or in LH IIIC Early. This could have loaded more problems onto a system already in crisis. Its final collapse would have been accelerated and precipitated as soon as its centre was affected. Based on the available evidence, a series of factors must have been involved in this process.58 In Central Greece, the LH IIIC settlements at Lefkandi on the Euboean coast, Eleon in Eastern Boeotia and Kynos on the coast of Locris, as well as Kalapodi in its hinterland, are considered important points of reference for the chronological phases of the postpalatial period and the start of the Early Iron Age.59 The published Lefkandi sequence covers the period from LH IIIC Early to Late, while the ongoing excavations have added Submycenaean and Early Iron Age data. Excavations at Kalapodi revealed an unbroken vertical stratigraphy continuing from LH IIIC Early through to the Early Iron Age. Finally, Kynos is a site with a continuous occupation, bridging the LBA-EIA divide. Tiryns and Lefkandi continued to be occupied and some other settlements even appear to have grown in size. There is evidence, both within the Aegean and beyond it, for exchanges of produce, in the course of which various innovations were spread, including the use/technology of iron. Notable indications of prosperity can be identified, especially in the middle stages of the postpalatial times. Although habitation was resumed or continued at many sites in LH IIIC, the demise of the palatial system caused a radical transformation of

57

58

59

See for example I. MOSCHOS, “Evidence of Social Re-organisation and Reconstruction in Late Helladic IIIC Achaea and Modes of Contacts and Exchange via the Ionian and Adriatic Sea,” in E. BORGNA and P. CASSOLA GUIDA (eds), From the Aegean to the Adriatic. Social Organisation, Modes of Exchange and Interaction in Postpalatial Times (2009) 345-414. S. DEGER-JALKOTZY, “The Last Mycenaeans and their Successors,” in S. GITIN, A. MAZAR and E. STERN (eds), Mediterranean Peoples in Transition. Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE. Studies in honour of Professor Trude Dothan (1998) 114-128; EADEM in DEGER-JALKOTZY and ZAVADIL (supra n. 9, 2007) 287-300, 392; L. SCHOFIELD, The Mycenaeans (2007) 180-181; DICKINSON (supra n. 5) 483 ff. According to Dickinson, there was not a single cause for the collapse at the end of the Bronze Age, but a chain of agents. For Eleon, see most recently B. BURKE, B. BURNS and A. CHARAMI, “Mycenaean Eleon and Eastern Boeotia during the Bronze Age,” in D.W. RUPP and J.E. TOMLINSON (eds), From Maple to Olive (2017) 183-185. On sites in Central Greece, see LEMOS (supra n. 34) 19-27. For Tiryns and the Argolid, cfr MARAN (supra n. 10) 278-283.

196

Vasileios L. ARAVANTINOS

the previous ways of life and material culture. At Thebes, a modest reoccupation of the acropolis and the palace complex area extending to the LH IIIC Middle phase is attested at the moment. Although the best evidence for LH IIIC architecture comes from Tiryns, some structures of various sizes and use seem to have existed in the area of the Mycenaean palace at Thebes too. Deep debris layers and very narrow trenches have unfortunately prevented scholars until now from reaching more precise and absolute observations. Thus, to the present, it is only the continuous stratigraphic sequence at Tiryns and Mycenae that allows the LH IIIC phases to be linked to the important socio-political turning point, the breakdown of the Mycenaean palace society at the end of LH IIIB2. In the future, however, Thebes with its recently excavated stratigraphical sequences may become the third site to permit this fundamental chronological connection to be made. Vasileios L. ARAVANTINOS

OLD MEMORIES VERSUS NEW TRENDS IN POSTPALATIAL THEBES

197

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Pl. LXXIIa Pl. LXXIIb Pl. LXXIII Pl. LXXIVa Pl. LXXIVb Pl. LXXVa Pl. LXXVb

Thebes. Aerial view of the citadel and the lower city (photograph adapted by I. Fappas and the author). Thebes (Kadmeia). The area of the Mycenaean palace and its annexes (photogtaph author). Thebes. General plan of the Mycenaean cemeteries (photogtaph I. Fappas and A. Dakouri-Hild). Thebes (Kadmeia). Plan of the ‘Armoury’ and the excavation beneath Pelopidou Street (drawing by S. Kazakidis and M. Vasileiou). Thebes (Kadmeia). Plan of the excavations (2012-2018) of the Mycenaean palace (drawing by N. Sepetzoglou and D. Niotis). Thebes (Kadmeia). Part of a pictorial krater with warriors (drawing by N. Sepetzoglou). Thebes (Kadmeia). Part of a pictorial krater with fish and birds (drawing by N. Sepetzoglou).

LXXII

a

b

LXXIII

LXXIV

a

b

LXXV

a

b

COMMUNITY AND MEMORY IN THE PERIPHERY OF THE MYCENAEAN WORLD: INCIDENTS IN THE LIFE OF THE MYGDALIA SETTLEMENT NEAR PATRAS, IN ACHAEA* The ongoing excavation at Mygdalia Hill gives us the opportunity of a comprehensive study of domestic and tomb material and provides a measure for understanding a full chronicle of the Mycenaean era in Western Achaea (Pl. LXXVIa). Memory is inextricably linked to the life of a settlement, to real events that have direct consequences both to the living and the dead. At times the inhabitants embraced memory and at others they had to reject, maybe forcefully, the past. Mygdalia, was founded in the transitional MH III/LH I period (Mygdalia I). The settlement was built on three successive terraces (Pl. LXXVIb), the lower terrace supported by a massive enclosure and retaining wall that seems to be part of initial planning. The settlement flourished in the early Mycenaean period (Mygdalia II) but transition to the Palatial period was troubled, as the abandonment of an impressive building and the plundering of the tholos tomb testify. A period of recess had followed (Mygdalia III) and Mygdalia rises to power again in the Post Palatial times (Mygdalia IV) when the site became one of the seats of the warrior aristocracy in Western Achaea.1 The construction of an early Greek temple on top of the latest Mycenaean megaron’s ruins, at the hill’s summit, bespeaks for the surviving tradition that followed the settlement’s life, long after its abandonment (Mygdalia V). It is the time when Achaea became the alma mater of the Greek colonies in Italy. The intra muros burials: embracing of memory On Terrace 2, the main residential area of Mygdalia, we have an array of densely built houses, with rectangular rooms and semi open places and courtyards. A LH I floor deposit has been preserved and there were numerous shattered vases and small finds, among them, local matt-painted pots of various shapes, monochrome jugs, cooking pots and fragments of small gray-ware jugs with burnished surfaces. The assemblage’s date is provided by some fragments of a Vapheio cup, decorated with stylized foliate band, which belongs to a common type in LH I/IIA period.2

*

1

2

Acknowledgements. Excavation work at Mygdalia started in 2008 under the direction of L. PapazoglouManioudaki with C. Paschalidis, as co-director, and the architect A. Manioudakis, under the auspices of the Ephoreia of Achaea. The team includes Dr Evi Margaritis (archaeobotany), Ph.D. candidate of the University of Groningen O. Jones (human bones), V. Kyrkos, N. Pavlatou (conservation), Ch. Marinopoulos (topography), N. Petropoulos (drawing of artefacts), P. Feleris and M. Kontaki (aerial photography, 3D and digital plans). The drawings of the tholos are made by M. Petropoulou and the tholos section is the work of Erwin Bolhuis, draughtsman of the University of Groningen. The archaeologist A. Kokkali and graduate students from the Universities of Athens and Ioannina, undergraduates from Bryn Mawr College and the University of Zürich, participated in the field work over the years. This work would not have been possible without the generous support of INSTAP while the Psycha Foundation and the Ephoreia of Achaea, under the direction of E. Kolia and A. Koumousi, provided financial and moral support. L. PAPAZOGLOU-MANIOUDAKI and C. PASCHALIDIS, “A Society of Merchants and Warriors to the East of the West. The Case of the Mycenaean Settlement on Mygdalia Hhill, near Patras, in Achaea,’’ in M. FOTIADIS, R. LAFFINEUR, Y. LOLOS and A. VLACHOPULOS (eds), ΕΣΠΕΡΟΣ/HESPEROS. The Aegean seen from the West, 16th International Aegean Conference, University of Ioannina (Greece), 18-21 May 2016 (2017) 453-457. L. PAPAZOGLOU-MANIOUDAKI and C. PASCHALIDIS, “The Foundation and Rise to Local Prominence of the Settlement on Mygdalia Hill, near Patras, in the Early Mycenaean Period’’ in B. EDER and M. ZAVADIL (eds), (Social) Place and Space in Early Mycenaean Greece, International Discussions in Mycenaean

Lena PAPAZOGLOU-MANIOUDAKI et alii

200

On this level, we have four intramural infant burials (Pl. LXXVII and Table 1 below). They comprise a rectangular grave that was opened in a small courtyard next to the LH I room, to the north of the wall made by a cut block of the bedrock. The grave (1/2011), measuring 0.93 x 0.48m, coated with stone walls at four sides, was covered with four heavy slabs.3 It contained the remains of infants and neonates that were lacking burial gifts (Pls LXXVIIa-b and LXXIXa)4. A preliminary bioarcheology study of the bones suggests that there were at least three individuals buried in the grave: an infant of 8 to 14 months old, a case of infant mortality, and two fetuses 4 to 5 and 7 to 9 months old, likely the result of natural miscarriages. Τhe infant was placed along the one side of the grave, while the two fetuses were placed on the other, maybe as a mode of separation. It is interesting to note the living’s reaction to these deaths; both infants and unborn fetuses were thought to deserve a proper burial within the precincts of the family dwellings. Grave ccontext Child Grave 1

Dates (BC) 1680-1545* 1600-1450* 1630‐1530*

Time period Mygdalia I Mygdalia I Mygdalia I

MNI 3

Child Grave 2

2

Child Grave 3

8

Child Grave 4

2

Adult Grave 1 Adult Grave 2

790‐565*

Mygdalia V

1 1

Individual 1.A 1.B 1.C 2.A 2.B 3.A 3.B 3.C 3.D 3.E 3.F 3.G 3.H 4.A 4.B ---

Estimated age** Perinatal Infant: 20-32 weeks in utero Perinatal Infant: 34-40 weeks in utero Infant: 1 year ± 6 months Infant: 1 ½ years ± 6 months Child: 4 years ± 12 months Perinatal Infant: 22-30 weeks in utero Perinatal Infant: 36-40 weeks in utero Perinatal Infant: 36-40 weeks in utero Perinatal Infant: 36-40 weeks in utero Perinatal Infant: 36-40 weeks in utero Perinatal Infant: 36-40 weeks in utero Perinatal Infant: 36-40 weeks in utero Infant: 1-3 months Perinatal Infant: 38-40 weeks in utero Perinatal Infant: 34-38 weeks in utero Adult Adult: 30-50

Sex*** ---------------PM PF

Table 1 - Preliminary Bioarchaeological Data and Dating of the Intramural Graves * These dates are calibrated radiocarbon dates. ** Juvenile age was estimated using dental formation stages or metric assessment of bones. Adult age was estimated using standard methodology, especially dental wear. *** Sex cannot be estimated for subadults using macroscopic methods. However, bones samples from each individual will be submitted for a DNA analysis which may indicate sex of the infants and children from Mygdalia.

3

4

Archaeology, Conference organized by the Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in cooperation with the Austrian Archaeological Institute, Athens, October 5th-8th 2016 (forthcoming). This kind of structure appointed for the intra muros burial of neonates, infants and children is particularly common at Agios Stephanos in Laconia, see the case of burial Eta 15 in W.D. TAYLOUR and R. JANKO, “The Bronze Age Burials,” in W.D. TAYLOUR and R. JANKO (eds), Ayios Stephanos. Excavations at a Bronze Age and Medieval Settlement in Southern Laconia (2008) 125-126, 144. The lack of burial gifts in intra muros graves of Mycenaean settlements in Western Achaea seems to have been a common feature, noticed also at Chalandritsa and Drakotrypa, Katarraktis. For Chalandritsa, see L. KOLONAS, Δίκτυο Επισκέψιμων Μυκηναϊκών Οικισμών και Νεκροταφείων Επαρχίας Πατρών (2008) 10; L. KOLONAS and M. GAZIS, “Ο μυκηναϊκός οικισμός της Χαλανδρίτσας: νεότερα στοιχεία,” in M. KAZAKOU (ed.), A’ Αρχαιολογική Σύνοδος Νότιας και Δυτικής Ελλάδος, Πάτρα 9-12 Ιουνίου 1996 (2006) 27. For Drakotrypa, see T.J. PAPADOPOULOS, Mycenaean Achaea (1978-1979) 30 with references. As Kostanti observes, ‘in general, intramural burials of infants and children tend to remain unfurnished (53% in the Peloponnese and 75% in eastern central Greece and Euboea) unless furnished with perishable goods’. Kostanti also suggests that the unfurnished burials may stress the marginal spiritual and social state of infants younger than 24 months of age, who did not need burial gifts for entering the world of beyond, due to their closer connection with the afterlife, see K. KOSTANTI, “Missing Infants: Giving Life to Aspects of Childhood in Mycenaean Greece via Intramural Burials,” in E. MURPHY and M. Le ROY (eds), Children, Death and Burial. Archaeological Discourses (2017) 112, 118.

COMMUNITY AND MEMORY IN THE MYGDALIA SETTLEMENT NEAR PATRAS

201

Samples of the bones were processed through AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) by Olivia A. Jones and Prof. Hans van der Plicht of the University of Groningen and the preliminary results give us radiocarbon dates ranging from 1680 to 1530 BC, that correspond to a LH I/IIA date. Later on, in the LH IIB/IIIA1 period, the so-called “lower house” was built right by the grave’s boundary.5 In LH IIIC period, a wide storage-room (apotheke) occupied the house’s space, using its walls as a foundation. 6 However, both the “lower house” and the later apotheke respected the serenity of the neighbouring grave whose slabs were left intact although they were rather obvious and visible on the floor of an open yard. At the southern part of the same building complex and below its floor, we witnessed two adjacent children graves. The first one was partly cut into the bedrock and partly built in a circular way, underneath the dirt floor of room 1 (Grave 4/2017). The grave was covered with two slabs that actually served as parts of the room’s floor. It contained the inhumation of two perinatal infants and once more the burials were unfurnished and undisturbed during the long life of the buildings above them (Pls LXXIXb and LXXXa-b). Right outside the same house’s southern wall and below the floor of an open space, there was another child cist grave (Pl. LXXXIa), rectangular in shape, built and covered with well-cut slabs (Grave 3/2016)7. The unfurnished grave contained at least 7 perinatal infants and one infant. The last two graves are only 1.5m away from each other, one being inside the house and the other one outside (Pl. LXXXIb). They seem to share the same chronological horizon, they were possibly constructed in the LH I period8 and were both covered by the floor of the same house and its yard. Nevertheless, there is a clear functional distinction, since the grave inside the house contained two perinatal infants, while the one outside the house had at least seven perinatal infants and one older infant (~1-3 months old). This allows us to hypothesize that slight differences in age may correlate with burial location. Future excavation may uncover more infant graves that will support or refute this hypothesis. Regardless, both graves remained visible and absolutely intact, without any human disturbance during the next centuries of the settlement’s life. Ten meters to the south another child grave (Grave 2/2016) came to light in a later, LH IIIC, open court yard. This is a small cist-grave, measuring 0.71 x 0.27-0.37m, 0.41m deep, built with roughly cut slabs (Pls LXXXIIa-b and LXXXIIIa). That contained two child inhumations, an infant of approximately one and a half years of age, upon which was laid a four-year old child. Both children were unfurnished. It is more than intriguing to suggest that those were the same mother’s children who died very young and were buried together, as if they were put in the same little bed. Grave 2 remained covered and forgotten below the foundations of the house and its yard. So fetal infants, neonates and children buried intra muros at Mygdalia, interred under the houses’ floors or in open yards, were kept undisturbed. Probably knowing their existence, the inhabitants respected their serenity and possibly regarded them as the foundations’ spirits of their civitas, since all the graves are attributed to the generation of the village’s settlers. A possible spiritual or supernatural power, attributed to the children’s burials at Mygdalia by its inhabitants, is strengthened by the parallel case of such graves found underneath the floors of the Mycenaean sanctuary at Ayios Konstantinos, Methana. According to the excavator, these individuals buried there may have been from families that belonged to the local elite in an attempt to prevent future infant death and to facilitate the rebirth of the dead infants.9 5 6 7

8

9

PAPAZOGLOU-MANIOUDAKI and PASCHALIDIS (supra n. 2). PAPAZOGLOU-MANIOUDAKI and PASCHALIDIS (supra n. 1) 456-457, Pl. CLXXX-CLXXXII. This kind of simple cist, built and covered with slabs seems to have been the regular type of children’s graves at Chalandritsa too, see KOLONAS (supra n. 4) 12, fig. 11. Even though the chronology of children’s graves at Mygdalia is still pending (it has been testified only for child grave 1, while bone samples from child grave 3 will be processed for radiocarbon dating in 2019), it is generally expected to fit in LH I (Mygdalia I), as the settlement’s stratigraphy indicates. In general, such children’s graves follow a long MH tradition of intra muros deposition and seem to decrease in the course of the Mycenaean times. Indeed, this is the case of Ayios Stephanos, a Laconian settlement, whose intramural burials of children and adults decreases after the LH I period, from 47% to 39%, see KOSTANTI (supra n. 4) 113, 117 and TAYLOUR and JANKO (supra n. 3) 121-144. KOSTANTI (supra n. 4) 113, 118.

202

Lena PAPAZOGLOU-MANIOUDAKI et alii

These infants or unborn children may not have acquired yet their social identity at the time but persisting memory considered them members of the family(ies) that originally founded the settlement at Mygdalia. Many centuries later, an early Greek temple was constructed on top of the LH IIIC mansion’s ruins (Pl. LXXVIa-b), at the hill’s summit.10 It must have been the years around 700 BC, when the people from the adjacent areas constructed a four-sided monumental peristyle without a cella, an architectural peculiarity in northwestern Greece, known at Thermon and Molykreion in Aetolia.11 This is virtually the first Greek temple excavated in Western Achaea though some poorly preserved remains and a sacred deposit led to the discovery of another sanctuary in the area of Thea, in the Patras region.12 In those early archaic days, there happened another two burial incidents. The long ruined LH IIIC open court-yard was disturbed with the opening of a pit for a probable female burial (adult Grave 2/2016). The woman was furnished with an ivory pin and a mother-of-pearls shell by her chest. The left hand was laid under the left side of the skull, as if she was put to sleep (Pl. LXXXIIIb). A few meters to the southeast of the yard, there was placed a young male’s burial, with his hands and legs crossed and his body facing the rising sun (adult Grave 1/2015). A few slabs were roughly marking the shallow pit, which seems to have been opened when the Mycenaean settlement was totally abandoned (Pl. LXXXIVa). This explains the odd choice of the burial pit’s position, partly placed onto some walls of Mycenaean houses, thus requiring the removal of their stones. What is striking is that his position occupies the very same spot, where centuries before, child Grave 2 (the one containing two children) was constructed. The strange occurrence of two graves located at the very same spot: one of an infant buried at the very beginning of the settlement’s life and another one of a young male interred after the village’s end, could be the result of coincidence. Indeed the ruins of Mycenaean Mygdalia functioned as a vessel of memory of ancestors that lead the worshipers of the early Greek temple to bury their dead among them.13 The extra muros burials: Memory and Oblivion Monumental architecture, either domestic or funerary, is an important means for the display of power and status.14 It is a celebration of memory in good times and an easy target in times of upheavals where oblivion is considered a tool to ease the way for new social processes. The Early Mycenaean period was a time of growth for Mygdalia which evolved into a defensible and planned settlement, a local centre in the area.15 An extra muros cemetery of built tombs was established on its west slope. The buildings and 10

11

12

13

14

15

PAPAZOGLOU-MANIOUDAKI and PASCHALIDIS (supra n. 1) 457, Pl. CLXXV; IDEM, “The Mycenaean Settlement at Mygdalia near Patras. An Overview,” in E. KARANTZALI (ed.), The Periphery of the Mycenaean World. Recent Discoveries and Research Results. 3rd International Interdisciplinary Colloquium, Lamia, May 18-21, 2018. I.A. PAPAPOSTOLOU, Early Thermos, New Excavations 1992-2003 (2012) 39-41, figs 23-26; Α. MOUSTAKA and Ν. KALTSAS, “Οι ανασκαφές στο αρχαίο ‘’Μολύκρειο’’ μετά τον Ορλάνδο,” in O. PALAGGIA (ed.), Naupaktos. The ancient City and its Significance during the Peloponnesian Wwar and the Hellenistic Period. Proceedings of a colloquium on Ancient Naupaktos and its area (2016) 141-142, fig. 5. M. PETROPOULOS, “Η λατρεία της Δήμητρας στην Αχαΐα,” in I. LEVENTI and Ch. MITSOPOULOS (eds), Sanctuaries and Cults of Demeter in the Ancient Greek World. Proceedings of a Scientific Symposium, University of Thessaly, Volos (2010) 155-178. The choice of a ruined settlement as a funeral landscape goes back at least to MH era, as shown by the case of Middle Helladic Argolid. See E. MILKA, “Burials upon the Ruins of Abandoned Houses in the Middle Helladic Argolid,” in A. PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, G. TOUCHAIS, S. VOUTSAKI and J. WRIGHT (eds), Mesohelladika. La Grèce continentale au Bronze Moyen (2010) 433-443. On the contrary such a choice was not common in early Greek times, during which the cult of the ancestors was performed with the reuse of BA tombs and not by burying the dead among the ruins of ancient settlements, see C.M. ANTONACCIO, An Archaeology of Ancestors. Tomb Cult and Hero Cult in Early Greece (1995) 11-143. J.C. WRIGHT, “The Formation of the Mycenaean Palace,” in S. DEGER-JALKOTZY and I. LEMOS (eds), Ancient Greece. From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer (2006) 11-13. PAPAZOGLOU-MANIOUDAKI and PASCHALIDIS (supra n. 2).

COMMUNITY AND MEMORY IN THE MYGDALIA SETTLEMENT NEAR PATRAS

203

the tombs make use of the ample building material provided from the limestone bedrock of the hill and the pebbles from the river beds that surround the settlement (Pl. LXXXIVb). After all the area is called Petroto (stony ground). A built apsidal tomb, estimated height 2.75m, max. diam. 2.80m was located 60m from the retaining wall to the west. Though completely plundered and semi destroyed, it was already partly visible, its structure betraying an early Mycenaean date. Traces of the tumulus covering the tomb, made up of pebble stones, are still in place.16 A tholos tomb has been excavated in the northwest slope, near the western end of the oblong hill and about 500m distance from the settlement. It has a circular chamber approximately 4.30m in diameter and its height reaches 3m, it is second in size in Achaea after Tholos B at Pharai (5.20m in diameter). The Mygdalia tholos and the other known tholoi in Achaea, the Kallithea tholos in Patras region, two at Pharai, and two at Portes, an inland location on the way from Elis to Achaea, belong to the group of tombs in northwestern Greece which are of relatively small size and whose dromoi lead directly to the chamber without a stomion. Part of the dromos is covered with slabs. They are built of roughly-cut, rectangular stones of local limestone, placed in irregular rows (Pl. LXXXVa-b). But patterns of construction and size are not the only traits they share. There is strong evidence that their main use is dated in the LH IIB-IIIA 1 period and then the funerary remains were severely plundered and disturbed. This attitude toward the elite’s tombs has been attested all over the Peloponnese in early Mycenaean sites that did not evolve into palatial entities.17 In palatial sites, such as Pylos, similar situations may suggest a shift of dynasties.18 On the main floor deposit of the tholos at Mygdalia/Petroto (Level 8), the human remains, and the pottery, were found highly fragmented and commingled (Pl. LXXXVI). A pit, dug into the floor, was also disturbed, and cleansing fires were lit on the floor. The pottery, about 115 half complete pots, comprises decorated pottery, including closed shapes such as piriform jars, baggy alabastra, squat jugs, and jugs, handle-less jars, a stirrup jar, and a straight sided alabastron and open shapes, as Vapheio cups, shallow cups, ephyraean, monochrome or undecorated goblets, grey ware and cooking pots. A clay figurine of proto-Phi type has painted arms and hands. Some minor metal objects, including gold hair ornaments, two bronze knives and a pin ending in spirals were also found. A stone pendant and a whetstone, along with amber beads, semi-precious stone, glass and faience beads, complete the picture. Its main use is dated in the LH IIB-IIIA1 period and one or two pieces may be attributed to LH IIA or in early LH IIIA2 period.19 The study of the human skeletal material, made by Olivia A. Jones, identified a minimum of 26 individuals, men, women, adolescents and children, including those found in the areas of the three cleansing fires that were lit on the floor (Table 2 below). Then the floor was covered with earth and small stones, some infiltrated from the roof. On this layer (Level 7), almost 10cm thick, an almost intact extended burial was deposited, the dead was in a supine position with knees bent in opposite directions (Pl. LXXXVIIIa-b); other human and animal bones were deposited on the same Level 7.20 It is true that

16

17 18

19

20

L. PAPAZOGLOU-MANIOUDAKI, “Dishonouring the Dead: The Plundering of the Tholos Tombs in the Early Palatial Period and the Case of the Tholos Tomb at Mygdalia Hill (Petroto) in Achaea,” in H. CAVANAGH, W. CAVANAGH and J. ROY (eds), Honouring the Dead in the Peloponnese. Proceedings of the Conference held in Sparta 23-26 April 2009 (2011) 502-504, figs 2-3. PAPAZOGLOU-MANIOUDAKI (supra n. 16) 504-520 with references. S. STOCKER and J. DAVIS, “The Combat Agate from the Grave of the Griffin Warrior at Pylos,” Hesperia 86 (2017) 601, n. 61 for the Pylos tombs. L. PAPAZOGLOU-MANIOUDAKI, “O θολωτός τάφος του Πετρωτού Πατρών. Tα πρώτα στοιχεία της έρευνας’,” in N. KYPARISSI-APOSTOLIKA and M. PAPAKONSTANTINOU (eds), The Periphery of the Mycenaean World. 2nd International Interdisciplinary Colloquium, Lamia 1999 (2003) 433-453, figs 1-22. PAPAZOGLOU-MANIOUDAKI (supra n. 16) 435-436, figs 5-6; EADEM (supra n. 19) 510-511, figs 13-14; Ο.Α. JONES, H. van der PLICHT, L. PAPAZOGLOU-MANIOUDAKI and M. PETROPOULOS, “Timing is Everything: Radiocarbon Dating Multiple Levels in the Mycenaean Tholos of Petroto, Achaia, Greece,’’ STAR. Science and Technology of Archaeological Research (2018) 1-10, fig. 6.

Lena PAPAZOGLOU-MANIOUDAKI et alii

204

human interference, rearrangement and redisposition of primary burials are common practices in Mycenaean family tombs, but these acts usually follow a pattern21 which is not discernible at Mygdalia on Level 8. Level 8 7 6 5

Burial Floor** Theta Os 11 H ***

4 3 1&2

A-ΣT Thikis Osta 7 & 8 Stomion Totals

MNI 26 9 15

4 1 15 2 72

Adult Adolescent Child Infant Male Female 21 2 4 1 3 1 8 1 0 0 3 2 11 1 2 1 5 7 This burial appears to be a small scatter of bones located in the western half of the tomb on the excavation plan. We can’t say if they are primary or not. 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 13 1 0 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 57 5 7 3 15 13

Dates (BC) 1580-1390* 1420-1305*

1255-1120*

Table 2 - Bioarchaeological Data and Dating of the Tholos Tomb (Petroto-Mygdalia) *

These dates are calibrated radiocarbon dates (see JONES et al. [supra n. 20]). Further radiocarbon analysis will hopefully clarify the remaining levels ** The Floor level includes Pyra A, B and Γ. *** The bones from this level could not be located in the storeroom.

For a long time there was no way to date the rather hasty and unfurnished burials of about 46 individuals, that nevertheless were deposited in seven successive strata above the main floor, including some piles of bones (Table 2 and Pl. LXXXVI). Nor was it possible to measure the amount of time that has elapsed between the primary use of the tomb, as an elite burial ground of the Mygdalia settlement and the later unfurnished burials of apparently lesser status. Even the date of the final acts on the main floor or the abandonment of the tholos tomb could not be determined with any accuracy, we were in the realm of terminus post quem. This vital question has remained an open issue even in recent excavations of tholoi as in the tholos at Nichoria.22 Recent radiocarbon dating obtained by AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) has finally shed some light on the obscure later history of the tomb (Table 2 and Pl. LXXXVI). The burial on level 7 (Pl. LXXXVIIIa-b) is now dated in the LH IIIA2 (14th cent. BC), which is immediately after the plundering and abandonment of the main floor. There is evidently a gap of time until more are buried in the tholos if we count by the earth deposits. The final burial on Level 3, a cist grave with a single flexed individual (Pl. LXXXIXa-b) was dated by AMS in the 13th/12th cent. BC,23 thus incorporating all the intriguing history of the tomb within the Mycenaean period. Dating of the other levels, which will further clarify the sequence of events in the tholos and their association with the processes in the settlement, is still pending. The tholos tomb at Kallithea seems to be contemporary with the Mygdalia tholos and may have belonged to a neighboring, competitive community in the Patras area. The two tholoi are the only ones excavated in Patras area and they are of similar size and construction. The Kallithea tholos presents also an intriguing history of burial levels, seven (7) in all and it was the burial ground of about 40 individuals. There is evidence of a cremation burial and of animal bones, including the remains of horse, according to the preliminary report. 24

21

22

23 24

M. BOYD, “Destruction and other Material Acts of Transformation in Mycenaean Funerary Practice,” in K. HARELL and J. DRIESSEN (eds), Thravsma. Contextualizing the Intentional Destruction of Objects in the Bronze Age Aegean and Cyprus, UCL Louvain (2015) 155-158. N. WILKIE, “The MME Tholos,’’ in W. MCDONALD and N. WILKIE (eds), Excavations at Nichoria in Southwest Greece vol. II. The Bronze Age Occupation (1992) 257. JONES et al. (supra n. 20) 1-10, fig. 4. Th. PAPADOPOULOS, “Ανασκαφή Καλλιθέας Πατρών,” Prakt 1987, 70-72; PAPAZOGLOUMANIOUDAKI (supra n. 16) 515.

COMMUNITY AND MEMORY IN THE MYGDALIA SETTLEMENT NEAR PATRAS

205

Recently two burial levels are distinguished in the LH IIIA1/2 Kazanaki tholos tomb near Volos in Thessaly,25 the only other tholos in which anthropological remains have been radiocarbon dated. In this case the second stratum represents some hasty burials of a woman with a child on the level of the relieving triangle. The AMS dating shows that the two levels at Kazanaki are roughly contemporary and the study of the human remains shows a total of 9 individuals buried in the tomb.26 It turns out that the history of the Kazanaki tholos is not as long and complex as the history of the Mygdalia or the Kallithea tholos in Patras area. It is rather in alignment with the circumstances in other contemporary tholoi where some less distinguished individuals were buried in the dromos as in the case of Kokla near Argos.27 Burial strata have been also observed in later chamber tombs in Achaea but in these cases the burials, primary or secondary, are furnished in all levels and it is a mark of the continuous use of the chamber tomb from LH IIIA to LH IIIC date. 28 Beyond the study of the perplexing mortuary behavior within the tholos, the question remains as to the causes that had initiated this attitude towards the dead and whether the settlement of Mygdalia may provide a possible answer. The ongoing excavation (2016-2018) of the still semi-explored monumental House of the Bronzes, by the Wall on Terrace 3, permits us to have a glimpse of an early Mycenaean dwelling, undisturbed by later occupation on the site, that may have had a communal /administrative function (Pl. XCa). It is a well preserved, large, elongated, two-story building, with its external southeast long wall already measuring 17.50m, and featuring a row of large rectangular rooms subdivided along the long axis in the interior. It has a complex architectural plan, with apparently more wings and rows of still unexcavated rooms. Its contents have remained unplundered, so we have unexpectedly found a hoard of bronzes (knifes, tweezer, needles included) and other minor artefacts, contained in a box apparently fallen from the second floor, placed securely in space and time, along with almost intact domestic pottery.29 It comprises decorated drinking and pouring vessels (Pl. XCb) and craters, cooking pots and pithoi. The building dates from the LH IIB-IIIA1 period and it was abandoned, with no traces of fire, early in LH IIIA 2. This assemblage of “feasting equipment’’, that is admittedly hard to discern in a non-palatial and non-funerary environment30 remains unique in Western Achaea and the excavation is far from completed. Nevertheless the House of the Bronzes provides evidence for monumental architecture and of rich domestic strata that require a level of sophistication and the existence of a centralized authority at Mygdalia towards the end of the early Mycenaean era. An earthquake may have been the cause of the destruction, as the destruction deposits betray, and earthquakes are always a possibility in Achaea,31 but not a cause enough for the total abandonment of a 25

26

27

28

29 30

31

V. ADRYMI-SISMANI and S. ALEXANDROU, “Μυκηναϊκός Θολωτός τάφος στη Θέση Καζανάκι,” in A. MΑΖΑΡΑΚΙS-AΙΝΙΑΝ (ed.), Aρχαιολογικό Εργο Θεσσαλίας και Στερεάς Ελλάδας, vol. 2 (2009) 135; JONES et al. (supra n. 20) 7. A. PAPATHANASSIOU, “To ανθρωπολογικό οστεολογικό υλικό από τον Μυκηναϊκό θολωτό τάφο στη θέση Καζανάκι Βόλου,” in MΑΖΑΡΑΚΙS-AΙΝΙΑΝ (supra n. 25) 153. K. DEMAKOPOULOU, “The Burial Ritual in the Tholos Tomb at Kokla, Argolis,” in R. HÄGG and G.C NORDQUIST (eds), Celebrations of Death and Divinity in the Bronze Age Argolid (1990) 113. The last rites performed in the dromos may be dated in early LH IIΙA2, see G. EKROTH and M. LINDBLOM, “Heroes, Ancestors or just any Old Bones? Contextualizing the Consecration of Human Remains from the Mycenaean Shaft Graves at Lerna in the Argolid,” in E. ALRAM-STERN, F. BLAKOLMER, S. DEGER-JALKOTZY, R. LAFFINEUR and J. WEILHARTNER (eds), METAPHYSIS. Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 17th International Aegean Conference (2016) 238. L. PAPAZOGLOU-MANIOUDAKI, “A Mycenaean Warrior’s Tomb at Krini near Patras,’’ BSA 89 (1994) 176. PAPAZOGLOU-MANIOUDAKI and PASCHALIDIS (supra n. 2). J.C. WRIGHT, “A Survey of Evidence for Feasting in Mycenaean Society,” in J.C. WRIGHT (ed.), The Mycenaean Feast, Hesperia 73 (2004) 137; M. DABNEY, P. HALSTEAD and P. THOMAS, “Mycenaean Feasting on Tsoungiza at Ancient Nemea,” Hesperia 73 (2004) 197-215 for a LH IIIA2 feasting deposit. L. PAPAZOGLOU-MANIOUDAKI, “The Middle Helladic and Late Helladic I Periods at Aigion in Achaea,” in PHILLIPA-TOUCHAIS et al. (supra n. 13) 130-131.

206

Lena PAPAZOGLOU-MANIOUDAKI et alii

building and virtually of the site. If we take into account the plundering of the Mygdalia tholos tomb more or less in the same period, then we may theorize of a moment of severe crisis in the life of the settlement and a troubled transition to the palatial period. The lack of evidence suggests that any occupation on the site may had been on a very small scale until its new floruit in LH IIIC. Tomb and settlement material at Mygdalia supports the argument that the transition from the Prepalatial to the Palatial period was not without incident and casualties.32 We have now secure evidence, at least in the case of Mygdalia, that the upheaval had happened at the end of the early Mycenaean period and it was not an isolated incident in the troubled transition to a new emerging society. When Mygdalia rises to prominence again in the Postpalatial period, the warrior aristocracy of the time and ordinary people are buried in the chamber tombs cemeteries; the closest to Mygdalia is Achaea Clauss.33 Still some find it gratifying to be buried in the former ruler’s tomb or used it as an ossuary. It is a sign that Memory persists and a connection to a prime time in the past is desirable for the building of new social identities. Habitation on Mygdalia may not have been continuous, at least on the same scale, but Memory, and the privileged position, drove people back in LH IIIC and again in Early Greek times, this time to dedicate the place to the Gods and bury some dead among the ruins of the ancestors. The fates of the living and the dead are inextricably linked. When a settlement of a certain status undergoes a crisis then the prominent dead and the elite tombs may also suffer a kind of damnatio memoriae. Memory is used as a tool for emerging principalities to justify their claim on the land and it becomes a weapon against them in times of crisis. The Mygdalia tholos will never be used as an elite burial ground though it will, in a way, continue to be a part of the Mygdalia settlement. Interestingly all these do not apply to intramurals children graves, their resting place remain untouched during turbulent times, respected for eternity. Lena PAPAZOGLOU-MANIOUDAKI Constantinos PASCHALIDIS Olivia A. JONES

32

33

L. PAPAZOGLOU-MANIOUDAKI, “The Early Mycenaean Settlement at Aigion in Achaea and the Western Frontier of the North-east Peloponnese,” in A.L. SCHALLIN and I. TOURNAVITOU (eds), Mycenaeans up to Date. The Archaeology of the North-Eastern Peloponnese – Current Concepts and New Directions. International Conference, Athens 12-14 November 2010 (2015) 320 with references; PAPAZOGLOU and PASCHALIDIS (supra n. 2). PAPAZOGLOU-MANIOUDAKI and PASCHALIDIS (supra n. 1) 457-460, Pl. CLXXXIII-CLXXXIV.

COMMUNITY AND MEMORY IN THE MYGDALIA SETTLEMENT NEAR PATRAS

207

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Pl. LXXVIa Pl. LXXVIb Pl. LXXVII

Aerial view of the excavation on Mygdalia Hill. Terraces 1, 2, 3 (2017). Topographical plan of the excavation on Mygdalia Hill (2017). Aerial photo of Terrace 2 at Mygdalia, illustrating intramuros graves 1-4 under the floors of outdoor spaces and of one room. Pl. LXXVIIIa-b Intra muros grave 1. Terrace 2 at Mygdalia. Pl. LXXIXa Intra muros grave 1, plan and section. Terrace 2 at Mygdalia. Pl. LXXIXb Intra muros grave 4. Terrace 2 at Mygdalia. Pl. LXXXa-b Intra muros grave 4. Terrace 2 at Mygdalia. Pl. LXXXIa Intra muros grave 3. Terrace 2 at Mygdalia. Pl. LXXXIb Intra muros graves 3 (left) and 4 (right) are separated only by a house wall. Terrace 2 at Mygdalia. Pl. LXXXIIa-b Intra muros grave 4. Terrace 2 at Mygdalia. Pl. LXXXIIIa Intra muros grave 4. Terrace 2 at Mygdalia. Pl. LXXXIIIb Adult grave 2 of a mature woman. Terrace 2 at Mygdalia. Pl. LXXXIVa Adult grave 1 of a young man. Terrace 2 at Mygdalia. Pl. LXXXIVb Aerial view of the west slope of Mygdalia Hill, in the foreground the House of the Bronzes and the Wall. Terrace 3. Pl. LXXXVa-b The structure of the tholos tomb on the west slope at Mygdalia. Pl. LXXXVI Tholos tomb at Mygdalia, section. Pl. LXXXVII The disturbed main floor (Level 8) in the tholos tomb at Mygdalia. Pl. LXXXVIIIa-b Level 7 in the tholos tomb at Mygdalia. Pl. LXXXIXa-b Level 3 in the tholos tomb at Mygdalia. Pl. XCa Aerial view of the House of the Bronzes on Terrace 3 at Mygdalia (2017). Pl. XCb Pottery found in the House of the Bronzes (2017).

LXXVI

a

b

LXXVII

LXXVIII

a

b

LXXIX

a

b

LXXX

a

b

LXXXI

a

b

LXXXII

a

b

LXXXIII

a

b

LXXXIV

a

b

LXXXV

a

b

LXXXVI

LXXXVII

LXXXVIII

a

b

LXXXIX

a

b

XC

a

b

POWER PLAYS AT PYLOS: THE PAST AND MEMORY IN THE TOMBS AND AT THE PALACE* This paper explores how changes in Pylian society give the illusion that power strategies also changed over time, although in reality similar strategies were maintained for generations. I argue that memory is an example of a long-term power strategy, and I contend that its manipulation communicated, created, and legitimized elite status initially for a larger group of elites consisting of those using the tombs around the palace and later more exclusively for the elite at the palace itself. I demonstrate that although the location and portrayal of the material components used to create and manipulate memory changed over time, the core elements stayed the same – the manipulation of the senses and emotions, the tension between past, present, and future, and an emphasis on a warrior and hunting narrative. I first explore the relationship between memory, senses, and emotions and how we communicate through them. I then show how the mortuary systems portrayed and leveraged the new and growing ideology, and I finally demonstrate how these messages were controlled and limited by the palatial elite as it positioned itself at the pinnacle of the local hierarchy. I have previously argued through an examination of the location of wealth investment in Pylos that the mortuary system played a prominent role in power strategies in Pylian society during LH I-II but that this role decreased in importance as the focus shifted progressively to the palace buildings during LH IIIA and LH IIIB.1 In this paper, I explore one aspect of this process in more detail and examine the nature of Late Bronze Age power strategies and how they maintained legitimacy throughout that era. The mortuary sphere is well suited for utilization to control and communicate large-scale societal change and to manipulate memory.2 It derives most of its uniqueness from the social power of death. Death most overtly threatens individuals, but it also threatens society; the death of a core member of a *

1

2

I would like to dedicate my paper to the memory of Mary Ellen Soles – a great friend, contributor to our field, and valued member of our Aegean community. I would like to thank the organizers of the conference for giving us occasion to examine this topic in more detail in such a glorious setting. I also wish to thank the Institute for Aegean Prehistory, the University of Cincinnati, and the University of North Carolina at Greensboro for supporting this research financially. I thank Sharon R. Stocker and Jack L. Davis for inviting me to study this material and Jeremy Rutter, Jenny Moody, Maria Kondaki, and Lynne Schepartz for their collaboration. I also wish to thank Xeni Arapogianni, Proistameni of the 38th Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities at Kalamata, and Lena Papazoglou, Eleni Konstantinidi, and Kostos Paschalides at the National Museum at Athens for their continued support of this project. I am indebted to Jack Davis, Sharon Stocker, Natalie Abell, Shannon Lafayette, and Carol Hershenson for reading versions of this paper. J. MURPHY, “The Varying Place of the Dead in Pylos,” in D. NAKASIS, J. GULIZIO, and S. JAMES (eds), KE-RA-ME-JA. Studies Presented to Cynthia W. Shelmerdine (2014) 209-221; J. MURPHY, “Same, Same, But Different: Ritual in the Archaic States of Pylos and Mycenae,” in J. MUPRHY (ed.), Ritual and Archaic States (2016) 50-75; J. MURPHY, J. DAVIS, S. STOCKER, and L. SCHEPARTZ, “Late Bronze Age Tombs at the Palace of Nestor, Pylos” in J. MURPHY (ed.), Death in Late Bronze Age Greece. Variations on a Theme (forthcoming). From the vast body of literature on relationships, mortuary rituals, and memory, I have selected just a few references due to space constraints. For several papers addressing the issue of controlling emotional intensity, relationship and identity creation and social memory see M. CHESSON (ed.), Social Memory, Identity, and Death. Anthropological Perspectives on Mortuary Rituals (2001). For a summary of these issues and references see M. CHESSON, “Social Memory, Identity, and Death: An Introduction,” in ibidem 1-10. For examples of ethnographies that inform and shape our understanding of these relationships see A. WEINER, Women of Value, Men of Renown. New Perspectives in Trobriand Exchange (1976); S. KAN, Symbolic Immortality. The Tlingit Potlatch of the Nineteenth Century (1989); J. JING, Temple of Memories. History, Power, and Morality in a Chinese Village (1996); K. GEORGE, Showing Signs of Violence. The Cultural Politics of a TwentiethCentury Headhunting Ritual (1996).

210

Joanne M.A. MURPHY

family or community robs the group of the input, guidance, and resources that the deceased provided and can cause both families and societies to fail. The emotional intensity generated by the loss and disruption of the status quo can make families and communities unpredictable, prone to impulsive actions or withdrawal, weak, and therefore vulnerable to challenges in maintaining their relationships, networks, and contact with others. This in turn can lead to weakened status and access to resources or to undermining or attack from either an internal or external force.3 Thus, death forces familial and societal changes in a way that few other events can. The ensuing emotional intensity needs to be managed to ensure the safety and continuity of the family and the society during the period of transition and vulnerability. Death also creates vacuums that need to be filled and their filling needs to be controlled. Both emotions and the filling of the vacuums, based on ethnographic studies, are most commonly regulated through ceremonies and activities that focus on identities and relationships – social, political, and economic. The emotional intensity and insecurity around the time of death open a space for these relationships to be created, affirmed, or broken.4 Emotions and memory come together forcefully in the mortuary arena. The same emotional intensity and insecurity outlined above also allows people to leverage the malleability of memory that can be adjusted and negotiated.5 Memories are primarily individual and fluid, ephemeral images or sensory traces of past events or perceptions of relationships and social positions. With the telling and sharing of the stories of past events or assessments of relationships, however, memories shift from private to public and from ephemeral to more solid. This fluidity of memory makes it vulnerable to change and manipulation and in the process of being spun and told, the story could shift and grow or diminish over time. The oral recounting of memories in a public setting gives authority to a memory that is discussed and presented. Like a ballad or epic, a memory becomes solidified and although the details may change slightly in each re-telling, the most important components should stay the same. In oral societies or in the oral realm of communities, these stories can shape-shift over time through variations of emphasis on different elements.6 The creation of monuments or texts, however, materializes a narrative of social memory that becomes harder to dispute. The particular relationship between the mortuary arena and memory has been extensively explored, and other research has demonstrated that the rites of commemoration commonly

3

4

5

6

For a recent summary of the complexities of studying past emotion see S. TARLOW, “The Archaeology of Emotion and Affect,” Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 41 (2012) 169-85. For archaeological applications of the ethnographic studies with references see I. KUJIT, “Negotiating Equality through Ritual: A Consideration of Late Natufian and Prepottery Neolithic. A Period of Mortuary Contexts,” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 15 (1996) 313-336; M. CHESSON, “Libraries of the Dead: Early Bronze Age Charnel Houses and Social Identity at Urban Bab edh-Dhra', Jordan,” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 18 (1999) 137-64; CHESSON (supra n. 2); G. RAKITA, J. BUIKSTRA, L. BECK, and S. WILLIAMS (eds), Interacting with the Dead: Perspectives on Mortuary Archaeology for the New Millennium (2008); C. QUINN, “Returning and Reuse: Diachronic Perspectives on Multi-Component Cemeteries and Mortuary Politics at Middle Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Tara, Ireland,” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 37 (2015) 1-18. For a discussion of the fluidity and creation of memory and active forgetting see M.T. STARZMAN, “Engaging Memory. An Introduction,” in M.T STARZMAN and J. ROBY (eds), Excavating Memory. Sites of Memory and Forgetting (2016) 1-21. For a discussion of the connection between landscape, mortuary rituals, and memory with specific reference to Pylos see J. MURPHY, “Outside and Inside. Mortuary Rituals in Early Mycenaean Pylos,” in B. EDER and M. ZAVADIL (eds), (Social) Place and Space in Early Mycenaean Greece, Conference organized by the Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in cooperation with the Austrian Archaeological Institute, Athens, October 5th-8th 2016 (in press). For the composition of oral poetry see E.J. BAKKER, Pointing at the Past: From Formula to Performance in Homeric Poetics (2005). For a discussion of the wall-paintings as picture narratives and their relationship with oral poetry during the Mycenaean period see J. BENNET, “Representations of Power in Mycenaean Pylos. Script, Orality, Iconography,” in F. LANG, C. REINHOLDT and J. WEILHARTNER (eds), Στέφανος Αριστείος. Archäologische Forschungen zwischen Nil und Istros. Festschrift für Stefan Hiller zum 65. Geburtstag (2007) 11-22.

THE PAST AND MEMORY IN THE TOMBS AND AT THE PALACE AT PYLOS

211

innovate social memories of the dead for political ends.7 Constructing a mortuary landscape combines the maintenance and creation of social memory and local histories with place-making,8 which communicates a large-scale social narrative that is widely recognized, if not wholeheartedly accepted, by all. Thus, the building of the tombs at Pylos and their use over generations moved the narrative beyond individual memory to social memory, suggesting that the cultural story is one that is co-owned and co-supported.9 The narrative is shaped and controlled by those constructing and using the tombs but impacts the whole society. At the end of the Middle Helladic period and at the start of the Late Helladic period, major changes in Pylian society were materialized with the construction of at least two large tholoi close to the site of the later palace (Pl. XCI).10 These tombs communicated a new disjuncture between the social patterns of the previous generations and a freshly invented social narrative that valued the dead and the past in a different way. They signaled a strong vested interest in the ostentatious disposition of large quantities of wealth through the construction of the structure, the control of labor, and the objects placed with the dead. The building and use of these tombs also indicated a shift in the framing of time and connected the past with how it was being portrayed in the present and would be retold in the future:11 a newly framed past as it would be refashioned and retold for future generations. Through the tombs, the families who built and used them created and materialized a time line punctuated by a visible reminder of people who were dead but present, gone but present in the cultural narrative through the continued lineages and related control over resources. Through these actions a new way of establishing and maintaining memories was created – one that wove the stories of the dead and their relationship to family lines into the social fabric of Pylos. Together with the huge investment in the construction of these tombs, a large amount of wealth was deposited in them in the form of imported jewels, large bronze cauldrons, and pithoi. Prominent among these early objects placed in the tomb was a focus on a warrior ideology that was communicated through multiple media – the objects placed in the tomb and images on sealstones. Some of the dead were interred with weapons, indicated only in looted Tholos IV by the remaining rivets, which included knives, daggers, large swords with ivory pommels and decorations on the blades, and boars’ tusks – both worked and unworked. These objects indicate a close connection between wealth and weapons and prestige and power. The cultural importance of these connections is reinforced through the images on the sealstones also put into the tombs. There are several depictions of the kinds of activities in which these people and their weapons might have been involved, such as boar hunting, which is still one of the most dangerous hunts in the world. The boar, the enemy of the hunter, is illustrated on the sealstone being killed, and the vanquishing of this enemy is further indicated by the boars’ tusk helmet worn by the hunter in the

7

8

9

10

11

For discussion of the creation and manipulation of social memory see CHESSSON (supra n. 2). For examples of the creation and manipulation of social memory in the modern world see E. ERBAS GURLER and B. OZER, “The Effects of Public Memorials on Social Memory and Urban Identity,” Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 82 (2013) 858-863. P. NORA, “Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de mémoire,” Representations 26 (1989) 7-24; C. TILLEY, A Phenomenology of Landscape. Places, Paths, Monuments (1994); K. BASSO, Wisdom Sites in Places: Landscape and Language among the Western Apache (1996); W. ASHMORE and A. KNAPP, Archaeological Landscape. Constructed, Conceptualized, Ideational (1999); R. VAN DYKE and S. ALCOCK, Archaeologies of Memory (2003). For the length of time each tomb was used see J. MURPHY, “The Power of the Ancestors at Pylos,” in E. ALRAM-STERN, F. BLAKOLMER, S. DEGER-JALKOTZY, R. LAFFINEUR and J. WEILHARTNER (eds), METAPHYSIS. Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 15th International Aegean Conference, Vienna 22-25 April 2014
(2016) 439-446. C.W. BLEGEN, M. RAWSON, W. TAYLOUR, and W.P. DONOVAN, The Palace of Nestor 3. Acropolis and Lower Town. Tholoi and Grave Circle. Chamber Tombs. Discoveries Outside the Citadel (1973). For similar discussions on how time is manipulated and connected see GEORGE (supra n. 2) who describes commemoration as a ritual action that touches the past, future, and present simultaneously. JING (supra n. 2) also illustrates how past, present, and future are integrated in social memory. For an examination of the social structuring of time see E. ZERUBAVEL, Time Maps. Collective Memory and the Social Shape of the Past (2004).

212

Joanne M.A. MURPHY

image.12 The strength and dominance in the image is materialized through the presence of the boars’ tusk and the weapons in the tombs. Thus, in LH I or even as early as later MH III, there was a dramatic shift in the cultural creation around Pylos with the construction of large, formal, expensive burial areas in the form of tholos tombs. The investment in these tombs signaled a change in the local ideology to one that was reliant on the creation and memorialization of the past for power, prominence, and dominance, a tension between past, present, and future, and a cultural importance of hunters and warriors. This pattern changed in LH IIIA1, when burials were made in one tholos tomb, Vayenas, and in several chamber tombs. None of these burials have warrior/hunting components, boars’ tusk, or large display-style cauldrons or pots – there is one sword in one chamber tomb, but it is not as striking as the earlier ones. Instead the objects placed with the dead consist of more mundane pottery and small finds, although there were some tinned vessels in Tholos III. The dates of these burials and the changes in the cultural narrative suggest that the location of some of the power strategies changed in LH IIIA. The blocking of the access to Tholos IV in LH IIIA further emphasizes the distancing of the reliance on the mortuary sphere as a power strategy; the construction of a perfume production area between the main building of the palace and Tholos IV subsequently reinforced that disregard for the dead in Tholos IV.13 It is likely that the manipulation of memory and the location of that manipulation changed to the palace in LH IIIA, although because of preservation issues the evidence dates predominantly to LH IIIB. Despite the overt emphasis on wealth, consumption and production of elite goods, feasting, and religious activities in the palace, there are the similarities between the power strategies there and those exhibited previously at the tombs. An examination of Hall 64 in the Southwestern Building illustrates how these strategies are manifest at the palace (Pl. XCIIa). Hall 64, 10m long (southeast to northwest) and 7.29m wide, is entered through a columned entrance from Court 63 and constituted the entrance into the largest hall in the building, Hall 65.14 Hall 65 is the second largest megaron at the palace. Hall 64 stands out from other rooms in the building because of its wall-paintings and its architectural features. The wall-paintings in Hall 64 consist of battle scenes, a scene with hunting dogs, and a ship scene.15 The primary significance of Hall 64 for this paper is in the depiction of a battle scene between well-armed Mycenaeans and barbarians fighting with daggers, swords, and spears, frequently in one-on-one combats (Pl. XCIIb).16 The battle scene was placed just above eye level over a lower dado and below a nautilus pattern at the top of the wall.17 The Mycenaeans in the scene 12

13

14

15

16

17

For a discussion of boars’ tusk in the Pylian tombs see J. MURPHY, “The Wealth of Nature and the Nature of Wealth: Aspects of Pylian Ideologies,” in G. TOUCHAIS, R. LAFFINEUR, and Fr. ROUGEMONT (eds), PHYSIS. L’environnement naturel et la relation homme-milieu dans le monde égéen protohistorique. Actes de la 14e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Paris 11-14 décembre 2012 (2014) 513-516. See also A. PAPADOPOULOS, “Dressing a Late Bronze Age Warrior: The Role of ‘Uniforms’ and Weaponry according to the Iconographical Evidence,” in M.-L. NOSCH and R. LAFFINEUR (eds), KOSMOS. Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 13th International Aegean Conference, University of Copenhagen, 21-26 April 2010 (2012) 647-654. MURPHY (supra n. 1); J. MURPHY, “The Scent of Status: Prestige and Perfume at the Bronze Age Palace at Pylos, Greece” in J. DAY (ed.), Making Senses of the Past: Toward a Sensory Archaeology (2013) 243-265. C. BLEGEN and M. RAWSON, The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia 1. The Buildings and Their Contents (1966) 247-248, 250. M. LANG, The Palace of Nestor 2. The Frescoes (1969) 71-73, 214-215; H. BRECOULAKI, S. STOCKER, J. DAVIS, and E. EGAN, “An Unprecedented Naval Scene from Pylos: First Considerations,” in H. BRECOULAKI, S. STOCKER, J. DAVIS (eds), Mycenaean Wall Painting in Context. New Discoveries, Old Finds Reconsidered (2015) 260-291. As Lang (supra n. 15, 48) notes, the greatest similarity to the scene is with earlier Siege Rhyton and for individual poses the lower register of the Wrestler Vase. J.L. DAVIS and J. BENNETT, “Making Mycenaeans: Warfare, Territorial Expansion, and Representations of the Other in the Pylian Kingdom,” in R. LAFFINEUR (ed.), POLEMOS. Le contexte guerrier en Egée à l’Âge du Bronze. Actes de la 7e Rencontre égéenne internatuionale, Université de Liège, 14-17 avril 1998

THE PAST AND MEMORY IN THE TOMBS AND AT THE PALACE AT PYLOS

213

wear boars’ tusk helmets, greaves, and some type of body armor, while their opponents wear what appear to be animal skins. The men are involved in an intense battle in such close proximity to one another to be in hand to hand combat. Lang describes several scenes that are pulsating with movement of warriors in close contact and depicts them attacking one another and the collapsing bodies of the defeated. In at least two scenes, the warriors are so close that they are thrusting the short dagger into the body of their opponent. She describes another scene in which the victorious Mycenaean warrior is on all fours, but part of the body of the defeated barbarian lies nearby, presumably dead.18 The battle is realistic rather than idealized with both sides putting up an excellent fight, and although the Mycenaeans are clearly the superior group, their adversaries are portrayed as a good match for them – defeating this enemy was not an easy task. This portrayal of a strong, but ultimately weaker, opponent enhances the power of the victor as it emphasizes the fullness of their prowess and abilities. The personal combat in the scene is strikingly different from the other themes in the LH IIIB palace that focus on the natural world and processions.19 The violence of the scene is also visceral and shocking and multiple movements contrast with the stillness of the life-size hunting dogs on the other wall.20 Given the overlap, however, between the costumes and weapons depicted in hunting and fighting scenes,21 the depiction of hunting dogs in many ways echoes the scene of warfare albeit in a different arena. It is also noteworthy that although these dogs are seated, they are not in repose or resting as they are commonly described; they are alert with their ears up and possibly ready to attack if needed.22 These images communicate the importance of the same ideological components that had been presented in the early tombs – the superiority of warriors and hunters.23 The cultural importance of this narrative is underscored by the elevated architectural components of Hall 64 that mirror those of the main building, including an exterior wall with large dressed blocks similar to those of the main building;24 a columned entrance between two anta connecting this room and Court 63; a doorway that connected it to Hall 65 that was decorated with life-size lions;25 and the painted floor and wall-paintings. Davis and Bennet have argued that the battle scene in Hall 64 depicts a shared cultural Mycenaean identity that is contrasted with the non-Mycenaeans; Blakolmer emphasizes the arrogance of civilization in the scene.26 The identity of the people in the battles suggest that it is unlikely that the Pylians were illustrating their victory over their nearby enemies, but instead were referring either to mythical enemies,

18 19

20 21

22 23

24

25 26

(1999) 105-120, esp. 108-109. BLEGEN and RAWSON (supra n. 14) 248, fig. 195; LANG (supra n. 15) 214. LANG (supra n. 15) 70-71. See DAVIS and BENNETT (supra n. 17) 115-117 for a discussion of the contrast between the scenes in Hall 64 and the rest of the palace. See also L. MC CALLUM, Decorative Program in the Mycenaean Palace of Pylos: The Megaron Frescoes, Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania (1987). LANG (supra n. 15) 214-215. PAPADOPOULOS (supra n. 12); C. MORRIS, “In Pursuit of the White Tusked Boar: Aspects of Hunting in Mycenaean Society,” in R. HÄGG and G. NORDQUIST (eds), Celebrations of Death and Divinity in the Bronze Age Argolid. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 11-13 June, 1988 (1990) 149-156. I thank Natalie Abell for this observation. Laffineur has noted that the images of warriors that are so prevalent in the Early Mycenaean period mainly on sealstones do not continue into LH IIIA and LH IIIB and are only seen at palaces: R. LAFFINEUR, “Iconographie mycénienne et symbolisme guerrier,” Art & Fact. Revue des Historiens d’art, archéologues et musicologues de l’Université de Liège 2 (1983) 38-49. See also IDEM, “Iconography as Evidence of Social and Political Status in Mycenaean Greece,” in R. LAFFINEUR and J.L. CROWLEY (eds), EIKON. Aegean Bronze Age Iconography. Shaping a Methodology. Proceedings of the 4th International Aegean Conference, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia, 6-9 April 1992 (1992) 105-112. BLEGEN and RAWSON (supra n. 14) 248. The similarities also include the countersinking of the antae bases, the use of applied stucco for a partial door frame as in the portico to the vestibule and the vestibule to the Throne Room (BLEGEN and RAWSON [supra n. 14] 250, 67, 76...) BLEGEN and RAWSON (supra n. 14) 250, 55. DAVIS and BENNET (supra n. 17) 115.

214

Joanne M.A. MURPHY

as Chapin suggested, locals who did not participate in the Mycenaean koine, or non-Greeks.27 The audience for the communications, however, would have frequented the palace – both the Pylians and other inhabitants of the region – and it is their memories that would have been impacted by this iconography. These visually forceful and shocking images manipulated people’s memories to remind them of the strength of the palatial elite, which would have been a welcome sight to those allied with the palace community, but would have acted as a warning to others of what could happen if anyone rose up against them. 28 Indeed, Bennet suggests that although this could be a historic battle, similar fights could still have been occurring around the perimeter of the Pylian state.29 In the depiction of the battle scene there is a tension between past, present, and future similar to that evidenced at the tombs. This tension lies in the age of the image, the contents of the images, and its style. The painting itself may have been older than those in the Main Building, since the Southwestern Building was built earlier in LH IIIB30 and the blue background of the scene connects it to the older fragments found in the dumps more closely than to paintings still on the walls of the Main Building.31 Based on wall-painting studies in the Near East, as Jung and Mehofer argue, however, it is unlikely that the painting would have been older than 50 years. Even if the illustration was only 50 years old, it would still have been visible to at least two generations. 32 Bennet suggests that if the battle depicted was connected with the expansion of the Pylian state, then it is possible that there were people who still remembered that battle from their childhood.33 Furthermore, based on earlier wall-painting fragments of military scenes also found in the area, it is possible the Southwest Building had a long relationship with battle scenes.34 Indeed Hiller suggested that the area of Hall 64 and the adjoining Hall 65 was connected to the lawagetas, second to the wanax in the Pylian hierarchy, who was associated with military activities in the Linear B tablets.35 In these rooms the lawagetas would have hosted guests for the palatial feasts while the wanax hosted his in the main megaron. The power and implicit threat in the image would have made a strong impression on the viewer. Thus the image may refer to a relatively recent battle in the consolidation of the Pylian state as mentioned above,36 but it also refers to the more distant past through possible memories of earlier battle scenes found in fragments around the palace. 27

28

29 30

31 32

33 34

35

36

A.P. CHAPIN, “Mycenaean Mythologies in the Making: the Frescoes of Pylos Hall 64 and the Mycenae Megaron,” in ALRAM-STERN et al. (supra n. 9) 459-466. While LANG (supra n. 15, 215) points to other fragments from the room that may be chariot as noted above, a depiction of a naval scenes was also on one wall: BRECOULAKI, STOCKER, DAVIS, and EGAN (supra n. 15). BENNET (supra n. 6). For a summary of construction dates of Hall 64 see BRECOULAKI, STOCKER, DAVIS, and EGAN (supra n. 15) 267. LANG (supra n. 15) 43. R. JUNG and M. MEHOFER, “A Sword of Naue II Type from Ugarit and the Historical Significance of Italian Type Weaponry in the Eastern Mediterranean,” AEA (2008) 120-121. BENNET (supra n. 6). For reference to the earlier military fragments see LANG (supra n. 15) 42, 44; also DAVIS and BENNET (supra 17) 117... For the term lawagetas and his role see J. AURA, Diccionario micénico, Vol. 2. (1993); S. NIKOLOUDIS, “The Role of the ra-wa-ke-ta. Insights from PY Un 718,” in A. SACCONI, M. DEL FREO, L. GODART, and M. NEGRI (eds), Colloquium Romanum. Atti del XII colloquio internazionale di micenologia, Roma, 20-25 febbraio 2006, Volume 2, Pasiphae 2 (2008) 587-594. For the connection between Hall 64 and 65 and the lawagetas see S. HILLER, Discussion following paper by K. KILIAN, “Zur Funktion der mykenischen Residenzen,” in R. HÄGG and N. MARINATOS (eds), The Function of the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 10-16 June, 1984 (1987) 38. For the expansion and growth of the Pylian state see J. BENNET, “Space through Time: Diachronic Perspectives on the Spatial Organization of the Pylian State,” in R. LAFFINEUR and W.-D. NIEMEIER (eds), POLITEIA. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, University of Heidelberg, 10-13 April 1994 (1995) 587-602; J. BENNET, “Pylos: The Expansion of a Mycenaean Center,” in M.L. GALATY and W.A. PARKINSON (eds), Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces. New Interpretations of an Old Idea (1999) 9-18. For the expansion of the site of the palace and lower town see J. BENNET and C.W.

THE PAST AND MEMORY IN THE TOMBS AND AT THE PALACE AT PYLOS

215

The helmets and weapons used by the Mycenaean warriors in the wall-painting also emphasize the tension of time between past and present. While the helmet of boars’ tusk37 is an artifact that draws the mind back through the centuries to the helmets of their ancestors that were popular in LH I-II,38 the short daggers that are typical LH IIIB, according to Jung and Mehofer, add a degree of contemporaneity to the scene.39 The benefit of using a common ancestral motif such as a boars’ tusk helmet allows viewers to reflect on a heroic past that all of their ancestors shared even if they had not participated in the specific battle depicted. Thus, the helmeted warriors can represent ancestral heroes to the society as well as specific individuals and can help build a common past among the viewers. The tension of time is also present in the style of the scene. Immerwahr has argued that the poses in the scene are comparable to those found on the Early Mycenaean seals and the Siege Rhyton from Mycenae,40 but Hiller draws attention to its contemporaneity through the multiple images of combat overlapping in a “muddle” rather than a historic image of single combat.41 Thus, the image connects with the past in themes, content, and some aspects of its style, but is contemporary with the viewer because of its visibility, the LH IIIB daggers, and other elements of its style.42 Immerwahr43 and others have pointed out that hunting and battle scenes dominate Mycenaean iconography and that they often seem to have a generic rather than a specific meaning, but this generality does not undermine the social power of the image. It is important that these images and cultural narratives are inherently part of the cultural koine of the time so that the narrative is familiar and thus easily reinforced. Their locations are specifically chosen to communicate the power strongly to the viewer; this applies especially to Hall 64, if the proposed association with the lawagetas is accepted. The complete iconography of Hall 64 echoes the main Pylian power strategies – memory linked with warriors and hunting and access to foreign and elite goods through the ships and chariots. With the depiction of animals at various places throughout the palace, recalling the past through the dress of the women depicted in wall-paintings, and the access to exotic goods visible in scenes and in the contents of the palace, the same themes are constantly underscored and reinforced in subtle but powerful ways.44 Humans know the world through our senses – it is the sensory engagement with these scenes that creates the impact on the viewer. The complex scene in Hall 64, with multiple vignettes and multiple colors, draws the viewer’s eye and creates an involuntary emotional reaction. The range of emotion, from fear to pride, that would be inspired by viewing this scene would depend on the identity of the viewer and their relationship to the palace community. The change in location is key to the changing of the story and how the narrative is being used and memory being manipulated because each location has a different emotional charge. Thus the emotional component of the venue changes the reception of the story being

37

38

39 40

41

42

43 44

SHELMERDINE, in J.L. DAVIS, S.E. ALCOCK, J. BENNET, Y. LOLOS and C.W. SHELMERDINE, “The Pylos Regional Archaeological Project. Part I: Overview and the Archaeological Survey,” Hesperia 66 (1997) 391-494, esp. 424-427. Early wall-painting fragments from Pylos include two warriors in boars’ tusk helmet, see S. IMMERWAHR, Aegean Painting in the Bronze Age (1990) 113. IMMERWAHR (supra n. 37) points out that these images of boars’ tusk helmets were stock motifs for generation. JUNG and MEHOFER (supra n. 31). IMMERWAHR (supra n. 37) 128. Immerwahr (supra n. 37, 109-10) 122ff argues that the warfare and hunting ideology are a mainland phenomenon whose roots can be traced back to the Shaft Grave era. See also LANG (supra n. 15). S. HILLER, “Scenes of Warfare and Combat in the Arts of Aegean Late Bronze Age: Reflections on Typology and Development,” in LAFFINEUR (supra n. 17) 319-330, esp. 326. This is the only sword battle known on a Mycenaean wall-painting (JUNG and MEHOFER [supra n. 31] 121). For earlier images on seals with swords see I. KILIAN-DIRLMEIER, Die Schwerter in Griechenland (außerhalb der Peloponnes), Bulgarien und Albanien (1993) 133ff and for other LH IIIB combat scenes without swords see HILLER (supra n. 41) 322, 324-328. IMMERWAHR (supra n. 37) 122. IMMERWAHR (supra n. 37) 123 suggests that the costumes worn by the women in fresco harkened back to older clothing.

216

Joanne M.A. MURPHY

told. In the earlier venue, the mortuary arena, the element of mourning and social disruption inherent in the setting underscores the creation of memory and negotiation of identity; in the palace, the viewers absorb and react to the story presented in this power-filled area with either fear or pride. Therefore, as I argued above, during LH IIIIA as the palace grew in prominence, the economic and cultural importance of the tombs began to wane and the Pylians shifted not only their main economic strategies of power to the palace but also the less concrete, but equally effective, strategies based around memory. Through the wall paintings that hearkened back to the glories of battles in which Pylians defeated their enemies, the Pylians continued their long-standing practice of manipulating memory by highlighting visually the importance of warfare, their dominance, and their strength. Memory and its manipulation were thus key strategies in Pylian power dynamics from the Early Mycenaean period through the collapse of the palatial culture. I maintain that the components of the communication code in Pylian society did not change; the change was rather in the location and nexus of control over that code. Joanne M.A. MURPHY

THE PAST AND MEMORY IN THE TOMBS AND AT THE PALACE AT PYLOS

217

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Pl. XCI Pl. XCIIa Pl. XCIIb

Distribution of tholoi around Pylos. (After BLEGEN and RAWSON [supra n. 14]. Courtesy of Classics Department University of Cincinnati) Map of Pylos indicating Hall 64 (From [supra n. 14]. Courtesy of Classics Department University of Cincinnati) Battle scene wall painting from Hall 64 (From LANG [supra n. 15], Pl. M. Courtesy of Classics Department University of Cincinnati)

XCI

XCII

a

b

F. THE PAST IN MAINLAND FUNERARY BEHAVIOUR AND THE USE OF MYCENAEAN TOMBS

DEATH IN THE EARLY MIDDLE HELLADIC PERIOD (MH I-II): DIVERSITY IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF MNEMONIC LANDSCAPES* Introduction The early Middle Bronze Age period in Mainland Greece, the so-called Middle Helladic (ΜΗ) period, has been conventionally divided into three phases,1 the first two of which (MH I-II, ca 2100/20501800 BC) are regarded here as the early stages, as opposed to the third phase associated with the transition to the Late Helladic period (MH III/LH I, ca 1800-1700 BC). MH I-II is a pivotal period for Bronze Age developments in Mainland Greece, because it reveals how communities managed to recover and reorganize after the stress they suffered at the end of Early Helladic II (by 2200 BC). Moreover, this period indicates how communities, through the potential they developed, namely their agency, regional and interregional contacts and exchange, managed to reach a new cycle of growth. However, it is equally a period that is not very well known due to the relatively limited available data; as a result of which, perhaps, it has long suffered – in my opinion – from the imposition of stereotyped schemes of interpretation. These schemes, which outline it as a period of poverty, stagnation and isolation, or of simple, homogeneous and introverted societies,2 may have been justified in the 1970s to the late 1990s, but they are no longer supported by recent data. Below, I will return briefly to these controversial social features, but they are not however at the heart of the present communication. Here I will try to approach the early MH society from a different perspective. I will focus on the articulation of mortuary practices and mortuary rituals to the formation of the early MH society, through the perspective of social memory and social identity. The role of mortuary practices is central in the production and reproduction of social memory and identity. Recent studies of mortuary practices in archaeology have focused on the different forms of commemoration, the complex relationships between monuments and the social memory through their architectural spaces and places, and the landscape.3

* 1

2

3

I would like to express my warm thanks to the organizers of the conference. I also thank K. Konstanti, G. Vavouranakis, and N. Papadimitriou for useful discussions on intramural burials and social memory. O.T.P.K. DICKINSON, The Origins of Mycenaean Civilization (1977) 17-24; see also recently J. RUTTER, “The Temporal Slicing and Dicing of Minyan Culture: A Proposal for a Tripartite Division of a Lengthier Greek Middle Bronze Age and the Issue of Nomadism at its Beginning,” in C. WIERSMA and S. VOUTSAKI (eds), Social Change in Aegean Prehistory (2017) 16-31. DICKINSON (supra n. 1) 38, 107; O.T.P.K. DICKINSON, “’The Origins of Mycenaean Civilization’ Revisited,” in R. LAFFINEUR (ed.), Transition. Le monde égéen du Bronze Moyen au Bronze Récent. Actes de la deuxième rencontre égéenne internationale de l’Université de Liège (18-20 avril 1988) (1989) 131-136; S. VOUTSAKI, “Social and Cultural Change in the Middle Helladic Period. Presentation of a New Project,” in A. DAKOURI-HILD and S. SHERRATT (eds), Autochthon. Papers Presented to O.T.P.K. Dickinson on the Occasion of His Retirement (2005) 134-143; C. WIERSMA and S. VOUTSAKI, “Introduction: Social Change in Aegean Prehistory,” in WIERSMA and VOUTSAKI (supra n. 1) VIXX. E.g. J. THOMAS, Time Culture and Identity (1996); R. BRADLEY, The Past in Prehistoric Societies (2002); W. ASHMORE, “Social Archaeologies of Landscape,” in L. MESKELL and R.W. PREUCEL (eds), A Companion to Social Archaeology (2007, originally published in 2004) 255-273; A.B. KNAPP, “Monumental Architecture, Identity and Memory,” in A. KYRIATSOULIS (ed.), Proceedings of the Symposium Bronze Age Architectural Traditions in the Eastern Mediterranean, Diffusion and Diversity, Gasteig, Munich, 7-8 May, 2008 (2009) 4759; Y. GALANAKIS, “Mnemonic Landscapes and Monuments of the Past. Tumuli, Tholos Tombs and Landscape Associations in Late Middle Bronze Age and the Early Late Bronze Age Messenia (Greece),” in E. BORGNA and S. MÜLLER CELKA (eds), Ancestral Landscapes. Burial Mounds in the Copper and Bronze Age (2011) 219-229.

222

Anna PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS

From the study of burial practices in the MH I-II period, a particular feature arises which we consider pivotal in the present discussion. This is a pronounced diversity in the use of space, in funerary architecture and grave goods, and apparently in the mortuary rituals themselves. It has been already stressed that, underlying the apparent simplicity and homogeneity of MH mortuary practices, there is in fact a wide diversity of forms (i.e. tomb types and construction), and correlations among the various aspects of mortuary practices (i.e. space and forms with the number of offerings, age and sex of the buried).4 And while age and gender have been studied in detail,5 the significance of the diversity in mortuary location has been perhaps underestimated, because it has been mainly examined under the perspective of social differentiation. Thus, the use of space inside or outside the settlement for burial purposes is either attributed to groups with different social status6 or perceived as not reflecting any noticeable social differentiation if differences in status are considered not pertinent in the period under consideration.7 Here, I will try to demonstrate that diversity in funerary behaviours was not necessarily linked with social hierarchy, but was rather an indication of coexistent groups with different approaches to social memory and social identity. The coexistence of these possibly conflicting versions of funerary behaviour appears to demonstrate complexity and heterogeneity, features that contradict the assumed simplicity and homogeneity of the early ΜΗ period. It would be useful, before tackling the main topic, to examine very briefly whether homogeneity might result from other causes relevant to the period. There is no doubt that, after the crisis at the end of EH II, communities in southern Mainland Greece suffered a fragmentation of the pre-existing social order,8 while major changes occurred in their material culture and means of symbolic expression. However, according to the Adaptive Cycle model and the concept of Resilience, after a collapse (or a release), a new life cycle always begins, a cycle of adaptation and reorganization, with features of growth and experimentation. In a recent paper, using the above-mentioned model and concept, we argued that MH I-II was precisely such a reorganization period.9 In such a dynamic phase, simplicity, homogeneity and introversion cannot exist, as they are elements totally incompatible with the zeitgeist. On the contrary, we pointed out evidence suggesting social asymmetries within and between communities, human agency, experimentation with new practices, and an increase in the system’s potential as reflected in the accumulation of surplus, the social practices of feasting and the acquisition of large amounts of imported vessels.

4

5

6

7

8

9

G. NORDQUIST, A Middle Helladic Village. Asine in the Argolid (1987) 69-106; W.G CAVANAGH and C.B MEE, A Private Place. Death in Prehistoric Greece (1998) 23-35; VOUTSAKI (supra n. 2) 136-137; A. PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, “Les tombes intra-muros de l’Helladique Moyen à la lumière des fouilles de l’Aspis d’Argos,” in D. MULLIEZ and A. BANAKA-DIMAKI (eds), Sur les pas de Wilhelm Vollgraff. Cent ans d’activités archéologiques à Argos (2013) 75-100. S. VOUTSAKI and E. MILKA, “Social Change in Middle Helladic Lerna,” in WIERSMA and VOUTSAKI (supra n. 1) 98-123. DICKINSON (supra n. 1) 38; I. KILIAN-DIRLMEIER, Das Μittelbronzezeitliche Schachtgrab von Ägina (1997) 83-103, 120-122; G. NORDQUIST, “Intra and Extramural, Single and Collective, Burials in the Middle and Late Helladic Periods,” in B. WELLS (ed.), New Research on Old Material from Asine and Berbati in Celebration of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Swedish Institute at Athens (2002) 29. VOUTSAKI (supra n. 2); S. VOUTSAKI, “From the Kinship Economy to the Palatial Economy: The Argolid in the Second Millennium,” in D. PULLEN (ed.), Political Economies of the Aegean Bronze Age. Papers from the Langford Conference, Florida State University, Tallahassee, 22-24 February 2007 (2010) 86-111; WIERSMA and VOUTSAKI (supra n. 2). C. WIERSMA, Building the Bronze Age. Architectural and Social Change on the Greek Mainland during Early Helladic III, Middle Helladic and Late Helladic I (2014). A. PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, G. TOUCHAIS and A. BALITSARI, “The Social Dynamics of Argos in a Constantly Changing Landscape (MH-LH II),” in B. EDER and M. ZAVADIL (eds), (Social) Place and Space in Early Mycenaean Greece, International Discussions in Mycenaean Archaeology, 5th-8th October, 2016 in Athens, forthcoming; see also A. PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS and G. TOUCHAIS, “Glow in the ‘Dark’: A Gold Pendant from a Middle Helladic Settlement (Aspis, Argos),” in J. DRIESSEN (ed.), RA-PI-NE-U. Studies on the Mycenaean World offered to Robert Laffineur for his 70th Birthday (2016) 275-293.

DEATH IN THE EARLY MIDDLE HELLADIC PERIOD (MH I-II)

223

The early MH funerary practices: an overview During the early phases of the MH period burials are mostly individual (rarely multiple), in several tomb types (earth-cut pits, cists, and burials in jars or pithoi), without any or with only a few grave offerings, rarely richly furnished. Graves are isolated or in small clusters, without consistent orientation, mostly intramural, less often extramural or organized in tumuli.10 Mortuary rituals were thought to offer little evidence;11 however, more current approaches offer new insights into the topic.12 Let us review the burial practices, focussing on the two basic ways of spatially handling the dead, i.e. within the boundaries of the settlement (intramural burial) or at some distance from it (extramural burial). Intramural burials Placing burials within the residential area is a very characteristic practice of the early MH period in Mainland Greece; though not an absolute rule, it does occur much more often than in any other period of the Aegean Bronze Age.13 All MH settlements contained such burials; however, their precise dating is difficult to determine due to the absence, or the rarity, of grave goods. Sites with numerous MH intramural burials that have been studied in detail are Lerna, where ca 200 excavated burials of children and adults date to all MH phases (about 80 of them are assigned to MH I-II).14 A similar picture emerges the Lower Town of Asine, where ca 110 MH graves were excavated;15 again at Ayios Stephanos with some 70 graves, mostly of neonates and children;16 and finally at Aspis Argos, where 18 MH graves (15 of them are assigned to MH I-II, and three to MH IIIA) belonging to individuals of all ages have been excavated.17 Graves placed in disused domestic areas constitute, in my opinion, a variant of the intramural burial practice since they are located within still inhabited settlements. The placement of graves in the ruins of abandoned settlements is a different practice, of a later period (MH III/LH I), and falling outside the chronological limits of the present paper. The emphatic presence of the intramural phenomenon in this particular period should be taken as one of the key points for its better understanding. In an earlier paper, I set out to interpret this, arguing that it did not appear at random but under specific socio-political circumstances related to the absence of strict, formalized rules regulating the manipulation of death.18 This absence may have resulted from the fragmentation of the preceding socio-political and ideological order. Looking at its symbolic meaning, burial within the settlement arguably emphasizes the significance of the house as a mnemonic place: the place of ancestors that ensures present family or community stability and cohesion. ‘The placement of burials in residential contexts can provide the living with a 10

11 12

13 14

15

16

17 18

DICKINSON (supra n. 1) 33-34; NORDQUIST (supra. n. 4) 91-106; CAVANAGH and MEE (supra n. 4) 23-35. DICKINSON (supra n. 1) 34. CAVANAGH and MEE (supra n. 4) 106-120; M. BOYD, Middle Helladic and Early Mycenaean Mortuary Practices in the Southern and Western Peloponnese (2002) 22-23, 67-72, 78-82. CAVANAGH and MEE (supra n. 4) 24-25. E. BLACKBURN, Middle Helladic Graves and Burial Customs with Special Reference to Lerna in the Argolid (1970); VOUTSAKI and MILKA (supra n. 5) 101, fig. 6.2. NORDQUIST (supra n. 4) 128-133; see also A. INGVARSSON-SUNDTRÖM, S. VOUTSAKI and E. MILKA, “Diet, Health and Social Differentiation in Middle Helladic Asine: A Bioarchaeological View,” in S. VOUTSAKI and S.M. VALAMOTI (eds), Diet, Economy and Society in the Ancient Greek World (2013) 153, n. 28, where it is reported that 34 of them date from the MH I-II period. W.D. TAYLOR and R. JANKO, Ayios Stephanos. Excavations at a Bronze Age and Medieval Settlement in Southern Laconia (2008) 142-143. PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS (supra n. 4). A. PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, “‘Cycles of Collapse in Greek Prehistory’: Reassessing Social Change at the Beginning of the Middle Helladic and the Early Iron Age,” in A. MAZARAKIS AINIAN (ed.), The “Dark Ages” Revisited. Acts of an International Symposium in Memory of William D.E. Coulson, University of Thessaly, Volos, 14-17 June 2007 (2010) 31-44.

Anna PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS

224

constant reminder of their place in what can be a long line of descendants originating from the founding ancestor of a household or a larger group’.19 Intramural burial has also been interpreted as a practice linked to rights of inheritance. Households may also ascribe magical powers to the bones of their dead; the destruction or the loss of ancestors’ bones would deprive the house of its identity and legitimacy.20 Extramural burials In Greece, tumuli offer the first cases of funereal monumentality, product of an organized collective effort.21 When early MH graves are located extramurally, they are usually organized in tumuli, as can be seen in sites with evidence both from the settlement – with intramural graves – and from a cemetery outside it. Examples of such sites are Argos, where at least eight graves dated to MH I-II (five of them in pithoi containing multiple burials) have been associated with tumuli,22 and Asine, where four graves dated to MH I-II, and two more dated possibly to MH II late, were excavated in Tumulus IQ (East Cemetery).23 However, most MH I-II tumuli have not been excavated in association with settlements (e.g. Aphidna,24 Vranas Marathon,25 Kastroulia,26 Ayios Ioannis Papoulia and Voidokilia27), so that we cannot make extensive correlations between the data of the two funerary traditions. All known early MH tumuli are large mounds that stand out in the landscape. They have been characterized as idiosyncratic monuments,28 because of their significant variation in size and architecture, and the number, construction and organisation of the graves. In keeping with this enhanced profile, the tombs

19

20

21

22

23

24 25

26

27 28

R.L. ADAMS and S.M. KING, “Residential Burial in Global Perspective,” Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 20 (2011) 1-19, esp. 5. R.A. BECK Jr., “The Durable House: Material, Metaphor, and Structure,” in R.A. BECK Jr. (ed.), The Durable House. House Society Models in Archaeology (2007) 3-24, esp. 8. S. MÜLLER CELKA, “Tumuli et regroupement des morts dans la protohistoire de Grèce continentale”, in D. CASTEX, P. COURTAUD, H. DUDAY, F. LE MORT and A.-M. TILLIER (eds), Le regroupement des morts. Genèse et diversité en archéologie (2011) 23-40. Burial pithoi Γ(121) and 69-70 were found in Tumuli A and Γ respectively, E. PROTONOTARIOUDEILAKI, Οι τύμβοι του Άργους (2009, originally published in 1980) 43-45, 110-117; an Aiginetan Mattpainted pithos (MH II) was found in the area of the so-called ‘Tumulus ΣΤ’, ibidem, 266; a pit and a mudbrick cist (137-138) were found in the area of the so-called ‘Tumulus B’, ibidem, 52-53; pithoi 1-2, found in the area of the Hospital of Argos (Thanos plot), were possibly within a tumulus judging from their radial organisation, ArchDelt 56-59 (2001-2004) B’ 67-68. See also S. VOUTSAKI, K. SARRI, O. DICKINSON, S. TRIANTAPHYLLOU and E. MILKA, “The Argos ‘tumuli’ Project: A Report on the 2006 and 2007 Seasons,” Pharos 15 (2007) 168-179; N. PAPADIMITRIOU, A. PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS and G. TOUCHAIS, “Argos in the MBA and the LBA. A Reassessment of the Evidence,” in A.L. SCHALLIN and I. TOURNAVITOU (eds), Mycenaeans up to Date. The Archaeology of the North-Eastern Peloponnese. Current Concepts and New Directions (2015) 170-171; PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, TOUCHAIS and BALITSARI (supra n. 9). MH I-II graves 1971-7, 12, 15, 71B and MH II or MH III graves 1970-12, 1971-5, S. DIETZ, Asine II: Results of the Excavations East of the Acropolis 1970-1974 (1980); S. VOUTSAKI, S. DIETZ and A. NIJBOER, “Radiocarbon Analysis and the History of the East Cemetery, Asine,” Opuscula 2 (2009) [2010] 31-52; S. VOUTSAKI, A. INGVARSSON-SUNDSTRÖM and S. DIETZ, “Tumuli and Social Status: A Re-examination of the Asine Tumulus,” in BORGNA and MÜLLER CELKA (supra n. 3) 445461. S. WIDE, “Aphidna in Nordattika,” AM 21 (1896) 385-409. S. MARINATOS, “Ανασκαφαί Μαραθώνος,” Prakt (1970) 9-18; on the revision of the dating, see M. PANTELIDOU GOFA, G. TOUCHAIS, A. PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS and N. PAPADIMITRIOU, “Μελέτη ανασκαφής Βρανά Μαραθώνος,” Prakt (2014) 29-69. J. RAMBACH, “Investigations of two MH I Burial Mounds at Messenian Kastroulia (Near Ellinika, Ancient Thouria),” in F. FELTEN, W. GAUSS and R. SMETANA (eds), Middle Helladic Pottery and Synchronisms (2007) 137-150. BOYD (supra n. 12) 119-123 (Ayios Ioannis Papoulia), 126-130 (Voidokilia), with full bibliography. GALANAKIS (supra n. 3) 220.

DEATH IN THE EARLY MIDDLE HELLADIC PERIOD (MH I-II)

225

inside them are generally more elaborate than the intramural ones: generally pithoi29 with multiple burials (Argos, Asine, Aphidna, Ayios Ioannis Papoulia and Voidokoilia), but also grave shafts (Aphidna, Kastroulia), or large built tombs (Vranas Marathon). Simple pits are very scarce in tumuli. Generally, graves in tumuli contain more offerings and ones of greater ‘value’ than the domestic graves. It should be noted that the richest known graves of the MH I-II period are found within tumuli: at Kastroulia Tumulus II, grave 2 contained more than 40 artefacts,30 at Aphidna, burial pithos III contained 20 artefacts,31 at Vranas Marathon Tumulus I, tomb 2 contained 14 artefacts,32 at Argos, Tumulus A, pithos 70 was associated with more than 20 vases, while pithos 2 in the Thanos plot was associated with nine vases;33 finally at Asine, a gold diadem was found in a cist grave.34 Although I take into account here only those tombs found in Mainland Greece, I need also to mention the ΜΗ II warrior grave at AeginaKolona, placed by the main gate through the fortification wall, and containing a gold diadem, bronze weapons, a boar’s tusk helmet, and an impressive number of vessels.35 This evidence from all the abovementioned graves challenges the argument that during the MH period emphasis must have been on sharing and reciprocity rather than on accumulation and display.36 Moreover, the presence of bronze, silver or gold artefacts in almost all the above mentioned graves (Kastroulia, Aphidna, Vranas, Asine) questions the hypothesis that the rarity of metal objects in MH graves was in accordance with a rigid code of moral values setting tight limitations on the possibility to exalt the qualities of specific individuals and to display the existing social inequality between families.37 Evidence rather suggests that moral values were not as rigid since certain groups did not embrace them; on the contrary, the latter openly expressed their differentiation and centrifugal social forces. Funerary rituals in intramural and extramural practices Festivals and rituals, especially in preliterate societies, ensured the continuing existence of traditional culture, collective identity and community coherence. 38 As in every society, rituals were certainly performed in the MH I-II period on the occasion of every significant event of the community life, amongst which the death of a member was one. 29 30

31

32

33

34

35 36 37

38

On the production, value, and use of burial pithoi, see BOYD (supra n. 12) 70-71. More than 30 vases, four bronze pendants, two spindle whorls and dozens of stone and bone beads, accompanying a (female?) burial, RAMBACH (supra n. 26) 141-145. 13 vases, six gold and one silver rings accompanying possibly one burial, M. HIELTESTAVROPOULOU and M. WEDDE, “Sam Wide’s Excavation at Aphidna. Stratigraphy and Finds,” in R. HÄGG (ed.), Peloponnesian Sanctuaries and Cults. Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 11-13 June 1994 (2002) 21-24, esp. 23; J. FORSÉN, “Aphidna in Attica revisited,” in A. PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, G. TOUCHAIS, S. VOUTSAKI and J. WRIGHT (eds), MESOHELLADIKA. La Grèce continentale au Bronze Moyen. Actes du colloque international organisé par l’École française d’Athènes, en collaboration avec l’American School of Classical Studies at Athens et le Netherlands Institute in Athens, Athènes, 8-12 mars 2006 (2010) 223-234. 11 vases, two spindle whorls and one bronze object, accompanying a (female?) burial, MARINATOS (supra n. 25) 13; but the recent osteological study has demonstrated the existence of some bones of another individual, S. TRIANTAPHYLLOU, “Το ανθρώπινο οστεολογικό υλικό των Τύμβων Βρανά,” in M. PANTELIDOU GOFA, G. TOUCHAIS, A. PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS and N. PAPADIMITRIOU, “Μελέτη προϊστορικών τύμβων Μαραθώνος,” Prakt (2015) 51. Some of the vases were inside the pithoi and others outside of them, PROTONOTARIOU-DEILAKI and ArchDelt (supra n. 22). Cist grave 1970-12, DIETZ (supra n. 23) 30, 83-84; on the chronology see also VOUTSAKI, DIETZ and NIJBOER (supra n. 23). KILIAN-DIRLMEIER (supra n. 6). VOUTSAKI and MILKA (supra n. 5) 111-112. J. MARAN, “Lost in Translation: The Emergence of Mycenaean Culture as a Phenomenon of Glocalization,” in T. WILKINSON, J. BENNET and S. SHERRATT (eds), Interweaving Worlds: Systemic Interactions in Eurasia, 7th to the 1st Millennia BC (2011) 285. J. ASSMANN, Religion and Cultural Memory (2006) 122-136.

226

Anna PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS

Funerary rituals were certainly practised in both early MH burial traditions. However, those performed within the settlements could have had a more sober, personal and intimate character, as indicated by the single burials, the rarity of offerings and the limited space available for the interment. On the other hand, the fact that the graves in tumuli were reopened, and contained more offerings and ones of greater value (many of them imported), 39 suggests that funerary rituals in this tradition were accompanied by more conspicuous and complex rites. The number and type of pots (mainly drinking and serving ones) indicates ceremonies involving on the one hand the consumption of drink and possibly food, and on the other the participation of a larger number of people. Evidence for comparable, albeit much more impressive, funerary collective drinking rituals from the late MH/early LH period, also involving imported artefacts, have been interpreted as manifesting or ensuring community solidarity, collective identity and at the same time enhancing social standing.40 I believe that funerary data from the early MΗ declare that similar manifestations existed already in that period, though they reflect a less standardized death-scape. The complexity of funerary rituals related to the tumuli is further suggested by the multiple burials (often two and occasionally more), usually within pithoi. The reopening of the graves and the secondary treatment of the dead, involving the disturbance, removal, and redeposition of human remains, is a complex funerary practice, which brings the past and the present together.41 This practice is also thought to appear, or at least becoming more common from the MH III/early LH period on. However, on the basis of the recent evidence from detailed studies of human remains,42 it becomes more and more clear that this practice was much more common than we thought from the beginning of the MH period. The most important divergence in rituals between the two funerary traditions is associated with the perception and use of funerary and social space. The location of tumuli in open spaces at some distance from the settlement, together with the input of more resources and the recurrent revisiting of the monuments, strongly suggests the existence of not only collective but also more performative funerary rites. The deceased, by being transferred in these cases a longer distance, gave to the living opportunities for developing more formal ceremonials, including communal processions (Pl. XCIIIa).43 In this way it could be argued that the strategy that aimed at transforming the landscape into a mnemonic place and an arena for power display, one particularly characteristic of the early Mycenaean period,44 was already operating in the early MH period. The location of the burial mounds is also of particular interest for yet another reason. It has been stressed that the position of early tholoi in the landscape may have become a tool for displaying a new cultural rhetoric: a package of social and ideological practices that was emulated by a number of elite groups, resulting in the clustering of tholoi along the main routes leading to the settlements.45 Interestingly, a similar pattern has been noticed at Argos with the clustering of late MH/early LH graves on either side

39

40

41

42 43

44

45

Within the offerings found at Kastroulia, Aphidna, Vranas Marathon, Argos, there are several imported vases (Aiginetan and Minoanizing). J. WRIGHT, “A Survey of Evidence for Feasting in Mycenaean Society,” in J. WRIGHT (ed.), The Mycenaean Feast (2004) 133-178; see also Y. HAMILAKIS, “Eating the Dead: Mortuary Feasting and the Politics of Memory in the Aegean Bronze Age Societies,” in K. BRANIGAN (ed.), Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age (1998) 115-132. A. LAGIA, I. MOUTAFI, R. ORGEOLET, D. SKORDA and J. ZURBACH, “Revisiting the Tomb: Mortuary Practices in Habitation Areas in the Transition to the Late Bronze Age at Kirrha, Phocis,” in A. DAKOURI-HILD and M. BOYD (eds), Staging Death. Funerary Performance, Architecture and Landscape in the Aegean (2016) 181-205, esp. 200. See previous note, and TRIANTAPHYLLOU (supra n. 32). On processions as an important part of the ritual of burial associated with MH I-II tumuli, see BOYD (supra n. 12) 39. N. PAPADIMITRIOU, “Structuring Space, Performing Rituals, Creating Memories: Towards a Cognitive Map of Early Mycenaean Funerary Behaviour,” in DAKOURI-HILD and BOYD (supra n. 41) 335-360. GALANAKIS (supra n. 3) 226.

DEATH IN THE EARLY MIDDLE HELLADIC PERIOD (MH I-II)

227

of a paved road at the Northern entrance of the settlement.46 According to the location of the earlier tumuli of Argos (A and Γ), and some other MH I-II graves, which were possibly in mounds, it appears that the first tumuli were organised along the possible predecessor47 of this road (Pl. XCIIIb). If this is indeed the case, a pattern, comparable to that of the early tholoi in location and rhetoric, could be also proposed for early tumuli. Diversified funerary practices and rituals through social memory In 2003, Van Dyke and Alcock, introducing the volume Archaeologies of Memory, wrote: “Social memory is not perceived as monolithic, but variable by gender, ethnicity, class, religion or other salient factors, allowing for a multiplicity and possibly conflict of memories in any society.”48 In my opinion, the two coexisting, different trends in MH I-II burial practices should reflect different processes of social memory, which do involve multiplicity and possibly conflict. Although both funerary trends had a similar objective, that is to create and support a sense of individual or collective memory and identity, they used entirely dissimilar methods, namely two opposed strategies of remembrance. In doing so, they also employed different means, i.e. differentiated rituals, as discussed above. With the intramural burial practice, mnemonic tradition and identity (individual and collective) are apparently reproduced and shaped with reference to the productive power of the settlement’s land, the ancestral space par excellence. Burials in abandoned houses can reinforce this intent of emphasizing ties to the past of the settlement, creating a ‘mnemoscape, where memory is stimulated and negotiated continually’.49 The entire habitation area, in which the burials are dispersed, keeps the past constantly present. The settlement itself is thus transformed into a kind of ‘repository of social memory’. In this regard, intramural burial practice constructs and reproduces a social memory that directly involves the past, a past in present time (in case of using living spaces) or a past in past time (in case of using disused areas). On the other hand, the practice of externalising death beyond the settlement, and also in allocating to it a monumental, collective housing in a prominent physical position, reveals a desire to create from death a perspective for eternal mneme or eternal life. This striving for eternity meant the establishment of a prospective memory directed towards the future.50 In addition, death is now exhibited publically, suggesting that remembrance of the past involves interaction with a wider audience, in a wider spatio-temporal context. In this way, a focus on a more socialised collective memory is now promoted by certain groups. Through the notification of a loss, these groups are seeking to publicly overcome their affliction, demonstrate stability in their structure and community bonds, and affirm the constancy of their old values and new anticipations. If this is indeed the case, the extramural burial practice seems to be built on concepts and to be shaped by social identities diametrically opposed to the ones underlying domestic burial. These two different methods of creating social identity and social memory in the early MH period may be associated with the two distinct memory processes (or systems), namely the incorporated or embodied memory, characterized by opaque symbolism, secrecy, and fleeting acts that leave few archaeological traces,

46

47

48

49 50

A. PAPADIMITRIOU, “Οι ανασκαφές στο νοσοκομείο του Άργους,” in PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, TOUCHAIS, VOUTSAKI and WRIGHT (supra n. 32) 45-55, esp. 50-52; PAPADIMITRIOU, PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS and TOUCHAIS (supra n. 22) 165 (Table I), 167 (Table 2), 168. We have recently proposed that this MH road should connect Argos and Mycenae to Lerna, the most important harbour of the Argolid from the beginning of the MH period, PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, TOUCHAIS and BALITSARI (supra n. 9). R. VAN DYKE and S. ALCOCK, “Archaeologies of Memory: An Introduction,” in R. VAN DYKE and S. ALCOCK (eds), Archaeologies of Memory (2003) 9. LAGIA, MOUTAFI, ORGEOLET, SKORDA and ZURBACH (supra n. 41) 200. ASSMANN (supra n. 38) 85.

228

Anna PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS

and the inscribed memory involving texts and representations, monuments, public access, repetitive, formulaic, and materially visible acts.51 More specifically, the former memory process is associated with more incorporating practices, relatively informal sets of actions referred to as culturally specific bodily practices. I believe that this pattern defines those practices performed in the intramural burial tradition. On the other hand, the inscribed memory process is characterized by more formal sets of actions, called commemorative ceremonies, permitting a more intense level of performance. However, inscribed memory is most associated with societies using writing, where the oral memory is replaced by the written one, and by formal learning. Middle Helladic is a preliterate, oral society, so memory is embodied – it is transmitted through narratives, repetition, and performance, i.e. rituals. And since in preliterate societies, rituals, through their repetitive and performative character, functioned as primary media of memory and data-storage systems,52 early MH rituals could stand in for some kind of formal learning. Therefore, funerary practices in the extramural burial tradition could refer, to some extent, to the inscribed memory; in addition, most of their features – such as monuments, public access, repetitive and materially visible acts and intense performativity – mirror characteristics of that memory system. As, hopefully, has been demonstrated by the above discussion, the diversity in burial practices during the early MH period does not necessarily depend on, or cannot be satisfactorily interpreted only through, social hierarchies. A diversity in burial practices, which implies a multiplicity on many other levels, can also be explored (and possibly interpreted) through a range of perspectives, such as the different structural elements composing social identity and social memory. These elements, although involving distinct or even conflicting processes of formation, may co-exist and be embedded within the same society. Naturally, all of the above does not mean that the social factor is not important: it does, after all and to a large extent, regulate the individual and social identity and the way social memory works. Other factors of variability in early MH social memory and identity Here we will examine very briefly other factors that could regulate a diversified behaviour in death, with emphasis on the social factor. According to the funerary data, gender is not a factor of differentiation in MH I-II period, and possibly neither is age,53 although evidence from tumuli is scarce. Thus, at Kastroulia and Ayios Ioannis Papoulia, there is evidence for the presence of children, but not at Vranas Marathon. Social differentiation possibly has a role in the formation of differentiated behaviours. The fact that in some settlements there is a large proportion of intramural burials (Lerna and Ayios Stephanos) does not seem to indicate any clear social asymmetry in the funerary domain, although non-localized MH I-II cemeteries outside these settlements may be random. In other settlements, though, as at Asine and Argos, social differentiation between groups using different practices, combined with other type of data,54 might be more plausible. For example, it might seem reasonable, at first sight, to associate the intramural burial practice with the less favoured members of a community. Nevertheless, if this practice involves people linked by some distinguishing social identity (drawn, say, on kin, ethnic, corporate, ideological or religious lines), then individuals socially differentiated could belong to the same group. The same line of argument could apply to the extramural burial practice, which seems to be associated with more affluent members of the community.

51

52 53 54

M. ROWLANDS, “The Role of Memory in the Transmission of Culture,” WorldArch 25 (1993) 141-151; P. CONNERTON, How Societies Remember (1989) 72-104. ASSMANN (supra n. 38) 122-138. VOUTSAKI and MILKA (supra n. 5) 104-108. PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, TOUCHAIS and BALITSARI (supra n. 9); see also INGVARSSONSUNDSTRÖM, VOUTSAKI and MILKA (supra n. 15), where the authors conclude that, according to bioarchaeological evidence from the mortuary domain of MH I-II Asine, certain groups or individuals began to mark themselves off from the rest of the community.

DEATH IN THE EARLY MIDDLE HELLADIC PERIOD (MH I-II)

229

In his analysis on the reproduction of social order or social power, M. Boyd55 argues that power is the ability of the agent to act, or to influence the action of others, while resources, and access to them, are a component of the power to act. Following Giddens, who stresses that in oral cultures memory is virtually the sole repository of information storage, and that storage presumes media of information and power resources,56 Boyd claims that tombs and the material culture of burial practice are the media of information representation (where information coincides with tradition and power resource), that rituals following tradition are the modes of information retrieval, and that memory, talk, and the physical presence of monuments are the modes of dissemination of the tradition. Before I close, I would like to comment on these very interesting views, from the perspective of the topic of the present paper. In the early MH period, we witness the creation of two parallel burial traditions, neither of which seems to build on any previously well-established tradition in Mainland Greece.57 Following Boyd in his argument that MH burial mounds, along with all burial structures, certainly were bound up in the reproduction of the social order,58 I would propose that intramural burial tradition was also involved with the reproduction of the social order, albeit in a different way. This argument implies the construction and coexistence of two different burial traditions embedded with distinct memory processes of power reproduction (distinct types of media of information, and distinct modes to maintain and disseminate this information), which were most likely in conflict. The facts that domestic burials were gradually being moved outside of the settlements by the end of MH period, and that intramural tradition gradually declined (although it did not completely disappear)59 should indicate that the strategy of remembrance or power reproduction connected to that tradition did not prove successful. Α serious disadvantage of this strategy was probably that it was rather inward-looking and could not achieve any dissemination of information; consequently its narrative gradually lost its effect. Instead, it was the tumuli that enjoyed a longer lifespan, as they continued to be used until the beginning of the LH period, and were occasionally reused in the palatial era with some architectural modifications. Even if, finally, these mounded monuments themselves died out, the ideology that accompanied them survived and achieved new expression through other collective monumental funerary buildings. It seems, therefore, that this successful funerary strategy of remembrance and power reproduction, well known from the early Mycenaean period, had first come into being in the early MH period and possibly developed through its conflict with a coexisting funerary practice based on a different strategy of memory reproduction. Concluding remarks I will close with three very brief concluding remarks, on the articulation of funeral practices and memory, heterogeneity, and complexity in the formation of the early MH communities. 1. On the basis of the diversity observed in the MH I-II funerary landscape, we may recognize two human groups constructing – and being constructed by – different approaches to handling collective memory and identity. These differences are depicted in social space and embodied in distinct – though coexistent – funerary behaviours. 55 56 57

58 59

BOYD (supra n. 12) 96. A. GIDDENS, The Constitution of Society Outline of the Theory of Structuration (1984) 261. On the ancestry of EH and early MH burial mounds, see S. MÜLLER, “Burial Mounds and ‘Ritual Tumuli’ of the Aegean Early Bronze Age,” in BORGNA and MÜLLER CELKA (supra n. 3) 415-428. On the wide use of funerary pithoi in Late prepalatial Crete, see G. VAVOURANAKIS, “Funerary Pithoi in Bronze Age Crete: Their Introduction and Significance at the Threshold of Minoan Palatial Society,” AJA 118 (2014) 197-222. BOYD (supra n. 12) 96. The fact that burials within settlements (mostly of children) continue until LH II (Ayios Stephanos, TAYLOR and JANKO [supra n. 16] 141) or even LH III (Argos, PAPADIMITRIOU, PHILIPPATOUCHAIS and TOUCHAIS [supra n. 22] 174), signifies that this diversity in burial practices, social identities and social memory continued for a long time.

230

Anna PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS

2. Despite their funerary diversity, heterogeneity and possibly conflict, early MH communities apparently did form integrated, collective and operational entities. Heterogeneity then has to be seen as a collective entity that integrates different, possibly conflicting entities. Such collective communities should be more open and tolerant, competitive but cooperative, resistant and resilient, innovative and dynamic. 3. Finally, I would argue that most features of the funerary (and social) complexity of the late MH and the early Mycenaean period were already present, mutatis mutandis, in the funerary (and possibly social) landscape of the early MH period: namely, monumentality and collective action, visibility, performative rituals and an incipient conspicuous consumption of offerings. This judgement means that multi-faced complexity should no longer be considered the social product of MH III and the transition to LH. Anna PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS

DEATH IN THE EARLY MIDDLE HELLADIC PERIOD (MH I-II)

231

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Pl. XCIIIa Pl. XCIIIb

Argos in the MH II period. A funeral procession descends from the fortified MH settlement on the Aspis hilltop, down to the tumuli area in the Aspis foothills (Αrtistic representation by Yannis Nakas). Argos in the MH I-II period. Plan indicating domestic and funerary vestiges: on the Aspis hilltop, burials within the settlement, and at the Aspis foothills burials in tumuli or possibly around them. The dashed line shows the remains of the ΜΗ ΙΙΙ road, and the dotted line its possible extension to the south (by the author, after S. DIETZ, The Argolid at the Transition to the Mycenaean Age [1991] 283, fig. 84).

XCIII

a

b

REMEMBERING OLD GRAVES? JAR BURIALS IN THE MYCENAEAN PERIOD* Pithoi and other clay vessels were used as early as the Neolithic period and the Early Bronze Age for inhumations throughout Greece.1 Still rarely found in Early Bronze Age II contexts,2 they were used more frequently at the transition from Early Bronze Age III3 to Middle Bronze Age I. As is well-known, the custom of jar burials was most widespread in the Middle Bronze Age. Together with inhumations in cists and pits, the jar burial tradition shapes our perception of Middle Bronze Age burial customs on the mainland.4 Sub-adults and adults found their final resting place in various kinds of pots, with a clear emphasis on sub-adults.5 Jars were used for primary as well as for secondary burials. Having said all this, it is necessary to point out that, first, the state of preservation of the skeletons is often very poor and, second, anthropological investigations are only available for a small percentage of burials.6 For the majority of jar burials there is no information on the age or sex of the individuals buried in them. *

1

2

3

4

5

6

For useful comments and stimulating discussions I wish to thank G. Kordatzaki and B. Legarra Herrero. My sincere thanks to by R.B. Salisbury for correcting the English text. This article does not aim at a complete catalogue of all jar burials, but is intended to provide an overview and allow comparisons between the mainland, Crete and the islands. Of course it is not possible to fully discuss such a complex issue here. For Neolithic jar burials in south-east Europe see K. BACVAROV, “A Long Way to the West: Earliest Jar Burials in Southeast Europe and the Near East,” in K. BACVAROV (ed.), Babies Reborn. Infant/Child Burials in Pre- and Protohistory (2008) 61-70. E. ALRAM-STERN, Die Ägäische Frühzeit. 2. Serie. Forschungsbericht 1975-2002. 2. Band. Die Frühbronzezeit in Griechenland mit Ausnahme von Kreta (2004) 291-293. For the so-called R-Gräber near Steno on Levkas see I. KILIAN-DIRLMEIER, Die bronzezeitlichen Gräber bei Nidri auf Leukas. Ausgrabungen von W. Dörpfeld 19031913 (2005). With regard to its material culture, EH III already belongs to the Middle Bronze Age: see e.g. J.B. RUTTER, “The Temporal Slicing and Dicing of Minyan Culture: A Proposal for a Tripartite Division of a Lengthier Greek Middle Bronze Age and the Issue of Nomadism at its Beginning,” in C. WIERSMA and S. VOUTSAKI (eds), Social Change in Aegean Prehistory (2017) 16-31. For an overview of MH burial customs see W. CAVANAGH and C. MEE, A Private Place. Death in Prehistoric Greece (1998) 23-39. Among the 216 MH jar burials analysed for this article, 31 contained adults and 79 sub-adults. The contents of the remaining jar burials are unknown or have not been preserved. Concerning the fact that more sub-adults than adults were interred in vessels in the MH period, see also CAVANAGH and MEE (supra n. 4) 26; G. NORDQUIST and A. INGVARSSON-SUNDSTRÖM, “Live Hard, Die Young: Mortuary Remains of Middle and Early Late Helladic Children from the Argolid in Social Context,” in A. DAKOURI-HILD and S. SHERRATT (eds), Autochthon. Papers Presented to O.T.P.K. Dickinson on the Occasion of His Retirement (2005) 157; S. VOUTSAKI and E. MILKA, “Social Change in Middle Helladic Lerna,” in WIERSMA and VOUTSAKI (supra n. 3) 105. For anthropological investigations on MH skeletons in general see e.g. S. TRIANTAPHYLLOU, “Prospects for Reconstructing the Lives of Middle Helladic Populations in the Argolid: Past and Present of Human Bone Studies,” in A. PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, G. TOUCHAIS, S. VOUTSAKI and J. WRIGHT (eds), Mesohelladika. Μεσοελλαδικά. La Grèce continentale au Bronze Moyen. Η ηπειρωτική Ελλάδα στη Μέση Εποχή του Χαλκού. The Greek Mainland in the Middle Bronze Age. Actes du colloque international organisé par l’École française d’Athènes, en collaboration avec l’American School of Classical Studies at Athens et le Netherlands Institute in Athens, Athènes, 8-12 mars 2006 (2010) 441-451 (with previous bibliography); A. PHILIPPATOUCHAIS, G. TOUCHAIS, O. DECAVALLAS, A. GARDEISEN, M. GHILARDI, E. MARGARITIS, O. METAXAS, S. TRIANTAPHYLLOU and E. TSIOLAKI, “Environnement, alimentation, hygiène et mode de vie dans la Grèce mésohelladique : le cas de l’Aspis d’Argos,” in G. TOUCHAIS, R. LAFFINEUR and F. ROUGEMONT (eds), PHYSIS. L’environnement naturel et la relation homme-milieu dans le monde égéen protohistorique. Actes de la 14e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Paris, Institut National

234

Michaela ZAVADIL

Middle Helladic pot burials can be found intra muros, but it has to be stressed that in many cases they might have taken place in abandoned parts of the settlements.7 They constitute only a small percentage of intramural graves, ranging between 3.9% in Lerna, 6.5% in Thebes and about 8% in Eutresis and Mycenae.8 The number of jar burials is unusually high on the Aspis in Argos (15.8%).9 Apart from this, jar burials also occur in extramural cemeteries, e.g. in Eleusis or much more frequently in northern Greece (Tourla Goulon and Longa Elatis in the Aliakmon Valley as well as Xeropigado Koiladas in the Kitrini Limni basin).10 In addition, they are often found in various kinds of tumuli. Radially arranged large pithoi are mainly known from Messenian tumuli such as Voïdokoilia and Papoulia,11 but might have existed also in other regions, e.g. in the Argolid.12 Furthermore, tumuli comprising of pot burials in conjunction with cists and pits need to be mentioned.13 Jar burials in tumuli seem to be more common in the first half of the Middle Bronze Age, whereas they occur intra muros throughout the entire period. In most cases, the vessels had been placed horizontally, but there are some exceptions that were found in an upright position.14

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

d’Histoire de l’Art (INHA), 11-14 décembre 2012 (2014) 536-537. J. MARAN, “Structural Changes in the Pattern of Settlement during the Shaft Grave Period on the Greek Mainland,” in R. LAFFINEUR and W.-D. NIEMEIER (eds), POLITEIA. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference / 5e Rencontre égéenne internationale, University of Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut, 10-13 April 1994 (1995) 70; E. MILKA, “Burials upon the Ruins of Abandoned Houses in the Middle Helladic Argolid,” in PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, TOUCHAIS, VOUTSAKI and WRIGHT (supra n. 6) 347-355. Percentages according to the numbers given in E.T. BLACKBURN, Middle Helladic Graves and Burial Customs with Special Reference to Lerna in the Argolid (1970) 29-191, 224-227; M. ALDEN, The Prehistoric Cemetery. Pre-Mycenaean and Early Mycenaean Graves (2000). For Thebes see E. ANDRIKOU, “Ταφικά έθιμα της Μέσης Εποχής του Χαλκού στη Θήβα,” in V. ARAVANTINOS and E. KOUNTOURI (eds), 100 χρόνια αρχαιολογικού έργου στη Θήβα. Οι πρωτεργάτες των ερευνών και οι συνεχιστές τους. Συνεδριακό κέντρο Θήβας, 1517 Νοεμβρίου 2002 (2014) 129, 137. A. PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, “Les tombes intra-muros de l’Helladique Moyen à la lumière des fouilles de l’Aspis d’Argos,” in D. MULLIEZ and A. BANAKA-DIMAKI (eds), Στα βήματα του Wilhelm Vollgraff. Εκατό χρόνια αρχαιολογικής δραστηριότητας στο Άργος. Πρακτικά του διεθνούς συνεδρίου που διοργανώθηκε από την Δ’ ΕΠΚΑ και από τη Γαλλική Σχολή Αθηνών, 25-28 Σεπτεμβρίου 2003. Sur les pas de Wilhelm Vollgraff. Cent ans d’activités archéologiques à Argos. Actes du colloque international organisé par la IVe EPKA et l’École française d’Athènes, 25-28 septembre 2003 (2013) 75-100; A. PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS and G. TOUCHAIS, “Argos. L’Aspis,” BCH 132 (2008) 771-774, 776-777; A. PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, G. TOUCHAIS and S. FACHARD, “Argos. L’Aspis,” BCH 136/137 (2012/13) 598-599, 604-605. G.E. MYLONAS, Το δυτικόν νεκροταφείον της Ελευσίνος (1975) vol. I: 319–321, vol. II: 211, 213, vol. III: Pl. 140α; Ch. ZIOTA, “Ταφές σε αγγεία της Πρώιμης και Μέσης Εποχής του Χαλκού στην ευρύτερη περιοχή της Κοζάνης,” in N. MEROUSIS, E. STEPHANI and M. NIKOLAIDOU (eds), Ίρις. Μελέτες στη μνήμη της καθηγήτριας Αγγελικής Πιλάλη-Παπαστερίου (2010) 93-115; G. KARAMITROU-MENTESIDI, “Ελάτη. Θέση Λογκάς,” ArchDelt 65 B2 (2010) [2016] 1508 fig. 90; Α. CHONDROGIANNI-METOKI, “Η αρχαιολογική έρευνα στην κοιλάδα του μέσου ρου του Αλιάκμονα (Μέρος Δ’)” (https://www.archai ologia.gr/blog/2012/06/18/η-αρχαιολογική-έρευνα-στην-κοιλάδα-το-4; 30/5/2018); M. THERMOU, “Σπουδαία αρχαία ευρήματα δίπλα στον Αλιάκμονα,” Το Βήμα (4/11/2011) (http://www.tovima. gr/culture/article/?aid=428467; 30/5/2018). M. ZAVADIL, Monumenta. Studien zu mittel- und späthelladischen Gräbern in Messenien (2013) 540-546, 587-596 (with previous bibliography). For a possible tumulus with radially arranged pithos burials found in Argos see E. PAPPI, “Άργος. Πάροδος Ηρακλέους (οικόπεδο Σ. Θάνου),” ArchDelt 56-59 B4 (2001-2004) [2012] 67-68. E.g. Aphidna and Marathon-Vrana, Tumulus I, in Attica: O. PELON, Tholoi, tumuli et cercles funéraires. Recherches sur les monuments funéraires de plan circulaire dans l’Égée de l’âge du Bronze (IIIe et IIe millénaires av. J.-C.) (1976) 80-85 (with previous bibliography); J. FORSÉN, “Aphidna in Attica Revisited,” in PHILIPPATOUCHAIS, TOUCHAIS, VOUTSAKI and WRIGHT (supra n. 6) 223-234; M. PANTELIDOUGOFA, G. TOUCHAIS, A. PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS and N. PAPADIMITRIOU, “Μελέτη ανασκαφής Βρανά Μαραθώνος,” Prakt 2014 [2016] 44-45, 48-49, 58, or Almyros Peritheias on Corfu: G. METALLINOU, “Αλμυρός Περίθειας. Οικόπεδο Ι. Πρίφτη,” ArchDelt 60 B1 (2005) [2013] 565-568. Lerna (Grave 4) (EH III): BLACKBURN (supra n. 8) 30. Marathon-Vrana, Tumulus I (near Grave 6) (late

REMEMBERING OLD GRAVES? JAR BURIALS IN THE MYCENAEAN PERIOD

235

Regarding their size, they can be divided into two groups: one group comprises large, man-sized pithoi, and the other one consists of smaller pithoi and other vessels such as amphorae and cooking pots. The chronological distribution of those (few) EH II, EH III and MH jar burials, which can be securely dated, is remarkable: 25 20 15 10 5 0 EH II

ΕΗ ΙΙΙ-EH MH I-MH ΜΗ ΙΙΙ III/MH I II/III

MH III/ LH I

LH I

LH II

LH III

Numerical distribution of sites with securely dated EH II-LH III jar burials on the Greek mainland (graph: M. Zavadil).

Whereas there are only very few in EH II, a slight growth in their number is noticeable at the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age (EH III-EH III/MH I). A strong increase can be perceived in MH I to MH II/III, whereas in MH III the number of pot burials drops again significantly. This decline continued in the Late Helladic period. Several pot burials date to the earliest Mycenaean period (MH III/LH I), but there are even fewer in LH I and LH II. I am not aware of any jar burial from the palace period that can be securely dated to this phase. K. Rhomaios reported that a tomb, built like a pithos and filled with bones and fragments of Mycenaean pottery, had been shown to him near Ay. Asomatos (Kynouria),15 but it is also possible that it was in fact a rudimentary tholos.16 The exact chronology of the pithos burial found on the Acropolis of Athens south-east of the Parthenon close to the find-spot of the bronze hoard17 and the one excavated in Patras-Pagona18 under the floor (?) of a Mycenaean building is as

15

16

17 18

MH I): S. MARINATOS, “Ανασκαφαί Μαραθώνος,” Prakt 1970 [1972] 14; PANTELIDOU-GOFA, TOUCHAIS, PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS and PAPADIMITRIOU (supra n. 13) 44-45, 48-49, 58. Aetopetra (MH I/II): E. CHATZIPOULIOU-KALLIRI, “Λείψανα πρωτοελλαδικού και μεσοελλαδικού οικισμού στο λόφο Αετόπετρα. Πρώτα αποτελέσματα δοκιμαστικής ανασκαφικής έρευνας,” ArchDelt 33 A (1978) [1984] 329-330. Thebes, Δημοτικό Συνεδριακό Κέντρο (MH II) and Οικ. Παναγιωτόπουλου (MH): ANDRIKOU (supra n. 8) 123-126, 130. Asea (Grave 28) (MH): E.J. HOLMBERG, The Swedish Excavations at Asea in Arcadia (1944) 22, 24. Perhaps also Orchomenos (P 70, P 71) (MH): K. SARRI, Orchomenos IV. Orchomenos in der mittleren Bronzezeit (2010) 49-50. K.A. RHOMAIOS, “Αρχαιολογία και ιστορία του χωριού μας,” in Μικρά μελετήματα (1955) 171; see also P.V. PHAKLARIS, Αρχαία Κυνουρία. Ανθρώπινη δραστηριότητα και περιβάλλον (1990) 126. For the term “rudimentary tholos” see S. VOUTSAKI, “Mortuary Evidence, Symbolic Meanings and Social Change: A Comparison between Messenia and the Argolid in the Mycenaean Period,” in K. BRANIGAN (ed.), Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age (1998) 43. J.A. BUNDGAARD, The Excavation of the Athenian Acropolis 1882-1890 (1974) 46, Pl. 147.1. M. KOTSAKI, “Πάτρα. Οδός Παγώνας 41,” ArchDelt 42 B1 (1987) [1992] 137; M. STAVROPOULOU-GATSI, “Οικισμός της εποχής του Χαλκού στην Παγώνα της Πάτρας,” in Πρακτικά του Ε´ διεθνούς συνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών, Άργος - Ναύπλιον, 6-10 Σεπτεμβρίου 1995 (1996/97) vol. 1, 516, 526 fig. 1. See also K. LEWARTOWSKI, Late Helladic Simple Graves. A Study of Mycenaean Burial Customs (2000) 63 (AH 5).

236

Michaela ZAVADIL

uncertain, as is the date of some jar burials in Giakoumaiika-Giannakas19 and of the pithos burials (some of them possibly cremated) found in Mageira-Kioupia and Mageira-Kouveli (or Bambakia).20 Intramural jar burials seem to have been carried out to a very limited extent until LH II.21 In addition, tumuli almost go out of use in the Mycenaean period. Nevertheless, several mounds in Messenia contain rudimentary tholoi. Large pithoi containing inhumations were placed on the summits of two of these: the mound of Ano Kremmydia-Kaminia22 is the best-known example, but it is not an isolated phenomenon. The similar tumulus at Chandrinos-Kissos,23 although not securely dated, also contained three pithos burials. The pithoi at Kaminia were dated by G. Korres to MH III or MH III/LH I,24 whereas the built tombs were in use from MH III/LH I until LH IIIB. The question whether these rudimentary tholoi were “incorporated” into MH tumuli containing pithos burials or whether the pithoi were contemporaneous with the earliest built tombs has not yet been clarified. Tholoi belong to the new types of tombs that appeared in the early Mycenaean period, and only very few of them contain jar burials. The earliest of them is Tholos V (the so-called Grave Circle) at Pylos.25 Two pithoi date to MH III/LH I: the matt-painted pithos (no 27) presumably held a primary burial and was found without lid and in a slanted position,26 a bronze cauldron resting on it, whereas the whiteon-dark decorated pithos (no 28), which was closed with a circular stone, contained at least one secondary burial and was found crushed but still standing upright.27 A third interment in a spouted pithos (no 29) that had been closed with a thin slab, took place in LH I.28 The container was laid down near the wall of the tholos, and contained a primary burial as well as a bell cup (no 32).29 According to J. Davis, Sh. Stocker

19 20

21

22

23 24

25

26

27

28

29

E. SALAVOURA, Μυκηναϊκή Αρκαδία. Αρχαιολογική και τοπογραφική θεώρηση (2015) 168. Mageira-Kioupia: N. YALOURIS, “Σωστικαί ανασκαφαί και τυχαία ευρήματα,” ArchDelt 21 B1 (1966) [1968] 170; P. THEMELIS, “Μινωϊκά εξ Ολυμπίας,” ArchAnAth 2 (1969) 250-251; F. SCHACHERMEYR, “Forschungsbericht zur ägäischen Frühzeit,” AA 1971, 410. Mageira-Kouveli (or: Bambakia): P.G. THEMELIS, “3) Μάγειρα,” ArchDelt 22 B1 (1967) [1968] 211-212. See also M.J. BOYD, Middle Helladic and Early Mycenaean Mortuary Practices in the Southern and Western Peloponnese (2002) 193. LH I: Aigion: E. PAPAZOGLOU-MANIOUDAKI, “The Middle Helladic and Late Helladic I Periods at Aigion in Achaea,” in PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, TOUCHAIS, VOUTSAKI and WRIGHT (supra n. 6) 135. Kirrha (L 765): J. ZURBACH, “Rapport d’activités à Kirrha en 2011,” Archaeology in Greece Online (http://www.chronique.efa.gr/index.php/fiches/voir/2646/; 5/6/2018). Orchomenos (P 69): SARRI (supra n. 14). LH II: Ay. Stephanos (Beta 24 [?], Lambda 15): W.D. TAYLOUR and R. JANKO, Ayios Stephanos. Excavations at a Bronze Age and Medieval Settlement in Southern Laconia (2008) 135, 144, 595, Pls 20a, 22d. G.S. KORRES, “Ανασκαφή Πύλου,” Prakt 1975 [1977] 486-488, Pl. 318α-β; ID., “Ανασκαφαί ανά την Πυλίαν,” Prakt 1980 [1982] 126-128, Pls 103, 104β; ZAVADIL (supra n. 11) 264-273. ZAVADIL (supra n. 11) 298-303 (with previous bibliography). G.S. KORRES, Αρχαιολογικαί διατριβαί επί θεμάτων της εποχής του χαλκού (1979/84) 62 n. 1; IDEM, “The Relations Between Crete and Messenia in the Late Middle Helladic and Early Late Helladic Period,” in R. HÄGG and N. MARINATOS (eds), The Minoan Thalassocracy. Myth and Reality. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 31 May - 5 June, 1982 (1984) 147. ZAVADIL (supra n. 11) 374-379, 402-403 (with previous bibliography); J.M.A. MURPHY, “Outside and Inside: Mortuary Rituals in Early Mycenaean Pylos,” in B. EDER and M. ZAVADIL (eds), (Social) Place and Space in Early Mycenaean Greece, Conference Organised by the Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Cooperation with the Austrian Archaeological Institute October 5th-8th 2016 in Athens (in preparation). C.W. BLEGEN, M. RAWSON, W. TAYLOUR and W.P. DONOVAN, The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia III. Acropolis and Lower Town. Tholoi, Grave Circle, and Chamber Tombs. Discoveries Outside the Citadel (1973) 146, 149-150, 152, 154, 157-158, figs 198, 217-218, 220-222, 233.1. BLEGEN, RAWSON, TAYLOUR and DONOVAN (supra n. 26) 143-144, 149-150, 152, 154, 163, figs 209, 211, 213, 220-222, 233.2. BLEGEN, RAWSON, TAYLOUR and DONOVAN (supra n. 26) 144-145, 150, 152, 154, 165, figs 215, 220-222, 233.5a,b. BLEGEN, RAWSON, TAYLOUR and DONOVAN (supra n. 26) 145, 165-166, fig. 234.1.

REMEMBERING OLD GRAVES? JAR BURIALS IN THE MYCENAEAN PERIOD

237

and P. Mountjoy, both vessels might be Minoan imports.30 The last pot burial in Tholos V dates to LH IIA. It is a secondary burial that was placed in an upright standing palatial jar (no 30),31 whose upper half was broken, exactly as was the case with pithos 28. The two vessels broke almost certainly when the chamber of the tholos collapsed. The other tholos containing at least one LH IIA palatial jar with secondary burials was found near Ancient Corinth.32 In this case, at least one vessel had been placed in a horizontal position. A third tholos tomb containing three pithoi (nos 1, 15, 17; no lids preserved),33 also holding secondary burials, was excavated by G. Korres in Myron-Peristeria: it is the so-called South Tholos 1, which was in use from LH I until LH IIB/IIIA1. 34 According to the preliminary publication, only pottery was found in this undisturbed tholos, which is in sharp contrast to the rich inventory of the other two tholos tombs. Two small pithoi, which were found in the rudimentary Tholos 3 at Kaminia, are highly unusual (and without parallels thus far): they are embedded in the wall of the chamber with their mouths pointing into the interior of the tomb; what they contained is unknown.35 Further tholos tombs with securely identified jar burials are not known to me. Nevertheless, we have to take into consideration the possibility that some of the palatial jars found in tholos tombs might have been used as burial containers, as W. Taylour suggested many years ago for the palatial jars found in the Kakovatos tholos tombs.36 Apart from that, there are several tholos tombs in which small jars or their fragments have been found: fragments of a small MM III pithos were excavated in Tholos IV at Pylos and identified by J. Davis and Sh. Stocker as possible burial container.37 At Koukounara-Gouvalari (Tholos 2 and the rudimentary tholos found under Tumulus β) as well as at Ano Kremmydia-Kaminia (Tholos 5) matt-painted jars (or their fragments) might also be interpreted in this way.38 Likewise worth mentioning 30

31

32

33 34

35 36

37

38

J.L. DAVIS and S.R. STOCKER, “Crete, Messenia, and the Date of Tholos IV at Pylos,” in C.F. MACDONALD, E. HATZAKI and S. ANDREOU (eds), The Great Islands. Studies of Crete and Cyprus Presented to Gerald Cadogan (2015) 176; P.A. MOUNTJOY, Regional Mycenaean Decorated Pottery (1999) 315 no 6. BLEGEN, RAWSON, TAYLOUR and DONOVAN (supra n. 26) 144, 150, 152, 154, 166, figs 210, 214, 220-221, 233.4a-c. P. KASSIMI, “Ενας πρώιμος θολωτός μυκηναϊκός τάφος στην Αρχαία Κόρινθο,” in K. KISSAS and W.D. NIEMEIER (eds), The Corinthia and the Northeast Peloponnese. Topography and History from Prehistoric Times until the End of Antiquity. Proceedings of the International Conference Organized by the Directorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, the LZ’ Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities and the German Archaeological Institute, Athens, Held at Loutraki, March 26-29, 2009 (2013) 45-53; EADEM, “The Mycenaean Cemeteries of NorthEastern Corinthia and the Early Tholos Tomb at Ancient Corinth,” in A.-L. SCHALLIN and I. TOURNAVITOU (eds), Mycenaeans Up To Date. The Archaeology of the North-Eastern Peloponnese - Current Concepts and New Directions (2015) 510-512, fig. 22; K. KISSAS, “Korinth. Neue Ausgrabungen in einer Metropole des antiken Griechenland,” Antike Welt 49 (2018) 56-57, fig. 2a-b. G.S. KORRES, “Ανασκαφαί εν Περιστεριά Πύλου,” Prakt 1976 [1979] 510-511, Pls 266β, 267δ, 268β. ZAVADIL (supra n. 11) 514-516, 522-523 (with previous bibliography). For a date of the pithoi in LH II see G.S. KORRES, “Τύμβοι, θόλοι και ταφικοί κύκλοι της Μεσσηνίας (Ο ταφικός κύκλος Α εις Γουβαλάρη Κουκουνάρας),” in Πρακτικά του A´ διεθνούς συνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών, Σπάρτη, 7-14 Σεπτεμβρίου 1975 (1976) vol. 2, 362. KORRES (supra n. 22, 1975) 494; KORRES (supra n. 22, 1980) 127 παρένθετος πίναξ ΣΤ’, 128, Pl. 103. BLEGEN, RAWSON, TAYLOUR and DONOVAN (supra n. 26) 150. See also O.T.P.K. DICKINSON, “Cist Graves and Chamber Tombs,” BSA 78 (1983) 64 n. 50. For the use of palatial style amphorae in tombs see K. KALOGEROPOULOS, “The Social and Religious Significance of Palatial Jars as Grave Offerings,” in H. CAVANAGH, W. CAVANAGH and J. ROY (eds), Honouring the Dead in the Peloponnese. Proceedings of the Conference Held at Sparta 23-25 April 2009 (2011) 207-235 (https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/csps/documents/honoringthedead/kalogeropoulos,k.pdf; 10/6/2018). DAVIS and STOCKER (supra n. 30) 176-177; see also BLEGEN, RAWSON, TAYLOUR and DONOVAN (supra n. 26) 105, 111, fig. 196.2 (referred to as palatial style jar). KORRES (supra n. 22, 1975) 506, 509; KORRES (supra n. 34) 352; KORRES (supra n. 24,1979/84) 62 n. 1; A. CHASIAKOU, Μεσοελλαδική κεραμεική από την Μεσσηνία (Ν.Δ. Μεσσηνία) (Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Athens, 2003) 47, 64, 192, 220, 829-830, 885-886, 1678, 1750

238

Michaela ZAVADIL

are fragments of undecorated pithoi excavated e.g. in Tholos III at Pylos, Tholos 5 at Ano KremmydiaKaminia and in the so-called tumulus (recte: tholos) at Kato Samikon-Kleidi.39 If a date is available, it refers to the Shaft Grave era/early Mycenaean period. I do not want to claim that every wide-mouthed jar found in a tholos tomb was used for burials. However, it has to be stressed that at least some of them might have been used in this way. In this context I have to emphasise that so far no unambiguous inhumation in a jar is known to me from any Mycenaean chamber tomb. Some pithos burials were found between chamber tombs or in the filling of the dromoi, but their dates are uncertain and may not be prehistoric.40 An exception is the LH IIIC burial of a sub-adult in a “δίωτον κρατηροειδὲς ἀγγεῖον, ἄγραφον καὶ εὐτελές” in Tomb A10 in Chamber Tomb A at Lakkithra on Kephallonia.41 In Crete, the situation is different.42 In EM II the use of pots for burials was even more limited than on the mainland: only two sites – Nopigeia and Sissi – are known.43 In EM III/MM I this situation

39

40

41

42

(https://phdtheses.ekt.gr/ eadd/handle/ 10442/19654; 12/7/2018). BLEGEN, RAWSON, TAYLOUR and DONOVAN (supra n. 26) 76, 79; CHASIAKOU (supra n. 38) 49, 830-831; N. YALOURIS, “Μυκηναϊκός τύμβος Σαμικού,” ArchDelt 20 A (1965) [1966] 31, Pl. 21γ. For an interpretation of the so-called tumulus at Kato Samikon-Kleidi as a severely devastated tholos see M. ZAVADIL, “Tholos, Tumulus oder Gräberrund? Überlegungen zu einigen Grabmälern der Westpeloponnes,” in F. BLAKOLMER (ed.), Österreichische Forschungen zur Ägäischen Bronzezeit 1998. Akten der Tagung am Institut für Klassische Archäologie der Universität Wien, 2.-3.5.1998 (2000) 119-126. Palaiokastro (Arcadia): K. DEMAKOPOULOU and J. CROUWEL, “Some Mycenaean Tombs at Palaiokastro, Arcadia,” BSA 93 (1998) 273. Atalanti-Spartia (Phtiotis): S. DIMAKI, “Αταλάντι. Θέση Σπαρτιά,” ArchDelt 60 B1 (2005) [2013] 447. As three pithos burials dated to the classical period were recovered in earlier excavations of the site, a similar date might be assumed also for the newly excavated ones: see F. DAKORONIA, “Αταλάντι. Θέση Σπαρτιά,” ArchDelt 45 B1 (1990) [1995] 178-179, Pl. 84δ. S.N. MARINATOS, “Αι ανασκαφαί Goekoop εν Κεφαλληνία,” AEphem 1932 [1934] 23. For the date of the pottery found in Tomb A10 see Ch. SOUYOUDZOGLOU-HAYWOOD, The Ionian Islands in the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age 3000-800 BC (1999) 173 no 33, 174 nos 66, 78, 175 no 99, 176 no 154, 177 no 209, 178 no 261, 179 nos 276, 286, 292, 182 nos 416, 441, 183 nos 452, 465, 469, 473-474, and MOUNTJOY (supra n. 30) 452 n. 62, 454 no 33, 455 no 36, 457 no 52. Due to the sheer number of publications on this topic, only a selection can be mentioned here: I. PINI, Beiträge zur minoischen Gräberkunde (1968); F. PETIT, “Les jarres funéraires du Minoen Ancien III au Minoen Récent I,” Aegaeum 6 (1990) 29-57; W. LÖWE, Spätbronzezeitliche Bestattungen auf Kreta (1996); L. GIRELLA, “La morte ineguale. Per una lettura delle evidenze funerarie nel Medio Minoico III a Creta,” AnnScAtene 81 (2003) 251-301; L. PRESTON, “A Mortuary Perspective on Political Changes in Late Minoan II-IIIB Crete,” AJA 108 (2004) 321-348; EADEM, “Contextualising the Larnax: Tradition, Innovation and Regionalism in Coffin Use on Late Minoan II-IIIB Crete,” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 23 (2004) 177-197; K.S. CHRISTAKIS, Cretan Bronze Age Pithoi. Traditions and Trends in the Production and Consumption of Storage Containers in Bronze Age Crete (2005); M. DEVOLDER, “Étude des coutumes funéraires en Crète néopalatiale,” BCH 134 (2010) 31-70; L. PRESTON, “The Middle Minoan III Funerary Landscape at Knossos,” in C.F. MACDONALD and C. KNAPPETT (eds), Intermezzo. Intermediacy and Regeneration in Middle Minoan III Palatial Crete (2013) 57-70; B. LEGARRA HERRERO, Mortuary Behaviour and Social Trajectories in Pre- and Protopalatial Crete (2014); G. VAVOURANAKIS, “Funerary Pithoi in Bronze Age Crete: Their Introduction and Significance at the Threshold of Minoan Palatial Society,” AJA 118 (2014) 197-222; L. GIRELLA, “When Diversity Matters: Exploring Funerary Evidence in Middle Minoan III Crete,” Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici NS. 1 (2015) 117-136; IDEM, “Aspects of Ritual and Changes in Funerary Practices Between MM II and LM I on Crete,” in E. ALRAM-STERN, F. BLAKOLMER, S. DEGER-JALKOTZY, R. LAFFINEUR and J. WEILHARTNER (eds), METAPHYSIS. Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegaean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 15th International Aegean Conference, 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 (2016) 202-212; IDEM, “‘The Past is Never Dead’. The Long Life of Pithos Burials During the Palatial Period of Crete (Abstract),” Paper Presented at the 10th ICAANE, 25-29 April 2016, Vienna; B. LEGARRA HERRERO, “Bodies in a Pickle: Burial Jars, Individualism and Group Identities in Middle Minoan Crete,” in M.

REMEMBERING OLD GRAVES? JAR BURIALS IN THE MYCENAEAN PERIOD

239

changed and pithoi as well as larnakes came into use.44 The practice of burying dead in pithoi was most widespread in the Middle Minoan period, and they are found inter alia in tholoi, chamber tombs, rectangular tombs and caves. As on the mainland, sub-adults and adults were buried in pithoi or other ceramic vessels, and they were likewise used for primary and secondary burials. The size of the pithoi ranges between 0.50 m and 1.20 m and, as opposed to continental Greece, pithoi with a height of over 0.80 m were used infrequently.45 Also in contrast to the mainland, intramural jar burials are almost inexistent: with the exception of the EM II pithos burial from Nopigeia in western Crete, which may be due to mainland influences,46 they were only used since MM III/LM IA.47 Another difference between the burial customs on the Middle Bronze Age mainland and in Crete is the practice of establishing pithos cemeteries, which seems to be unknown on the mainland. There are some cemeteries where jar burials were found together with cists and pits,48 but none of these consists almost exclusively of jar burials. For Crete I refer to the famous pithos cemeteries in Pacheia Ammos (EM III/MM I [?] - LM I; 222 pithoi, six larnakes) and Sphoungaras (MM III - LM I; 150 pithoi, one larnax),49 but it has to be stressed that these are not the only cases: the cemeteries on the small island Aphentis Christos/Ilôt du Christ north of Malia (at least five pithoi, more are reported) and at Pigi near Rethymno (at least 16 pithoi) have to be mentioned, too,50 although they differ from the two aforesaid sites in that the vessels were buried in horizontal positions.51 The positioning of the pithoi in Pacheia Ammos and Sphoungaras constitutes one more difference between mainland and Cretan burial customs, which is worth mentioning: at both sites the deceased were brought into a seated position and the jars were put over them, or they were first placed in the pithoi, which were then turned upside down. This custom was widespread on Crete, where it was not restricted to pithos cemeteries: this is apparent from the MM I pithoi preserved in the Maison des morts in Malia and a LM IA intramural burial found in Petras.52 To my knowledge, this custom is unknown on the Bronze Age Greek mainland.53 In Crete, as well as on the mainland, burials also took place in upright standing pots, but they are rare compared to the other burials types mentioned.54

43

44

45 46

47

48 49

50 51 52

53

54

MINA, S. TRIANTAPHYLLOU and Y. PAPADATOS (eds), An Archaeology of Prehistoric Bodies and Embodied Identities in the Eastern Mediterranean (2016) 180-188. See also A. KANTA, The Late Minoan III Period in Crete. A Survey of Sites, Pottery and Their Distribution (1980). VAVOURANAKIS (supra n. 42) 198; LEGARRA HERRERO (supra n. 42, 2014) 71, 138, 140, 251 no 297, 302 no 497; see also IDEM. (supra n. 42, 2016) 181. PINI (supra n. 42) 12-13; PRESTON (supra n. 42, 2004b) 179; VAVOURANAKIS (supra n. 42) 198 fig. 1; LEGARRA HERRERO (2014, supra n. 42, 2014) 55, 76, 88, 115; ID. (2016, supra n. 42). CHRISTAKIS (supra n. 42) 55. LEGARRA HERRERO (supra n. 42) 138, 140; but see also LEGARRA HERRERO (supra n. 42, 2016) 181. PINI (supra n. 42) 13-14; LEGARRA HERRERO (supra n. 42, 2014) 151-160. For the Neopalatial period see DEVOLDER (supra n. 42) 53-54; P.J.P. McGEORGE, “The Petras Intramural Infant Jar Burial: Context, Symbolism, Eschatology,” in M. TSIPOPOULOU (ed.), Petras, Siteia - 25 Years of Excavations and Studies. Acts of a Two-Day Conference held at the Danish Institute at Athens, 9-10 October 2010 (2012) 291-302. See supra n. 10. LEGARRA HERRERO (supra n. 42, 2014) 106-107, 109, 111, 116-117, 262-263 no 339, 274-275 no 385 (with previous bibliography); see also LEGARRA HERRERO (supra n. 42, 2016) 182-184. LEGARRA HERRERO (supra n. 42, 2014) 244-245 no 268, 303 no 499 (with previous bibliography). For horizontally placed pithos burials cf. PINI (supra n. 42) 12 n. 85. H. VAN EFFENTERRE and M. VAN EFFENTERRE, Fouilles exécutées à Mallia. Étude du site (1956-1957) et exploration des nécropoles (1915-1928) (1963) 89, Pl. 36; McGEORGE (supra n. 47). For a Neolithic pithos burial placed upside down found in Amzabegovo (Macedonia) see G. NAUMOV, “Housing the Dead: Burials Inside Houses and Vessels in the Neolithic Balkans,” in D.A BARROWCLOUGH and C. MALONE (eds), Cult in Context. Reconsidering Ritual in Archaeology (2007) 262263. For burial pithoi found in upright positions see e.g. Y. SAKELLARAKIS, Archanes. Minoan Crete in a New Light (1997) 181-184, 187-188, 199-201, 210-212, 215-218; S. HOOD, “The Middle Minoan Cemetery on Ailias at Knossos,” in O. KRZYSZKOWSKA (ed.), Cretan Offerings: Studies in Honour of Peter Warren (2010) 161, 164 fig. 16.5 (Tomb I). For three possible pithos burials found at Malia (Οικ. Ιωo. Βλάστου) see

240

Michaela ZAVADIL

In the Neopalatial period, different mortuary customs appeared: amongst other changes, the use of pithoi for burials decreased and larnakes were preferred from LM I/II onwards.55 As opposed to the mainland, pithoi are also present in chamber tombs.56 This might reflect in some cases a combination of Minoan and Mycenaean burial customs.57 The evidence from the Aegean islands (Cyclades, Dodecanese, islands of the north-eastern Aegean) differs from that presented so far,58 although as on Crete (and unlike the mainland), the evidence for preMBA jar burials seems to be very scarce. EC II pithos burials or their possible fragments were excavated by Chr. Tsountas on Amorgos (Arkesine, Kapsala) and by L. Morricone in the Asklupis area (Kos).59 In EBA III some jar burials are known from Phylakopi (Melos), Paroikia (Paros), the Heraion on Samos, Poliochni (Lemnos) and possibly also from Kalamia (Thera).60 Jar burials remained a rare phenomenon in the

55

56

57 58

59

60

K. DAVARAS, “Μάλια,” ArchDelt 34 B2 (1979) [1987] 404-405, Pl. 215δ. For considerations regarding the positioning of burial pithoi see LEGARRA HERRERO (supra n. 42, 2016) 184. PETIT (supra n. 42) 44; PRESTON (supra n. 42, 2004b) 189 fig. 6; CHRISTAKIS (supra n. 42) 55. See also PRESTON (supra n. 42, 2013). For a list of MM and LM tombs containing jar burials see PETIT (supra n. 42) 50-56; see also S. HOOD, P. WARREN and G. CADOGAN, “Travels in Crete, 1962,” BSA 59 (1964) 55 no 2 (Khoumeri-Laria, Tomb 2); HOOD (supra n. 54) (Knossos-Ailias); E. BANOU and G. RETHEMIOTAKIS, “Centre and Periphery: New Evidence for the Relations between Knossos and the Area of Viannos in the LM II-IIIA Periods,” in J. DRIESSEN and A. FARNOUX (eds), La Crète mycénienne. Actes de la Table Ronde Internationale organisée par l’École française d’Athènes, 26-28 mars 1991 (1997) 27, 44-47 (Psari Phorada); KANTA (supra n. 42) 163-164 (Myrsini-Asprospilia, Tombs Γ and IB); J.S. SOLES and S. TRIANTAPHYLLOU, “The Late Minoan III Cemetery at Limenaria,” in J.S. SOLES and C. DAVARAS (eds), Mochlos IIA. Period IV. The Mycenaean Settlement and Cemetery. The Sites (2008) 129-184. For the aforementioned sites cf. also LÖWE (supra n. 42) 144-146, 147-149, 249, 313-314. SOLES and TRIANTAPHYLLOU (supra n. 56) 198-199. For short overviews see e.g. P. SOTIRAKOPOULOU, “Akrotiri, Thera: The Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Phases in Light of Recent Excavations at the Site,” in N. BRODIE, J. DOOLE, G. GAVALAS and C. RENFREW (eds), Horizon. Ὁρίζων. A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades (2008) 131, and M. MARTHARI, “Middle Cycladic and Early Late Cycladic Cemeteries and their Minoan Elements: The Case of the Cemetery at Skarkos on Ios,” in C.F. MACDONALD, E. HALLAGER and W.-D. NIEMEIER (eds), The Minoans in the Central, Eastern and Northern Aegean - New Evidence. Acts of a Minoan Seminar 22-23 January 2005 in Collaboration with the Danish Institute at Athens and the German Archaeological Institute at Athens (2009) 41. For Anatolian influences on the burial customs on the Aegean islands see e.g. GIRELLA (supra n. 42, 2003), 286; L. GIRELLA, “Ialysos. Foreign Relations in the Late Bronze Age. A Funerary Perspective,” in R. LAFFINEUR and E. GRECO (eds), EMPORIA. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference / 10e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14-18 April 2004 (2005) 131; S. VITALE, T. MARKETOU, and C. McNAMEE, “The Serraglio, Eleona, and Langada Archaeological Project (SELAP): Report on the Results of the 2011 to 2015 Study Seasons,” ASAtene 94 (2016) 243, 247-278 (all with previous bibliography). Arkesine, Kapsala: Ch. TSOUNTAS, “Κυκλαδικά,” AEphem 1898, 153, 209 fig. 15; Ch. TSOUNTAS and J.I. MANATT, The Mycenaean Age. A Study of the Monuments and Culture of Pre-Homeric Greece (1897) 386; E.H. HALL, Excavations in Eastern Crete. Sphoungaras (1912) 72; E. KARANTZALI, Le Bronze Ancien dans les Cyclades et en Crète. Les relations entre les deux regions. Influence de la Grèce Continentale (1996) 40 (dating the Arkesine tomb to EC III), fig. 60d; J. RAMBACH, Kykladen II. Die frühe Bronzezeit. Frühbronzezeitliche Beigabensittenkreise auf den Kykladen. Relative Chronologie und Verbreitung (2000) 5. Asklupis: S. VITALE, “The Asklupis Reconsidered: A Preliminary Report on the Chronology and Burial Practices of an Early Bronze Age 2 Cemetery on Kos,” Aegaean Archaeology 10 (2009/10) 47-63; VITALE, MARKETOU and McNAMEE (supra n. 58) 225-285 (for two recently discovered EBA II pithos burials on Kos see p. 236). Phylakopi: C. RENFREW, Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos 1974-77 (2007) 49-50; see also N. BRODIE, M. BOYD and R. SWEETMAN, “The Settlement of South Phylakopi: A Reassessment of Dawkins and Droop’s 1911 Excavations,” in BRODIE, DOOLE, GAVALAS and RENFREW (supra n. 58) 413. Paroikia: O. RUBENSOHN, “Die prähistorischen und frühgeschichtlichen Funde auf dem Burghügel

REMEMBERING OLD GRAVES? JAR BURIALS IN THE MYCENAEAN PERIOD

241

Middle Bronze Age and the early Late Bronze Age. The few known examples include the MC II burials found at Ay. Irini (Keos), some late MC/early LC graves excavated in Skarkos (Ios), the MM/LM IA pithos burials recovered in Ialysos (Rhodes), and two pithos burials found at the Serraglio on Kos.61 Finally, two pithos burials date to the advanced Late Bronze Age: one is part of the LH II-LH IIIB1 cemetery consisting of cist graves, built chamber tombs and a tholos unearthed at Archontiki (Psara), and the other one was found in the dromos of Chamber Tomb 58 at Langada (Kos).62 Jar burials occur in extramural as well as in intramural contexts and in contrast to the mainland and to Crete, they were used mainly for sub-adults.63 Most of them were buried horizontally, although some were found in an upright position64 and there are at least two cases of burials in inverted vessels, excavated in Phylakopi (Melos) (beaked jug, EC III) and Ay. Irini (Keos) (barrel jar, MC II).65

61

62

63

64

65

von Paros,” AM 42 (1917) 12; see also RAMBACH (supra n. 59) 437. Heraion: V. MILOJČIĆ, Samos I. Die prähistorische Siedlung unter dem Heraion. Grabung 1953 und 1955 (1961) 6, 10-12; Ou. KOUKA, Siedlungsorganisation in der Nord- und Ostägäis während der Frühbronzezeit (3. Jt. v. Chr) (2002) 291-292. Poliochni: M. CULTRARO, “In Death not Separated. Evidence of Middle Bronze Age Intramural Burials at Poliochni on Lemnos,” in PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, TOUCHAIS, VOUTSAKI and WRIGHT (supra n. 6) 919-930. Kalamia: S. MARINATOS, Excavations at Thera VII (1973 Season) (1976) 12, Pl. 8b; P. SOTIRAKOPOULOU, “Early Cycladic Pottery from Akrotiri on Thera and Its Chronological Implications,” BSA 81 (1986) 304. Uncertain is the chronology of eight jar burials found at Akrotiri: SOTIRAKOPOULOU (supra n. 58) 130-131. The jar burials found by W. Lamb at Thermi on Lesbos date to EBA I (Thermi I) and not, as suggested by P. McGeorge, to EBA III: W. LAMB, Excavations at Thermi in Lesbos (1936) 11, 99-100 nos 13, 29; KOUKA (supra n. 60) 155; P.J.P. McGEORGE, “Intramural Infant Burials in the Aegean,” in E. HALLAGER and B.P. HALLAGER (eds), The GreekSwedish Excavations at the Agia Aikaterini Square, Kastelli, Khania, 1970-1987 and 2001, vol. III:1: The Late Minoan IIIB:2 Settlement (2003) 301. Ay. Irini: G.F. OVERBECK, “The Cemeteries and the Graves,” in J.C. OVERBECK, Ayia Irini: Period IV. Part 1: The Stratigraphy and the Find Deposits (1989) 184-205. Skarkos: MARTHARI (supra n. 58). Ialysos: GIRELLA (supra n. 58, 2005) 129-139. Serraglio: L. MORRICONE, “Coo - Scavi e scoperte nel ‘Serraglio’ e in località minori (1935-1943),” ASAtene 50/51 (1972/73) [1975] 161-163, 389 (tombs 11, 13). For a late MC infant burial under an inverted bowl found at Akrotiri (Thera) see V. LANARAS, “Μία intra muros ταφή βρέφους στο μεσοκυκλαδικό Ακρωτήρι Θήρας. Ιστορία του εθίμου των intra muros ταφών στο Αιγαίο,” in A. VLACHOPOULOS and K. BIRTACHA (eds), Αργοναύτης. Τιμητικός τόμος για τον καθηγητή Χρίστο Γ. Ντούμα από τους μαθητές του στο Πανεπιστήμιο Αθηνών (1980-2000) (2003) 445460. Archontiki: A. ARCHONTIDOU-ARGYRI, “Ψαρά. Θέση Αρχοντίκι,” ArchDelt 55 (2000) [2009] 943945; see also L. GIRELLA and P. PAVÚK, “The Nature of Minoan and Mycenaean Involvement in the Northeastern Aegean,” in E. GOROGIANNI, P. PAVÚK and L. GIRELLA (eds), Beyond Thalassocracies. Understanding Processes of Minoanisation and Mycenaeanisation in the Aegean (2016) 31. Langada: L. MORRICONE, “Eleona e Langada: Sepolcreti della tarda Età del Bronzo a Coo,” ASAtene 43/44 (1965/66) [1967] 253-254. The tomb cannot be dated precisely and was presumably built between LBA II and LH IIIC Middle: VITALE, MARKETOU and McNAMEE (supra n. 59) 232-233 tabs. IV-VI, 244-245 tabs. X, XI, 249 tab. XII. Exceptions are Grave 8 in Ay. Irini (Keos), which contained secondary (?) burials of four adults and two sub-adults (OVERBECK [supra n. 61] 190-192, Pls 21, 90-94), two pithos burials found at Akrotiri (Thera) (McGEORGE [supra n. 60] 301 n. 19, and possibly one from Trianda (Rhodes) (T. MARKETOU, “Excavations at Trianda [Ialysos] on Rhodes: New Evidence for the Late Bronze Age I Period,” RendLinc 9 [1998] 45). E.g. at Akrotiri (Thera), as well as Pithoi 1 and 9 from Skarkos (Ios) and the spouted krater (Grave 1) from Ay. Irini (Keos): SOTIRAKOPOULOU (supra n. 58) 130-131; MARTHARI (supra n. 58) 46, 53; OVERBECK (supra n. 61) 186, Pl. 86a-d. Nevertheless, it has to be stated, that the vessels recovered at Keos and Ios were empty. RENFREW (supra n. 60) 37 (P10), 160-161, 162 fig. 5.11.3, Pls 5a, 22a; OVERBECK (supra n. 61) 187, Pl. 87 (Grave 3).

242

Michaela ZAVADIL

Returning to the Greek mainland, I would like to stress that the history of jar burials ought not to be considered separately from the development of cist and pit graves. These also were common in the Middle Bronze Age, and as was the case with jar burials, their usage decreased after the Late Middle Helladic period.66 In contrast to burials in ceramic containers, interments in pits and cists are found more frequently in tholoi and chamber tombs. Nevertheless, the decrease of these three kinds of burials must be considered in the context of the social changes that occurred in the second half of the Middle Helladic period, in which competitive mortuary display became far more important than before.67 This need was initially met by the gradual enlargement of the cist tombs and culminated in the introduction of new types of tombs in MH III/LH I, namely the tholos and the chamber tomb, which could be entered by the mourners, and in which burials took place mainly on the floor and offerings could be arranged around the deceased. Thus, they were visible not only during the burial, but also later, when the tombs were reentered on the occasion of new interments. Most Mycenaean jar burials follow Middle Helladic tradition as they rarely contain burial gifts and were made within settlements or in tumuli. The occurrence of rich(er) grave goods in a few burial pithoi dated to Shaft Grave period68 is in accordance with the aforementioned general development. For these reasons, I consider the practice of jar burials in the newly established tholos tombs as a custom that continued Middle Helladic burial traditions.69 It is possible that conservative members of the community laid their dead to rest in ceramic containers or wished to be buried in them.70 Therefore, there are no compelling reasons to attribute to Minoan influences71 the burials made in two (?) pithoi, which were macroscopically identified as imports from Crete and were found in Tholoi IV and V in Pylos.72 The almost simultaneous appearance of the custom of inhumations in jars both on the mainland, on Crete and on the Aegean islands supports the idea that it was a parallel and long lasting practice. Differences and similarities as well as mutual influences between these regions are attested. So, much more could be said and much more needs to be done on this issue. This paper is a first attempt to gain an overview of Bronze Age jar burials, a large topic, not only with regard to data collection, but also with regard to their interpretation. Michaela ZAVADIL

66 67

68

69

70

71

72

LEWARTOWSKI (supra n. 18) 109 fig. 3. See e.g. S. VOUTSAKI, “Agency and Personhood at the Onset of the Mycenaean Period,” Archaeological Dialogues 17 (2010) 65-92, and the discussion of this article by J. WRIGHT, “Approaches to the Study of Personhood in the Early Mycenaean Era,” Archaeological Dialogues 17 (2010) 100-105; S. VOUTSAKI, “From Reciprocity to Centricity: The Middle Bronze Age in the Greek Mainland,” Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 29 (2016) 70-78. See also VOUTSAKI and MILKA (supra n. 5) 112-113. See e.g. two pithos burials found in Thebes, Οδός Πελοπίδου 5 and Οδός Πινδάρου/Δίρκης (K. DEMAKOPOULOU, “Οδός Πελοπίδου 5 [οικόπεδο Α. Παυλογιαννοπούλου],” ArchDelt 34 B1 [1979] {1987} 165; EADEM, “Ὁδὸς Πινδάρου καὶ Δίρκης,” ArchDelt 29 B2 [1973/74] [1979] 435), and of course Pithoi 27 and 28 in Tholos V at Pylos (BLEGEN, RAWSON, TAYLOUR and DONOVAN [supra ns. 26-31]). Cf. KORRES (supra n. 34) 362; IDEM (supra n. 24, 1984) 147; K. KALOGEROPOULOS, Die frühmykenischen Grabfunde von Analipsis (südöstliches Arkadien). Mit einem Beitrag zu den palatialen Amphoren des griechischen Festlandes (1998) 176. Later, K. Kalogeropoulos changed his mind and argued for Minoan influences in connection with the use of palatial jars for burials: IDEM (supra n. 36) 211-212, 224-225. Cf. H. MATTHÄUS, Die Bronzegefäße der kretisch-mykenischen Kultur (1980) 67 with n. 9. The pithos per se is a conservative type of vessel which could have been in use over generations: LEGARRA HERRERO (supra n. 42, 2014) 163; IDEM (supra n. 42, 2016) 183-184. See e.g. the late MC Pithos 4 from Skarkos, which was buried in LC I/LM IA: MARTHARI (supra n. 58) 48-50. Of course this does not apply to the cooking pots frequently used for burying small children. BLEGEN, RAWSON, TAYLOUR and DONOVAN (supra n. 26) 150, 165; R. HÄGG, “On the Nature of the Minoan Influence in Early Mycenaean Messenia,” OpAth 14 (1982) 31, 36. See supra p. 236-237.

FROM HABITUS TO VISUAL MEMORY. CHANGING MNEMONIC PROCESSES IN EARLY MYCENAEAN GREECE* Archaeology often adopts descriptive and materialist approaches to the concept of memory. Scholars tend to analyze in length how ancient monuments inscribed “images of the past” on the landscape or how specific objects could trigger the retrieval of memories, especially in funerary contexts;1 by contrast, only rarely do they explore the kind of mnemonic processes involved in each case, the mechanisms of recall, and the wider social functions of remembering.2 Such over-emphasis on the materiality of memory is problematic for a number of reasons. First, remembering is not a unilinear process that works always in the same manner. As cognitive psychologists have demonstrated, there are different types of memory, which are activated variously according to the context or remembrance.3 Second, as sociologists from the time of M. Halbwachs have stressed, the way people remember is conditioned by the social and cultural circumstances to which they live, and the social groups in which they belong.4 Remembering depends on the mnemonic traditions of each group, as well as on the mnemonic resources available in a culture. 5 Taking account of these parameters is essential for understanding the mnemotechnical affordances of each society. What is more important, remembering is not an end in itself. Individuals remember for specific purposes: to be operative in everyday life, to find their way in space, to avoid repeating errors, to compare

*

1

2

3

4

5

I express my warm thanks to the organizers for setting up an excellent conference at Venice and Udine. I am also grateful to the CMS Archive, University of Heidelberg, and Dr Maria Anastasiadou for granting me permission to reproduce CMS drawings in Pls XCV-XCVI; to Dr. Shari Stocker and Prof. Jack Davis for allowing me to reproduce drawings of gold rings from the Griffin Warrior tomb (Pls XCVI 2d and 3e); and to Dr Eleni Papazoglou-Manioudaki for allowing me to reproduce the drawing of the gold ring from Athens (Pl. XCVI 2c). Archaeological literature on memory is vast. Here is a very selective list of collective volumes with thematically varied papers (most of which adopt materialist approaches) and rich bibliographies: H. WILLIAMS (ed.), Archaeologies of Remembrance. Death and Memory in Past Societies (2003); R.M. VAN DYKE and S.E. ALCOCK (eds), Archaeologies of Memory (2003); D. BORIĆ (ed.), Archaeology and Memory (2010); B.J. MILLS and W.H. WALKER (eds), Memory Work. Archaeologies of Material Practice (2011). For materialist approaches to memory in Mycenaean times, see S. BUTTON, “Mortuary Studies, Memory and the Mycenaean Polity,” in N. YOFFEE (ed.), Negotiating the Past in the Past. Identity, Memory and Landscape in Archaeological Research (2007) 76-103; Y. GALANAKIS, “Mnemonic Landscapes and Monuments of the Past. Tumuli, Tholos Tombs and Landscape Associations in Late Middle Bronze Age and Late Bronze Age Messenia (Greece),” in E. BORGNA and S. MÜLLER CELKA (eds), Ancestral Landscapes. Burial Mounds in the Copper and Bronze Age, Proceedings of the international conference, Udine May 2008 (2011) 219-229. For more nuanced approaches to memory as process and embodied practice, see, among others: S. TARLOW, Bereavement and Commemoration: An Archaeology of Mortality (1999); J. BARRETT, Fragments from Antiquity. An Archaeology of Social Life in Britain 2900-1200 (1994); C. HOLTROF, “Megaliths, Monumentality and Memory,” Archaeological Review from Cambridge 14:2 (1997) 45-65; L. KELLY, Knowledge and Power in Prehistoric Societies: Orality, Memory and the Transmission of Culture (2015). For the Early Mycenaean period, see: L. MALAFOURIS, “How Did the Mycenaeans Remember? Death, Matter and Memory in the Early Mycenaean world,” in. C. RENFREW, M.J BOYD and I. MORLEY (eds), Death Rituals, Social Order and the Archaeology of Immortality in the Ancient World. Death Shall Have No Dominion (2015) 303-314. L.R. SQUIRE, B. KNOWLTON and G. MUSEN, “The Structure and Organization of Memory,” Annual Review of Psychology 44 (1993) 453-495; see also B.A. MISZTAL, Theories of Social Remembering (2003) 9-10. M. HALBWACHS, On Collective Memory (1992, originally published as Les cadres sociaux de la mémoire in 1925); P. CONNERTON, How Societies Remember (1989). E. ZERUBAVEL, Time Maps. Collective Memory and the Social Shape of the Past (2003) 1-5.

244

Nikolas PAPADIMITRIOU

new with old situations, and so on.6 On a social level, memory has more complex functions. One is to socialize accumulated knowledge and experience, which could be lost if entrusted to the mnemonic capacities of individuals; this was particularly crucial in pre-literate societies, which had no permanent archives for the storage of information and the transmission of knowledge across generations.7 Another function of social (or collective) memory is to instill cultural values to the members of a community by repeatedly bringing to the fore (and thus ‘keeping alive’) paradigmatic examples of the past.8 In that sense, remembering is also linked with questions of identity.9 The above remarks underline the strong communicative qualities of memory on a social level.10 And since communication is a cognitive process, archaeology would certainly gain by approaching memory from the perspective of cognition. This does not mean that monuments and artefacts should be ignored; at the end of the day, memory depends also on the material spaces each group occupies.11 But to obtain a better insight into past mnemonic processes, one needs to contextualize materiality into a solid sociocognitive framework, and try to understand: a) the intricate mechanisms of collective remembering; b) the processes through which people interacted with social space in acts of remembrance; and c) the role of objects or monuments as media of communication, and their overall impact on the way people perceived the past. In this paper I will try to apply such an approach to the Early Mycenaean period, focusing on the well documented death rituals of the 17th-15th cent. BC (LH I-IIIA1). This was a time of major changes, during which new burial practices were introduced in Mainland Greece and collective (‘family’) tombs became increasingly common – and were often monumentalized. I will argue that these changes had a profound impact on how Helladic communities remembered, and may have given rise to novel mnemonic practices. To explain the mechanisms of this transformation, I will lay particular emphasis: (a) on the various types of memory and their distinct functions; (b) on the pre-literate character of Early Mycenaean communities – for, as several scholars have shown, oral cultures have very different techniques of remembering than those available in literate ones.12 Types of Memory According to standard psychological definitions,13 there are three types of long-term memory, two of which are considered explicit (i.e. conscious) and the third one implicit (i.e. nonconscious) (Pl. XCIVa): - episodic memory: this is the most familiar type, responsible for recording specific facts and events known through personal experience; it is very important for individuals but difficult to trace archaeologically; - semantic memory: this type relates to our capacity to store and recall general knowledge about the world, obtained from external sources (e.g. family narratives, formal education, tradition etc.); it is a

6

7

8 9

10 11

12

13

P. BOYER, “What Are Memories For? Functions of Recall in Cognition and Culture,” in P. BOYER and J.V. WERTSCH (eds), Memory in Mind and Culture (2009) 3-28, esp. 4-9. J. VANSINA, Oral Tradition as History (1985) 47-48, 161; W. ONG, Orality and Literacy. The Technologizing of the Word (2002) 63; MISZTAL (supra n. 3) 29. ZERUBAVEL (supra n. 5) 3, 55-63. J. ASSMAN, “Collective Memory and Cultural Identity,” New German Critique 65 (1995) 125-133; MISTZAL (supra n. 3) 13-14; BOYER (supra n. 6) 9-14. BOYER (supra n. 6) 20-21. HALBWACHS (supra n. 4) passim; ZERUBAVEL (supra n. 5) 40-43; P. NORA, “Between memory and history. Les lieux de mémoire,” Representations 26 (1989). VANSINA (supra n. 7); ONG (supra n. 7); J. GOODY and I. WATTS, “The Consequences of Literacy,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 5:3 (1963). SQUIRE et al. (supra n. 3); A.D. BADDELEY, Essentials of Human Memory (1999) 16-19.

CHANGING MNEMONIC PROCESSES IN EARLY MYCENAEAN GREECE

245

learned type of memory, which in order to be internalized and retained has to be embedded in an experiential framework (such as that created by a ritual or an educational activity); - procedural or habitual memory: this type is responsible for acquiring skills and for creating bodily automatisms (from how we walk or ride a bicycle to how we stand in a social occasion); it depends on repetition and performance (rather than recollection) and, although associated with bodily functions, is not easily accessible to our conscious reflection; for that reason, it often appears as being “natural” (although it is actually learned as a habit) and as such it is extremely powerful. In archaeology we can generally deal (indirectly) with semantic and procedural/habitual memory, that is try to understand: - how groups “remembered” and commemorated things they may have not lived themselves, but wanted to “keep alive”; - how they developed specific types of social habitus14 with reference to the past. Central in such an effort is to acknowledge the close link between social memory and ritual. The anthropologist J. Goody and the archaeologist J. Assmann have both argued that rituals functioned as primary media of memory and data-storage systems in pre-literate societies. 15 Through their repetitive, performative and often evocative character, rituals helped individuals to learn about the customs, traditions and values of their community, and thus to internalize parts of its past in an experiential way. The sociologist P. Connerton has stressed that rituals are important for the collective memory or nonliterate people because they offer an incorporating framework for social remembering – in other words, they help people to “remember” not only through oral means (e.g. narratives of past events, citation of poems, utterances of ancestral names, etc.), but also by associating them with orchestrated bodily movements in performative actions that facilitate recall.16 In that way rituals become memorable events themselves and create new shared experiences, which inevitably bolster the sense of collective identity. Participants remember primarily the ritual process and by association the commemorated event. Mycenaean Tombs as Places of Habitual Memory In previous works, I explored how Early Mycenaean funerary rituals motivated such mnemonic processes. I suggested that the development of a fixed type of passage-way tomb in LH IIA (consisting of a built or earth-cut chamber and a long dromos) allowed for the gradual standardization of funerary processions. Standardization and repetition must have had a profound impact on the procedural memory of participants, as they turned funeral performance into an unconscious social habitus, i.e. an embodied practice that stimulated shared ways of action and, probably, common techniques of recalling the past.17 I argued that the funerary processions that took place in the dromoi of Early Mycenaean tombs distinguished the members of the burial group from the rest of the community and allowed them to enshrine – mentally and physically – the values and internal hierarchy of the group.18 For that reason, I

14

15

16 17

18

The term, as coined by P. Bourdieu, has very complex meanings, P. BOURDIEU, Outline of a Theory of Practice (1977). Here, it is used to describe the nonconscious embodiment of social attitudes and worldviews through collective performances. For a relevant approach, see S.J. TAMBIAH, A Performative Approach to Ritual (1979). GOODY and WATTS (supra n. 12) 304-311; J. ASSMANN, Das kulturelle Gedächtnis. Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität in frühen Hochkulturen (1992) 49-59; see also E.A. HAVELOCK, “The Preliteracy of the Greeks,” New Literary History 8:3 (1977) 369-391, esp. 369-372. CONNERTON (supra n. 4) 4-5, 72-73, 101-102. N. PAPADIMITRIOU, “The Formation and Use of Early Mycenaean Dromoi,” BSA 110 (2015) 71-120, esp. 94-97. PAPADIMITRIOU (supra n. 17) 96-97; N. PAPADIMITRIOU, “Collective Selves and Funerary Rituals. Early Mycenaean Dromoi as Spaces of Negotiation and Embodiment of Social Identities,” in M. MINA, S. TRIANTAPHYLLOU and Y. PAPADATOS (eds), An Archaeology of Prehistoric Bodies and Embodied Identities in the Eastern Mediterranean (2016) 204-214, esp. 210-212.

246

Nikolas PAPADIMITRIOU

proposed to view dromoi (which often had unnecessarily great length19) not as plain accessways, but as liminal performative spaces which expressed complex symbolisms and transitions (Pl. XCIVb). Equally important was the tomb itself. Since Mycenaean tombs contained the remains of earlier members (or “ancestors”) of the associated groups, each funeral was a virtual revisit to the past.20 By revisiting the tomb, the members of each group acquired a sense of their own historicity – for which the tomb provided a tangible locus, a material framework for remembering.21 This experience must have had a crucial impact on the overall sense of temporality in Early Mycenaean societies, leading from the – common in prehistoric cultures – cyclical notion of time to the idea of a progressive χρόνος.22 This sense of historicity may have allowed the groups using collective tombs to make claims over inheritance of property, social status and eventually political power.23 Visuality and the Rise of Semantic Memory In the remainder of this paper I will explore what I consider as a major cognitive consequence of the growing ritualization of Early Mycenaean funerals: the rise of new symbolic codes of communication. We know that Early Mycenaean tombs contained an impressive array of artefacts: standardized pottery types, several of which were new and made specifically for ritual purposes;24 lavish bodily adornments, often crafted exclusively for funerary use;25 weapons and vessels with delicate decoration rarely seen in nonfunerary contexts,26 and so on. No matter how we interpret these objects (as offerings, symbolic status markers, ritual paraphernalia, etc.), they were clearly meant to create a visual impression at the moment of funeral. The same emphasis on visuality is reflected on the painted decoration of tomb facades, which started in LH IIA, i.e. long before frescoes appeared in Mainland residential architecture.27 Even more impressive is the presence of figured representations on various types of objects and also on grave markers.28 To Aegean archaeologists who are familiar with the rich Minoan iconography this may seem trivial, but for the people of Early Mycenaean Greece – who had no previous tradition in representational art29 – the encounter with such objects was an entirely new sensory experience. As scholars from the time of E. Gombrich have demonstrated, visuality, i.e. how we see, and how we understand a re-presentation, is

19 20

21

22

23 24 25 26

27

28

29

PAPADIMITRIOU (supra n. 17) 71-72 and fig. 2. N. PAPADIMITRIOU, “Structuring Space, Performing Rituals, Creating Memories: Towards a Cognitive Map of Early Mycenaean Burial Practices,” in A. DAKOURI-HILD and M. BOYD (eds), Staging Death. Funerary Performance, Architecture and Landscape in the Aegean (2016) 335-360, esp. 344, 349. Historical thinking is generally associated with literacy and literate societies, see GOODY and WATTS (supra n. 12) 310-311; ONG (supra n. 7) 94-98, 168. The term historicity, as used here, refers to a general sense of past time, events and people, which is shared among members of a community through oral means and is open to negotiation and re-interpretation, VANSINA (supra n. 7) 130-133; ONG (supra n. 7) 139-145; ASSMANN (supra n. 15) 66-68. For the complex question of how time was perceived in antiquity, see G. LUCAS, The Archaeology of Time (2005). PAPADIMITRIOU (supra n. 20) 349-350. PAPADIMITRIOU (supra n. 20) 347-348 fig. 4. O.T.P.K. DICKINSON, The Origins of Mycenaean Civilization (1977) 72-79. E.N. DAVIS, The Vaphio Cups and Aegean Gold and Silver Ware (1977) 123-312 (the majority of the vessels listed in this work come from funerary contexts of Early Mycenaean – i.e. pre-LH IIIA2 – date). N. SGOURITSA, “Remarks on the Use of Plaster in Tholos Tombs at Mycenae: Hypotheses on the Origin of the Painted Decoration of Tombs in Mainland Greece,” in H. CAVANAGH, W. CAVANAGH and J. ROY (eds), Honouring the Dead in the Peloponnese (2011) 737-754. For recent discussions of primarily Grave Circle A material, see S. VOUTSAKI, “Agency and Personhood at the Onset of the Mycenaean Period,” Archaeological Dialogues 17 (2010) 65-92; F. BLAKOLMER, “The Iconography of the Shaft Grave Period as Evidence for a Middle Helladic Tradition of Figurative Arts?”, in A. PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, G. TOUCHAIS, S. VOUTSAKI and J. WRIGHT (eds), Mesohelladika. La Grèce continentale au Bronze moyen, BCH Suppl. 52 (2010) 509-519. E.g. BLAKOLMER (supra n. 28) 515-517.

CHANGING MNEMONIC PROCESSES IN EARLY MYCENAEAN GREECE

247

a learned skill requiring abilities of decodement, which only develop gradually.30 Yet in Mainland Greece such evolutionary stages are missing,31 and representational iconography appears suddenly and fully developed in LH I – apparently as an import from Crete. But why visuality is important for memory? Because image-based media convey messages that can continue to exist beyond the occasion of a ritual performance or beyond a direct personal encounter. As the cognitive scientist M. Donald has stressed, visuographic media function as external fields of information storage, or “External Memory Fields”, which affect cognitive processes (a) because they make possible the use of information that is not stored in the minds of users, and (b) because they require the use of a common symbolic code (i.e. shared between the “creator” and the receiver of the message) for understanding.32 Being physically independent of their “creators”, image-based media can disseminate information much more widely in time and space than possible by oral means. Yet, if dissemination happens outside an experiential context (i.e. not in the environment of a ritual performance or another social occasion), the message is acquired by the receiver as an external bit of knowledge, which has to be decodified and placed in a wider conceptual framework. This inevitably motivates the functions of semantic memory – as opposed to procedural memory, which is operative in performative contexts. As the media theorist H. Innis has argued, visual technologies of communication tend to move perception from the world of concrete experiences to the world of semantics and conceptual relations – a process that eventually instigates abstract thinking.33 In the long run, this can affect fundamentally the way societies remember: consider, for example, the over-reliance of modern historians on written archives (and their general distrust for oral narratives), or the popular belief that “verba volant, scripta manent”. Such prioritization of external memory sources (i.e. written records) over personal accounts is typical of fully literate societies, but would have been inconceivable not only in prehistory but also until Classical times (cf. Plato’s comments about the destructive effects of writing upon memory in Phaedrus 274c-275b). To explore the importance of visuality in Early Mycenaean times, one needs to move beyond the testimony of Grave Circle A, which is often used as the prime reference for this period. For all its importance, Grave Circle A is an archaeological hapax, 34 a unique case of ostentation and experimentation, which can seriously distort the wider picture. Imagery appeared here in cataclysmic fashion in LH I, yet few of the observable trends continued in later times. For example, save for the LH IIA gold cups of Vaphio, we will never see again metal vessels with elaborate figurative scenes, such as the Siege Rhyton and the Battle Krater.35 Neither will the attractive niello decoration, seen in several Grave Circle A daggers, become common.36 Even the impressive decoration of grave markers – the only 30

31

32

33 34

35

36

E.H. GOMBRICH, Art and Illusion. A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation (2000, revised edition, originally published in 1960); for recent definitions of visuality (as distinct from vision), see R.S NELSON, “Descartes’s Cow and Other Domestications of Vision,” in R.S. NELSON (ed.), Visuality Before and After the Renaissance. Seeing as Others Saw (2000) 1-20. As opposed e.g. to Crete or Egypt, where imagery developed gradually from simpler to more complex forms, see, for example, D. PANAGIOTOPOULOS, “Aegean Imagery and the Syntax of Viewing,” in D. PANAGIOTOPOULOS and U. GÜNKEL MASCHCK (eds), Minoan Realities. Approaches to Images, Architecture and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age (2012) 63-82; J. BAINES, Visual and Written Culture in Ancient Egypt (2007). M. DONALD, Origins of the Modern Mind. Three Stages in the Evolution of Culture and Cognition (1991) 273, 308319. H. INNIS, Empire and Communications (1986, originally published in 1950) 7. In every respect: type of tombs, cemetery layout, burial practices (with an unusual predominance of males), inordinate wealth, wide array of imports etc. See also R. LAFFINEUR, this volume. DAVIS (supra n. 26) 1-50 (Vaphio cups), 222-230 nos 86-87 (Battle Krater and Siege Rhyton); the Griffin Warrior tomb contains several “gold, silver and bronze vessels” (J.C. DAVIS and S.R. STOCKER, “The Lord of the Rings: the Griffin Warrior of Pylos,” Hesperia 85 [2016] 627-655, esp. 632), some of which may have been decorated. R. LAFFINEUR, “L’incrustation à l’époque mycénienne”, AntCl 43 (1974) 1-37, esp. 28; A. XENAKISAKELLARIOU and Chr. CHATZILIOU, Peinture en métal à l’époque mycénienne (1989) 14-17; see also T.J.

248

Nikolas PAPADIMITRIOU

‘monumental’ form of figured representation until LH III37 – will find few and rather poor parallels in later times.38 One of the reasons may be that the people of Mainland Greece were still unable to fully “decode” and understand such complex imagery.39 If we look at the broader context, we will find that only one group of representational media became popular prior to the emergence of palaces and palatial art in Mainland Greece: stone and metal seals. A few more objects, like ivories, bore sometimes figured scenes,40 but are much more rare and thus less representative of general developments. What was the distribution and overall character of Early Mycenaean sealstones and rings? a) They occurred almost exclusively in funerary contexts, mostly in collective tombs41 (which, however, until LH IIIA2 were a minority in most sites42); although the exceptional Griffin Warrior tomb has yielded over 50,43 only a few have been found in other graves with single burials.44 Two seals, which are stylistically dated to that period, are known from the cult site of Apollo Maleatas, but the context and date of deposition are not entirely clear.45 b) Their thematic coverage was quite restricted, showing a selective use of the much richer Minoan repertoire. 46 In LH I-IIA, apart from plain animals and a few non-figurative motifs, 47 figured representations (generally limited in number) focused on conflict scenes, either duels between humans (most of which shared a simple, binary syntactic form, Pl. XCV 1) or men against animals and monsters (with similar composition, Pl. XCV 2). A few rings depicted chariot scenes (Pl. XCV 3) but much more common were images of lions attacking bulls and other animals (Pl. XCVI 1).48 More complex scenes, like bull-leaping, were rare and generally later in date (mostly LH IIB/IIIA1)49 (Pl. XCVI 2). As for ritual

37 38

39

40 41

42 43

44 45

46 47 48

49

PAPADOPOULOS, The Late Bronze Age Daggers of the Aegean. I. The Greek Mainland (1998) 51-53. And probably the only one to be accessible and visible beyond the time of a funeral. For decorated grave markers, see J.G. YOUNGER, “The Stelai of Mycenae Grave Circles A and B,” in R. LAFFINEUR and P.P. BETANCOURT (eds), TEXNH. Craftsmen, Craftswomen, and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 6th International Aegean Conference, Philadelphia, Temple University, 18-21 April 1996 (1997) 230-239, esp. 229 n. 6 for a list of later grave stelae with references. As the media theorist M. MacLuhan explains, seeing an image as a whole requires training; when nonliterate people, unaccustomed to 2D representations, are first faced with pictures, they tend to scan the images segment by segment (i.e. as we read a book page), not being able to develop a detached point of view; visual detachment is an acquired skill, M. MACLUHAN, The Gutenberg Galaxy. The Making of Typographic Man (1962) 36-38; similar observations have been made during experiments with literate individuals viewing complex images, F. BARTLETT, Remembering. A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology (1992, originally published in 1932) 14-46. See J.-C. POURSAT, Les ivoires mycéniens. Essai sur la formation d’un art mycénien (1977). See E. DRAKAKI, Hard Stone Seals from Late Bronze Age Burials of the Greek Mainland. A Contextual and Historical Approach to the Study of their Ownership (Unpublished PhD Dissertation, New York University, 2008) 86-87, 187-188, 191-192, 301-302; R. LAFFINEUR, “The Iconography of Mycenaean Seals as Social Indicator: Further Reflections”, in W. MÜLLER (ed.), Minoisch-Mykenische Glyptik. Stil, Ikonographie, Funktion (2000) 165-179, esp. 165. PAPADIMITRIOU (supra n. 20) 340-342. DAVIS and STOCKER (supra n. 35) 632, 637-648; S.R. STOCKER and J.C DAVIS, “The Combat Agate from the Grave of the Griffin Warrior at Pylos,” Hesperia 86 (2017) 583-605. K. LEWARTOWSKI, Late Helladic Simple Graves. A Study of Mycenaean Burial Customs (2000) 36, 43, 48-49. CMS 1S 32, CMS VS1A 369; for the site, which has also yielded earlier Minoan seals, see V. LAMBRINOUDAKIS, “Remains of the Mycenaean Period in the Sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas,” in R. HÄGG and N. MARINATOS (eds), Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age (1981) 59-65. O. KRZYSZKOWSKA, Aegean Seals. An Introduction (2005) 253-254. 256. KRZYSZKOWSKA (supra n. 46) 248-250, 258-267. Kramer-Hajos lists 7 examples of chariot scenes from 6 Peloponnesian sites, and 21 examples of lions attacking bulls from 13 Mainland sites (there were more images of lions attacking other animals), M. KRAMER-HAJOS, Mycenaean Greece and the Aegean World. Palace and Province in the Late Bronze Age (2016) 79, Tab. 4.2 and 86, Tab. 4.3. L. PAPAZOGLOU-MANIOUDAKI, “The Gold Ring Said to Be from the Acropolis of Athens,” in D.

CHANGING MNEMONIC PROCESSES IN EARLY MYCENAEAN GREECE

249

scenes, they are less standardized, seem to appear somewhat later (in LH IIA and LH IIB/IIIA1) and are usually found in very rich and highly Minoanized contexts, like the tholoi of Vaphio, Dendra, Kazarma and Routsi, and the Griffin Warrior tomb (Pl. XCVI 3); one comes from the cult site of Apollo Maleatas in Epidaurus, which also exhibits strong Minoanizing elements.50 c) Given that no sealings are known from Mainland Greece outside LH IIIA2-B palatial contexts, it is unlikely that Early Mycenaean rings and sealstones were used for sphragistic purposes; their function was probably ornamental or for display.51 The spread of Early Mycenaean sealstones and rings was quite wide and seems to coincide largely with the distribution of collective tombs in Mainland Greece;52 this is important because, by that time (and until LH IIIA2), collective tombs were still the prerogative of a few groups in each site, including the ones that are often described as “elites”.53 As far as iconography is concerned, one can detect some sort of patterning and repetition in both subject and syntax: this is obvious in the simpler representations (which exhibit considerable typological homogeneity, despite differences in detail) (Pls XCV 1-3 and XCVI 1), and less so in the more complex ones (which present greater typological variation) (Pls XCVI 2-3). These remarks, alongside the fact that seals and rings with complex scenes became more common in LH IIB/IIIA1,54 suggest the gradual development of a shared visual code among some sectors – perhaps the wealthiest – of Early Mycenaean societies. Whether, as has been proposed, figured representations on seals and other visual media were meant to symbolize socio-political status,55 advertise the military ethos or the masculinity of the society,56 or if they recorded scenes from early epics,57 I do not know. But it is hard not to see here the slow emergence of a new technology of communication, which did not depend exclusively on inter-personal encounter, oral techniques and ritual performance but could convey messages in a more permanent way through codified – and increasingly standardized – visual means.58 Visuality as a Restricted Sensory Experience? One could argue, of course, that, for visuality to have such an impact on Early Mycenaean mnemonic practices, image-based media should have been broadly accessible to viewers beyond the time of funeral. At the current state of our knowledge, this does not seem very likely. Save for the grave stelai at Mycenae and perhaps a few more sites,59 there is no safe evidence that any of the figured objects of Early Mycenaean Greece had a long ‘biography’ before its funerary deposition. Seals and rings, ivories, decorated vessels and weapons of that period are almost exclusively found in tombs.60 And although it is

50

51 52

53

54 55 56 57

58

59 60

DANIELIDOU (ed.), ΔΩΡΟΝ. Τιμητικός τόμος για τον καθηγητή Σπύρο Ιακωβίδη (2009) 581-591, esp. 591593; KRZYSZKOWSKA (supra n. 46) 256; DAVIS and STOCKER (supra n. 35) 637-639. DRAKAKI (supra n. 41) 307-309; for the Griffin Warrior tomb, DAVIS and STOCKER (supra n. 35) 640-646; for Apollo Maleatas, see CMS VS 1A 369. KRZYSZKOWSKA (supra n. 46) 279; DRAKAKI (supra n. 41) 20-21, 86. As results from the study of DRAKAKI (supra n. 41) and the detailed contextual survey of R. LAFFINEUR, “The Iconography of Mycenaean Seals and the Status of their Owners,” Aegaeum 6 (1990) 117-160. W. CAVANAGH and C. MEE, A Private Place: Death in Prehistoric Greece (1998) 56; PAPADIMITRIOU (supra n. 20) 340-342. DRAKAKI (supra n. 41) 314-315 and Tab. 17. E.g. LAFFINEUR (supra n. 52); KRAMER-HAJOS (supra n. 48), ch. 4. VOUTSAKI (supra n. 28). R. LAFFINEUR, “Homeric Similes: a Bronze Age Background?”, in S. MORRIS and R. LAFFINEUR (eds), EPOS. Reconsidering Greek Epic and Aegean Bronze Age Archaeology. Proceedings of the 11th International Aegean Conference, Los Angeles, UCLA – The J. Paul Getty Villa, 20-23 April 2006 (2007) 79-85. For a more extensive treatment of Early Mycenaean iconicity, with references to previous work by J. Crowley, J. Younger and R. Laffineur, see MALAFOURIS (supra n. 2) 304-307; generally, for the icon concept, J. CROWLEY, The Iconography of Aegean Seals (2013). Supra n. 38; see also MALAFOURIS (supra n. 2) 307-310. Supra nn. 25-26, 41, 52.

250

Nikolas PAPADIMITRIOU

difficult for the modern mind to accept that so much craftsmanship was destined only for burial purposes, the near absence of such objects from non-funerary contexts raises doubts as to the extent of their use in ‘everyday life’. It is possible, of course, that seals and rings were worn as personal ornaments, yet hard evidence is still lacking. If, however, figured representations did not circulate widely outside the contexts of funerary performance, how could they have affected the cognition and mnemonic capacities of Early Mycenaeans? To seek for possible answers, we may have to look at other periods of history, with comparable conditions of incipient visuality. In recent papers, N. Papalexandrou suggested that visuality in 1st millennium BC Greece developed primarily in the ritual and performative contexts of Late Geometric/early Archaic sanctuaries. 61 It was in these places, full of superb votives of exquisite craftsmanship (rarely encountered in other contexts of the period), that figurative representations made their most powerful appearance – perhaps as exceptional manifestations of super-natural presence and, therefore, only to be seen for a short time in the performative, synaesthetic occasion of a sacred ritual.62 This type of experience was probably not entirely free but regulated through “mechanisms of controlling the sensory and cognitive accessibility to their [i.e.. the sanctuaries’] magnificent possessions and the enactments that gave them religious and social meaning”.63 Such restrictions may have added an element of social exclusion, which is not uncommon in cases of social or technological innovations;64 but, in any case, the very presence of the new visual media brought new communicative affordances in ritual, which greatly affected the modes of perception and remembrance for those participating in the activities of early Greek sanctuaries.65 Evidence for sanctuaries in Early Mycenaean Greece is very thin. Apart from the open-air site of Apollo Maleatas (dating from the beginning of the LBA or earlier), 66 Megaron B at Eleusis (LH IIB/IIIA1),67 and perhaps ‘Temple 1’ at Kalapodi (built in LH IIIA1),68 there is no indication of formal cult places prior to the end of LH IIIA1. 69 J. Wright is probably right in suggesting that no standardized cult structures and institutionalized religion existed before the establishment of palaces.70 By contrast, evidence for organized, extra-mural cemeteries is ubiquitous. On current evidence (and this is unlikely to change in the near future), cemeteries were the only settings that provided Early Mycenaean societies with extensive space for staging formal public rituals – which are constitutive of social life and essential for the collective memory of a community. Cemeteries allowed for the gathering of large 61

62

63 64

65

66 67

68

69

70

N. PAPALEXANDROU, “Are There Hybrid Visual Cultures? Reflections on the Orientalizing Phenomena in the Mediterranean of the Early First Millennium BCE,” Ars Orientalis 38 (2010) 31-48. N. PAPALEXANDROU, “Vision and Visuality in the Study of Early Greek Religion,” in M. HAYSON and J. WALLENSTEN (eds), Current Approaches to Religion in Ancient Greece (2011) 253-268. PAPALEXANDROU (supra n. 62) 260. For the idea of restriction and exclusion, Papalexandrou actually refers to the notion of “social rationing of emblems of rank…and exotic luxuries”, introduced by Whitley for 9th cent. Athens, J. WHITLEY, Style and Society in Dark Age Greece; The Changing Face of a Pre-Literate Society (1991) xvii, 9-11, 192-194. For the communicative possibilities offered by ritual, see various papers in E. STAVRIANOPOULOU (ed.), Ritual and Communication in the Graeco-Roman World (2006). LAMBRINOUDAKIS (supra n. 45). M. COSMOPOULOS, “Cult Continuity and Social Memory: Mycenaean Eleusis and the Transition to the Early Iron Age,” AJA 118 (2014) 401-427, esp. 414-419. Although “votive deposits” are only recorded from a layer above the debris of its destruction in late LH IIIA2, W.-D. NIEMEIER, “Ritual in the Mycenaean Sanctuary of Abai (Kalapodi),” in E. ALRAMSTERN, F. BLAKOLMER, S. DEGER-JALKOTZY, R. LAFFINEUR and J. WEILHARTNER (eds), METAPHYSIS. Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 15th International Aegean Conference, Vienna, 22-25 April 2014 (2016) 303-310, esp. 305. J.C. WRIGHT, “The Spatial Configuration of Belief: The Archaeology of Mycenaean Religions,” in S.E. ALCOCK and R. OSBORNE (eds), Placing the Gods. Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece (1994) 3778, esp. 50-51, 61-70; B. EDER, “Ideology in Space: Mycenaean Symbols in Action,” in ALRAMSTERN et al. (supra n. 68) 175-185; see also K.A. WARDLE in this volume for Mycenae. WRIGHT (supra n. 69) 42, 71.

CHANGING MNEMONIC PROCESSES IN EARLY MYCENAEAN GREECE

251

audiences,71 and had areas of restricted access (i.e. the dromoi of collective tombs) which made possible the symbolic structuring of ritual processions and the enactment of exclusive synaesthetic performances.72 Moreover, it was in tombs – not in shrines – that the greatest deposition of wealth, exotica and artefacts of unique craftsmanship took place in the Early Mycenaean period. Therefore, one can plausibly suggest that cemeteries played a crucial role in the ritual and symbolic life of Mycenaean societies prior to the emergence of palaces (perhaps as crucial as in Late Geometric Athens, where they constituted a major arena of social negotiation and group identity-building at the time of city-state formation).73 Is it then legitimate to apply Papalexandrou’s ideas to Early Mycenaean burial places? Can we argue that cemeteries assumed a similar role to that of early Archaic sanctuaries, as primary foci of communal gathering, social negotiation and innovative sensory experiences? Is it possible that the new technology of communication, represented by seals and other visual media, was largely reserved for the occasion of commemorating rituals – functioning, as Papalexandrou has proposed in his paper, as “θαύμα ιδέσθαι”, a wonder only (or primarily) to be seen in special performative circumstances?74 Can we, in turn, suggest that Early Mycenaean funerals became socially important, among others, because they allowed for such novel experiences in sensory perception – experiences which were not only imprinted on the memory of participants, but also offered specific social groups the privilege of advanced mnemonic resources and cognitive storage devices? Is it, finally, possible that the primacy of cemeteries as ritual spaces in Early Mycenaean times can provide a partial explanation for the limited appropriation of Minoan cult iconography and the overall rarity of cult scenes in LH I-IIIA1? (since Mainland Greece lacked the built cult structures that shaped the ritual actions often recorded in Neopalatial seals75). To explore these questions would necessitate an exhaustive study of the available evidence – and perhaps much speculation. Nonetheless, it is difficult to deny that the appearance of ritual media – initially as loans from Crete for display purposes – in the increasingly sophisticated context of Early Mycenaean funerary rituals, opened a path towards the adoption of new symbolic codes of communication and of what P. Connerton has termed “inscribing methods of collective remembering” – which affect semantic rather than procedural memory.76 These inscribing methods would be secularized in the 14th c. BC, with the emergence of palaces, large-scale painting and writing (the visual medium of communication par excellence), and outside palaces with the appearance of pictorial pottery, painted larnakes and smaller-scale visual media. Although the evolution stopped abruptly at the end of the Bronze Age, only to restart four centuries later (with the re-appearance of writing and pictorial art in Late Geometric times), we may gain from examining how the process of collective remembering shifted slowly from embodied/performative to inscribing/visual forms in Mycenaean societies, and how this may have been associated with an incipient notion of historicity, which could have had serious social repercussions. Nikolas PAPADIMITRIOU

71

72

73 74 75

76

M.J. BOYD, “Fields of Action in Mycenaean Funerary Practices,” in DAKOURI-HILD and BOYD (supra n. 20) 57-87, esp. 71-78 and figs 4, 6; M. DABNEY, “Mycenaean Funerary Processions as Shared Ritual Experiences,” in ALRAM-STERN et al. (supra n. 68) 229-234. For the multi-sensory character of dromos processions, see PAPADIMITRIOU (supra n. 17) 96-97; BOYD (supra n. 71) 72-74. I. MORRIS, Burial and Ancient Society. The Rise of the Greek City-State (1987). PAPALEXANDROU (supra n. 61) 36; IDEM (supra n. 62) 261. See, for example, Krzyszkowska’s comments on the “anodyne processions of female figures” in Early Mycenaean gold rings, the resemblance of some of these figures with those occurring on the later (funerary) larnakes of Tanagra, the rarity of non-processional scenes, the lack of signs relating to epiphany, the superficial modeling of ecstatic dancing, etc. KRZYSZKOWSKA (supra n. 46) 254-256. These remarks can afford interesting contextual explanations, if examined under the light of the primacy of funerals in Early Mycenaean ritual behaviour. CONNERTON (supra n. 4) 72-78.

252

Nikolas PAPADIMITRIOU LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

PL. XCIVa PL. XCIVb PL. XCV1 PL. XCV2 PL. XCV3 PL. XCVI1 PL. XCVI2

PL. XCVI3

Types of memory (in frame the types which are accessible archaeologically). Symbolic transitions represented in the dromoi of Mycenaean tombs. Figured representations: conflict scenes (images courtesy of the CMS Heidelberg). Figured representations: human-animal conflict scenes (images courtesy of the CMS Heidelberg). Figured representations: chariot scenes (images courtesy of the CMS Heidelberg). Figured representations: lion attacking animals scenes (images courtesy of the CMS Heidelberg). Figured representations: bull-leaping scenes (images a-b courtesy of the CMS Heidelberg; image c courtesy of Dr Lena Papazoglou-Manioudaki; image d courtesy of Prof. Jack Davis and Dr Sharon Stocker). Figured representations: ritual scenes (images a-d, f, g courtesy of the CMS Heidelberg; image e courtesy of Prof. Jack Davis and Dr Sharon Stocker).

XCIV

a

b

XCV

1

-
( 
-
#

#  ,



45




-
( 
-
#



!,



44




-
( 
-
#

!,




49




-
!&!& #
%!!$

%($%,




976

/ +


2

-
( 
-
#

!,